Spartanburg, South Carolina

Transcription

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY
PERMIT
FINGERVILLE PROJECT
Prepared for:
SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
204 Caughman Farm Lane, Suite 301
Lexington, SC 29072
JUNE 2011
BEFORE THE
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PERMIT
FINGERVILLE PROJECT
SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INITIAL STATEMENT ......................................................................................................1
1.1
GENERAL ..................................................................................................................1
1.2
LOCATION .................................................................................................................1
1.3
APPLICANT/AGENT ...................................................................................................1
1.4
BUSINESS STRUCTURE ..............................................................................................2
1.5
TERM ........................................................................................................................2
1.6
OWNER OF PROJECT PROPERTIES ..............................................................................2
1.7
INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER 18 CFR § 4.32(A)(2) .............................................3
2.0
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................4
2.1
GENERAL PROJECT CONFIGURATION ........................................................................4
2.2
RESERVOIR ...............................................................................................................4
2.3
TRANSMISSION LINES ...............................................................................................5
2.4
AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION ...............................................................5
2.5
LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES .................................................................................6
2.6
PUBLIC INTEREST ......................................................................................................6
3.0
EXHIBIT 2: DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES .......................................................................7
3.1
STUDY PLAN .............................................................................................................7
3.1.1 PROPOSED STUDIES .......................................................................................7
3.1.2 LOCATION OF NEW ROADS ...........................................................................8
3.2
WORK PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................8
3.2.1 LAND-DISTURBING FIELD STUDIES ...............................................................8
3.2.2 SCHEDULE FOR STUDIES ...............................................................................9
4.0
EXHIBIT 3: COST AND FINANCING............................................................................10
4.1
ESTIMATED COSTS ..................................................................................................10
4.2
FINANCIAL SOURCES ..............................................................................................10
4.3
PROPOSED MARKET ................................................................................................10
5.0
PROJECT MAPS AND DRAWINGS...............................................................................11
6.0
SUBSCRIPTION AND VERIFICATION UNDER OATH..............................................11
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D.)
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A LEGISLATION ENACTING SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM AS A MUNICIPAL
AUTHORITY
ATTACHMENT B
FIGURES
J:\1755\009\Docs\001 Fingerville Preliminary Permit FINAL.doc
ii
BEFORE THE
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PERMIT
FINGERVILLE PROJECT
1.0
INITIAL STATEMENT
1.1
GENERAL
The Commissioners of Public Works of the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina (CPWSSC)
applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) for a preliminary permit
for the proposed Fingerville Hydroelectric Project, as described in the attached exhibits. This
application is made in order that the applicant may secure and maintain priority of application for
a license for the project under Part I of the Federal Power Act while obtaining the data and
performing the acts required to determine the feasibility of the project and to support an
application for license.
1.2
LOCATION
The location of the proposed project is:
State:
County:
Town:
River:
1.3
South Carolina
Spartanburg
Inman
Pacolet River
APPLICANT/AGENT
The exact name, business address, and telephone number of the applicant is:
Commissioners of Public Works of the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Spartanburg, SC 29304
1
The exact name, business address and telephone number of each person authorized to act as
agent for the applicant in this application are:
Sue Schneider
General Manager
Spartanburg Water
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Telephone: 864.580.5642
Ken Tuck
Director of Water Treatment
Spartanburg Water
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Telephone: 864.580.5642
1.4
BUSINESS STRUCTURE
Spartanburg Water System is a political subdivision of the City of Spartanburg, overseen by The
Commission of Public Works of the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina. It is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina; as such, the Applicant is qualified under
§ 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to hold hydroelectric licenses issued under Part 1 of the
FPA. Spartanburg Water System currently operates the Simms Hydroelectric Project, a project
not licensed by the Commission because there has been no post-1935 construction. The
Applicant is claiming preference under section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act and a copy of
legislation enacting Spartanburg Water System as a municipal authority is presented in
Attachment A.
1.5
TERM
The proposed term of the requested permit is 36 months.
1.6
OWNER OF PROJECT PROPERTIES
The properties, including existing dam, headrace and spillway, that would be associated with the
proposed Fingerville Project are owned by CPWSSC.
2
1.7
(i)
INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER 18 CFR § 4.32(A)(2)
Counties in which the project is located:
Spartanburg County
Administration Building
Main Level, Suite 1000
366 North Church Street
(ii)
City, town or similar local political subdivision:
a. In which the project is located:
City of Inman
20 South Main Street
Inman, SC 29349
b. Cities, Towns, and Villages with a population of 5,000 or more people, and which are
located within 15 miles of the project dam are:
The City of Spartanburg
145 West Broad Street
Spartanburg SC 29306
(iii)
Irrigation and drainage districts:
(none)
(iv)
Other political subdivisions of interest:
(none)
(v)
Indian Tribes:
Based on available information, there are no tribal lands or sites within the project
boundary or in the area adjacent to the project. In consultation with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, FERC and BIA have identified the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the
Catawba Indian Nation, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and the United Keetoowah
Band of Cherokee Indians as federally-recognized tribes whose aboriginal territories may
have included the Project Area. (Franklin Keel, Director, Eastern Region, BIA, letter to
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, FERC, December 19, 2006).
3
2.0
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1
GENERAL PROJECT CONFIGURATION
Existing Conditions
The site of the Fingeville Project is located on the north Pacolet River in northwestern South
Carolina, near the community of Fingerville, SC. There is no present generation at the site.
