A Special Places Inventory of Spartanburg County

Transcription

A
Special Places
Inventory of
Spartanburg
County
At this day the upper-country of South Carolina presents a very different aspect from that of the same territory
in the middle of the eighteenth century. It was then new and beautiful, and as remarkable for the luxuriant
richness of the landscape as it is still for the striking features of its rolling hills and towering mountains; but
under the iron tread of what is called a progressive civilization, its ancient glories of forest, and flora, and
fertile soil have been well nigh wasted and ruined. -John Henry Logan, 1859
prepared by
January 2010
Acknowledgments
Upstate Forever would like give a special thanks to everyone involved with the production of
The Special Places Inventory. Without the help of the individuals and institutions listed here,
this project would not have been possible. We ask forgiveness in advance from any we have
mistakenly forgotten.
Dr. Doyle Boggs, Wofford College, Department of History
Nathaniel Coburn, volunteer
Tom Fenner, volunteer
Dr. Terry Ferguson, Wofford College, Department of Geology
Dr. George Fields, The Palmetto Conservation Foundation
Dr. John Lane, Wofford College, Department of English and Glendale Shoals Environmental Studies Center
Julie Lonon, Spartanburg Area Conservancy
Bryan Morgan, volunteer
Dr. Bob Powell, Converse College, Department of Biology, emeritus
Dr. Philip Racine, Wofford College, Department of History, emeritus
Alissa Ritzo, Spartanburg County Planning Department
Dr. Doug Rayner, Wofford College, Department of Biology
Summer Settle, Spartanburg County Planning Department
David and Patty Slater
Brad Steinecke, Spartanburg County Historical Association
Betsy Teter, The Hub City Writers Project
Madelon Wallace, Greenspace of Fairview
Mary Walter, Spartanburg Area Conservancy
Converse College Office of Student Life
Duke Energy
The Norcross Wildlife Foundation
Spartanburg County Foundation
The University of South Carolina – Upstate, Metropolitan Studies Institute
Model and map development by Lawson Revan
Photos by Dick Carr, Nat Coburn, Elaine Harris, Lawson Revan and Shelley Robbins
Narrative development by Tom Fenner, Lawson Revan and Shelley Robbins
On the cover: top (beaver pond on Fairforest Creek); lower left (the Enoree River); lower right
(The Williams Place)
Our cover quote: This special quote, discovered in John Henry Logan’s 1859 book “A History
of the Upper Country of South Carolina,” demonstrates the timeless quest for balance between
growth and conservation. With each passing generation, the call to action becomes more
crucial.
Table of Contents Page
Introduction
2
Part I: Purpose and Scope
4
Part II: Developing the Inventory
6
Part III: Special Places Inventory Maps
7
Map 1: Co-occurrence Raster
8
Map 2: Co-occurrence Raster and Conservation Focus Areas
9
Map 3: SC GAP 27-Class Land Cover
10
Map 4: Water Bodies
11
Map 5: Historic Sites and Districts
12
Map 6: Population Density
13
Part IV: Conservation Focus Area Profiles
14
Landrum and Campobello
15
North Pacolet
18
Ferguson Creek and North Tyger River
21
Croft and West Springs
24
27
Tyger River
Enoree River
30
Part V: Data Development
33
Land Cover
33
Species Richness
33
33
Streams
Rare Plants
34
Population Density
34
Historic Sites
35
Identifying Conservation Focus Areas
35
Appendix
36
Table 1: Aggregate of 27-Class Land Cover scores from Powell/Rayner 37
Table 2: RAREPLANTSDATA: Spreadsheet with SRANKGRANK SPI
DATES and SPI INDEX etc
38
Table 3: MULTIRAREPLANTS (scores and FID)
40
Table 4: Matrix of all the Conservation Focus areas with acreage,
42
land covers, historic sites, rare plants and co-occurrence points
Table 5: Comparison of top rated vegetative cover points and percentages43
Historic Sites Addendum Map (City of Spartanburg)
44
Historic Sites Spreadsheet
45
CFA/Growth Study Map
47
References
48
1
Executive Summary of
The Special Places Inventory of Spartanburg County
Spartanburg County has always been a crossroads. Through the 17th century, the Cherokee followed trails heading
along the base of the Blue Ridge Mountains foothills intersecting with the trail that became known as the Old
Blackstock Road (the county’s oldest road)
heading southeast toward present-day NinetySix. In the 18th century, the Scotch-Irish and
other immigrants used these same trails as wagon
roads. Indeed, this crossroads aspect of the county
encouraged many clashes during this country’s
war for independence – Spartanburg County
has the third highest number of Revolutionary
War battle sites in the nation (after Charleston
and Berkeley Counties) (Rayner, p. 5). During
the 19th century, the railroads dominated and the
City of Spartanburg earned the nickname “The
Hub City” for its intersecting, radiating tracks.
During the 20th century, the automobile became
dominant and Spartanburg County was cut into
four quadrants by Interstates 85 and 26.
The 21st century crossroads is more figurative
but no less momentous. The citizens and
governments of Spartanburg County must now decide whether inevitable growth will be planned or haphazard.
If growth and development are to be planned, then the citizens and governments of the county must inventory
current infrastructure and capacity for the purpose of planning
for growth. But we must also inventory those places that
warrant protection, additional study, and conservation. We
must identify our Special Places and plan for their protection,
before “the iron tread” of progressive civilization leaves them,
in the prescient words of John Henry Logan, “well nigh wasted
and ruined” (Logan, p. 1).
A canebrake
The waters, terrain, flora and fauna play a significant role in
Spartanburg County’s settlement patterns and history. Prior to
1750, when white settlement began in earnest, the upcountry
was described as “a region of romance interspersed here
and there with forests, prairies and great canebrakes, which
lined not only the valleys and streams but stretched over the
evergreen surface of the country for miles.... The forests were
imposing, the trees were large and stood so wide apart that a
deer or a buffalo could be seen at a long distance” (Landrum,
p. 2). Those prairies encouraged the settlement of a handful of
ranchers known as cowpens men. These areas were conducive
to raising cattle on ranches called cowpens (Landrum, p.
19). One particular cowpen played a significant role in the
Revolutionary War (the Battle of Cowpens), changing the
course of the war.
2
Wetlands in the Landrum and Campobello
Conservation Focus Area
Historically, the population gravitated toward these special places – the canebrakes, the rich bottomlands, the
river systems. Due to the pressures of an ever-increasing population and demands being made on the ecosystem,
however, it is imperative that we direct population density away from these same areas now. If we do not protect
the remaining Special Places, we will lose them permanently – we will lose their ecosystem services, their biota,
their history - indeed, we will lose the very elements that made Spartanburg County special then and will continue
to make our home special into the future.
Until the economic downturn starting in 2008, the Upstate was being developed at a 5:1 ratio. For every 10%
increase in population, developed land increased by 50% within the county’s 800 square miles. Historical and
natural resources have already been consumed at an alarming rate. In the City of Spartanburg, the Fretwell House
and the Lucas House have come down in the name of progress. The 5:1 ratio means that in the county, 23 acres
are developed every day (Upstate Forever, p. 16). Ground-truthing for this study in the northern part of the county
revealed previously-unknown prehistoric artifacts
and an area that warrants further archeological
study. We tend to think that all of the county’s
history and resources have all been revealed, but
this is simply not the case. Spartanburg County’s
citizens deserve a complete understanding of these
natural and historical resources within the context
of the entire county’s geography before future
decisions are made that will negatively impact these
remaining Special Places.
This project employs a resource co-occurrence
model and reveals six areas of the county with
significant intact biological and historical resources.
These areas are Conservation Focus Areas, or CFA’s,
identified as the Landrum and Campobello, North
Ferns and mesic deciduous forest
of Pacolet, Croft and Southeast of Glenn Springs,
Tyger River, Ferguson Creek and North Tyger, and Enoree CFA’s. Parts of the northern section of Spartanburg
County have already been significantly studied and catalogued (see Landrum and Campobello CFA narrative).
Each of the other five CFA’s merits a similar level of study. In analyzing the data behind the Vegetative Cover layer
of this model, it is clear, for example, that each of the six CFA’s has its own strength and no one CFA dominates
this data (see the yellow highlighted data in Table 5 of the Appendix). This surprising finding demonstrates the
diversity found within the county. Biodiversity is the key to a healthy and adaptive ecosystem, and it is for this
very reason that each of the six CFA’s must be studied more in depth and steps must be taken to protect them and
to preserve their ecosystem functions through careful attention to their buffers as well as the waters flowing into
them. Regarding rare plants, it is again clear that some CFA’s are better studied than others. Very little independent
plant surveying has been conducted in the Enoree, Tyger River, or Ferguson Creek CFA’s and their rare plant
raster scores reflect that. Upstate Forever recommends that all of the CFA’s receive equal study and analysis.
This model and this report are intended to objectively 1) guide further study, 2) reveal our remaining treasures
within the context of the entire county, 3) encourage appreciation, and 4) prioritize conservation and preservation
through purchase, easement, and planning ordinances as soon as possible, before these Special Places are lost.
3
Part I: Purpose and Scope
A “perfect storm” of land use planning is currently forming in Spartanburg County. This storm should produce
multiple efforts that will finally address the need for an achievable vision and the corresponding actions to help
preserve and protect Spartanburg County’s most valuable asset -- its finite natural resources. Spartanburg County
is in the process of revising its Comprehensive Plan (the current plan was approved in 1998). Upstate Forever
has been working to educate the citizens of Spartanburg County about the importance of sustainability and sound
land use planning. This effort has been effective as evidenced by the community’s changing point of view on the
need for better land use planning.
In February 2008, Upstate Forever released the results of its Upstate Growth Projection Study, conducted by the
Strom Thurmond Institute at Clemson University. This study observed the changing rate of land development in
the Upstate since 1990 and forecasted different development scenarios through 2030 based on five distinct landdevelopment-to-population-increase ratios. The status quo development rate currently is 5:1 – that is, for every
10% increase in population growth, developed land is predicted
to increase by 50%. The study, with its accompanying maps and
graphics, allows us to peek into the future to see the potential
consequences of today’s land use planning decisions. A slideshow
with graphics is available on the Upstate Forever homepage at www.
upstateforever.org. This study made it clear that a change in land
use policies and philosophies is imperative if we want to maintain
a
high quality of life in the Upstate.
As a complement to our growth study and to the county’s efforts
to institute stronger land use planning, Upstate Forever has created
this Special Places Inventory for Spartanburg County (SPI) for use
as a reference tool in land use planning decisions. It is our goal
to document our remaining historical and natural assets before
we make decisions that could negatively impact those resources
permanently. By making this information accessible to the public,
we hope to raise awareness and promote community involvement in
protecting the remaining natural and historic gems. (The inventory
is already being used by the conservation community as a tool for
directing the limited financial resources to set aside the lands that
will be required by future generations as valuable habitat, places
of great biodiversity and cultural assets that tell of Spartanburg
County’s rich history.)
Mesic deciduous forest
in the Croft Conservation Focus Area
The Special Places Inventory is also meant to serve as a model for the future rapid assessment of a county’s
natural assets. Upstate Forever intentionally used widely available resources as the basis of this study so that it
