DOCSLIB.ORG

A Water Quality Trading Framework for the Reedy River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Water Quality Trading Framework for the Reedy River A WATER QUALITY TRADING FRAMEWORK FOR THE REEDY RIVER Gregory Michael Mikota II AUTHORS: Reedy River Watershed Policy Director Strom Thurmond Institute of Government & Public Affairs Perimeter Road Clemson, SC 29634-0125 REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2008 South Carolina Water Resources Conference, held October 14-15, 2008, at the Charleston Area Event Center Abstract. The Reedy River flows through a relatively quality trading can provide greater flexibility and the small watershed that is rapidly experiencing growth. The potential to achieve levels of environmental benefits that watershed is approximately 167,000 acres, but the upper would not otherwise be attained under a traditional portions of the river include the urban areas of the City of command and control approach. When working with Greenville, Mauldin, and Simpsonville within Greenville non-point source pollution problems, the USEPA is County, South Carolina. The lower portions of the river required to work with individual states and local agencies flow through Laurens County as the Reedy joins the because of the provisions defined in the revision of the Saluda River to form Lake Greenwood. As the Clean Water Act in 1987. population and the economy of the Reedy River From a state and local level further analysis is needed Watershed continue to expand, the demand on this river in order to asses the applicability of creating a water resource will continue to increase. quality trading program for the Reedy River Watershed. For a number of years the Reedy River has been under This proposed paper will provide a conceptual increasing pressure from various sources. Point source framework for how a water quality trading program may and non-point source effluent loads have increased be established within this watershed. Background considerably over the past decade, and the economic and research from other case study sites throughout the social costs of degradation have not been quantified or United States will be incorporated with specific data assessed in relation to increased environmental stress from the Reedy River Watershed to provide a detailed placed on the river system. analysis of how a water quality trading program might be Recent water quality challenges in the United States applied to the Reedy River Watershed. have stimulated sustained interest from policymakers to incorporate the use of non-traditional market mechanisms to lower costs of compliance and improve aquatic Background and Related Work environments. This type of approach allows facilities with high pollution control costs to purchase lower cost Water Quality Trading Background pollution reduction from another source to meet their After learning from successful experiences with effluent reduction requirements. Water quality trading is emission trading programs focused on reducing acid rain, conceptually similar to air emissions trading, but effluent the United States Environmental Protection Agency trading has lagged in development. A few effluent (USEPA) now actively supports the application of trading programs were developed in the early 1980s and emission trading to water quality. This approach seems during the 1990s, but in recent years new interest has quite attractive because it could provide financial sparked conversations about policy changes that would incentives for increased pollution control activities in improve the capabilities for local and state authorities to unregulated sectors. Agriculture and urban runoff are implement water quality trading programs. major contributors to effluent load levels in many In January of 2003 the United States Environmental watersheds, but with a few exceptions these sources do Protection Agency issued rules through its water quality not fall under regulatory guidelines because of political policy statement to encourage the trading of nutrients and sensitivities and perceived monitoring difficulties sediments among point and non-point sources. Water (Crutchfield, 1994). Vast improvements in water quality throughout the sediments among point and non-point sources. The United States over the past three decades can be traced policy states that its purpose is “to encourage states, primarily to conventional regulation approaches and interstates agencies and tribes to develop and implement financial support given to point sources, municipalities, water quality trading programs for nutrients, sediments, and traditional large pipe dischargers. Regulatory and other pollutants where opportunities exist to achieve initiatives concerning surface water policy in the United water quality improvements at reduced costs” (USEPA, States have been guided by the 1972 Federal Water 2004). In that document the USEPA states that market- Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water based approaches like water quality trading provide Act (CWA). This act and amendments in 1977 and 1987 greater flexibility and have the potential to achieve levels set the overarching principles and implementation of environmental benefits that would not otherwise be mechanisms that direct the efforts to prevent water attained under a traditional command and control pollution. The USEPA has been granted a primary tool approach. The policy focuses on the idea that different to regulate water pollution through the National Pollutant