However, the project did electrify an existing manufacturing facility up until the 1980’s. Much of
the infrastructure, including the dam, spillway gate and headrace are in existence. In addition a
small brick structure which housed the existing turbine generator unit still stands. The project
will utilize the existing dam. The dam is not listed in the Army Corps of Engineers NatDam
database but based on survey data collected on site the dam is 11.3 feet high and 171 feet long
(Figure 2 Section 5.0).
There is one existing headrace that is approximately 130 feet in length, extending inland from the
dam. This existing headrace would serve as the intake for the Applicant’s proposed generating
facilities (see below).
Applicant’s Proposal
The Applicant proposes to redevelop the Fingerville Hydroelectric Project on the right bank
(looking downstream) making use of as much existing infrastructure as possible. The Project
would contain the following elements:
(i) An expanded or new powerhouse, slightly larger in dimensions to the brick structure
which currently exists at the site. The powerhouse would contain one horizontal Francis
type turbine and sized similar to the existing conditions.
2.2
RESERVOIR
Based on available information, the reservoir has a drainage area of 212 acres, impounds a
surface area of 11.69 acres at 756.21 feet msl. CPWSSC estimates that the area encompassing
the proposed project boundary (Section 5.0) would be approximately 12.45 acres.
4
2.3
TRANSMISSION LINES
The site of the Fingerville Project does not currently have any generation capacity and would
require a short power line to a distribution circuit on site (owned by Duke Energy)
interconnecting to the grid. CPWSSC proposes to install 450 feet of overhead line consistent
with generator voltage rating to provide connection to the existing transmission grid. The
existing distribution system on site of the project is rated for 12kV and has the capacity to handle
the anticipated supply from the proposed project.
2.4
AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
Flow data for the analysis of average annual energy production was obtained from the USGS
gage #01254500, North Pacolet River at Fingerville, SC. The gage data was used directly with
no adjustments for variation in drainage area. While this gage has been in continuous operation
since 1930, only the most recent period, 1990 to 2011 was used. The mean daily data for the
noted period was used to develop the annual flow duration curve for the site as shown in the
following figure.
Based on the flow duration curve, the initial project design flow was determined based on the
25% exceedance flow for the site. This flow was determined to be 215 cfs.
5
Site survey data noted there is a gross head of approximately 11.3 feet at the site. A headloss
value of 1 foot was assumed for the project. This loss includes intake trashrack and gate loss as
well as turbine exit loss. The total loss was varied with the flow available to the generating unit
in determine the estimated annual generation.
The overall generating efficiency for the site was assumed to be 80%. Using this value, the noted
design flow and net head value, the project would have an installed capacity of 150 KW. It was
assumed that the generating unit would be able operate with flows ranging from the design flow
down to a flow equal to 30% of the design flow or 65 cfs. Using the assumptions and the annual
flow duration curve, the proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of
approximately 770 MWH’s per year. This value is a net value and includes a 5% reduction in
generation to cover scheduled and unscheduled outages, station service, transformer and other
minor losses.
2.5
LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
There are no lands of the United States included within the proposed project boundary. There are
no known areas within or in the vicinity of the proposed project boundary that are included in or
have been designated for study for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
There are no areas within the proposed project boundary that are known to be under the
provisions of the Wilderness Act or that have been designated as wilderness area, recommended
for designation as wilderness area, or designated as wilderness study area.
PUBLIC INTEREST
2.6
The proposed project will fulfill the public interest in the following manner:
•
•
CPWSSC will develop the maximum economic hydroelectric generating capacity for the
Fingerville development by properly sizing the proposed facility to the river flows to
provide the most efficient power production; and
CPWSSC will analyze the effects of the proposed development on the human and natural
environments and will in consultation with the jurisdictional federal, state and local
agencies develop and recommend appropriate protection, mitigation and enhancement
measures for inclusion in any licensing process.
By comprehensively addressing public safety, power generation, operations, fish protection and
passage, and other resources, CPWSSC development plan serves the public interest.
6
3.0
EXHIBIT 2: DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES
It is anticipated a commensurate level of effort similar to what was expended for the downstream
lower Pacolet Project (FERC No. 2621) will be undertaken to evaluate the effects of the
Fingerville project on human and natural environments and the various resources, using existing
studies and materials (where possible) provided by through and developed with stakeholders.
Many of these studies will be directly applicable to Fingerville Project as the size and scopes of
the projects are similar in nature and within the same river system. Therefore CPWSSC proposes
drawing on this information in order to prepare a license application for the Fingerville Project.
If necessary, CPWSSC would supplement this information with additional site specific studies
related to the Fingerville Project and developed through consultation with state and federal
resource agencies.
3.1
STUDY PLAN
CPWSSC has performed a preliminary review of the existing site to assess the general feasibility
of redeveloping and operating the proposed project.
3.1.1
PROPOSED STUDIES
All studies and related work will be undertaken with the intent to provide CPWSSC with the
information necessary to prepare the application for license and to ultimately construct the
optimal development plan for the project. CPWSSC proposes to conduct the following studies to
determine the feasibility of the proposed project and to support an application for license, if
reasonable. Study plans will be developed and studies conducted in consultation with the
appropriate federal, state and local agencies as necessary to provide an accurate and complete
assessment of the proposed project.
Feasibility Studies
CPWSSC will undertake a number of feasibility studies to determine the technical and economic
feasibility of developing the site while taking into account potential environmental protection,
mitigation and enhancement measures as may be required. These feasibility studies will include
the following:
7
a. Engineering assessment of the cost of construction of structures and equipment described
in this application.
b. Energy analysis of the proposed project.
c. Market analysis for the transmission and sale of project output.
d. Financial analysis of the cost and benefit of the proposed project.