is easily transferable to the ten county region in which our mission is focused. Let us be the first to recognize
that some of the data used in this study is somewhat out of date. Due to the cost prohibitive nature of spatial
information collection, compilation and development, Upstate Forever understands that creating a Geographic
Information System often results in doing the best one can with the resources available. With more resources a
more thorough study could have been created; however, the Special Places Inventory is meant to provide a model
of rapid assessment of natural assets. Accordingly, it is of utmost importance to physically visit and observe the
results of remote-sensing to be sure that what are identified as significant areas are still in the state that they were
when the data were created. In addition, one must be aware of what Alfred North Whitehead called the fallacy of
4
misplaced concreteness: “the error of mistaking the map for the territory, the error of treating an abstract model,
made with the purpose of understanding one aspect of reality, as if it were adequate for understanding everything”
(Daly & Farley, p. 30). For these reasons, we visited as many sites as possible, especially where remote-sensing
did not provide confident findings.
Another large component of this study has been updating the inventory of historic sites in Spartanburg County.
Several studies have been done in the past, most notably the Bicentennial Map of Spartanburg by Dr. Lewis
P. Jones, created in 1975 and revised in 1989. It served as an invaluable start to the digitization of the spatial
references of the many historic sites in the county. Utilizing the help of local historians and queries completed
by Share the Vision and the Spartanburg Area Conservancy (SPACE), Upstate Forever, in conjunction with
Spartanburg County Planning and the Tourism Action Plan, has begun to put together a large inventory that will
be available digitally and released in March of 2010.
Indeed, most of the data used in this study is available to the public free of charge and interested parties should not
hesitate to contact Upstate Forever for access. Spatial data should never be seen as static. All of the information
used in this study is subject to change, especially because land use is constantly changing and so is our access to
future studies of environmental, cultural and historic assets.
A country, whose landscape was neither wholly rugged with mountains, nor
monotonously tame with unbroken plains, but a scene of mingled elevated
ranges, undulating hills, and flowery vales, formed a glorious analogue....
John Henry Logan, 1859
A History of the Upper Country of South Carolina
Fairview Farms and Hogback Mountain
5
Part II: Developing the Inventory
A primary objective of this study was to develop a method to efficiently and effectively determine the most valuable
parts of an area in the Upstate of South Carolina. In so doing, it was very important to define “valuable.” In other
words, we set out to answer the question: What makes a place “special” enough to be included in the Special
Places Inventory? For the purposes of this study, we have created a method that has been adapted from a similar
process used by The Nature Conservancy
(TNC) - a Resource Co-occurrence Model,
also referred to as a suitability model
(Zankel, et al. 2006). In fact, many of the
parameters of this study are taken directly
from the excellent work done by TNC in
New Hampshire to determine Conservation
Focus Areas along its coastline. Obviously,
the Upstate of South Carolina is in a much
different bioregion than New England.
Upstate Forever recognizes this difference,
but wanted the SPI to maintain the outlook
that ecosystems are valued for more than
their utility.
Suitability models allow for a mathematical
analysis of many overlapping discrete
factors to show where the greatest number
of overlapping factors occur and thus the
greatest “suitability.” For our purposes,
suitable places are special places based on
the five following major factors: vegetative
land cover, species richness, stream systems,
rare plants and population density. Historic
sites were originally included in the model;
however after much deliberation, it became
clear that assigning an objective value to
each historic site was not feasible. They are
therefore represented as an informational
data layer rather than a component of the
model itself.
Sycamore trees in the Enoree Conservation Focus Area
It is essential to maintain an objective
perspective to study “importance.” This study is dedicated to creating an appropriate indexing system for each
of the aforementioned assets. It can be quite easy for one to begin to make arbitrary decisions about what places
deserve protection based upon personal experience. This is not the intention of the Special Places Inventory. The
specific methodology of indexing each distinct data set is discussed in Part V. It is our hope that such transparency
in this modeling process will illustrate the lengths to which we went to avoid being arbitrary or subjective.
6
Part III:
Special Places Inventory Comprehensive Maps
Map 1: Co-occurrence Raster – This map illustrates the result of the Resource Co-occurrence Model used
in the Special Places Inventory. High values (red) result for the overlap of the different factors considered in
this study – streams, land cover, rare plants, etc. Low values (blue) do not have as much overlap. This map
illustrates how important water bodies are to bio-diversity, as many of the highest scores occur very close to
streams.
Map 2: Co-occurrence Raster and Conservation Focus Areas – This map shows the same image in Map 1
with the Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) and currently protected land on top. The six CFAs are essentially
the areas that contain the highest scoring points from the Co-occurence Model and the landscapes that help
support the biodiversity found there.
Map 3: SC GAP 27-Class Land Cover – This is the original land cover file from SCDNR. The file covers
the entire state of South Carolina. Spartanburg County is the focus of this study and is the only part of the
state sized file included here. While the original file contains 27 different types of land cover, Spartanburg
County only contains 18 of those (listed on the map legend). The remaining 9 classes are generally found
only near the coast.
Map 4: Water Bodies – This map shows the stream systems and larger ponds and lakes in Spartanburg
County. Generally, the scientific community considers any flowing, natural water body to be a stream. This
classification includes rivers, creeks, brooks, etc.
Map 5: Historic Sites and Districts – The inventory of historic sites in Spartanburg County was not included
directly in the Resource Co-occurrence Model. Every other layer was indexed based upon hard data (i.e. type
of vegetations, measurements, and classifications). It is somewhat subjective to give different historic sites
an analogous value. Thus, the sites were merely inventoried and then presented here and on site maps as an
addition to the results of the model. These places are valuable assets to the County and help tell the story of
Spartanburg, just as the ecosystems tell the story of the environment we live in.
Map 6: Population Density – For better or worse, the built environment often is not necessarily the most
bio-diverse one. The Nature Conservancy employed inverse population density as a proxy for “pristine landscapes.” Similarly, the Special Places Inventory identifies less dense areas as more suitable for conservation
as they are less likely to experience the stresses of the built world. This map depicts population density based
upon the ESRI Population Centroid data set.
7
Special Places Inventory
Co-occurence Raster
Spartanburg County, SC
NORTH PACOLET RIVER
MUNICIPAL RESERVIOR
LAKE BOWEN
LAKE BLALOCK
D LE
M ID
TYG
LAW
S ON
S FO
ER R
IV E R
JOR
DA
N
CR
EE
K
LAKE COOLEY
JORD
LYMAN LAKE
REEK
AN C
APALACHE LAKE
SO
UT
HT
RK C
REE
K
NO
RTH
T
YGE
RR
YGE
R
R IV
RE
ST
CR
E
ER
EK
R
RF
O
ST
R
CR
E
E
RIV
RE
T
LE
FA
I
REEK
RK C
O
F
S
S ON
LAW
CO
PA
IV E
FA
IRF
O
EK
SHOAL POND
SILVER LAKE
LAKE EDWIN JOHNSON
T
RTH
NO
R
ZIMMERMAN'S POND
IV E
R IV E
RR
H TY
GE R
E
YG
SOU
T
FAIRF LAKE TOM MOORE CRAIG
O R ES
T RIV
ER
R
BIG
FE
RG
U
LITTLE FE
SO
N
CR
E
RGUSON
CREEK
EK
FER
G
USO
NC
REE
K
TY
G
EN
O
Resource Co-occurrence Index
High : 45
Low : 1
3
6
RI
9
RIV
E
R
VE
R
12
Miles
This map is not a Land Survey and is intended for general
reference only. Data is courtesy of Spartanburg County
GIS, ESRI, SCDNR and USGS. The creator of this map
and Upstate Forever expressly deny responsibility for the
accuracy of this map and data. Lawson Revan, 2009.
Map 1
8
1.5
E
¤
Legend
0
RE
ER
Co-occurence Raster and
Conservation Focus Areas
NORTH PACOLET RIVER
Landrum
Chesnee
Campobello
MUNICIPAL RESERVIOR
LAKE BOWEN
LAKE BLALOCK
D LE
M ID
TYG
Inman
LAW
S ON
S FO
RK C
REE
K
ER R
IV E R
JOR
DA
N
CR
EE
Cowpens
K
LAKE COOLEY
LYMAN LAKE
FA
IRF
O
Wellford
APALACHE LAKE
SO
UT
HT
Lyman
YGE
RR
ST
CR
E
EK
Wellford
R
RE
ST
R
CR
E
E
RIV
Greer
RF
O
T
LE
FA
I
Duncan
REEK
RK C
O
F
S
S ON
LAW
Spartanburg
CO
PA
IV E
RE
EK
Central Pacolet
Pacolet
SHOAL POND
SILVER LAKE
Greer
LAKE EDWIN JOHNSON
R
ZIMMERMAN'S POND
IV E
R IV E
RR
H TY
GE R
E
YG
SOU
T
O R ES
T RIV
ER
T
RTH
NO
Reidville
R
BIG
FE
RG
U
LITTLE FE
SO
N
CR
E
RGUSON
CREEK
EK
FER
G
USO
NC
REE
K
Legend
Woodruff
Conserved Land
TY
G
Landrum CFA
ER
RIV
E
R
North Pacolet CFA
Ferguson Creek and N.Tyger CFA
EN
O
Croft CFA
Enoree CFA
Resource Co-occurrence Index
High : 45
Low : 1
3
6
RI
VE
R
9
12
Miles
Map 2
9
1.5
E
¤
Tyger River CFA
0
RE
SC GAP 27-Class Land Cover
NORTH PACOLET RIVER
Landrum
Chesnee
Campobello
MUNICIPAL RESERVIOR
LAKE BOWEN
LAKE BLALOCK
D LE
M ID
TYG
Inman
LAW
S ON
S FO
RK C
REE
K
ER R
IV E R
JOR
DA
N
CR
EE
Cowpens
K
LAKE COOLEY
JORD
LYMAN LAKE
REEK
AN C
FA
IRF
O
Wellford
APALACHE LAKE
SO
UT
HT
NO
RTH
T
YGE
Lyman
RR
Wellford
R
R IV
RE
ST
CR
E
ER
EK
Spartanburg
RF
O
ST
R
CR
E
E
RIV
RE
REEK
RK C
T
LE
FA
I
Duncan
Greer
S FO
S ON
LAW
CO
PA
IV E
YGE
R
EK
Central Pacolet
Pacolet
SHOAL POND
SILVER LAKE
Greer
LAKE EDWIN JOHNSON
R
ZIMMERMAN'S POND
IV E
R IV E
RR
H TY
GE R
E
YG
SOU
T
O R ES
T RIV
ER
T
RTH
NO
Reidville
R
BIG
FE
RG
U
LITTLE FE
SO
N
Legend
CR
E
RGUSON
CREEK
EK
FER
G
USO
NC
REE
K
Classification
Aquatic vegetation
Woodruff
Bottomland/floodplain forest
Closed canopy evergreen forest/woodland
TY
G
Cultivated land
Dry deciduous forest/woodland
ER
RIV
E
R
Dry mixed forest/woodland
EN
O
Dry scrub/shrub thicket
Fresh water
RE
E
RI
VE
R
Grassland/pasture
Marsh/emergent wetland
Mesic deciduous forest/woodland
Mesic mixed forest/woodland
Needle-leaved evergreen mixed forest/woodland
Open canopy/recently cleared forest
Rock outcrop
Urban development
Urban residential
Wet scrub/shrub thicket
1.5
3
6
9
12
Miles
Map 3
10
0
¤
Water Bodies
NORTH PACOLET RIVER
MUNICIPAL RESERVIOR
LAKE BOWEN
LAKE BLALOCK
MIDD
LE TYG
LAW
S ON
S FO
ER
JORDAN
ER RIV
RK C
REE
K
CREEK
LYMAN LAKE
LAKE COOLEY
NO
RTH
T
APALACHE LAKE
SOU
T
R IV E
YGE
R
R IV
RE
ST
CR
E
ER
EK
R
RF
O
ST
R
CR
E
E
RIV
RE
T
LE
FA
I
REEK
RK C
O
F
S
S ON
LAW
O
PAC
H TY
GE R
FA
IRF
O
EK
SHOAL POND
SILVER LAKE
LAKE EDWIN JOHNSON
T
RTH
NO
R
IV E
R IV E
RR
H TY
GE R
LAKE TOM MOORE CRAIG
E
YG
SOU
T
ZIMMERMAN'S POND
R
BIG
FE
RG
U
LITTLE FE
SO
N
CR
E
RGUSON
CREEK
EK
FER
G
USO
NC
REE
K
TY
G
EN
O
Lakes and Ponds
Major Stream
Minor Stream
3
RI
6
9
RIV
E
R
VE
R
12
Miles
Map 4
11
1.5
E
¤
Legend
0
RE
ER
AY
LL
E
HW
HW
EV
I
HI
G
AS
H
14
E
Historic Sites and Districts
Four Columns
Y
NORTH PACOLET RIVER
Landrum Railroad Depot
14
AY
E
Fingerville Mill
Fingerville
11
New Prospect
TE
AY 11 PINE S
AMA AV
WAY
McMillin House
XT
Chesnee
Cowpens Battlefield
S AL AB
HI
G
AY
14 N
HW
ST
Earle House
HIG
E
KE
HIG H
Redlands
HIG HW
O
35 7
Campobello
MUNICIPAL RESERVIOR
LAKE BOWEN
Ruins of Fagan's Mill
WAY
14
H
HIG H
AY
WY
H
W
HIGHWAY 11 W
Site of Ingleside
Gowensville
H
ER
EH
Gowen's Old Fort
IG
H
LL
HW
C
I
EV
W
H
AS
W
Landrum
IG
H
W
AY
9
IDG
Y
BR
E HW
RIS
SNE
CHE
WY
INT E
85
AT E
RST
Cowpens
INTE RSTATE 85
P TON
PI
NE
Wellford
Site of Fort Prince
E
BU S IN
GREENVILLE HWY
GR
ST
M
S
ES
CH
N
Lyman
B LV D
N MA IN ST
Cowpens Depot
AI
EH
NE
HAM
85
N
RD
LAKE COOLEY
APALACHE LAKE
TE
TA
GS
CREEK
Site of Joe Dodd House
Site of Wood's Fort McMakin's Tavern
RS
RIN
Bush House
E
INT
WY
EH
SP
Shiloh Church
G
LIN
AS H
EV IL
L
JORDAN
ER
35 7
HIGHWAY
ER RIV
LYMAN LAKE
DE
E WA
Boiling Springs
I
BO
LE TYG
Inman
PA R
MIDD
ER
D
LAKE BLALOCK
NV
ILL
EH
S TATE
85
W
H
IT
N
EY
R
E
D
MA
Fremont School
E
MA
IN
WARRE
N
Duncan
H AB ER
New Hope Farm
NATHY
HW
EX
T
Site of Clifton Mill No. 1
Converse College
Poole House
Glendale Twitchell House
Cannon House
BLVD
W O EZ EL L
Y
ST
ST
Hotel Oregon
WY
IN
Hurricane Shoals
Spartanburg
Arcadia Mill Number 2
Wellford
EE
TER
S S IN
ST
U
Jammie Seay House
N
IO
N
Glendale Mill