sources within a watershed may face significantly Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES different costs to control the same pollutant. When requires point sources to obtain state and USEPA working with non-point source pollution problems, the approved permits of defined number of pollutant USEPA is required to work with individual states and discharges. The USEPA and other federal agencies use a local agencies because of the provisions defined in the variety of subsidies and grants to mitigate point source revision of the Clean Water Act in 1987. The law leaves (point source) and non-point source (non-point source) non-point source control planning to the states and local pollution that does not fall under the NPDES criteria. agencies because of local environmental and economic Various pollutants that are associated with non-point considerations. “The actual site-specific selection of source pollution include fecal bacteria, toxic organic particular management practices to control non-point compounds, heavy metals, suspended solids and source pollution (called “Best Management Practices”) sediments, phosphorus, nitrogen, and other oxygen- will involve local environmental and economic demanding organic material. Unlike point source considerations, as well as considerations of effectiveness pollution, which tends to be a steady discharge, non-point and acceptability of the practice (USEPA 1984a)” source pollution occurs during different times based on (Portney, 2000). periods of rainfall or the melting of snow. If unchecked, these non-point source pollutants eventually reach our Phosphorous Loads and the Reedy River lakes, rivers, oceans, and even underground sources of In recent years Lake Greenwood, at the mouth of the drinking water as they seep into the ground. “Despite the Reedy River, has been threatened by excessive nutrient expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars over the loading, intense algae blooms, and extensive oxygen last 30 years, the 1972 Clean Water Act goals of fishable depletion in the bottom waters. A South Carolina and swimmable waters have not been achieved, largely Department of Natural Resources Study completed this because contaminants from diffuse [non-point] sources year found that total phosphorus loading to the lake was have not been controlled successfully” (National greatly affected by the amount of phosphorus contributed Research Council, 2001). by the Saluda River (74%) and the concentration of Recent water quality challenges in the United States phosphorus from the Reedy River (0.11% mg/L, 22% have stimulated sustained interest from policymakers to higher than Saluda). Concentrations flowing into Lake incorporate the use of non-traditional market mechanisms Greenwood exceeded the South Carolina standard for to lower costs of compliance and improve aquatic piedmont lakes (0.06 mg/L) more than 68% of the time environments. This type of approach allows facilities from the Reedy River Arm (McKellar, Bulak, and with high pollution control costs to purchase lower cost Taylor, 2008). pollution reduction from another source to meet their Water quality has improved over the past 30 years in effluent reduction requirements (USEPA, 2004). Water the Saluda-Reedy Watershed as a result of the Clean quality trading is conceptually similar to air emissions Water Act (Hargett, Hargett, and Springs, 2005). But, trading, but effluent trading has lagged in development. the most recent water quality assessment for the Saluda- A few effluent trading programs were developed in the Reedy Watershed indicated that several locations in Lake early 1980s and during the 1990s, but in recent years new Greenwood did not meet standards for Aquatic Life Use interest has sparked conversations about policy changes Support (SCDHEC, 2004). Three locations within the that would improve the capabilities for local and state lake appeared on the 2006 list of impaired waters in authorities to implement water quality trading programs. relation to excessive total phosphorus concentrations In January of 2003 the United States Environmental (SCDHEC, 2006). Protection Agency issued rules through its water quality policy statement to encourage the trading of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Piedmont Hydroelectric Project, Upper Pelzer Hydroelectric Project, Lower
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSES Piedmont Hydroelectric Project, P-2428-007 Upper Pelzer Hydroelectric Project, P-10254-026 Lower Pelzer Hydroelectric Project, P-10253-032 South Carolina Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 July 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................... v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATIONS .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ......................................... 4 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................................. 4 1.2.2 Need for Power ................................................................................................. 5 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................ 5 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ............................................................................................ 5 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Greenville Master Plan Greenville, South Carolina