Final Engineering Design
CPWSSC will evaluate the economic data and the results of the environmental analysis and
incorporate the results of these into the final design of the project.
Post-feasibility Activities
Upon completion of the feasibility analysis and associated studies, and assuming that CPWSSC
finds the proposed project feasible and economic, CPWSSC would prepare a Notice of Intent to
file a license application and would seek to use the Traditional Licensing Process for
development of the draft license application. Following the filing of any NOI, CPWSSC will
begin the process of developing the draft license application in cooperation with the agencies and
other stakeholders.
Alternatively, CPWSSC may consider use of the process for the Exemption of Small
Hydroelectric Power Projects of 5 MW or Less outlined in §4.100 of the Commission’s
regulations, should the provisions of that process be met.
3.1.2
LOCATION OF NEW ROADS
No new roads will be built for the purpose of conducting the studies referred to herein.
3.2
WORK PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
3.2.1
LAND-DISTURBING FIELD STUDIES
The proposed project will use the existing dam and headrace. Expansion or replacement of the
existing small powerhouse may be required. Expansion plans to the existing powerhouse will not
be known until selection of the equipment has been finalized. Though any expansion or
8
replacement of the powerhouse would be located on lands that were previously developed, minor
excavation is anticipated related to the placement and construction of the proposed project.
3.2.2
SCHEDULE FOR STUDIES
CPWSSC schedule will follow the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) promulgated in the
Commission’s Part 5 regulations and therefore the final scope of the studies conducted under the
proposed preliminary permit will precipitate from consultation with the agencies and through the
FERC study scoping process. The following schedule has been developed for conducting the
TLP process and the studies and consultations specified herein assuming preliminary permit
issuance by October 2011.
STUDIES/TASKS
Engineering Feasibility Studies
NOI Preparation
Study Plan Preparation with Agencies
Conduct Environmental Studies
Final Topographic Analyses
Prepare and Issue Draft License Application
Prepare and File License Application
TIME FRAME
12/15/2011 – 05/01/2012
07/01/2012 – 10/15/2012
10/16/2012 – 01/31/2013
01/01/2013 – 12/31/2013
03/01/2013 – 05/31/2013
06/01/2013 – 11/30/2013
01/01/2014 – 09/01/2014
9
4.0
EXHIBIT 3: COST AND FINANCING
4.1
ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs of carrying out and preparing the additional studies, investigations, tests,
surveys, maps, plans and specifications identified in Exhibit 2 is $131,000 , allocated as follows:
STUDIES/TASKS
Engineering Feasibility Studies
PAD Preparation
Study Plan Preparation
Year One Environmental Studies
Year Two Environmental Studies
Final Topographic Analyses
Prepare and Issue Draft License Application
Prepare and File License Application
TOTAL
COST
$5,000
$20,000
$5,000
$35,000
$18,000
$8,000
$25,000
$15,000
$131,000
These costs assume that a significant amount of information and data collected from the
downstream FERC Project relicensings can be utilized for the Fingerville licensing application
process.
4.2
FINANCIAL SOURCES
The Applicant will provide the necessary financing to conduct the activities identified in Exhibit
2.
4.3
PROPOSED MARKET
It is anticipated that the power produced from the Project will be sold locally via distribution
through Duke Energy Carolinas LLC. Currently capacity and demand information for the
southeast region indicates a net surplus of power production in the next several years, the
majority of this power production comes from fossil fuel consumption. The Applicant believes
that the power produced by the Project allows them to provide a low cost, reliable, and clean
source of renewable energy for the region.
10
5.0
PROJECT MAPS AND DRAWINGS
Attached as part of this application are the following figures (Attachment B):
Exhibit 4
6.0
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Site Location Map
Site Survey Drawing
SUBSCRIPTION AND VERIFICATION UNDER OATH
This application for a Preliminary Permit for the Fingerville Hydroelectric Project is executed in
the State of South Carolina, Spartanburg County.
By:
Name:
Address:
Spartanburg Water System
Sue Schneider, General Manager
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
being duly sworn, deposes and says that the contents of this application are true to the best of her
knowledge and belief. The undersigned Applicant has signed the application this __________
day of ________________________, 2011.
__________________________________________
Applicant Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public of the State of South Carolina, this