ST
T
PACOLE
S PINE ST
Foster's Tavern
Greer
RIVER
Marysville School
EX
T
Cedar Spring School Walker Hall
Cedar Spring
Daniel House
Pacolet Mill Office
HW
1
10
S
SILVER LAKE
R
Site of Batesville Mill
L
VIL
EID
ER
D
ST
Reidville
Male Dormitory
Gaston House
Holly Hill
INT
Agnew Leonard House
Fredonia
ZIMMERMAN'S POND
26
AY
22 1
D
E
TAT
HI
GH
Harriett Trail House
HW
ID
R
ERS
RE
LE
Golightly-Dean House LAKE EDWIN JOHNSON
Area of first Southeastern US soil conservation
Smith's Tavern LAKE TOM MOORE CRAIG
Bates House
L
VI
W
AY
HIG
Site of Ott's Shoals and Ott's Bridge
Glenn Springs
Maurice Moore House
21
5
Hurricane Tavern
Zimmerman House
BIG FE
RGUSO
N
HIG
HW
CREEK
Camp Hill
Friendship Baptist Church
Y
WA
5
21
Woodruff High School
HIG H
Site of Benjamin Wofford's Birthplace
Site of Hill's Factory
WAY
TY
G
22 1
ER
Site of Crowe's Post Office Nimrod Holcombe House
TE 26
INTE RS TA
RIV
E
R
Weaver's Cotton Factory
Mt Pleasant Tavern
Site of Battle of Blackstock's Ford
Hillsville
CR
Longview
OS
SA
¤
Major Streams
Lakes and Ponds
9
Webb House
EN
O
RE
ER
Yarborough House Bobo House
IVE
R
Site of Battle of Musgrove's Mill
Site of Musgrove Mill Site of Musgrove House
12
Miles
GIS, ESRI, SCDNR, National Register of Historic Places,
The South Carolina Archives and History Center and USGS.
The creator of this map and Upstate Forever expressly deny
responsibility for the accuracy of this map and data.
Lawson Revan, 2009.
Map 5
12
6
RD
Major Streets
R
Historic Districts
James Nesbitt House
HO
Historic Sites
NC
Legend
3
GH
HI
Site of Nesbitt's Factory
Williams Place Aaron Smith House
Westmoreland House
1.5
AY 56
Woodruff
HIG HW
Nicholls-Crook House
Price House
Price's Post Office
AY
10 1
Capt A B Woodruff House
0
Pacolet
CH
Nazareth Presbyterian Church
Anderson's Mill
Dr. Pinckney Miller House
Reidville
Pelham Mill
Central Pacolet
S
AY
SHOAL POND
Greer
CH
UR
G
HI
Fairmont
EV
I
LL
E
HW
Y
N
HO
W
AR
D
HIG
HW
NORTH PACOLET RIVER
E
14
AY
AV
E
Landrum
H
14
AY
E
11
HW
HIG
TE
AY 11 PINE S
Chesnee
S AL AB
WAY
AMA AV
AY
14 N
HIG H
HIG HW
ST
WY
HIGHWAY 11 W
E
KE
HI
G
O
EH
ER
LL
HW
C
I
EV
W
H
AS
W
AS
H
Population Density
XT
MUNICIPAL RESERVIOR
LAKE BOWEN
AY 35 7
HIG HWAY 14
Campobello
HIG HW
H
IG
H
W
AY
9
IDG
E HW
SNE
E
INT
CHE
SP
INT E
85
AT E
RST
Cowpens
M
AI
EH
CH
LL
ST
E
85
H
W
Y
W
H
E
D
E
T
UN
IO
N
ST
S PINE ST
R
EX
REEK
RK C
O
F
S
S ON
LAW
Central Pacolet
CH
ST
D
GS R
1
10
S
AY
Pacolet
CH
H
RT
NO
HW
UR
G
HI
SHOAL POND
ST
E
RIV
IL L
ID V
D
ER
T
IN
R S PR
RE
Spartanburg
EX
ST
CEDA
Greer
BLVD
W O EZ EL L
Y
URC
NATHY
HW
H ST
WM
H AB ER
E
N
N
ST
T
LE
WARRE
N
S CH
WY
ST
A IN
I
MA
I
MA
IN
CO
PA
EH
R
MA
ST
ILL
EY
CH
NV
I
TN
UR
Wellford
EE
Duncan
S
GE
TY
Greer
S
NE
S TATE
NE
CH
GR
TER
S S IN
PI
EV
I
N
E
BU S IN
GREENVILLE HWY
N MA IN ST
ST
WY
INTE RSTATE 85
ES
Lyman
B LV D
85
N
RD
N
AS
H
Wellford
APALACHE LAKE
P TON
TE
TA
GS
LAKE COOLEY
AM
DE H
RS
RIN
CREEK
LYMAN LAKE
E WA
Y
BR
RIS
G
LIN
ER
JORDAN
ER RIV
I
BO
LE TYG
Inman
LAW
S ON
S FO
AS H
RK C
EV IL
LE H
REE
WY
K
PA R
MIDD
ER
D
LAKE BLALOCK
LAKE EDWIN JOHNSON
R
SILVER LAKE
RI
VE
R
Reidville
SOU
T
R IV E
R
ZIMMERMAN'S POND
E
TAT
HI
GH
26
AY
22 1
D
G
HI
BIG
W
AY
HIG
HW
R
ERS
ID
LE
INT
RE
L
VI
H TY
GE R
HW
AY
FE
1
10
RG
U
LITTLE FE
SO
N
CR
E
RGUSON
21
5
CREEK
EK
USO
REE
K
AY 56
NC
HIG HW
FER
G
Woodruff
LA
U
RE
NS
RD
G
HI
TY
G
HW
1
22
Municipalities
1.5
3
6
9
¤
12
Miles
Lawson Revan, 2009.
Map 6
13
0
Low : 0
RD
Major Streams
R
High : 3176.41
HO
Lakes and Ponds
NC
Value
VE
R
SA
Population Density
RI
R
OS
Major Streets
E
RIV
E
CR
Legend
RE
TE 26
INTE RS TA
AY
EN
O
ER
Part IV: Conservation Focus Areas
As seen in Map 2, the Special Places Inventory identified six major Conservation Focus
Areas. These areas range in size and significance, but all provide an excellent basis for
the direction of attention and funding for the goal of conservation. The following pages
highlight each of the CFAs and speak to the unique attributes of each, including historic
sites, land cover, stream systems and other salient characteristics. For a matrix of all the
Conservation Focus Areas and the respective acreage values, land covers, historic sites,
rare plants and co-occurrence points see Table 4 in the appendix. The narratives and
photographs are merely meant to complement and illustrate the data represented by the
model and the maps, which are clearly the focus of this project.
CFA Maps and Narratives
Landrum and Campobello
North Pacolet
Ferguson Creek and North Tyger River
Croft and West Springs
Tyger River
Enoree River
14
XXXX
RD
LO O
P RD
C
R
RD
D
NR
AN R D
¤
ST
Inman
RD
HW
AY
292
AV
E
AL
MCINTOSH LN
ON
N
ST
HO
P
Inman
NS
IL
LL
HIG
RD
DM
I
LH
JO
H
WI N
TH R
RD
L RD
ING S
C HOO
GRAM
L
CO
PA
RK
EP
L IT
TL
D
RC
HR
EK
RE
HO
DR
RD
BIS
CH
U
WA
R DS RD
RD
NC
HO
DI
LS
TO
E DW A
IN
FA
G
L
I
M
RD
ION
RUN
Y
KELL
TYS
O
RD
GE
HIGH
L
R
IL
L
H
EL
SM
I
ATHY
ABERN
PA
NR
SO
ALV
ER
AV
E
AN
WAY
357
W
W
IPS
H
RD
RD
Y
HW
LE
VIL
HE
OL D A S
E
S
CR MITH RD
EE
C
M
OT
LO
DR
TE
A
D
D
R
FR ANK
D
R
TO N
SETTLE AV
BURNS LN
RD
W EL L
LD
OA
CA
A
G
FOWLER RD
D
RP
OW
D
L
ME A D
LE
TT
ON
HIC
T
RR
CA R
LS
L
D
SE
L
HI
R
IL
BB
R
K
RO
ORTH RD
WADSW
BLE
D
NU
STA
NR
RA
BA
KS O
D
PR
GA
RD
RD
ER
RD
CH
R
U
H
C
AV
WE
SS
A
HILL
14
Y
I
E
DR
AK
S
FIV
EO
N
TU
R
E
B
HU
HI G
M
R
RY
Greenville County (SC)
SP
E
EP
RD
FO
W
DR
W
IL
SO
N
RD
RN
14
AY
AC
O
W
H
H
S
LL
MI
E
BE
LU
14 N
AY
HW
HO R
X
14
DD
KO
RD
26
RD
ER
DR
IN
F
OD
LAKE BOWEN
A
BR
WIN
G
RD
TE
TA
U
CT
DO
R
D
RS
TE
IN
RD
L
AL
1
R
D
O
W
ER
Y1
AN
GE
ID
HI
Miles
N C AM P R
WA
M
BR
T
4
15
S
M P ON
RA M P T
CO
Low : 1
3
RI
DR
26
High : 45
HOD GE
E
Major Lakes
IS
O
L RD
TURPIN RD EXT
D
N
D
Conserved Land
SWAIN RD
CH
ON
ILS
W
TE
RD
RD
A
ST
GEDD
IS
D
ER
D
VER
IN T
FA
S
R
L LER
ER
T
FOS
D
IN G MI L L S R
MI
PH
HI L
L RD
TU
T
TR
PR
C
H
ER
UG
RM
E
AY
FA
G
TA
XX
XX
D
R
F
N
TA
O
N
L
D
RD
TO
N
LR
HistoricDistricts
2
FR
O
HE
S
GE
CU
D
IN
RD
GE
AL
B AN ON
D IC
ND R D
Resource Co-occurrence
HistoricPoints
1
UT
O LD M I
L
RI D
T LE
RID
W
YR
R
Minor Streams
0
E
FR
RD
OO
R
E
VE
(
!
E
LN BLU
U
UE
BL
N
MOU
Major Streams
0.5
W
O
Legend
Roads
WA
RD
EM
Y TRCE
DD
RO
PR
OO
H IG H
RC
H
WY
RD
W
RI
DIN
R
NO
E
YG
N
DR
NE
ET
KL
(
!
N RD
GRAML
TON D
AP
CH
R
BER
DL
ID
STRIC
D
RI
PACOLET
L
LC
CLAY
DR
M UL
T
AT
WY
WA TKIN S RD
M
H
LE
WEST
R
MME
TT R D
TL O
W SC H
RD
D
ST
ST
RD
W
SA
P A TT E R
SO
M
MO
RD
SK
D
R
RD
D
R
RR
M
SD
IAM
LL
WI
HA
CK
PA
P DR
TR IP
RD
R
FA
AI
N
HE
RD
BE
HT
ST
M
E
LV
B IG
D
E EK
D
IG
WR
S
IL
EV
R
R CR
N
RD
ST
EN
OP
Y
SK
A SH
S P E NC E
O
OP
LL
ME
TH
LO
A N LN
N E ST E X T
MOSLEY
RD
DR
AL
MI
UM
W
HINES RD
(
!
NM
AIN
RD
RD
RD
Redlands
PI
O
S IL
EW
D
ND R D
RN
JO
I
J
1
MS R
D
Site of Ingleside
ER
TU
GO
OD
LA
OL
S DR
DR
MILLER RD
F AR
E
R
ND
R E DL A
K
H RD
26
H
NK
WILLI
A
I NE
YL
RD
RD
R
RY
D
H
EDONIA CHURC
RD
K
TA
TE
SK U
A
JAMES RD
R
RD
ER
S
G
M EAG
UNDERWOOD RD
I D RD
IT
SM
C
O
LE
VI
CK
ATK
IN
T
RD
N
AL
W
HO
(
!
E
IR
A
TR
IN
T
LE
NORTH
CE
DS
Campobello
W AY 1 1
ER
RD
W IN
PA
CO
HI
N
UL O
RD
F ER RE
NORTH PA
COLET RIV
DR
H
RE
Gowensville
O
N
RT
H
R
CI
R
Earle House
GH
HI
NO
NT
CY
CK
ON G ROVE R D
A
R
I LL
EN
RE
(
!
BA R TO N
A
WF
RM S D
D
GG
TO
(
!
ER
F AIR V IE
IN
WL
BO
RD
XX
XX
HW
IG
H
D
MO R R O W R
MP
RA
(
!
ENS
(
!
D
LAU
R
D
Gowen's Old Fort
KS
AC
MS
R
C KS
Four Columns
FA
IR
H ILL L
ED
Y
HW
MI
LL
S BL
ILL
FA
R
AV
E
LE
EN
H
CK
V IL
IG
RD
GR
E
UE
ST
HE
K
BL
T
R
JA
A
RA
AS
OA
E RD
N GE
ER RD
RD
LL
RO
V
ER
O
R
RD
M
HA ANT
GR
K
HI
G
D LN
FI
WA T
OC
N
RD
PIERCE RD
R
JO
W
S
NE
ST
SS
ST
XXXX
VE
SO
RD
W
CL E A R
CK
O
M
SA
GR
ST
N BL A
RD
O AK
O
M SS L N
Landrum
RD
FA
R
HW
AM
M OU N TA IN VIE
W
G
FO R T R
(
!
RD
HIG H
A RL E S
D
MR
RD
DA
VE
BA
E N HI L L
WA
R
H
UR
WD
RD
E
GR
HO
E
AV
RD
IN
NTA
RD
D
M
EL
D
R
N
N MORGAN RD
N
N
E
OFO RT
G
H
NR
US
MB
G
U
MO
D
BIR
OL
D
RE
D
LI N
C
C
OL U
ER
R
Polk County
(NC)
R
D
DR
ER
ER
XXXX
STO NE R
ID
C
IN
XXXX
GREENWOO D
CLINTO
N RD
US
GREENW
O
Y
NI
HE A
RT H
D
OO
RD
K RD
I LO
O
LB RO
XX
XX
H IL
BLOC K H
X
ILL
EH
W
X L
A
X XX
XX
XX X
RD
X
EV
X
X
XX
XX
AS
H
S
XX
XX
X
X
Landrum and Campobello CFA
This map is not a Land Survey and is
intended for general reference only.
Data is courtesy of Spartanburg County
GIS, ESRI, SCDNR, USGS,The National
Register of Historic Places and The
South Carolina Archives and History
Center. The creator of this map and
Upstate Forever expressly deny
responsibility for the accuracy of this
map and data. Lawson Revan, 2009
Landrum and Campobello CFA
Total CFA acreage: 13,535
The northern part of the county is home to some of the most biologically significant sites identified in this model;
it is also the most studied CFA. In 1994, the Pacolet Area Conservancy (PAC) commissioned a study of the
area around the headwaters of the North Pacolet River in
southern Polk County, NC and northern Spartanburg and
Greenville Counties (not to be confused with the town
of Pacolet in a separate CFA in the southern part of the
county). This study identified significant natural areas and
ecological resources in the region. In addition, a botany
study of the 1,200 acre Fairview Farms tract was completed
just a few years ago. These individual findings could not be
included in this model for data consistency reasons (similar
studies do not exist for the rest of the county and would
have unfairly weighted this region), but merit attention.
Even without the addition of this data to the model, the
Landrum and Campobello CFA boasts the six highest
scoring individual points in all of the CFA’s out of a total
of 474,967 points identified in the model (see Table 4 in
the Appendix). The Species Richness, Land Cover and Rare
Plants layers mirror the findings of the PAC study sufficiently
to demonstrate the special qualities of this area. Of
This north facing slope at Fairview Farms received the
highest ranking within a Conservation Focus Area
particular note are north-facing slopes, seepages, and
sheltered areas that encourage rich soils and unusual plant
communities, including the threatened species Hexastylis
naniflora (dwarf heartleaf), Monotropsis odorata (pygmy
pipes), Lonicera flava (yellow honeysuckle), Fothergilla
major (mountain witchalder), Aconitum uncinatum
(southern blue monkshood), and Solidago bicolor (white
goldenrod). (Note: a seepage is not a spring. It is where
rainwater permeates the soil on a hill until it reaches an
impenetrable layer. The water then moves laterally until it
reaches the slope surface where it seeps out of the soil. If the
water seeps through limestone and picks up minerals, then
the seepage will support a biologically rich habitat called a
fen.) (Porcher and Rayner, p. 67)
Wetlands at Fairview Farms
The western portion of this CFA is home to two significant
areas, identified in the PAC study as the Branch Creek
Natural Area and the Ingleside Seeps and Bluffs. They are
the only two sites in the state where Hexastylis naniflora
(dwarf heartleaf) and nestronia umbellula (leechbrush) are
co-located. Both sites feature north-facing slopes (bluffs
16
at Ingleside), seeps and acid soils. White
oak, tulip poplars and beech dominate the
canopy and mountain laurel is found here as
well. (PAC Inventory, p. 65). Historic sites
include Gowan’s Old Fort, though only an
approximate location is known. Gowan’s Fort
was originally built as a defense against the
Cherokee and was used extensively during the
Revolutionary War (Landrum, p. 117).
The eastern portion of the CFA includes the
North Pacolet River and Page Creek. Almost
one quarter of this portion of the CFA is
characterized by mesic deciduous forest, ranked
highest of the various vegetative cover types
by our biology experts. North-facing slopes
are common, as are both acid and base soils.
Four Columns
Tulip poplar and red oak are found throughout,
while the acid soils feature white oak and the
base soil areas support beech, white ash and the uncommon white walnut. Areas of mixed hardwood include
Virginia pine and shortleaf pine. Dwarf heartleaf and mountain laurel are also found here.
The eastern section of the CFA was home to Baylis Earle
(1734-1825), once one of Spartanburg County’s largest
landowners. The area became known as “Earlesville” until
the 20th century. The antebellum historic Four Columns
was built in 1777. Nearby is the historic battle site, “Earle’s
Middle and Late Archaic projectile points and later pottery
Ford,” at a crossing of the Pacolet River (where Highway
14 crosses it today). This battle, a moving skirmish from
the river down to Fort Prince in July of 1780, ended in a Patriot victory credited with providing momentum for the
subsequent victory at Cowpens (Quatannens, p. 6). This area also contains evidence of prehistoric populations.
Projectile points, studied as a result of this project, date as far back as the Middle Archaic period (up to 7,000
years Before Present, or BP).
17
D
AP
EL
R
CH
Y
C
LI
FD
Poole House
ALE R
HL
AN
D
D
M !
IN (
TZ
RD
NEAL RD
5
D
IS
R
N
MA
TH
ST
GRE
EN
E
SO
D
RE
XT
KIR
B
G
NN
QU
I
EM
RD
M
D
Co RD
un
ty
(SC NG R
) D
TR
F LE
S
MI
GE
D
NA
MO
LE
Un
ion
KELLI
WY
AT