    Downtown Greenville Master Plan Greenville, South Carolina June 2008 Sasaki Associates, Inc. W-ZHA CGD Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Greenville Today 11 Positioning Greenville 17 Master Planning Principles 27 Five Corners 33 Making Connections 47 Implementation Strategy 59 Acknowledgments 84 Executive Summary 01 CHAPTERCHAPTER Executive Summary The City of Greenville has undertaken this current master plan as a way to look forward and ensure the success of downtown for the next twenty years. In each decade, Greenville has stepped ahead of other cities, acting boldly to reinvent and strengthen the downtown. This proactive approach has served the City well, making Greenville a model for other cities to emulate. As the City well realizes, the work of building and sustaining downtowns is an ongoing endeavor. In this light, the City of Greenville has undertaken this current master plan as a way to look forward and ensure the success of downtown for the next twenty years. The plan faces the realities of downtown today, building on its strengths and confronting issues Figure 1.1. The downtown Greenville Skyline. that must be addressed to move forward. The goals of this master plan are to: . Create a framework for future development downtown . Reinforce the role of downtown as an economic catalyst for the region . Leverage prior successes to move to the next level 4. Create a fully functional mixed use, sustainable, urban environment. Main Street is understood to be the center of downtown but the definition of the outer boundaries varies, especially as Main Street has been extended (Figure .). For the purposes of this study, the downtown area is defined by the Stone Avenue corridor on the north, the Butler Street Corridor on the west, the Church Street corridor on the east and University Ridge and the Stadium on the south.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality
    3. Existing Conditions and WaterEnvironmental Quality Consequences 3.6 Water Quality 3.6.1 CHANGES TO THIS CHAPTER SINCE THE DEIS Since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) the acreage of water resources in the project area have been updated to reflect the design changes resulting in the Refined Recommended Preferred Alternative (RPA); impacts resulting from the Refined RPA; and reflect the impacts to impervious and pervious surface areas of the Refined RPA. 3.6.2 HOW IS WATER QUALITY ASSESSED? The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 requires that each state set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. These standards are typically based on criteria recommended by the US Environmental In South Carolina, the SCDHEC Protection Agency (USEPA). The CWA also regulates the discharge of is responsible for monitoring pollutants into our state’s waters. In South Carolina, the USEPA has and regulating water quality delegated the responsibility of monitoring and regulating water quality for the USEPA. to the Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Many factors can affect water quality, including pesticides, heavy metals, livestock waste, litter, oils and grease, and other chemicals. Water from rain and runoff collect these pollutants and carry them into creeks and rivers. Natural resources and processes can also affect water quality. The amount of tree cover over streams and rivers can affect the temperature of the water, thereby affecting the habitat for other plants, fish, and insects. Additionally, sediment from erosion can wash downstream and impact the depth and important substrate within the stream. Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences Water Quality FEIS May 2019 Page 3-237 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina Thomas M
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Research Manuscript Series Institute of 8-1972 Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina Thomas M. Ryan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Ryan, Thomas M., "Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina" (1972). Research Manuscript Series. 33. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/33 This Book is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Manuscript Series by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina Keywords Indians of North America, Richland County, Lexington County, Columbia Zoological Park, South Carolina, Archeology Disciplines Anthropology Publisher The outhS Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina Comments In USC online Library catalog at: http://www.sc.edu/library/ This book is available at Scholar Commons: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/33 ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE COLUMBIA ZOOLOGICAL PARK, RICHLAND AND LEXINGTON COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA by Thomas M. Ryan Research Manuscript Series, No. 37 Prepared by the INSTITUTE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTHROP0LOGY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AUGUST 1972 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. •..••• 1 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION • 3 NATURAL SETTING • 6 HISTORIC SITES. .. ... ..... 14 SALUDA CANAL (38RD59) •• ........ 14 History of the Saluda Canal • 14 Excavations •••••• 18 SALUDA RIVER BRIDGE (38RD58) .. 25 SALUDA FACTORY • 28 PREHISTORIC SITES •• 32 SABLE SITE (38RD60) •• 34 Sable Site Ceramics • 37 Chronological Position.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum
    Technical Memorandum To: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) From: CDM Smith Date: January 2015 Subject: Methodology for Unimpaired Flow Development Saluda River Basin, South Carolina (Prepared as part of the South Carolina Surface Water Quantity Modeling Program) 1.0 Background and Objectives for Unimpaired Flows Unimpaired Flow (UIF) describes the natural hydrology of a river basin. UIFs quantify streamflows throughout a river basin in the absence of human intervention in the river channel, such as storage, withdrawals, discharges, and return flows. From this basis, modeling and decision making can be compared with pristine conditions. This memorandum explains the methods that will be employed to develop UIFs for South Carolina’s Saluda River basin. It describes data needs, methods for filling data gaps, and issues specific to the Saluda River basin. Once developed, UIFs will be input to the Simplified Water Allocation Model (SWAM) to evaluate surface water hydrology and operations throughout the basin. The UIFs for the Saluda Basin will extend from 1925-2013. UIFs will serve two purposes: ° UIFs will be the fundamental input to the model at headwater nodes and tributary nodes upstream of historic management activity, representing naturally occurring water in the riverways. Current and future management practices such as storage, withdrawals, and discharges will be superimposed on the UIFs. ° UIFs will provide a comparative basis for model results. The impacts of current and future management practices on flow throughout the river network can be compared to the natural conditions represented by the UIFs, and decisions about relative impacts can be well informed.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Notes South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
    MEETING NOTES SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SALUDA HYDRO PROJECT RELICENSING SAFETY RCG MEETING SCE&G Carolina Research Park Facility April 9, 2008 final acg 8/11/08 ATTENDEES: Alison Guth, Kleinschmidt Associates Dave Anderson, Kleinschmidt Associates Randy Mahan, SCANA Services, Inc. David Price, LMPS Bill Argentieri, SCE&G Mike Waddell, TU Jay Schabacher, LMA Bill Marshall, LSSRAC, SCDNR Alan Stuart, Kleinschmidt Associates Dick Christie, DNR Joy Downs, LMA Jim Devereaux, SCE&G Jim Cumberland, CCL Suzanne Rhodes, SCWF Karen Kustafik, City of Cola Parks & Rec Bret Hoffman, Kleinschmidt Associates MEETING NOTES: These notes serve as summary of the major points presented during the meeting and are not intended to be a transcript or analysis of the meeting. Bill opened the meeting and introduced Jim Devereaux who would be presenting at the meeting (presentation available at http://www.saludahydrorelicense.com/documents/SafetyRCG4-9-08.pdf ). Bill explained that Jim D has been working on the siren system and seeking advice from Karen Kustafik for the locations of the proposed sirens. It was noted that the purpose of the presentation would be to describe the existing and future warning system. Jim D. began the presentation and explained the background behind the warning system. He noted that in order to warn against rising water levels, there was a warning system that consisted of sirens, strobe lights, and a combination of the two. Jim D. also explained that the output level of the sirens was 12 decibels over ambient sound (routine background noise, including minimum flows) and sound levels were adjusted by direct measurement at each siren location.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification
    Form No. 10-300 U IM 1 t-U c> l /\ l to UE,r/\R i wnrN i vr i nc, ii> i niviwiv NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ?7 INVENTORY « NOMINATION FORM £X A SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOWTO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FOftMS _____TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS_____________ | NAME HISTORIC Vardry Park; Reedy River Park, Furman University Botanical Garden and Arboretum AND/OR COMMON Reedy River Falls Historic Park and Greenway (preferred)_______________ LOCATION STREET&NUMBER Both banks of the Reedy River from the falls downstream to Church Street _NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Greenville __ VICINITY OF # 4 STATE CODE COUNTY CODE South Carolina 045 Greenville 045 CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE —DISTRICT -PUBLIC JiOCCUPIED _AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM _BUILDING(S) -PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL .K-PARK —STRUCTURE -BOTH —AWORKIN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE ASITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE _ENTERTAINMENT _RELIGIOUS —OBJECT JN PROCESS —YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC -BEING CONSIDERED —YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION _NO —MILITARY —OTHER: OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME City of Greenville_____ STREET & NUMBER Main Street, Post Office Box 2207 CITY, TOWN STATE Greenville VICINITY OF South Carolina LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE, REG.STRY OF DEEDS,ETC. STREET & NUMBER East North Street CITY, TOWN STATE Greenville South Carolina REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Inventory of Historic Places in South Carolina DATE 1973 (update) — FEDERAL JlSTATE _ COUNTY _ LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS S.C. Department of Archives and Historv CITY, TOWN STATE Columbia South Carolina DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE _ EXCELLENT _ DETERIORATED _UNALTERED -XoRIGINALSITE X_GOOD _XRUINS FALTERED MOVED DATE .