_________ day of _______________________, 2011.
___________________________________________
Commission expires: __________________________
/SEAL/
11
ATTACHMENT A
FEDERAL POWER ACT LEGISLATION ENACTING SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM
AS A MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
ATTACHMENT B
FIGURES
850
5
81
7 65
5
76 5
865
855
COUNTRY ESTATES RD
815
76
860
845
5
865
76
5
805
78
0
855
840
N FO
CANN O
810
795
0
81
755
870
76
5
885 89
0
87
77
0
77
0
880
760
7 60
0
0
8
0
90
5
825 830
45
9
0
87
77
0
765
82
10
8 25
85
0
9
76
0
830
820
76
5
805
815
5
76
895
5
860
83
795
8 40
825
RD
RD
790
IE
LK
WI
6
7
76
5
760
0
85
8
0
5
84
5
820
885
865
760
85
5
875
83
5
80
0
875
0
88 8
0 85
890
870
5
80
820
840
80
5
835
860
825
76
5
790
8 90
850
785
11
WAY
HIGH
770
885
880
775
780
790
805
T
CHURCH S
5
85
905
915
890
82
0
81
0
750
745
830
35
755
765
785
K
FRAN
8
FINGERVILLE DAM
_
^
825
89
5
0
5
780
85
81
800
0
T
L IN S
785
ER
D 900
845
ST
CARVER
91
815
770
870
795
87
0
890 RAIN
BO
WL
AK
780 775
770
84
0
87
5
815
MAIN ST
DR
870
65
Total Project Area (Approx. 12.45 Acres)
(At Estimated 756.21 Dam Crest Contour)
90
5
µ
AN
S
790
815
820
825
83 0
Spartanburg Water Fingerville Dam Project
Total Project Area
June 2011
1 inch = 300 feet
795
BUL
LM
86 0
91
0
86
5
875
88
0
RIVER
BENT
885
T
9
15
8
00
8
890
85
5
870
8
5
84
850
0
81
9
89
5
810
895
86 0
65
85 5
9
0
86
880
5
84
845
815
800
5
765
0
0
83
D
ER
IDG
BR
78
800
775
765 55
7
20140527-5258 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 5/27/2014 4:01:15 PM
May 27, 2014
VIA E-FILING
Kimberly Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 1st Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
Notice of Intent, Pre-Application Document, and Request to Use Traditional Licensing Process
for the Fingerville Hydroelectric Project (P-14215)
Dear Secretary Bose:
On behalf of The Commission of Public Works of the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina
(Spartanburg Water System), and in accordance with 18 CFR Section 5, Kleinschmidt Associates
herein electronically files with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) the
Notice of Intent (NOI) and Pre-Application Document (PAD) for an original license for the
Fingerville Hydroelectric Project (Project) (FERC No. P-14215).
The proposed Project is located on the North Pacolet River in northwestern South Carolina,
approximately twelve miles north of the city of Spartanburg near the community of Fingerville.
Currently, there is no generation at the site, however the Project did electrify an existing
manufacturing facility up until the 1980’s, and much of the infrastructure, including the dam,
spillway gate, and headrace are still in existence. The Project will utilize the existing dam and
headrace. Additionally, Spartanburg Water System proposes to construct a new powerhouse and
short transmission line. The Project’s installed capacity is anticipated to be 150 kW, and the
preliminary estimate for average annual generation is 770 MWH.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.5(c) and §16.8, and by copy of this letter, Spartanburg Water System is
also providing copies of the PAD to relevant resource agencies, tribes, non-governmental
organizations, and other potential interested parties included on the attached distribution list. The
PAD is available at the FERC's elibrary: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp
(reference docket number P-14215). Electronic copies of the PAD are also available by request
to Kelly Larimer at [email protected]. Hard copies of the filing are
available at the Spartanburg Water System offices at 200 Commerce Street, Spartanburg, SC
29304.
Spartanburg Water System hereby requests to use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for
the licensing of the Fingerville Hydroelectric Project. Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 5.3(c)(1)(ii),
Spartanburg Water System believes that the request for use of the TLP is supported by the
following:
1217 NE Burnside Road, Suite 401 • Gresham, OR 97030 • Phone: 503.345.7956 • www.KleinschmidtUSA.com
- Offices Nationwide -
May 27, 2014
2.
•
Likelihood of timely license issuance: Spartanburg Water System believes that using
the TLP will provide local, state and federal agencies with a manageable timeframe and
assist FERC to issue a timely license for the Project.
•
Complexity of the resource issues and level of anticipated controversy: During prePAD consultation with local, state and federal agencies and other interested stakeholders,
Spartanburg Water System has identified areas where additional information is needed on
the existing environment surrounding the Project. Due to this pre-PAD consultation,
Spartanburg Water System does not anticipate a high level of complexity and controversy
regarding resource issues during the licensing process.
•
Relative cost of the traditional process compared to the integrated process:
Spartanburg Water System believes that the use of the TLP will allow completion of a
license application in less time and, therefore, for less cost, than use of the Integrated
Licensing Process.
•
The amount of available information and potential for significant disputes over
studies: Spartanburg Water System believes that there is sufficient information available
on many resource areas in the existing environment surrounding the Project, as presented
in the PAD. Spartanburg Water System acknowledges that some resource areas will
require further study and is willing to supplement existing information with additional
site specific studies developed through consultation with state and federal resource
agencies.
•
Other factors believed by the applicant to be pertinent: Given all of the factors
discussed above, Spartanburg Water System considers the TLP to be the most appropriate
means to obtain an original license for the hydroelectric project.
As provided in 18 C.F.R. § 5.3(d)(1), by copy of this letter, comments on the request to use the
TLP must be filed with the Commission within 30 days of this letter. Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §
5.3(d)(2), Spartanburg Water System has published notice of the request to use the TLP in a
daily newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the Project is located; the notice
contains the information required by that section.
In accordance with 18 C.F.R § 5.5(e), the joint agency regulations at 50 CFR part 402, Section
305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920, Spartanburg Water System hereby requests to be
designated as the Commission’s non-federal representative for the purposes of consultation
under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Spartanburg Water System also requests
authorization to initiate consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4).
If the Commission approves the use of the TLP, Spartanburg Water System proposes to host a
joint agency and public meeting (JAM) and site visit of the Fingerville Hydroelectric Project in
accordance with 18 CFR § 4.38 no earlier than 30 days, but no later than 60 days, from the
Commission's TLP approval. The purpose of the meeting is to provide the opportunity for
stakeholders to visit the Project and discuss information presented in the PAD.
May 27, 2014
3.
Initially, Spartanburg Water System is proposing to hold the JAM at the Kleinschmidt Associates
office at 204 Caughman Farm Lane, Suite 301, Lexington, SC 29072 on July 14, 2014. However,
the exact meeting date and location will be determined in consultation with jurisdictional
agencies and interested licensing participants following the Commission’s decision on approval
for Spartanburg Water System’s use of the TLP process.