T
R
R D B R ID
WF O
CO
CT
YP
AS
BY D R
J E R USA
AI
TH
N
AO
S
DR T
HW
AY
176
B
DEE
RW
O
RIV
AR
OD
D
DG
D
HIG
KI R
ST
CI
R
BEECH ST
LO
ES
T
OO
D
ND
LA
GH
HI
UC
YD
DR
CA
LIC
O
ST
PL
DO
GW
KE
RD
LA
Y1
RD
EL
ER
W
HE
RD
PA
E
MO
OR
E
W
O
BR
D
R
ST
EE
N
IR
S
N
O
C
SP
R
L
S
PA
BY
B
LL
HI
RO
K
RD
R
N
Central Pacolet
Pacolet
UND
D
R
RO
L
IL
G
TE
R
H
OD
6
17
NN
IN
AR
Y
QU
N
YL
I A RWO
D
E
RD
RD
CO
XX
XX
D
YR
ENN
D
SP R IN G
A
R
O ST ER MIL L
B
KIR
EM
N
SR
D
L
D
MY
R
ED
TL
RR
NS
T
CI
F
XXXX
COL ON Y RD
ALLEN ST
A
QU
DA
IR
0
R
D
GE
NS
OLE T R
R!
(
R
ER
A
Marysville School
D
E
ST R
IV
KR
C
LIG
O
AY
W
D
ON
S
AR
PA
BR
CRES
NNY A
LL ST
W M A I N ST
Z CT
GH
HI
ET
FR
LR
WH ITE S T
FT
RO
EP
LD
SU
MCDOWE
D
EL
WER
T
MIMOSA LAKE RD
C
AT
HI
W
GH
B RYAN
OR E
O
RD
RID
W
HA
LN
IR
R
E
N
LAKE EDWIN JOHNSON
T
DR
W
JO H
FAIRF
R O V E RD
E
RIV
AL
M U RPH R
O
HE
RO
(
!
RE
MO
EL
ST
G
LET
ND
RD
R
Pacolet Mill Office
Pacolet Mills Cloth Room and Warehouse
(
!
D
RD
LE
H
RD
B U RT O N
RD
ER
T
I N LO
G
CA
BI
N
LN
S
PI
NE
ST
ER
EG
ON
UT
RT
T
AT
HG
ST
SO
RD P O
DR L U C K
Y
UT
SO
IT E
N
ESD
A
ET
O
PAC
RD
WH
T
N
C
MM
BET
H
RD
T
RD
S PINE
S
D
C
IA N
TO
N
B E TH E S D A
S PINE S
T
NS R D
EK
D
E
STEV
RE
SU
IN
R
H
B
HI
G
Glendale
M MA C
UD D
((
!
(
(!
!
Glendale Mill E
( ILTON ST !
!
R EE
G OU C H E R G
D
NR
R
ST
ND
HILL R
BI
DR
L
CT
CKER
A RD
D
CA
W
CA
RD
CRO
XX
XX
D
RS
O
TE
AT
E
RD
TT
D
RD
N
D
C
O
CR
M IN
ME
G UN R D
SO
AP
N
O
OM
TH
DR
LD
M
SW E ET
ER
IGH
ON
L
P
ON
TR
D
H
BE
AC
HL
K
W
ER
R
S RD
ST
M
S
BR
TE
R
VI
EW
R
E PLA
IN
X
XXX
EL
M
D
KE
RD
R
R
ER
V
D
FA
PIN
LEWIS C HAPEL R D
R
AL
PS
HA
RT
DI
GO
IE
WHIT
(SC)
unty
e Co
roke
Che
RI
Spartanburg
PE
RD
ST
CE D A R
LD
O
EV
T
LE
N RD
Hurricane Shoals
T
S!
(
(!
RD
CO
OW
E
ST
I
CL
GL
E
AL
ND
KD
PA
RT
R
N
LE
G
LE
DA
A
DR
COOP E
R IV E
DR
DING
HAR
R Y H ILL R D
C H ER
ON
FT
EBN
RD
O OKLY N
AIN S T E X T
EM
OA
LD
O
AI
N
ST
North Pacolet CFA
GL
R
Legend
Roads
1
(
!
HistoricPoints
Major Streams
HistoricDistricts
Minor Streams
Conserved Land
Major Lakes
0.5
0
1
2
High : 45
Low : 1
3
4
Miles
18
¤
North of Pacolet CFA
The historical town of Pacolet is rich in culture and beauty. Occupied since the mid-18th century, Pacolet has been
affected by the Revolutionary War, the influx of settlers in the mid-19th century, and the horrific Pacolet River
flood at the beginning of the 20th century (Spartanburg Co. Public Library 2006). Consistent with Spartanburg
County’s abundance of mill villages, Pacolet Mills centered the town.
The land cover throughout the area offers a
variety of mesic deciduous forests (30%),
closed canopy evergreen forests (23%), and
dry thickets (22%). The canopied wooded
areas that dominate the area have a mix of
hardwoods and evergreens, especially oaks,
pines, and cedars. Close to the Pacolet
River, vegetation includes hedgerows,
ferns, and other ground covers. Woodland
openings and cutover forests are spread
sparsely throughout the wooded areas, but
canopy forests cover the majority of the
land. This area offers diverse plant and
animal life. Rare plants include Lonicera
flava (yellow honeysuckle) and Isoetes
piedmontana (piedmont quillwort). There
are also natural soapstone outcrops amidst
the thriving vegetation.
The North Pacolet area is home to
several notable historical sites. The
original structure of the Marysville
School is located in the area.
The Marysville School is a onestory school building with three
classrooms and a cellar that was
built by the Pacolet Manufacturing
Company to provide schooling for
the children of African American
Pacolet Mill workers. The school
caused controversy at the time,
and still exists today with its
original structure, now recognized
as a prominent historical site in
Spartanburg County (SCDAH3
2009). The site of the Pacolet Mills
Marysville School
is located just southeast of the North
Pacolet area, but the history of the
mill is very relevant to the culture of the area. The mill first opened in 1883 and prospered for twenty years
before a flood destroyed the first three mill buildings. The mill was restored and was eventually bought by the
19
Milliken family. It was shut down permanently in
1983. Most of the historic homes located in the
southeast corner of the area and those surrounding
the Marysville School were built for the mill
community (SCDAH4 2009).
The Pacolet River Heritage Trust Preserve presently
conserves a 278-acre plot of land in the center of
the North Pacolet area. The preserve protects
two prehistoric soapstone “quarries,” where the
outcroppings were cut for vessel production.
The preserve is situated near the confluence of
the Pacolet River and Lawsons Fork Creek. The
quarries were utilized by prehistoric peoples of the
Late Archaic Period (3,000-5,000 BP) and were
listed on the National Register of Historic Places
in 1980 (SCDAH52009).
Late Archaic soapstone quarry at the Pacolet River Heritage Trust
Preserve
The Pacolet River
20
RD
FA
R
LI
LL
IE
HAT
C H E TT
S
OP
D
RD
CO
ER
OAK DR
D
VE R
RO
E
DL
RD
NU
TG
INTERSTATE 26
RD
RM
S
RI D
AL
R IV
ER
W
(
!
RR
EL
SO
N RD
R
RAMP
ER
E
RIV
HWY
TYG
AW
SH
S
RKMAN
J WO
SO
H
UT
ER
D
R
ST
DR
RD
R
EN
AIK
(B Woodruff House
( A!
!
(Capt
!
B R A NC H ST
N
R
S AYRE D
G
TY
K
D
RD
N N E R RD
R
NN L
RD
A
ENB
ER R
Y
RD
KE
BA
N RD
RD
HA
S ON
C
FRONTAGE RD 35
DE
R
OO
FR
FOR
T
E LL RD
GW
NEW
RD
D
R
N
NL
SO
TY
GE
RL
N
TH
SO
U
H
RD
LL
ER
22
1
W
AY
HI
GH
LN
E
AS
H
R
TD
NU
ES
T
21
ER
W
HI
TE
LN
BU
R
AR
TA
N
SP
OL
D
ONS R
D
SI M M
SO
RD
CH
HN
NC KNEY
PINE PI
WOO
D RD
BL
AC
KS
T
NS
R
MO
A
RD
GI
L
WEL
BRID
I
SK
W
HE
AN
DR
CAVINS RD
G
EO
R
O
RD
RIDG E
A
SARA
RD
AY
2
IS B
D
WF
N
W
LE
SE
VIE
RD
LA N CA S TE R FA RM
CK
YSV IL
U
EN
H
M
JO
BB
R
K
OA
E
RD
T
UN
O
I TZ
ER
!
(
EK
GL
EO
RG
IA
LN
K I TC
E
CR
D
I
D
ES R
M OR R
HO
D
G
JO
RC
EK
RD
E
JA
HN
HO
E
CR
K
T
ST N S
BY AI
IR M
N
Woodruff
A
N
IC E
N
SO
F
ON
AM
E W M A N RD
N
DR
N
MA
M
RD
P IT T
S AW
U
RG
AC
BL
BETSY LN
S
AM
LI
IL
W
PR
FE
BIG
S
GU
ER
H
WEST
RD
Site of Price's Post OfficePrice House
BIG
N DR
OO
W
RD
LN
D
R
AN
OO D
N
E
BR
SA
(
!
Site of Ott's Shoals and Ott's
Bridge
R
EE W
H
O
IS
D
C
AT
Walnut Grove Plantation
R
AR
R
(
!
D
H
T
M
ZIMMERMAN'S POND
RD
FLOYD RD
D
CANNON LN
T HR
D
R
CE
IN P
R
E
ANUT
P
R
IG
WO P
OD OO L
RU E S
FF T
ST
SW
(
!
PEARSO
H
N DA R
O LD
E L L RD
I ON
G
ADD
A
OYL
D
W
AT
M
D
RD
Y
ST
RP
(
!
26
ON
YR
IR
DA
GR
HW
G
ZI
E
MU
E
TAT
ERS
M
INT
N RD
PI E
DM
B
N
LA
ER
MCCHES
NEY RD
RD
ON
F O STE R R D
SE
R
RD
N
R
D
AV
IS
D
HO
S
OT
TS
S
AL
ST
H IG
DR
OU
H
P
E A R SO
GA
DR
FINCH RD
M
RA
(
!
YST
ON E
T
GOA
L
STIL
Fredonia
SH
O
AM
I LY
Smith's Tavern
MA
N
YL
RD
DO
221
HWAY
R
RD
GR A
(
!
TIN
D
IV E
P
GTON RD
HS
T EX
T
U RC
S CH
AP
P
W AY
RR
DA
BULLIN
LN
CH
UR
CH
ST
AD
O
WA
N
RD
HN
KU
S ON
RA
IL
R
AND
BREWTON RD
VIS
E RD
TOR
OD S
BLA C
KW O
H
MA R
SEY LN
R
LEE
RD
PEAR
R
GE
TY
Y
HW
SA
LU
S RD
O DE
BO
AL
IE
H
RT
NO
AN
T O WN R D
L I NA CL U
D
F
N
GUER
V
NC
T
AN
ON
CA
RO
DR
DU
PL
PE ARS
RD
RD
R
CA
E
GAS
ST
CK
UB
CL
B
LD
R
O
BU
O
RY
R
RD
LM AN
O
OE
CA R
N
AA
BU
R
RD
AN
D
LA
EL
ST
RD
O
M
RH
E
AV
ET T
NS E S
SU PIN
EN
COU N T
L INA
C
Y CH UR C
H RD
BE A RD
LD
(
!
RANDYS DR
O
AN
CE
DI
ST
BE
TH
W IN G O
RGIA
RD
D
R
LE
IL
M
RD
DR
ER
EO
DR
RO
G
GE
7
MO
N
SO N M ILL RD
ER
LD
DR
LER
MIL
D
F
(
!
RD
T
O
ON
RI V
ED
ILS
D
YR
DA
LE
S
Anderson's Mill
ER
HIG HWAY 41
W
R
ER
RI
CE
GH PL
AY
R
EDINBUR
R
R
SOR
OD
R IE
MA
E NT
LU R
D
TA
R
BEE
MCA
TWIN LAKES DR
D
(
!!
(
Legend
Roads
1
(
!
Major Streams
HistoricDistricts
Minor Streams
Conserved Land
Major Lakes
0.5
0
1
¤
HistoricPoints
2
High : 45
Low : 1
3
4
Miles
21
Ferguson Creek and North Tyger River CFA
The Ferguson Creek and North Tyger River CFA is bisected by both Interstate 26 and the North Tyger River and
enriched by the South Tyger River, Ferguson Creek and its tributary Little Ferguson Creek, and Wards Creek.
Ferguson Creek is a fourth order tributary of the South Tyger River. Little Ferguson Creek is spring-fed and is one
of the four Spartanburg County creeks featured in the SC Sierra Club’s most recent Special Places II Identification
Project (2002). The North Tyger River is shallow and
meandering with numerous sandy shoals, including Ott’s
Shoals. As with all of the CFA’s, the ecosystems supported
by the rivers and streams result in this area’s high score for
resource co-occurrence – where the watershed is relatively
undeveloped and the water is free-flowing, there is generally
rich biodiversity.
The dominant important land covers here are mesic
deciduous forest (37%) and bottomland/floodplain forest
(8%). Mesic forests are characterized by moderately moist
soils supporting hardwoods. This CFA is home to tulip
poplars, beech, water oak, red maple, ironwood, white oak,
hickory, walnut, and American holly. The bottomland/
Ferguson Creek
floodplain forests include species such as sweetgum,
river birch, oaks and elms. This CFA has the highest
percentage of floodplain forest of the six CFA’s. Other
land covers include cultivated land (13%) and dry scrub
(14%). This CFA does not contain any known endangered
plant species of national concern. It is home, however, to
a species of high state concern, the Hackelia virginiana
(Virginia stickseed).
Of the six CFA’s, this one faces the highest likelihood
of large-scale negative environmental impact. In 2008,
the Woodruff-Roebuck Water District filed a permit
application to dam Ferguson Creek just west of Oakview
Farms Road in order to flood 394 acres for a reservoir.
These 394 acres represent 33% of the total bottomland/
22
Flemish bond masonry and steep gambrel roof
at The Price House
floodplain forest in the CFA. It is likely that if this project goes forward, this CFA will no longer meet focus area
criteria – this Special Place will be drastically diminished. In addition to flooding forests and wetlands, the flowing
water and wetlands below the dam will be heavily impacted as it will no longer be a free-flowing stream – flows
will be determined by dam release.
A proposed intake on the South
Tyger River will also affect the
biodiversity of that water body by
lowering water levels.
Historical and cultural resources in
the area include one of Spartanburg
County’s most prized sites, the Price
House. This structure and its 94
acres are owned by the Spartanburg
County Historical Association, with
a conservation easement held by
SPACE. The house is just south of
the proposed dam and the property is
bordered by the section of Ferguson
Creek downstream of the dam. The
Price House (and site of Price’s Post
Office) was listed on the National
Register of Historic Places in 1969.
The house is architecturally unusual
Sandy shoals in the North Tyger River
for the area, with a steep Dutch
gambrel roof and Flemish bond bricks that were made on site. The house was built in 1795 by Thomas Price,
who operated a store, a post office, a tavern, and an overnight stop for travellers, in addition to the working farm
(originally 2000 acres). (SCDAH6 2009).
Further north in the CFA is the site of Fredonia, a home built by Thomas Moore in 1786, which burned in
1977. Moore served as a soldier in the Revolutionary War and a brigadier general during the War of 1812. His
descendent Andrew Moore, who also lived in the home, was the first known doctor in the region. The Moore
family also built Walnut Grove Plantation, another site owned by the Spartanburg County Historical Association,
that sits just outside this CFA. These sites indicate that the Ferguson Creek and North Tyger River CFA was
extremely important in the early settlement of Spartanburg County.
23
RD
SO
LA
ND
BY
DG
MIMOSA LAKE RD
RIV
AR
K
C
IGH
WA
Y1
O
IR
SS H
IGH
WA
Y1
76
BY
PA
CT
PA
SS
KELLI
LAKE EDWIN JOHNSON
Golightly-Dean House
ALE
R
KE
R
PRIN
S
D
ER
I DG
H
UR
C
W
AY
21
5
TR
W
(
!
Zimmerman House
( !
(
(!
!
Calvary Episcopal Church Maurice Moore House
GR
T
U
AL
N
WE S
JE
R
TE
TE
R
Glenn Springs
YARD RD
R
RD
DR
D
TE
D
R
E
RD
AR
ULIN
L YN N
QU
PA
SE
D
S HILOH C H
HITE RD
MY W
TO M
VE
R
D
UN
N
Union
Count
y (SC)
IN
O RD R D
HI
GH
N
BR
M
G
F
LE
G
CO
W
BA
FO
R
FL
E
RO
H
D
RD
O
ER
C
D
RIV
ER R
N RD
LA N
S
EST
IR
IL L C
FIN
D
YR
M
DR
G S RD
LA
AN
ER
M
RD
A
ER
FOSTER M ILL R
LL
GWE
R
FO R
FAIR
FO
C E RD
N
B
KIR
EM
K RD
ST
G RO
L
O
AT
EP
AR
N RD
D
NE STATIO
BSO
C
GI
D
ST
M
E
FT
RO
WE
ST
R
ZI
M
AD
C
D
FILL R
LAND
FINCH RD
ST O
N
MO
BIRK
D
LE
D
ZIMMERMAN'S POND
H
50
GH
HI
M RD
ILL FA
R
RD
KE
LA
N
REDH
ST
OL
R
RO
LB
IL
(
!
DR
Pacolet
R
6
D
H
D
17
N
OD
AY
W
RD
FAD
MC
REST C
R EEK
D
I A RWO
D
JO H
BR
Central Pacolet
NS
T
GH
NN
LIG
O
W MA I N S T
Z CT
S PI N E
ST
HI
IN
G
N
T
R
DE N
ST
NE
R
D
OU
AC
IN
O
EL
LR
R
AR
WER
T
NH
Y
DR
E
EW
G O LD M I
RD
E
D
G
RI
E
PE C RO
RS FT
C
HI
NG I R
ST
AT
CH D
R
RE
MO
EL
D
ET
Y
TR
ST
ON
W HI T E S T
HE
ST
OR
PI
NE
R
W
CA
FAIRFO
UT
HP
HILLTOP RD IR
DA
LN
NT
SO
FR
CL
UB
N
IO
AR
R C L AY TON RD
P
E
M
RD
ID
MA
Spartanburg
S
R
M U PH
D
Cedar Spring SchoolWalker Hall
(
(!
!
(
!
(Cedar Spring
!
Site of Battle of Cedar Spring
Croft and West Springs CFA
(
!
S U L PH U R
S P R IN GS RD
D
(
!
AN
O
N
K RD
EB
NT L
D
1
Major Streams