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 Janu
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 January 24, 2002 Mr. Alton C. Boozer, Chief Bureau of Water South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 SUBJECT: Intention to Delist Pollutants from 2000 § 303(d) List Dear Mr. Boozer: This is to acknowledge receipt of your December 17, 2001 request that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review proposed § 303(d) list modifications that are intended by the State of South Carolina. EPA Region 4 has completed its review of the provided information and offers the following findings of its review. As you are aware, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 130.7(b)(1) requires the State to identify water quality limited segments still requiring total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), i.e., the § 303(d) list. Title 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(4) requires the identification of pollutants causing or expected to cause violations of the applicable water quality standards. Title 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6)(iv) allows the State to not include a water on the § 303(d) list if good cause for that decision can be demonstrated. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, more recent or accurate data; more sophisticated water quality modeling; flaws in the original analysis that led to the water being listed; or changes in conditions, e.g., new control equipment or elimination of discharges. The South Carolina Bureau of Water (the Bureau) intends to delist
    [Show full text]
  • Microbial Source Tracking to Assess Human Contributions of Fecal Bacteria to a Freshwater Receiving Stream D
    Microbial Source Tracking to Assess Human Contributions of Fecal Bacteria to a Freshwater Receiving Stream D. A. Graves1, D. E. Chestnut1, E. B. Rabon1, W. J. Jones2, J. G. Moore3, C. Johnston3, C. K. West1 1South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Water, 2University of South Carolina, Selah Genomics Facility, 3NOAA, National Ocean Service, Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research Bacterial Community Structure Abstract Methodology (cont.) Bacterial indicators of human sources Northern Tributaries Percent Abundance PCR Amplification and Sample Pooling Northern Tributaries 2012 The State of South Carolina, Department of Health and Environmental Control 2012-07 2012-08 2012-09 2012-07 2012-08 2012-09 • The forward primer contained the 454 Life Sciences primer B, the broadly (SCDHEC) is charged with the responsibility to ensure that waters of the State support 1.00 conserved bacterial primer 27F, and a 2-base linker sequence (“TC”). classified uses and are free from pollutants in excess of State standards. Crucial to any • The reverse primer contained the 454 Life Sciences primer A, the bacterial primer Rank2 plan to achieve compliance with E. coli standards is an understanding of the probable p__Acidobacteria 338R, a “CA” inserted as a linker between the barcode and the rRNA primer, and a 100,000 p__Actinobacteria sources of fecal bacteria (i.e., human vs. animal). unique 12-bp error-correcting Golay barcode used to tag each PCR product PCRs 50,000 0.75 p__Armatimonadetes p__Bacteroidetes consisted of 0.25 μL (30 μM) of each forward and reverse primer, 3 μL of template 20,000 p__Chlorobi DNA, and 22.5 μL of Platinum PCR SuperMix (Invitrogen).