Please direct any questions pertaining to the Project or process to Kelly Larimer at
[email protected] or to Ken Tuck, Director of Water Treatment for
Spartanburg Water, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
KLEINSCHMIDT ASSOCIATES
Kelly Larimer
Project Manager
Attachments: Distribution List
Notice of Intent
Pre-Application Document
cc:
Ken Tuck, Spartanburg Water System
J:\1755\014\Docs\001-PAD Fingerville Cover Letter 05-20-14.docx
Fingerville Distribution List
May 2014
Bill Marshall
SCDNR
PO Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
David Bernhart
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service – SERO
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505
Bob Perry
SCDNR
PO Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Cultural Resources Department
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Byron Hamstead
USFWS
176 Croghan Spur Road, Suite 200
Charleston, SC 29407
Catawba Indian Tribe
Chairman
P.O. Box 188
Catawba, SC 29704
Alicia Rowe
SCDHEC
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Chairman
Public Service Commission of South Carolina
101 Executive Center Drive #100
Columbia, SC 29210
Elizabeth Johnson
SHPO
8301 Parklane Road
Columbia, SC 29223
John M. Sullivan
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office
411 Briarwood Dr. Ste 404
Jackson, MS 39206-3058
Hal Beard
SCDNR
2726 Fish Hatchery Road
West Columbia, SC 29172
Pace Wilber
NOAA
219 Fort Johnson Road
Ron Ahle
SCDNR
Tom McCoy
USFWS
Vivianne Vejdani
SCDNR
PO Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
Office of Energy Projects
Federal Energy Regulatory Comm, ARO
3700 Crestwood Pkwy, NW, Ste 950
Duluth, GA 30096-7155
Mayor Junie White
City of Spartanburg
145 W. Broad Street
Sue Schneider
Chief Executive Officer
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Ken Tuck
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Rebecca West
Chief Operating Officer
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
May 2014
Chad Lawson
Communications Manager
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Angie Price
Regulatory Programs Specialist
Spartanburg Water
297 South Avenue
Regional Director of Bureau of Indian Affairs
US Department of the Interior
545 Marriott Drive Suite 700
Nashville, TN 37214
Regional Director of National Park Service
Southeast Region
100 Alabama Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
United States Forest Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Office of the Governor
State of South Carolina
P.O. Box 12267
Columbia, SC 29211
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Chairman
P.O. Box 188
Catawba, SC 29704
U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy
4th District of South Carolina
101 West St. John St.
Ed Memmott
City Manager
City of Spartanburg
145 W. Broad Street
John Condrey
City Manager
Town of Forest City
128 N. Powell Street
Forest City, NC 28043
Inman-Campobello Water District
5 Prospect Street
Inman, SC 29349
Gerrit Jobsis
American Rivers
215 Pickens Street
Columbia, SC 29205
Merrill McGregor
SC Coastal Conservation League
1202 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Columbia, SC 29201
Executive Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1100 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 803
Regional Administrator
Federal Emergency Management Agency
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, GA 30341
Regional Engineer - Division of Dam Safety and
Inspections
Gwinnett Commerce Center
3700 Crestwood Pkwy NW
9th Floor
Duluth, GA 30096
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
FINGERVILLE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC PROJECT NO. 14215
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Lexington, South Carolina
KleinschmidtGroup.com
May 2014
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Lexington, South Carolina
KleinschmidtGroup.com
May 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................... VI
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2
APPLICANT/AGENTS FOR THE PROJECT ................................................................. 1-5
1.3
PAD CONTENT ..................................................................................................... 1-5
2.0
PLANS, SCHEDULE AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS .............................. 2-1
2.1
PROCESS SCHEDULE THROUGH FILING OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION ................. 2-1
2.2
PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS .......................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................... 2-2
2.2.2 MEETINGS ................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.3 DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.4 TELEPHONE ............................................................................................... 2-6
2.3
INTEGRATED LICENSING PROCESS FLOW CHART .................................................. 2-6
2.4
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 2-6
3.0
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF RIVER BASIN ............................................................ 3-1
3.1
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2
MAJOR LAND USES ............................................................................................... 3-4
3.3
MAJOR WATER USES ............................................................................................ 3-4
3.4
CLIMATE ............................................................................................................... 3-5
3.5
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 3-5
4.0
PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATIONS ....................................... 4-1
4.1
PROJECT FACILITIES.............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.1 FINGERVILLE RESERVOIR.......................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 FINGERVILLE DAM .................................................................................... 4-1
4.2
PROPOSED FACILITIES ........................................................................................... 4-3
4.3
PROPOSED OPERATIONS ........................................................................................ 4-3
4.4
OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION............................................................................. 4-5
4.4.1 CURRENT NET INVESTMENT ..................................................................... 4-5
4.4.2 PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY ............................................................... 4-5
5.0
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT........................................................ 5-1
5.1
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2
GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................ 5-3
5.2.1 EXISTING GEOLOGICAL FEATURES ........................................................... 5-3
MAY 2014
-i-
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
MAY 2014
5.2.2 SOILS ........................................................................................................ 5-4
5.2.3 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 5-4
WATER RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 5-6
5.3.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 5-6
5.3.2 DRAINAGE AREA ...................................................................................... 5-6
5.3.3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES OF WATER............................................... 5-6
5.3.4 EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW USES .............................................................. 5-6