HistoricDistricts
Minor Streams
Conserved Land
Major Lakes
0.5
0
1
2
HIG
HW
A
Y
High : 45
Low : 1
3
4
Miles
24
RD
E
LL
XX
XX
RI
S
BR O W
VA
HistoricPoints
XX
XX
M OR
D
NS
Legend
(
!
XX
XX
M OU
REE
HC
F
RD R
R
LDS
OF
QUINN RD
Roads
H RD
OC
15
W
INS
R
HUGH LN
O
EV
H
TAIN RD
Y2
D
(
!
AC
IE
OSH
GWIN
N
RD
DU
MI L L
TC
RD
RD
CO
D M O UN
Camp Hill
XXXX
RD
OC K
GE
AY 56
HIGHW
S
A
P
OM
O
ST
K
RD
ST A
BI
SH
IC
GO
RD
TT
NE
BU
R
RD
BL
AC
K
RR
DE
RD
WOFFOR
R
CI
P
IS
D
CR M I L L E R TO W N R
SAYRE RD
T
ES
W
ID
TH
O
CO
R
PE
ATCHLEY
DL
R
RD
D
Y RD
R
WALK
ER
H
RD
RP
ER
D
MU
K NE
P IN C
R
D
RD
ER RD
UMBERG
¤
Croft and West Springs CFA
The Croft Conservation Focus Area is the largest identified by the Special Places Inventory, primarily due to the
presence of Croft State Park. Being the largest contiguous area of conservation in the county, Croft State Park
has served many purposes in its nearly 70 year history. In 1940, the 16,000 acre area was designated by the War
Department as grounds for training, firing and bombing impact (SC History Net 2008). It was actively used
by the army until 1946 and saw over 65,000
troops move through it each year. By 1947 the
entire site was “declared surplus by the War
Assets Administration” and 7,088 acres were
transferred to the South Carolina Commission
of Forestry as the basis for the Croft State Park
(SC History Net 2008).
The Croft CFA also houses other important
historical sites. The Golightly-Dean House
is near Fairforest Creek. Built in the 1840’s,
this brick vernacular house has been well kept
and is easily viewable from Highway 56 (Jones
1975). Parts of the house may be dated prior
to 1784, and as a whole, the house represents
some unusual architectural characteristics for
the period (SCDAH2 2009).
Camp Hill
Camp Hill also falls inside the boundary of
the Croft CFA in the distinct area just southeast of Glenn Springs. Built in 1836, this impressive historic site
boasts an exquisite boxwood garden that complements the two-winged Greek Revival style house (Jones 1975).
The privately owned home is named
Camp Hill after its earlier use as a
hilltop campsite for Tories during the
Revolutionary War before the Battle
of Kings Mountain (SCDAH1 2009). It
is located on Highway 215 only a few
miles from the Union County line.
Such a large landmass as the Croft
Conservation Focus Area is notable
for its diversity of land covers which
exemplify and typify the Carolina
Piedmont. Rare and endangered plant
species include Cypripedium parviflorum
var. pubescens (greater yellow lady’s
slipper) and Juniperus communis
(common juniper). The 27-Class Land
Cover illustrates that the area is about
44% mesic deciduous forest and 19%
closed canopy evergreen forest. These
Small waterfall on Buffalo Creek
25
numbers reflect an overwhelmingly forested
land mass. Comprised of tulip poplar, northern
red oak, beech, magnolia, basswood, buckeye,
water oak, pines, cedars, hemlocks, and
evergreen oaks, the forests of this region are
dominated by the species we come to think of
when we envision a piedmont forest (SCDNR
2001). In older stands, the understory is lush in
the spring and summer months with a variety
of ferns, mosses, grasses, sedges and rushes.
Mid-succession forests often have buckeyes,
dogwoods and saplings of the upper canopy
species.
This area has many spring-fed streams that
are subject to drought pressures more so than
the higher level stream systems further west
Beaver pond on Fairforest Creek near the Union County line.
in the county. Near the Union County border,
Fairforest Creek hosts a large beaver pond
that functions as a natural water filtration facility, removing sediment, nitrogen and phosphorous from one of
Spartanburg County’s most heavily impacted water bodies. Fairforest Creek is one of two creeks that receive
a significant amount of the City of Spartanburg’s stormwater runoff. This beaver pond supports a variety of
amphibians and waterfowl, including osprey.
Beech tree stand
26
K RD
D
HR
W A Y 215
XX
XX
REE
O
KE RD
RD R
D
B
BRO W
G
Q
HI
GH
EA
U
PI
I N N RD
HIEL DS R
AL
NU
HINES DR
Camp Hill
F
N MIL
D
LE R D
NS
VA
LL
RD
IS
R
RD
T
TR
F IE L
D
D
D
D
RR
GE
T
AR
HC
R
ON
KE
B AG
T
CA
D
SR
R
BA N
H
EV
(
!
C
XX
XX
LE
RS
SO
TU
MO
T
IN
SR
D
Aaron Smith House
Williams Place
UN
MA
EL
RR
L
(
!
MO
HA
N RD A
L
XX
XX
EY
L RD
(
!
(
!
XXXX
IR
G WIN
TG
T
PE
C
TIT
CO
OS
VE R
D
RD
OF
RO
RD
RD
W
(
!
OC K
E
AG
HUGH LN
D
R
AY 56
HIGHW
P
W
D
RI D
LE
O
RD
BI
SH
ST
S
A
BL
AC
K
SAYRE RD
ST
HC
RD
R
PE
TC
O
CO
H
AC
XXXX
ET T
LN
OM
H
H
AT C
A NN
TH
SARA
D
GO
M I L L E R TO W N R
RD
OC
CROSS CREEK LN
HNS
O N RD
DU
JO
Tyger River CFA
XXXX
HE
(
!
RD
ER
(
!
RD
R
FA
RM
SHA
W
RD
E
YD
O
O RD
RE
MB
FL
NF
LA
D
TUC K E R R D
B IL LI
RD
RD
N
T
AR
DG
PR
IS
O
W
TE
D
E RD
TOA
LR
D
D
OL
EC
PEL
RD
(
!
GR
R
RIVE
AC
HA
RO P E
R OC
S
WO
ER
AN
RD R
FF O
D
D
I DG
OS
RR
KY R
CR
R
TYGE
(
!
Mt Pleasant Tavern
CH O R
RD
Union
Coun
ty (SC
)
LS
HI
L
BR
I
S
N
GR
DG
E
PA
IN
SO F
R
D
ST
AR
(
!
O
ZE
R
RD
EB
N ES RD
CK
LA
BUNCO M
RD
R
PA
MR
HA
ST
BE
CK
RD
IN
HR
D
RD
NC
AN
KL
BR A
FR
IRY
P
M
O
C
T
26
Webb House
UNION HWY
CA
T
X
TE
TA
D
W
IL
D
RD
(
!
Legend
Roads
1
(
!
HistoricPoints
Major Streams
HistoricDistricts
Minor Streams
Conserved Land
Major Lakes
0.5
0
1
2
High : 45
Low : 1
3
4
Miles
27
XX X
S
ER
RN
FA
BU
T
¤
XX
XX
IN
RD
INT
RI DGE R
D
RO
B
G
IN
SO
RY
N
WN
DA
O
BR
92
RR
NE
AY
W
M
SU
GH
HI
RD
LANCELOT LN
LU
RD
P
D RD
O
RD
AM
D
AR
NE
BO
R
L
IL
EN
RI
O
R
WA
TS
ON
D
RD
D
LIBERT
Y RI
AD
D
XX
XX
Tyger River CFA
The Tyger River is the largest river system running through Spartanburg County (it traverses two of our CFA’s).
This CFA is situated on the Tyger River below the confluence of the Middle Tyger River and the South Tyger
River. Throughout Spartanburg’s history, the Tyger River has played an important role in providing hydroelectric
energy to several textile mills and other industrial sites in the past and present. Furthermore, the water offers
ample recreational opportunities and has
helped the ecosystem around it flourish
with plant and animal life.
Most of the environment around the Tyger
River consists of dense wooded areas
flourishing with pines, cedars, hemlocks,
and other evergreen trees. The majority of
these areas are closed canopy evergreen
forest (35%), though there are scattered
open areas that contain fallen trees, cutover
forests, hedgerows, and various brushy floor
covering. The area has a high population
of birds, including blue herons and several
species of waterfowl. The diverse plant
life even includes the rare plant species
Rhododendron eastmanii (Santee azalea).
The land surrounding the Tyger River in the
The Tyger River
southern end of the county is rich in history
as well. Many historical homes, farm sites, mills and factories are located around the river, given its abundance in
natural resources. Among these sites, the Williams’ Place, Weaver’s Cotton Factory, and Hill’s Factory stand out
as places with great historical significance.
The Williams’ Place is a farmstead located on
Cane Creek, a tributary of the Tyger River. The
land consists of eleven log buildings, the earliest
of which may have been constructed as early as
1777. The majority of the buildings were built
in the early and mid 1800s, and the property was
named for owner John Williams (SCDAH72009).
The land consists of 83 acres, including a farm
pond and ample fields for cultivation. The buildings
are some of the best examples of v-notch, openlog construction in the nation, and the largest such
collection in the Southeast (Racine 1999).
Open log construction at The Williams Place
Weaver’s Cotton Factory was built around 1816
on the Tyger River, east of Enoree. Three brothers
built the factory: Philip, Lindsay, and Wilbur Weaver. The brothers began with 60 acres of land and two buildings
purchased with a loan from Wofford College founder Benjamin Wofford. Both original buildings burned down,
28
and the factory is now also known as the “Burnt
Factory” (Hub City Writers Project 2002).
Hill’s Factory was built in 1819 as an upstream
competitor to Weaver’s Cotton Factory. Brothers
Leonard and George Hill started the factory. The
cotton mill was largely successful and served as
an attraction to locals and visitors to Spartanburg
County in the 1800s, though it was twice destroyed
by fires (Hub City Writers Project 2002). No
remnants of the factory exist today, but the site can
be seen to the east of the bridge over the Tyger River
shoals on Old Hill Bridge Road.
Tributary of the Tyger River
29
B
LS
H
SS
AC
EC
WO
OR
RD R
FFO
D
RD
D
ON
WA
TS
RID G
PAS O
E
FI N
RH
PA
R
AM
BO
RD
P
IN
I
D
RD
RD
IRY
HR
BI
N
O
SO
RY
N
P
NC
RN
RO
CT
BU
FA
Webb House
26
XXX
X
T
(
!
FU
RID
LL
CH
D
HO
PE
UG
YA R B
OR O
YARBOROUGH RD
N
EW
R
RD
IVE
UR
XR
CH
CO
R RD
ER
ORT
RE
P
AIR
RD
O
EN
RD
E
GE
XX
XX
Union
Coun
HR
ty (SC
D
)
E
TAT
XX
XX
Y 92
HWA
S
ER
HIG
INT
X
RD
RD
G
IN
ER
WN
MN
RD
DA
O
BR
SU
D
BR A
M
LU
KL
DR
D
RD
T
D
AR
ILL
RD
N E S RD
LANCELOT LN
RD
James Nesbitt House
AR
ZE
R
BE
AM
EN
ST
R
ST
O
AN
OL
RD
C
ES
S
ST
R
KE
R
D
R
US E
NE
FR
DR
OC
L IBER TY
D
EN
O
R
P A RK R
D
YR
RI
AD
D
CR
LE
RE
OO
M
R
PA
XX
X
(
!
RD
AN
CH
BUN CO M
BA L L
RR
UA
HO
CE
(
!
RD
GR
RA M P
OL
D
RD
NE
TT
BA
R
PEL
D
HOALS R
D
HA
RR
NT S
IL
RD
MOU
D
IER
RA
M
ER
R
RIVE
CR
O
D
ER
DG
KQ
C HA R
RD
XXXX
I DG
RO PE
RD
JONES
E K RD
T
ON
FR
1
(
!
ON
(
!
D
NR
Hillsville
S
AR
PE
R
Mt Pleasant Tavern
I
KY R
HW
22
RD
(
!
RE
HANNA C
AY
EY
OLD
H IG
RD
OW
BR
HI
G
RD
RO C
EK
T
AR
Site of Crowe's Post Office
Nimrod Holcombe House
HWAY 1 46
RAMP
T WO MILE C RE
W
TE
R
TYGE
D
YR
S
GE
D
KI
LG
E RD
OR
US
R
CI
C
E
AS
(
!
M LEY RD
C HU
HO
I
IC E
BR
N
O
E
PR
RM
HA
RD
AIK
EN
RD
Enoree CFA
MP
RA
Yarborough House
Bobo House
(
!
(
A!
VING
ER R
D
XX
XX
1
HistoricPoints
Major Streams
HistoricDistricts
Minor Streams
Conserved Land
Major Lakes
0.5
0
1
2
EF
AL L
S
(
!
RD
HIGHWAY 56
HO
Site of Musgrove House
(
( !
!
Site of Musgrove Mill
INTERSTAT
XX
XX
Legend
(
!
S
XX
XX
Laurens County (SC)
Roads
R
SE
E 26
UNION HWY
H
O
High : 45
Low : 1
3
4
Miles
30
¤
Enoree CFA
The Enoree River has long served Spartanburg County as a source of hydropower, biodiversity and, of course, water.
Humans have been intimately connected with the river for centuries. Indeed the name “Enoree River” is thought
to be derived from the Cherokee
“River of Muskedines” (USGS
2009). Europeans have lived
along this major water body since
before the Revolution. Later,
it was a source of hydropower
during the milling years of the
South in the late 18th and early
19th century (CSPH 2009).
This CFA is located at the
southern tip of Spartanburg
County and contains several
large tract properties (over 200
acres). It is also proximate to the
Musgrove Mill State Park (on
the Spartanburg-Laurens County
line). The area is comprised
of mostly mesic deciduous
forest (38%) and closed canopy
evergreen forest (25%). Tree
Rock shoals on the Enoree River
cover species include American
holly, beech, red oak, red cedar and sycamore specimens. The understory is dominated by sourwood, dogwood
and ground cover includes a myriad of ferns
and grasses. Cultivated land (10%) is also
prevalent in the Enoree River CFA and these
areas include agricultural fields, lawns and
woodlands with very sparse canopies.
Many of the lands in this particular CFA
are adjacent to the Enoree River. Shoaly
and broad, the Enoree offers prime habitat
for many animals, including birds, reptiles,
amphibians and mammals. Much of the area
around the river scored in the top 25% of
valuable habitat for these animals according
to the SCDNR species richness data. The
northeastern portion of the CFA is dominated
by lands supporting Cedar Shoals Creek and
its tributaries. Cedar Shoals Creek eventually
flows into the Enoree River at the Musgrove
Mill State Historic Site.
31
The only documented historical
resource within the CFA is the
Yarborough House, a Greek Revival
home built in the early 20th century on
the Yarborough plantation property.
Just outside the CFA, however, is the
site of the Battle of Musgrove Mill
fought on April 19, 1780, when a
significantly outnumbered group of
Patriots defeated a band of Loyalists
and provincial regulars (SCDPRT
2009). This was one of several
pivotal battles fought in Spartanburg
County that demonstrated that the
South Carolina Upcountry could not
be held by the British.
The Yarborough House
32
Part V: Data Development
Land Cover
The Land Cover data set was derived from the South Carolina 27-Class Land Cover raster file which is available
through the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and published by the South Carolina Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USGS Biological Resources Division. A product of the SCDNR Gap Analysis
Project, it is a derivation of data from 1991 through 1993 satellite imagery, which was surveyed between 1999
and 2001. For complete metadata, visit www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/mdataveg.html.