    [Show full text]
  • The Reedy River Blueway
    82°27'0"W 82°25'30"W 82°24'0"W 82°22'30"W 82°21'0"W 82°19'30"W 82°18'0"W 82°16'30"W . d e t o n e s i w r e h t o s s e l n u XW , f f a t s r e v e r o F e t a t s p U y b d e d i v o r p y l d n i k s e r u t c i P N Little Low I Brother . r e p a p f o o r p r e t a w n o d e t n i r p s a w p a m s i h T City A Head Cleveland Park M (Class IV) reek 5 . d e v r e s e r s t h g i r l l A . r e v e r o F e t a t s p U y b d e n g i s e d p a M S T Dam z 160 Lakehurst Street, Greenville, SC 29607 Rocky C E-8 of S TAT . n o i t a d n u o F y e n i a R n h o J d n a e i l l a C e h t f o t r o p p u s Open from 8 AM to 9 PM, this 124.3-acre park RS Reedy River EK E s u o r e n e g e h t y b e l b i s s o p e d a m s a w p a m s i h T featuring the Reedy River offers a myriad of E T k R N Green- Mile 60 jF Cleveland C I k recreation opportunities, including access to the D AN N L " ville GHS Swamp Rabbit Trail, fitness features, picnic Park CH I 0 k IN R n ' 9 _ shelters, playgrounds, tennis courts, and sports GHS L 2 r T 1 D E Swamp d fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Things to See and Do in the Saluda-Reedy Watershed
    Things to See and Do in the Saluda-Reedy Watershed 1 Saluda Reservoir 2 Jones Gap State Park 8 Piedmont Mill and Dam 9 Cedar Falls As part of the Greenville Water System, this 547 Here the Middle Saluda River flows from its headwaters down Native Americans called this place “Big Shoals In earlier years, these picturesque falls on the acre lake on the North Saluda River provides many this 2,000 acre valley in the northern Greenville County mountains. of the Saluda,” and settlers later named it Reedy River were an important commercial asset Greenville County residents with fresh, clean Some 400 species of plants call the park home, including a number Garrison Shoals and finally Piedmont. Henry to the region. This was the site of a grist mill, drinking water. of rare and endangered species. The Park offers a learning center, Pinckney Hammond built the first cotton mill saw mill, dam and power generating plant that natural camp sites and a paradise for trout anglers. on the Saluda River here in 1848. provided operating power for the textile mill at Fork Shoals. Now the falls is one of the most beautiful natural features on the lower Reedy. 3 Table Rock Reservoir This lake on the South Saluda River was built in 1925 to provide drinking 10 Pelzer Mill and Dam 11 Tumblin Shoals water to the Greenville Water System. Its protected watershed is an ecological treasure, with remnant old-growth forest and large populations of species In 1880 Ellison Adger Smyth and Francis J. In the 1830s, a store, ginnery, saw mill and flour that are rare elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources 4
    NATURAL RESOURCES 4 NATURAL RESOURCES The Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan is dedicated to the local landscape and the natural features that this landscape encompasses. This chapter serves to outline goals and objectives for the effective protection, preservation, conservation, and utilization of the natural environment for the future benefit of the citizens of Greenwood County. Greenwood City/County Comprehensive Plan 2035 4-1 NATURAL RESOURCES 4 CONTENTS 4.1. CLIMATE 3 4.2. AIR QUALITY 4 4.3. SLOPE CHARACTERISTICS 5 4.4. SOILS 5 4.5. HYDROLOGY 6 4.6. WATER QUANTITY AND WATER QUALITY 7 4.7. FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY AREAS 8 4.8. FAULT LINES 10 4.9. MINING AND MINERAL DEPOSITS 10 4.10. PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS 11 4.11. PRIME FOREST LANDS 12 4.12. THE URBAN FOREST 15 4.13. PLANT HABITATS 16 4.14. ANIMAL HABITATS 17 4.15. PARK AREAS AND OPEN SPACES 17 4.16. UNIQUE SCENIC VIEWS AND SITES 19 4.17. CONSERVATION MEASURES 20 4.18. PUBLIC EDUCATION 21 4.19. URBAN SPRAWL 21 4.20. CONCLUSION 21 4.21. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES 22 Greenwood City/County Comprehensive Plan 2035 4-2 NATURAL RESOURCES 4 4.1. CLIMATE A basic environmental factor is the climate. The climate of South Carolina is classified within the humid subtropical region. This climatic region is characteristic of hot, humid summers and mild winters. For Greenwood County, the average annual temperature was 61.8 degrees Fahrenheit from data collected from 1948 to 2010 by the State Climatology Office. During the same time period, the average annual high temperature was 73.4 degrees Fahrenheit, while the average annual low temperature was 50.3oF.
    [Show full text]