5.3.5 EXISTING WATER RIGHTS ......................................................................... 5-6
5.3.6 FEDERALLY APPROVED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ............................ 5-7
5.3.7 EXISTING WATER QUALITY DATA ............................................................ 5-8
5.3.8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 5-9
FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ......................................................................... 5-10
5.4.1 OVERVIEW OF FISH RESOURCES ............................................................. 5-10
5.4.2 FISH SPECIES TEMPORAL/LIFE HISTORY INFORMATION.......................... 5-15
5.4.3 OVERVIEW OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES ................................... 5-16
5.4.4 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 5-18
WILDLIFE RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 5-19
5.5.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 5-19
5.5.2 WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND HABITATS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY .......... 5-19
5.5.3 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 5-21
BOTANICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 5-22
5.6.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 5-22
5.6.2 UPLAND HABITAT COMMUNITIES AND SPECIES ...................................... 5-22
5.6.3 INVASIVE PLANTS AND NOXIOUS WEEDS ............................................... 5-24
5.6.4 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 5-25
RIPARIAN, WETLAND, AND LITTORAL HABITAT ................................................. 5-27
5.7.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 5-27
5.7.2 RIPARIAN, WETLAND AND LITTORAL HABITAT TYPES ........................... 5-27
5.7.3 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 5-28
RARE, THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ................... 5-30
5.8.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 5-30
5.8.2 RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED AQUATIC RESOURCES AND
HABITATS ............................................................................................... 5-32
5.8.3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BY WATERSHED ............................................ 5-32
5.8.4 RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND
HABITATS ............................................................................................... 5-32
5.8.5 RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED BOTANICAL RESOURCES
AND HABITATS ........................................................................................ 5-32
5.8.6 TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF RARE, THREATENED
AND ENDANGERED BOTANICAL SPECIES................................................. 5-33
5.8.7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 5-36
RECREATION AND LAND USE .............................................................................. 5-37
5.9.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 5-37
5.9.2 REGIONAL RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES................................................ 5-37
5.9.3 PROJECT VICINITY RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES ................................... 5-37
5.9.4 EXISTING PROJECT RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES AND USE ................... 5-40
5.9.5 RECREATION NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN MANAGEMENT PLANS ..................... 5-40
- ii -
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.9.6 LAND USES AND MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY ........... 5-42
5.9.7 LAND USES AND MANAGEMENT OF PROJECT LANDS .............................. 5-44
5.9.8 SHORELINE BUFFER ZONES ..................................................................... 5-44
5.9.9 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 5-44
AESTHETIC RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 5-46
5.10.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 5-46
5.10.2 VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT VICINITY ..................................... 5-46
5.10.3 MANAGEMENT PLANS ............................................................................. 5-47
5.10.4 NEARBY SCENIC ATTRACTIONS .............................................................. 5-47
5.10.5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 5-48
CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 5-49
5.11.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 5-49
5.11.2 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ............................................ 5-50
5.11.3 DISCOVERY MEASURES .......................................................................... 5-50
5.11.4 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 5-50
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ............................................................................. 5-52
5.12.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 5-52
5.12.2 GENERAL LAND USE PATTERNS ............................................................. 5-52
5.12.3 POPULATION PATTERNS .......................................................................... 5-53
5.12.4 HOUSEHOLDS/FAMILY DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME ............................... 5-53
5.12.5 PROJECT VICINITY EMPLOYMENT SOURCES ........................................... 5-54
5.12.6 TRIBAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 5-56
5.12.7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 5-56
6.0
PROJECT EFFECTS, ISSUES, STUDIES, AND MEASURES .................................... 6-1
6.1
KNOWN OR POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS ............................................................ 6-1
6.1.1 PRIMARY PROJECT EFFECTS...................................................................... 6-1
6.2
LICENSEE PROPOSED STUDIES AND INFORMATION GATHERING NEEDS BY
RESOURCE ............................................................................................................ 6-2
6.3
RELEVANT QUALIFYING FEDERAL AND STATE OR COMPREHENSIVE
WATERWAY PLANS ............................................................................................... 6-3
6.4
RELEVANT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS ....................................................... 6-4
7.0
SUMMARY OF CONTACTS [§ 5.6 (D)(5)] .................................................................. 7-1
8.0
PURPA BENEFITS [§ 5.6 (E)] ....................................................................................... 8-1
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2-1:
TABLE 2-3:
TABLE 5-1:
TABLE 5-2:
TABLE 5-3:
MAY 2014
FINGERVILLE PROJECT LICENSING SCHEDULE – TRADITIONAL LICENSE
PROCESS ............................................................................................................... 2-1
FINGERVILLE LICENSING FERC PROJECT NO.14215 MAILING LISTS ................... 2-5
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR FRESHWATERS............................................................ 5-7
SCDNR FISH COLLECTIONS WITHIN THE PACOLET RIVER WATERSHED ........... 5-11
COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF THE FISH SPECIES COLLECTED BY
SCDNR FROM STREAMS WITHIN THE PACOLET WATERSHED............................. 5-12
- iii -
TABLE 5-4:
TABLE 5-5:
TABLE 5-6:
TABLE 5-7:
TABLE 5-8:
TABLE 5-9:
TABLE 5-10:
TABLE 5-11:
TABLE 6-1:
TABLE 6-2:
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM THE PACOLET RIVER ....... 5-17
EXOTIC PLANT PEST SPECIES IN THE PIEDMONT ECOREGION ............................. 5-24
RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY .... 5-30