The 27 classes in this data set correspond to different types of land cover. These are specified by such categories
as “Fresh Water,” “Cultivated Land,” “Grassland/Pasture,” etc. In order to index (i.e., to determine a value for)
these distinct classes, Upstate Forever consulted two local biologists, Dr. Douglas Rayner and Dr. Bob Powell. With their help, an appropriate weighting system was devised for the 27 classes. Considering that this is a South
Carolina statewide data set, and not all classes occur in Spartanburg County (for example, there is no occurrence
of “Pocosin” in the Upstate), not all classes were scored by the experts. Others were omitted because they did
not afford notably valuable habitat or biodiversity (for example, “Urban Development” was not scored). For an
aggregate of the information collected from the two biologists, see Table 1 in the appendix. After this information
was gathered, the respective scores from the two biologists were averaged (null values were excluded). These
data were then joined with the South Carolina 27-Class Land Cover layer. It was resampled to hold a cell size of
10 meters (for consistency between all layers used in this model) and reclassified based on the indexed value. The
resulting final layer was named “LANDCOVER,” and was ready to be included in the model.
Species Richness
The Species Richness layer was perhaps the simplest layer to include in the Special Places Inventory Resource
Co-occurrence Model. This data set was originally indexed by the SCDNR Gap Analysis Project and simply
reclassified to be included in this study. All Corresponding information and metadata for the original Predicted
Species Richness raster file can be accessed at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/mapping.html. In order to plug
these data into the SPI model, it was simply resampled at a 10 meter cell size (all raster files in this model can be
assumed to be created at or resampled to 10 meter cells) and reclassified using Jenks Natural Breaks calculation
for 10 classes. It was renamed “SPECIESRICHNESS” and placed into the model.
Streams
Water is the most essential element of life. Thus, Spartanburg County’s rivers and streams were carefully evaluated in
the study. The data started with the Stream Centerline file available from the Spartanburg County GIS Department. After a simple dissolve function was executed (to smooth the vector), a Euclidean distance calculation was carried
out to create a raster layer with 10 meter cells. The maximum distance from the stream was set to 500 feet, broken
up into 50 feet increments. The resulting layer illustrated a buffer of 500 feet broken up into 10 classes where
the class closest to the stream (zero to 50 feet) held the highest index value (10) and the furthest class from the
stream (450 to 500 feet) held the lowest value (1) with the rest of the included classes representing a gradient of
the remaining distinct values. The “no data” areas of the file (greater than 500 feet away from streams) were given
a value of 0. The raster file was renamed “STREAMS” and was ready to be included in the co-occurrence model.
33
Rare Plants
Plants verging on the edge of extinction or those species that are held in a position of concern are obviously worth
protecting. Once a species is extinct, it is gone forever. With this notion, including rare plant data in the Special Places
Inventory became a priority item. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources keeps this data classified
due to the sensitive nature of the plants. For this reason Upstate Forever is not at liberty to publish this data. We were,
however, granted access to the data for inclusion in this study. Creating this raster data set proved to be a challenge. In the case that this model is to be applied to other counties, the process for indexing this file is discussed here.
First, a spreadsheet (RAREPLANTSDATA) was created from a report of the original file from SCDNR. The
fields “SPI_GRANK” “SPI_SRANK” “SPI_AREA” “SPI_LDATE” and “SPI_INDEX” were then created. The
“SPI_GRANK” and “SPI_SRANK” are simply the state and global rankings (range: 1 to 5) of each rare plant that
occurs in Spartanburg County. The “SPI_AREA” is a score of 1-3 given to each record of occurrence as an inverse
relationship to the size of the polygon. This is due to the smaller polygons being more spatially specific records of
occurrence of rare plant species, while larger polygons are less specific (as per Julie Hollings at SCDNR). In this
case, weight is given to specificity. The “SPI_LDATE” is a score given to each occurrence based upon the last
time it was identified. The standard deviation of the years the records of occurrence were made was calculated and
used to produce nine classes of years (approximately 13 year intervals). More recent observations were weighted
more heavily than older observations. To create the “SPI_INDEX” the following formula was used based on its
ability to produce and index with a range of 5 to 16 for each rare plant occurrence:
SPI_INDEX = (SPI_LDATE)/3 + (SPI_AREA)/2 + 1.5(5 – (SPI_SRANK)) + (5 – (SPI_GRANK))
This formula weights the State Rank the most, followed in priority by its Global Rank, the specificity of its
occurrence, and the date of record. The table was then simplified to include only the “FID” of the original layer
and the corresponding “SPI_INDEX” under the name “RAREPLANTS.” After joining the new table and the
original file based on the “FID,” the function “single-part to multi-part” was performed to create separate entities
where each polygon overlapped (MULTIRAREPLANTS). A report (MULTITORASTER) of the new layer was
created, and the sums of the “SPI_INDEX” of each resultant polygon were recorded under a new field “SPI_
RASTINDEX” which corresponded with one of the feature IDs from each identical polygon and a new field
“SPIFID”. After joining the new MULTITORASTER table to the MULTIRAREPLANTS layer, the relevant
polygon were reduced to 89 from 160, removing overlap of the resultant multipart polygons. The resulting layer
was then unioned to the Spartanburg County Boundary file to fill in the empty spaces and the resultant layer was
converted to a raster layer (10x10 cells), reclassified using “Jenks” distribution in 10 classes and was saved as
RAREPLANTS. Essentially, this process allowed multiple overlapping, unindexed polygons with varying sizes
to be visualized and included in the model as a single indexed raster. See Table 2 in the appendix for the first
spreadsheet mentioned (RAREPLANTSDATA), and Table 3 for the “MULTIRAREPLANTS” report.
Population Density
This file originated from the ESRI Population Centroid data set. The purpose of including population density in
the study stems from a similar step in the New Hampshire model. The number of humans per square mile can
be used as a direct proxy for determining how pristine an area is. Lower human population typically yields a
more pristine landscape. In order to replicate the classifications of human population density seen in the New
Hampshire study, the ESRI data was resampled to 10 meter cells and then reclassified using 25 classes and an
Inverse Quantile distribution calculation. As per the NH model, the top 4.3% least populated classes were given
34
an index score of one through 10. The remaining 15 classes were given an index score of 0. The resulting raster
file was renamed “POPDENSITY” and was included in the model.
Historic Sites
The Historic Sites information is an overlay rather than a component model, and sites were researched, documented
and mapped but they were not indexed. Developing the historic data used in this layer proved to be challenging.
After speaking with local historians and archivists, Upstate Forever teamed up briefly with another group working
on a similar endeavor – The Spartanburg County Tourism Action Planning Committee. Upstate Forever’s GIS
staff worked closely with Summer Settle and Alissa Ritzo, who have been involved with the mapping of historic
sites for the Plan. For two weeks data was shared, spatially referenced and verified. Upstate Forever has put
together a reasonably conclusive data layer which will prove to be a great start for inventorying the historic sites
in the county. Over 160 were verified, with more to be included on the Tourism Action Plan. For a list of these
sites, see Table 6 (Historic Sites).
Identifying Conservation Focus Areas
The primary purpose of the Special Places Inventory is to identify the areas in the County of Spartanburg in which
to focus conservation efforts. The Nature Conservancy provided a great example of the type of modeling required
for conservation suitability modeling using a resource co-occurrence model. The results of the model identify
Conservation Focus Areas. These areas are comprised of two parts: 1) high scoring sites based upon the cooccurrence of the indexed data layers and 2) the supporting landscapes which help to maintain the characteristics
of these specific sites.
Using a raster calculator in the GIS environment, the layers “RAREPLANTS,” “POPDENSITY,” “LANDCOVER,”
“SPECIESRICHNESS,” and “STREAMS” were essentially added together to produce a new raster file that
contained the respective sum values of each cell of the aforementioned raster layers, or in other words the score
resulting from the co-occurrence of many indexed layers. This model produced a scale range of 1 to 45, with
lower numbers representing less co-occurence and higher numbers representing more co-occurence. Values of
39 and above represent the top 13% of the co-occurrence raster. This sample produced six distinct areas after a
dissolved buffer was placed around each point as a way to identify the landscape that supports each of the high
scoring points. Had the score of 38 been the cut-off, significantly larger sites would have been identified. In fact,
the land area highlighted by the lower score created conservation focus areas that were too large for the scope of
this study. As it is the purpose of the SPI to rapidly assess the county’s primary areas that deserve conservation
resources, larger areas do not allow for the kind of attention to specific sites as prescribed by this study. This one
point difference in scores is the threshold between identifying priority investment areas for study and conservation
and those that represent generalized areas and haphazard conservation.
35
Appendix
Table 1: The 27 classes in this data set correspond to different types of land cover derived from the SCDNR GAP
27-Class Land Cover data set. Dr. Douglas Rayner and Dr. Bob Powell were consulted to find an appropriate
weighting scale for each of the classes. This table illustrates the final index based upon an average of the indexes
each expert assigned.
Table 2: This table represents the raw data and index scores for each rare plant occurrence in Spartanburg County.
The “SPI_Index” field is a result of the following equation: SPI_INDEX = (SPI_LDATE)/3 + (SPI_AREA)/2 +
1.5(5 – (SPI_SRANK)) + (5 – (SPI_GRANK)).
Table 3: This table illustrates the data used to create the Rare Plants raster file. Each FID represents an occurrence
of a specific rare plant. The SPIFID is a summation of the overlapping features defined by the FID.
Table 4: This is a matrix of all the Conservation Focus areas with acreage, land covers, historic sites, rare plants
and co-occurrence points.
Table 5: This table utilizes data from Table 4 (acreage, land covers and co-occurrence points) to compare top rated
vegetative cover points and percentages.
Map - Historic Sites (addendum): This map provides a detailed look at the historic sites spacially referenced
(mapped) within the City of Spartanburg and within the town of Reidville.
Table 6: This table presents the details of the 160 historic sites referenced in this model (including GPS coordinates
and verification sources).
Map - Conservation Focus Areas and Projected Growth by 2030: This map overlays the layer representing the
Growth Study Projection for Spartanburg County for 2030 (at a 5:1 land conversion ratio) onto the Co-occurence
Raster and Conservation Focus Areas Map (Map 2, p. 9). The map shows how developed land (the red area)
will encroach upon most of the county by the year 2030 if this development pattern continues. This historicallyderived ratio means that a 10% increase in population yields a 50% increase in developed land. At particular risk
are the Landrum and Campobello, North of Pacolet, and Ferguson Creek and North Tyger CFA’s.
36
Table 1: Aggregate of 27-Class Land Cover Scores from Powell/Rayner
Covercode CoverName SPI_Index
0
0
1
Fresh Water
2
Marine Water
3
Marsh/emergent wetland
4
Pocosin
6
Swamp
7
Bottomland/floodplain forest
8
Wet soil
9
Wet scrub/shrub thicket
10
Dry scrub/shrub thicket
11
Sandy bare soil
12
Open canopy/recently cleared forest
13
Rock outcrop
14
Aquatic vegetation
15
Closed canopy evergreen forest/woodland
16
Needle-leaved evergreen mixed forest/woodland
17
Pine woodland
18
Dry deciduous forest/woodland
19
Mesic deciduous forest/woodland
20
Dry mixed forest/woodland
21
Mesic mixed forest/woodland
22
Grassland/pasture
23
Cultivated land
24
Urban development
25
Urban residential
26
Wet evergreen
27
Maritime forest
37
0
0
0
0
9
9
0
0
0
0
4
10
9
7
8
7
9
10
8
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 2: RAREPLANTSDATA: Spreadsheet with SRANK GRANK SPI DATES and SPI INDEX
NAME
Hexastylis naniflora
Minuartia uniflora
Lonicera flava
Lonicera flava
Isoetes piedmontana
Minuartia uniflora
Rhododendron eastmanii
Monotropsis odorata
Juniperus communis
Minuartia uniflora
Aconitum uncinatum
Melanthium virginicum
Minuartia uniflora
Minuartia uniflora
Fothergilla major
Monadnock
Solidago bicolor
Isoetes piedmontana
Lygopodium palmatum
Minuartia uniflora
Juglans cinerea
Outcrop
Aconitum uncinatum
SPI_GRANK SPI_SRANK SPI_AREA SPI_FIRSTDATE SPI_FDATE SPI_LASTDATE SPI_LDATE SPI_INDEX
3
3
4
3
3
5
5
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
3
4
4
3
null
3
3
3
5
3
4
4
4
null
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
null
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
null
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
null
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
1981
1991
1980
1990
1991
1970
1972
1976
1991
1970
2002
1998
1910
1998
1991
2001
1972
1980
1997
1998
1991
1970
1972
1991
1970
1984
1980
1980
1970
1988
1991
1991
1989
1970
1980
1978
1980
1972
1974
1994
1984
1991
1970
38
7
8
7
8
8
6
6
7
8
6
9
8
1
8
8
8
6
7
8
8
8
6
6
8
6
7
7
7
6
7
8
8
8
6
7
7
7
6
6
8
7
8
6
1991
1991
1980
1991
1991
1970
1972
1976
1991
1970
2002
1998
1910
1998
1991
2001
1972
1980
2001
1998
1991
1970
1972
1991
1991
1991
1980
1980
1970
1988
1991
1991
1991
1970
1980
1978
1980
1972
1974
1994
1984
1991
1970
8
8
7
8
8
6
6
7
8
6
9
8
1
8
8
8
6
7
8
8
8
6
6
8
8
8
7
7
6
7
8
8
8
6
7
7
7
6
6
8
7
8
6
8.67
8.67
7.33
9.17
8.67
8.00
7.50
9.83
9.17
7.50
13.50
9.17
7.33
9.17
9.17
9.17
3.50
7.33
9.17
9.17
9.17
8.50
8.00
8.67
9.17
9.17
7.33
7.83
9.50
3.83
8.67
9.17
9.17
7.50
10.33
7.33
7.33
7.50
3.50
9.17
8.83
8.67
9.00
Table 2: RAREPLANTSDATA: Spreadsheet with SRANK GRANK SPI DATES and SPI INDEX
CONTINUED
NAME
SPI_GRANK SPI_SRANK SPI_AREA SPI_FIRSTDATE SPI_FDATE SPI_LASTDATE SPI_LDATE SPI_INDEX
3
Cypripedium pubescens
5
3
3
3
Helianthus laevigatus
4
Circaea lutetiana ssp. Canadensis 5
3
3
3
Lonicera flava
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Lonicera flava
5
3
3
3
3
Gaultheria procumbens
5
Hackelia virginiana
5
Outcrop
null
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
null
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
1967
1997
1991
1989
1990
1988
1988
1991
1991
1991
1979
1991
1998
1998
2000
1991
1991
1997
1970
1990
1991
2001
1984
1970
1982
1980
39
6
8
8
8
8
7
7
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
7
6
7
7
1991
1997
1991
1991
1991
1988
1988
1991
1991
1991
1979
1991
2001
2001
2000
1991
1991
1997
1970
1991
1991
2001
1984
1970
1982
1980
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
7
6
7
7
8.67
6.67
9.17
9.17
9.17
8.83
6.83
8.67
8.67
9.17
8.33
8.67
9.17
9.17
9.17
8.67
9.17
9.17
7.50
9.17
12.50
9.17
8.33
6.50
9.33
3.83
Table 3:
Rare Plant Raster Data
SPI_FID
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
FID SPI_RASTINDEX
0
8.666667
1
7.333333
2
9.166667
3
9.166667
4
13.5
5
7.333333
6
9.166667
7
3.5
8
9.166667
9
11
10
7.333333
11
5
12
3.5
13
8.5
14
8
15
8.666667
16
9.166667
17
7.333333
18
7.833333
19
8
20
8.666667
21
9.166667
22
7.5
23
10.5
24
7.333333
25
16
26
9.166667
27
8.666667
28
6.666667
29
9.166667
30
9.166667
31
9.166667
32
8.833333
33
6.833333
34
9.166667
35
8.333333
36
9.166667
37
5.166667
38
9.166667
39
9.166667
40
9.166667
41
1.5
42
9.166667
43
8.333333
44
9.333333
45
5.166667
46
16
47
48
16
49
50
17.333333
51
52
14.333334
53
SPI_INDEX
SPI_FID FID SPI_RASTINDEX
8.666667
63
80
17.833334
7.333333
81
9.166667
64
82
17.833334
9.166667
83
13.5
65
84
13.666666
7.333333
85
9.166667
66
86
16
3.5
87
9.166667
67
88
17
11
89
7.333333
68
90
10.666666
5
91
3.5
69
92
12.666667
8.5
93
8
70
94
11.666667
8.666667
95
9.166667
71
96
17.833334
7.333333
97
7.833333
72
98
14.333334
8
99
8.666667
73
100 24.666667
9.166667
101
7.5
102
10.5
74
103 24.666667
7.333333
104
16
105
9.166667
75
106 24.666667
8.666667
107
6.666667
108
9.166667
76
109 34.166666
9.166667
110
9.166667
111
8.833333
77
112 15.499999
6.833333
113
9.166667
114
8.333333
78
115 20
9.166667
116
5.166667
117
9.166667
79
118 24.666667
9.166667
119
9.166667
120
1.5
80
121 24.666667
9.166667
122
8.333333
123
9.333333
81
124 25.166667
5.166667
125
8.666667
126
7.333333
82
127 20.666666
8.666667
128
7.333333
129
7.5
83
130 33.333334
9.833333
131
9.166667
132
5.166667
133
40
SPI_INDEX
9.166667
8.666667
9.166667
8.666667
5.333333
8.333333
8.5
7.5
9.5
7.5
5.333333
5.333333
7.5
5.166667
8.666667
3
8.666667
9.166667
5.166667
9.166667
8.666667
7.333333
8.666667
8.666667
7.333333
8.666667
8.666667
7.333333
8.666667
7.5
10.333333
16.333333
7.333333
3.333333
4.833333
7.333333
7.5
5.166667
7.333333
8.666667
8.666667
7.333333
8.666667
8.666667
7.333333
9.166667
8.666667
8.833333
5.333333
6.5
8.666667
7.333333
8.666667
8.666667
Table 3:
Rare Plant Raster Data
CONTINUED
SPI_FID FID SPI_RASTINDEX
SPI_INDEX
SPI_FID
50
54
10.666666
7.333333
84
55
3.333333
51
56
16.5
7.333333
57
9.166667
52
58
16.5
7.333333
85
59
9.166667
53
60
14.833333
7.333333
61
7.5
54 62
16
7.333333
86
63
8.666667
55
64
12.166666
7.333333
65
4.833333
56
66
16
7.333333
87
67
8.666667
57
68
16
7.333333
69
8.666667
58
70
16
7.333333
71
8.666667
88
59
72
16.5
7.333333
73
9.166667
60
74
16
7.333333
75
8.666667
61
76
17.833334
9.166667
89
77
8.666667
62
78
14.666666
7.333333
79
7.333333
41
FID
SPI_RASTINDEX
134
33.333334
135
136
137
138
31.833332
139
140
141
142
33.333334
143
144
145
146
36.666666
147
148
149
150
151
42.000001
152
153
154
155
156
38.833334
157
158
159
160
SPI_INDEX
8.666667
7.333333
8.666667
8.666667
7.333333
3.333333
16.333333
4.833333
7.333333
8.666667
8.666667
8.666667
8.666667
7.333333
8.833333
5.333333
6.5
8.666667
7.333333
8.666667
8.666667
8.666667
8
9.166667
7.5
9
5.166667
Table 4
42
Dry deciduous
forest/woodland
Mesic deciduous
forest/woodland
Top Rated Vegetative Cover Points and Percentages
Needle-leaved evergreen
mixed forest/woodland
0
0
0
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
281
3472
3753
3194
588
143
731
8.67%
5.32%
6.06%
1.70%
7.00%
5.68%
8.17%
3.13%
1.55%
2.61%
236
536
772
24
11
35
175
254
109
363
1.26%
0.81%
0.91%
0.15%
0.02%
0.05%
0.45%
1.35%
1.18%
1.30%
7729
30403
38132
4539
19830
24369
5232
7634
2914
10548
41.27%
45.70%
44.72%
27.49%
39.97%
36.85%
13.38%
40.67%
31.60%
37.68%
18726
66533
85259
16511
49617
66128
39095
18771
9221
27992
SPI Points
Rock outcrop
4.99%
7.46%
5.81%
5
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
1623
3540
5163
TABLE 5
Bottomland/floodplain
forest
45 Qty
937
688
1625
4.03%
3
12
15
0.00%
0.02%
0.02%
Total
44
0
0
0
1577
15.47%
5.74%
8.17%
0
14
14
%
SPI Index Rank: 10
43
0
0
0
0
2554
2846
5400
2.97%
8.31%
7.13%
Qty
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
556
5527
6083
%
SPI Index Rank: 9
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Qty
40
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
SPI Index Rank: 8
39
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Qty
87
3
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
SPI Index Rank: 10
Enoree Area
North of Enoree Area
Enoree River CFA (Total)
121
0
59
59
0
0
0
Qty
Tyger River Area South Section
21
917
938
0
193
193
%
SPI Index Rank: 9
Tyger River Area North Section
Tyger River Area Middle Section
Ferguson Creek & N Tyger (Total)
52
1678
1730
18361
South East of Glenn Springs
Croft and Surrounding Areas
Croft Area (Total)
29.81%
26080
32673
58753
474967
5473
22.80%
24.56%
23.77%
35.95%
0.64%
5945
8023
13968
170771
118
0.02%
0.00%
0.01%
0.56%
1.07%
4
1
5
2638
196
6.68%
4.05%
5.22%
5.42%
0.06%
1742
1322
3064
25748
11
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
2.94%
0
3
3
77
539
4.92%
3.83%
4.31%
6.50%
0
1282
1251
2533
30865
0
0
2
2
2
11
0
4
4
4
40
0
23
23
34
77
0
0
227 73
227 73
309 119
129
120
5
535 465
655 470
Total 6415 1103
123
North of Pacolet
South West of Landrum
North East of Landrum
Landrobello (Total)
indicates top score in a category
43
Table 5
TN
EY
Spartanburg
RD
PI
EY
N
RD
W
HI
Historic Sites (addendum)
W
HI
ST
TN
NE
H
AS
I
EV
LL
E
H
W
Y
Giles Cleveland House
Dr. James Bivings-Thomas A. Evins House
N
Fremont School
C
Site of White's Mill
H
U
R
C
H
ST
Wofford College
Wofford College
Converse College
Wallace DuPree House
Converse College
Magnolia Cemetary
E
M
AI
N
ST
Hotel Oregon
Alexander House
Palmetto Theater Site of Lucas House
Church of the Advent
Morgan Daniel Monument
Spartanburg
WM
A IN
W
OE
ZE
LL
B LV
MA
IN
Converse Heights
Site of Fretwell House
LAWSONS FORK CREEK
ST
Montgomery Walter Scott House
E HENRY ST
Site of John Earle Bomar House
W
John Gary Evans-Donald Russell House
Saint Paul's Church
Central Methodist Church
Cleveland Law Range
Cannon House
ST
D
Hampton Heights
Wright Mary H Elementary School
NE
ST
T
UN
CR
E
HS
ST
EK
IO
N
ST
American Legion Building
RC
RE
HU
RF
O
PI
SC
FA
I
S
1,700
850
0
1,700
3,400
5,100
6,800
Jammie Seay House
RE IDVILL E RD
Feet
Reidville
Bennett House
Reid House
Servant's Quarters to Reid House
Historic Reidville
Female Dormitory
William Cuttino Smith House
Site of Pearson House
Male Dormitory
Site of Female Academy Coggins House
Wood
House
Dr. Frank Leonard's Store
Leonard's Store
Leonard-Snow House
Reidville Presbyterian Church
Jonah Berry House
Powder Springs
700 350
0
700
1,400
2,100
2,800
Feet
Gaston House
Reidville
Legend
Historic Sites
Minor Stream
Major Streams
44
Lakes and Ponds
Lawson Revan, 2009.
¤
Historic Sites (addendum)
Historic Districts
Table 6: HISTORIC SITES
HISTORICSITES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
38
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
LAT
LONG
34.96029
-81.94
34.94598 -81.9324
34.96354 -81.9435
34.95136
-81.934
34.95684 -81.9188
34.94976 -81.9169
34.95092 -81.9242
34.95029 -81.9229
34.92987 -81.9419
34.95226 -81.9263
34.96034 -81.9093
34.94972 -81.9244
34.95804 -81.9367
34.95249 -81.9331
34.95481 -81.9383
34.95247 -81.9092
35.18695
-82.151
35.13199 -81.8101
35.12745 -82.2205
35.11478 -82.2252
35.13208 -82.0442
35.13363
-82.007
82.007
35.13387 -82.1596
35.1293 -82.1371
35.10228 -82.1385
35.12237 -81.9869
35.02613 -82.0845
35.01687 -82.0213
34.98301 -81.8233
34.97182 -82.1991
34.97415
-82.155
34.96886
-82.049
34.89939 -82.0573
34 89677 -82.0313
34.89677
-82 0313
34.88345 -82.0114
34.87843 -81.9948
34.89858 -81.9505
34.92181
-81.887
34.9096 -81.8822
34.90918 -81.8761
34.94155 -81.8452
34.94252 -81.8381
34.94944 -81.7888
34.86346 -82.1142
34.86289 -82.1095
34 85974 -82.1098
34.85974
82 1098
34.861 -82.1122
34.86082 -82.1147
34.86187 -82.1147
34.855 -82.1098
34.86032 -82.1101
34.86095 -82.1142
34.86037
-82.113
34.8605 -82.1079
34.86111
-82.107
34.8622 -82.1077
34.85756 -82.1145
34 86283 -82.1146
34.86283
82 1146
34.85995 -82.1149
34.86324 -82.1149
34.86161 -82.1091
34.86195
-82.114
34.86093 -82.1111
34.8603 -82.1099
34.86041 -82.1142
34.83776
-82.115
34.80783 -82.1292
34.84828 -82.0707
34.83565 -81.9813
34.82052 -81.9696
34.82671 -81.9613
34.86075 -81.9463
34.82316 -81.9395
34.87473 -81.8823
34.84903 -82.2322
34.85728
-82.227
34.78242 -82.0226
34.77608
-81.97
34.8211 -81.8335
34.81526 -81.8322
NAME
Dr. James Bivings-Thomas A. Evins House
Site of John Earle Bomar House
Giles Cleveland House
Cleveland Law Range
Converse College
Site of Fretwell House
Site of Lucas House
Victor Montgomery House
Jammie Seay House
Saint Paul's Church
Site of White's Mill
Church of the Advent
Wofford College
Central Methodist Church
Wallace DuPree House
John Gary Evans-Donald Russell House
Four Columns
Cowpens Battlefield
Earle House
Gowensville
New Prospect
Fingerville
Site of Ingleside
Redlands
McMillin House
Shiloh Church
Site of Joe Dodd House
Hurricane Shoals
Site of Wood's Fort
McMakin's Tavern
Site of Fort Prince
Fairmont
Nazareth Presbyterian Church
Anderson's Mill
Daniel House
Foster's Tavern
Cedar Spring School
Site of Battle of Cedar Spring
Site of Wofford's Iron Works
Glendale
Poole House
Reidville
Bennett House
Jonah Berry House
Coggins House
Site of Female Academy
Female Dormitory
Gaston House
Leonard's Store
Dr. Frank Leonard's Store
Leonard-Snow House
Site of Male Academy
Male Dormitory
Site of Pearson House
Powder Springs
Reid
R id House
H
Reidville Presbyterian Church
Servant's Quarters to Reid House
Old Parsonage for Sharon Methodist Church
William Cuttino Smith House
Leonard Wilson House
Leonard Wilson Store
Wood House
Agnew Leonard House
Hurricane Tavern
Holly Hill
Fredonia
Site of Ott's Shoals and Ott's Bridge
Walnut Grove Plantation
Smith's Tavern
Site of Batesville Mill
Pelham Mill
Price House
Glenn Springs
Zimmerman House
ALTNAME
FIRSTDATE
1854
c1800-50