POTENTIALLY OR KNOWN OCCURRENCES OF RTE PLANT SPECIES IN THE
VICINITY OF THE FINGERVILLE PROJECT............................................................. 5-35
LAND USES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY .............................................................. 5-42
POPULATION STATISTICS FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND SOUTH
CAROLINA ........................................................................................................... 5-53
COUNTY HOUSING AND INCOME STATISTICS FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY
AND SOUTH CAROLINA ....................................................................................... 5-54
EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND SOUTH
CAROLINA ........................................................................................................... 5-55
LIST OF QUALIFYING FEDERAL AND STATE COMPREHENSIVE WATERWAY
PLANS POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE FINGERVILLE PROJECT ......................... 6-3
LIST OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE
FINGERVILLE PROJECT .......................................................................................... 6-4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1:
FIGURE 2-1:
FIGURE 3-1:
FIGURE 3-2:
FIGURE 4-1:
FIGURE 4-2:
FIGURE 5-1:
FIGURE 5-2:
FIGURE 5-3:
FIGURE 5-4:
FIGURE 5-5:
FIGURE 5-6:
FIGURE 5-7:
MAY 2014
PROJECT LOCATION MAP ...................................................................................... 1-3
INTEGRATED LICENSING PROCESS FLOW CHART .................................................. 2-7
MAJOR WATERSHEDS OF SOUTH CAROLINA ......................................................... 3-2
BROAD RIVER SUB-BASIN IN SOUTH CAROLINA................................................... 3-3
PLOT OF HISTORICAL RESERVOIR LEVEL DATA FROM THE USGS GAGE .............. 4-4
PROPOSED FINGERVILLE PROJECT BOUNDARY ..................................................... 4-5
VICINITY EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED FINGERVILLE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ....... 5-2
GEOLOGIC REGIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA ........................................................... 5-3
NORTH AND SOUTH PACOLET RIVER WATERSHEDS INCLUDING
MONITORING STATIONS ........................................................................................ 5-9
NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP ............................................................ 5-28
RTE SPECIES OCCURRING IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY ....................................... 5-31
SPARTANBURG COUNTY OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES ........................... 5-39
LAND COVER MAP OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY .................................................. 5-43
- iv -
LIST OF PHOTOS
PHOTO 4-1:
PHOTO 4-2:
PHOTO 4-3:
PHOTO 5-1:
PHOTO 5-2:
AERIAL VIEW OF EXISTING FINGERVILLE DAM SITE ............................................ 4-2
VIEW OF EXISTING FINGERVILLE DAM ................................................................. 4-2
VIEW OF EXISTING POWER CANAL AND POWERHOUSE ......................................... 4-3
DWARF-FLOWERED HEARTLEAF.......................................................................... 5-34
FINGERVILLE TEXTILE MILL, 1920-1929 ............................................................ 5-50
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
CONSULTATION RECORD
DISTRIBUTION LIST
J:\1755\014\Docs\PAD\001-FINAL PAD Fingerville 052714.docx
MAY 2014
-v-
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
af
APE
Acre-foot, the amount of water needed to cover one acre to a depth of one foot
Area of Potential Effect as pertaining to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act
BIA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
CADD
computer aided drafting and design
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cfs
cubic feet per second
Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
CPWSSC
CWA
Clean Water Act
DLA
Draft License Application
DO
dissolved oxygen
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DOI
U.S. Department of Interior
EA
Environmental Assessment
EAP
Emergency Action Plan
EFH
Essential Fish Habitat
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EL
elevation
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FERC
FPA
Federal Power Act
FWCA
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
GWh
Gigawatt-hour (equals one million kilowatt-hours)
Hp
Horsepower
Hz
hertz (cycles per second)
HPMP
Historic Properties Management Plan
ILP
Integrated Licensing Process
Installed
The nameplate MW rating of a generator or group of generators
Capacity
Interested
The broad group of individuals and entities that have an interest in a proceeding
Parties
kW
kilowatt
kWh
kilowatt-hour
kV
kilovolts
kVA
kilovolt amps
License
Application for New License submitted to FERC no less than two years in
Application advance of expiration of an existing license. See DLA
Licensee
MW
megawatt
MWh
megawatt-hour
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NGO
Non-governmental organization
APRIL 2014
- vi -
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONT’D.)
NMFS
NOAA
Fisheries
NPDES
NPS
NOI
Normal
Operating
Capacity
NWI
PAD
Peaking
National Marine Fisheries Services, same as NOAA Fisheries
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, same as NMFS
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Park Service
Notice of Intent
The maximum MW output of a generator or group of generators under normal
maximum head and flow conditions
National Wetlands Inventory
Pre-Application Document
Operation of generating facilities to meet maximum instantaneous electrical
demands
Penstock
An inclined pressurized pipe through which water flows from a forebay or
tunnel to the powerhouse turbine
PDF
Portable Document Format
PLP
Preliminary Licensing Proposal
PM&E
Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
PMF
Probable Maximum Flood
Project
FERC Project No. 14215, Fingerville Project
Project Area The area within the FERC Project boundary
Project
The boundary line defined in the Project license issued by FERC that surrounds
Boundary
those areas needed for operation of the Project
Project
The general geographic area in which the Project is located; for this PAD,
Vicinity
Spartanburg County, South Carolina
QC
quality control
Relicensing The process of acquiring a new FERC license for an existing hydroelectric
project upon expiration of the existing FERC license
Relicensing Individuals and entities that are actively participating in a proceeding
Participants
Resource
The geographic area in which a specific resource is potentially affected by the
Affected
Project
Area
RM
River mile
RT&E
Rare, threatened, endangered and special status species, which for purposes of
Species
this PAD is defined to include (1) all species (plant and animal) listed, proposed
for listing, or candidates for listing under the Federal and state Endangered
Species Acts and those listed by the USFS as sensitive, special status or watch
list
Run-of-the- A hydroelectric project that uses the flow of a stream with little or no reservoir
river
capacity for storing water
SCBCB
South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics, Budget and Control Board
SCDHEC
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SCDNR
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
SCFC
South Carolina Forest Commission
SCPRT
South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
SD
Scoping Document
MAY 2014
- vii -
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONT’D.)