Bon Haven OR John B. Cleveland House
c1870
1898-99
1889
Dexter E Converse House
1882
1878
Piedmont Club
c1890
c1770
1883
1812
1850's
1851-54
1837
Duncan Bishop William Wallace House
1885
1905
Earles's Fort
c1820
Jan 17 1781
Earlesdale
1871
pre1825
c1840
c1840-60
60
1871
1895
Late1800
1869
c1825-30
c1807
pre1825
Landrum-Jackson House
Stewart House
Bivings Cotton Mill
Nicholl's Fort OR Tanner's Mill
Bivingsville
c1810
pre1780
1846
1772
indeterminate
1825
c1837
c1807-1812
c1857-59
July 13 1780
1773
1836
Late1700
c1850
c1870
c1900
c1900
1858
1858
1860
1858
1905
1858
1857
1857
1870
1857
1891
c1860
c1870
c1880
c1860
Reidville Academy Faculty House
c1830
1811
1882
c1780
c1780
1765
1795
pre1765
c1840
1833
c1880
c1880
1795
1837
1852
Ann Neely House
Thomas Moore House
Philip Lester's
45
LIST1
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
J
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LIST2
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
VER
NOTES
G Fields
B Steinecke
G Fields
L Revan
L Revan
B SteineckeNo longer standing
B SteineckeNo longer standing
S Settle
L Revan Oldest house in City
T Fenner
L Revan Foundation forms clubhouse base
T Fenner
L Revan Main Building and 4 original houses
L Revan
G Fields
L Revan
G Fields
G Fields
B Steinecke
T Fenner Locate former country school
T Fenner
L Revan
Burned in 1987, Removed from Natl Reg
maybe map number: 1-27-00-021.00
NatlReg
S Settle
G Fields
Torn down in 1978
G Fields
NatlReg
G Fields
NatlReg
NatlReg
G Fields
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
G Fields
G Fields
L Revan
G Fields
G Fields
L Revan
L Revan
S Settle
Point at place of stone marker
Point at place of monument
Classic "Piedmont Farmhouse"
L Revan
G Fields
G Fields
G Fields
G Fields
L Revan Pointer is on property
L Revan
S Settle
Site; Fate Unknown
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
Modern structure in place
S Settle
S Settle
L Revan Site; Fate Unknown
S Settle
L Revan
S Robbins
S Robbins Torn Down
S Robbins Torn Down
S Settle
S Robbins
R bbi
Recently
R
tl moved
d (2009)
S Settle
S Robbins Will likely be moved in future (2009)
S Settle
S Settle
B Steinecke
S Settle
L Revan
S Settle
L Revan
S Settle
S Settle
House burned 1977
S Settle
L Revan
L Revan
S Settle
L Revan
S Robbins Mill Burned, Water wheel still existant
L Revan
L Revan
L Revan
B Steinecke
L Revan
Table 6: HISTORIC SITES, continued
HISTORICSITEScontinued
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
LAT
LONG
34.81586 -81.8307
34.81551 -81.8263
34.78931 -81.8157
34.73709 -82.0369
34.73844 -82.0436
34.75744 -81.9276
34.72998 -81.8967
34.73403 -81.8873
34.70278 -81.8408
34.76926 -81.8635
34.75228 -81.8413
34.66906 -82.0059
34.66837 -81.9705
34.65219 -81.9635
34.70664 -81.9536
34.70442 -81.9429
34.69885
-81.931
34.67937 -81.8113
34.64026 -81.8568
34.61785 -81.8958
34.61652 -81.8549
34.59302 -81.8559
81.8559
34.59324
-81.853
34.60485 -81.8502
34.95089 -81.9245
34.9336
-81.915
34.95724
-81.997
34.94251
35.02287
-81.8366
-82.0841
35.01448
34.73876
34 96031
34.96031
-81.803
-82.0403
-81.9427
81 9427
34.95307
34.9165
34.94735
34.94942
34.93936
34.92063
34.91972
-81.9353
-81.7569
-81.9161
-81.933
-82.0721
-81.7416
-81.7428
34.95028
34 77583
34.77583
-81.9297
-81.9699
81 9699
34.91001
34.75201
-81.8814
-81.8773
34.73922
34.93827
34.9091
34.94184
35.14177
34.9255
34.94256
35.13622
34.86612
34.86204
35.04796
34.94727
34.98344
34.95435
35.17723
34.86378
34.73742
34.84831
-82.0347
-81.9271
-81.8757
-81.8369
-82.1967
-81.8612
-81.8357
-81.9982
-82.0523
-82.1147
-81.9836
-81.9268
-81.8227
-81.9374
-82.1917
-82.1149
-82.0363
-82.2357
NAME
ALTNAME
Calvary Episcopal Church
Maurice Moore House
CedarGrove
Camp Hill
Westmoreland House
Woodruff's Tavern
Capt A B Woodruff House
Friendship
p Baptist
p
Church
Aaron Smith House
Longview
Hillsville
James Nesbitt House
Mountain Shoals Plantation
Site of Crowe's Post Office
Nimrod Holcombe House
Vandy Lanford House
Mt Pleasant Tavern
Hobby House
Webb House
Yarborough House
Bobo House
Site of Musgrove Mill
Gordon's
Gordon s Mill
Site of Musgrove House
Alexander House
Inn on Main
American Legion Building
Arcadia Mill Number 2
Archeological Site 38SP11
Bivings-Converse House
Bush House
Converse Heights Historic District
Cowpens Depot
First Presbyterian Church of Woodruff
Fremont School
Glenn Springs Historic District
Hampton Heights Historic District
Hotel Oregon
Marysville School
Montgomery Walter Scott House
Morgan Daniel Monument
New Hope Farm
Pacolet Mill Office
Pacolet Mills Cloth Room and Warehouse
Pacolet Mills Historic District
Palmetto Theater
Price's
P i ' Post
P t Office
Offi
Spartanburg Historic District
Walker Hall
Williams Place
Wofford College Historic District
Wright Mary H Elementary School
Cedar Spring
Glendale Mill
Gowen's Old Fort
Site of Battle of the Peach Tree
Site of Second Cedar Springs Battle
Twitchell House
Fingerville Mill
Area of first Southeastern US soil conservation
Historic Reidville
Boiling Springs
Cannon House
Magnolia Cemetary
Reid House Outbuildings
Harrison P Woodruff House
Bates House
46
FIRSTDATE
1897
1825
1836
c1840-50
c1859
1835
Oct 19 1780
1819
1816
1804
1868
1847
c1869
1823
Late1700
c1835
1809
Nov 20 1780
c1850-60
Early1900
1836
LIST1
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
LP Jones
pre1780 LP Jones
Aug 19 1780 LP Jones
1904 NatlReg
1936-37 NatlReg
1922-23 NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
N
NatlReg
tlR
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
NatlReg
G Fields
G Fields
G Fields
G Fields
G Fields
c1840-60 L Revan
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
c1830 S Settle
S Robbins
LIST2
NatlReg
NatlReg
G Fields
NatlReg
G Fields
P Racine
P Racine
VER
L Revan
S Settle
L Revan
S Settle
S Settle
G Fields
S Settle
L Revan
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
L Revan
NOTES
Home of Dr. M. Moore; moved house here
Probably Oldest in Woodruff
Now a parking lot
Stone Marker
Second earliest cotton factory in upstate
Earliest cotton factory in upstate
Restored 1989
Built by Dr. Benj. Kilgore
Remnants of planned industrial complex
Torn down in 1972
S Settle
L Revan
G Fields
L Revan
B Steinecke
S Settle
Built by AJ Gordon of Musgrove's Mill
G Fields
G Fields
G Fields
L Revan
L Revan
G Fields
Pacolet River Heritage Preserve
G Fields
L Revan
L Revan Polygon from palmettohistory.org
L Revan
L Revan
N Barrett
L Revan
L Revan
L Revan
L Revan
L Revan
G Fields
L Revan
G Fields Demolished
L Revan
R
L Revan
L Revan
L Revan
L Revan
G Fields
G Fields
G Fields
G Fields
G Fields
G Fields
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
S Settle
Site/Ruins; Burned
S Settle
S Settle
S Robbins
S Settle
S Robbins On Gvill Co Natl Reg
Conservation Focus Areas and
Projected Growth by 2030
NORTH PACOLET RIVER
MUNICIPAL RESERVIOR
LAKE BOWEN
LAKE BLALOCK
D LE
M ID
TYG
LAW
S ON
S FO
ER R
IV E R
JOR
DA
N
CR
EE
K
LAKE COOLEY
JORD
LYMAN LAKE
REEK
AN C
APALACHE LAKE
SO
UT
HT
RK C
REE
K
NO
RTH
T
YGE
RR
YGE
R
R IV
RE
ST
CR
E
ER
EK
R
RF
O
ST
R
CR
E
E
RIV
RE
REEK
RK C
T
LE
FA
I
S FO
S ON
LAW
CO
PA
IV E
FA
IRF
O
EK
SHOAL POND
SILVER LAKE
LAKE EDWIN JOHNSON
T
RTH
NO
R
ZIMMERMAN'S POND
IV E
R IV E
RR
H TY
GE R
E
YG
SOU
T
O R ES
T RIV
ER
R
BIG
FE
RG
U
LITTLE FE
SO
N
CR
E
RGUSON
CREEK
EK
FER
G
USO
NC
REE
K
TY
G
Legend
Developed Land by 2030 (5:1 ratio)
EN
O
Conserved Land
Enoree CFA
Landrum CFA
North Pacolet CFA
Tyger River CFA
47
0
1.25
2.5
5
7.5
10
Miles
E
RI
RIV
E
R
VE
R
CFA/Growth Study Map
¤
Croft CFA
RE
ER
References
(CSPH 2009)
The Center for the Study of Piedmont History, “Pelham Mill - Pelham Mill Office.” http://facweb.
furman.edu/dept/history/CSPH/Mills/10pelhammill.htm (accessed July 25, 2009).
(Daly & Farley)
Daly, Herman E., and Joshua Farley. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. Washington DC: Island Press, 2004. Print.
(Hub City Writers Project 2002)
Teter, Betsy W. Textile Town. Spartanburg, SC: The Hub City Writers Project, 2002. Print.
(Jones 1975)
Jones, Lewis P. A Bicentennial Map of Spartanburg County. Spartanburg, SC: Wofford College, 1975. Map.
(Landrum)
Landrum, Dr. J.B.O. Colonial and Revolutionary History of Upper South Carolina. Greenville, SC: Shannon & Co., 1897. Print.
(Logan)
Logan, John Henry. A History of the Upper Country of South Carolina From the Earliest Periods to the Close of the War of Independence. Charleston, SC: S.G. Courtenay & Co., 1859. Print.
(PAC Inventory)
Rayner, D.A. Inventory of the Natural Areas of the Pacolet Area. Spartanburg, SC: 1994. Report.
(Porcher and Rayner)
Porcher, Richard Dwight and Douglas Alan Rayner.A Guide to the Wildflowers of South Carolina. Columbia,
SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2001. Print.
(Quatannens)
Quattannens, Jo Anne McCormick. Fairview Farms: A Brief History. Spartanburg, SC: 2001. Report.
(Racine 1999)
Racine, Philip N. Seeing Spartanburg. Spartanburg, SC: Hub City Writers Project, 1999. Print.
(Rayner)
Rayner, D.A., L.L. Gaddy, Douglas Jensen and Kevin Caldwell. Endangered and Threatened Species, Wetlands, and Natural Areas of Greenspace of Fairview. Spartanburg, SC: 2001. Report.
(SCDAH1 2009)
South Carolina Department of Archives and History, “Camp Hill - Spartanburg, SC.” 2009. http://www.
nationalregister.sc.gov/spartanburg/S10817742004/index.htm (accessed July 28, 2009).
(SCDAH2 2009)
South Carolina Department of Archives and History, “Golightly Dean House - Spartanburg, SC.” 2009. http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/spartanburg/S10817742038/index.htm (accessed July 28, 2009).
(SCDAH3 2009)
South Carolina Department of Archives and History, “Marysville School - Spartanburg, SC.” 2009. http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/spartanburg/S10817742058/index.htm (accessed July 28, 2009).
48
(SCDAH4 2009)
South Carolina Department of Archives and History, “Pacolet Mills Historic District - Spartanburg, SC.” 2009.
http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/spartanburg/S10817742062/index.htm (accessed July 28 2009).
(SCDAH52009)
South Carolina Department of Archives and History, “Pacolet Soapstone Quarries – Spartanburg County, SC” 2009.
http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/spartanburg/S10817742020/index.htm (accessed November 17, 2009).
(SCDAH62009)
South Carolina Department of Archives and History, “Price’s Post Office – Spartanburg County” 2009
http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/spartanburg/S10817742001/index.htm (accessed November 17, 2009)
(SCDAH72009)
South Carolina Department of Archives and History, “Williams Place, Spartanburg County” 2009
http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/spartanburg/S10817742034/index.htm (accessed November 19, 2009)
(SCDNR 2001)
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, “SC GAP Analysis: Metadata for Land Cover.” December 17, 2001.
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/mdataveg.html (accessed July 12, 2009).
(SCDPRT 2009)
The SC Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, “About this Park - Musgrove Mill State Historic
Site.” 2009.
http://www.southcarolinaparks.com/park-finder/state-park/3888.aspx (accessed July 25, 2009).
(SC History Net 2008)
South Carolina History Net, Inc., “History - Camp Croft, SC.” September 15, 2008.
http://schistory.net/campcroft/history.html (accessed July 28, 2009).
(Spartanburg Co. Public Libraries 2006)
Spartanburg County Public Libraries, “History of Pacolet.” October 17, 2006.
http://www.infodepot.org/zAbout/Histories/hist/historypac.htm (accessed July 24, 2009).
(Upstate Forever)
Campbell, Craig E., Jeffery Allen and Kang Shou Lu. Modelling Growth and Predicted Future Developed Land
in the Upstate of South Carolina. Greenville, SC: 2007. Report.
(USGS 2009)
US Geological Survey, “GNIS Detail - Enoree River.” July 30 2009.
http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=116:3:3749003155710265::NO::P3_FID,P3_TITLE:1247680%2C
Enoree%20River (accessed July 30, 2009).
(Zankel, et al. 2006)
Zankel, M., C. Copeland, P. Ingraham, J. Robinson, C. Sinnott, D. Sundquist, T. Walker, and J. Alford. 2006.
The Land Conservation Plan for New Hampshire’s Coastal Watersheds. The Nature Conservancy, Society for
the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Rockingham Planning Commission, and Strafford Region Planning
Commission. Prepared for the New Hampshire Coastal Program and the New Hampshire Estuaries Project,
Concord, NH.
49

A Special Places Inventory of Spartanburg County

Transcription

Similar documents

Girl Power! - City of Spartanburg

What is Support Spartanburg County?

Briefings - Spartanburg Area Chamber of Commerce

Call to Order- Hon. Jane Hall, Chairman Hon. David Britt, Member

August 2014 - Boys and Girls Clubs of the Upstate

It`s Giving Season! - The Spartanburg County Foundation

Blue and Gold - Oklahoma Show Pigs

5.12 Acres of River Front Land For Sale in Jones County NC!

AM 1450 - WHKP.com

Sissieretta Jones - New Community Corporation