Service List
SWS
A list maintained by FERC of parties who have formally intervened in a
proceeding. In relicensing, there is no Service List until the license application
is filed and accepted by FERC. Once FERC establishes a Service List, any
documents filed with FERC must also be sent to the Service List
State Historic Preservation Officer
A structure located on a tunnel or penstock, used to absorb and attenuate the
overflow and prevents any disruption due to a sudden change in water pressure
through a tunnel or penstock
Tailrace
Channel through which water is discharged from the powerhouse turbines
TLP
USACE
USDA
USEPA
USFS
USFWS
USGS
WQC
Traditional Licensing Process
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Quality Certificate
SHPO
Surge
Chamber
MAY 2014
- viii -
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Spartanburg Water System (Spartanburg Water or Applicant), hereby files with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) the required Pre-Application Document
(PAD) for the proposed Fingerville Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14215. The
Applicant proposes to develop the Fingerville Hydroelectric Project on the right bank (looking
downstream) making use of as much existing infrastructure as possible. The Project would
contain an expanded or new powerhouse, slightly larger in dimensions to the brick structure
which currently exists at the site, and a short tie to the local power distribution grid. The
powerhouse would contain one horizontal Francis type turbine. The expected annual average
generation of the Project is 770 MWH. The Project would be completed and operated following
the information provided in the Application for Preliminary Permit filed with FERC on June, 23,
2011. On March 7, 2012 FERC issued Spartanburg Water a three-year Preliminary Permit for the
site.
1.1
BACKGROUND
The proposed project is located on the north Pacolet River in northwestern South Carolina, near
the community of Fingerville, SC (Figure 1-1). The site is approximately twelve miles north of
the city of Spartanburg. Currently, there is no generation at the site. However, the project did
electrify an existing manufacturing facility up until the 1980’s. Much of the infrastructure,
including the dam, spillway gate and headrace are still in existence. In addition a small brick
structure which housed the turbine generator unit still stands. The Project will utilize the existing
dam. The dam is not listed in the Army Corps of Engineers NatDam database but based on
survey data collected on site the dam is 11.3 feet high and 171 feet long. There is one existing
headrace that is approximately 130 feet in length, extending inland from the dam. This existing
MAY 2014
1-1
headrace would serve as the intake for the Applicant’s proposed generating facilities.
The Project will contain a new or expanded powerhouse that is slightly larger in dimension than
the current brick structure at the site, and will contain one horizontal Francis type turbine, and a
short tie to the local power distribution grid.
MAY 2014
1-2
FIGURE 1-1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
MAY 2014
1-3
Spartanburg Water is using FERC’s Traditional Licensing Process (TLP), as requested in the
Application for Preliminary Permit and approved by FERC. Utilizing the TLP requires
completion of a three-stage pre-filing consultation process as set forth in Title 18 of the U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), §4.38. This PAD accompanies Spartanburg Water’s
Notification of Intent (NOI) to seek an initial license for the Project. Spartanburg Water
distributed this PAD and NOI simultaneously to Federal and state resource agencies, local
governments, Native American tribes, members of the public, and others interested in the
licensing proceeding. Appendix A details the distribution list of the NOI and PAD. The PAD
provides FERC and the entities listed above with summaries of existing, relevant, and reasonably
available information related to the Project that is in the Applicant’s possession or was obtained
through due diligence. The information required in the PAD is specified in 18 CFR § 5.6 (c) and
(d).
FERC’s regulations require that an Applicant exercise due diligence in obtaining and including
existing relevant and reasonably available information about the Project and related resources.
To do this, Spartanburg Water has thoroughly surveyed their files for relevant information about
the Project. Spartanburg Water also conducted searches of other potential information sources
including reference books and the Internet. All information sources cited in this PAD are
appropriately referenced, and a record of all contacts made with agencies and other organizations
to obtain Project resource data and information has been made (Appendix B).
The existing, relevant, and reasonably available information provided in this PAD provides
participants in this licensing proceeding the information necessary to identify issues and related
information needs; develop study requests and study plans; and to prepare documents analyzing
Spartanburg Water’s Application for an Initial License (License Application) that will be filed
with FERC on or before January 30, 2017. The PAD is also a precursor to the environmental
analysis section of the License Application and to FERC’s Scoping documents and
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Filing the PAD concurrently with the NOI enables those who
plan to participate in the licensing to familiarize themselves with the Project at the start of the
proceeding. This familiarity will lead to enhanced success of FERC’s Scoping process.
MAY 2014
1-4
1.2
APPLICANT/AGENTS FOR THE PROJECT
The exact name, business and telephone number of the applicant is:
dba Spartanburg Water System
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
The exact name, business address, and telephone number of each person authorized to act as
agent for the applicant are as follows, pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(2)(i):
Sue Schneider
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Tel: 864.580.5642
Ken Tuck
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Tel: 864.580.5642
1.3
PAD CONTENT
This PAD follows the content and form requirements of 18 CFR § 5.6 (c) and (d) with minor
changes in form for enhanced readability and is organized as follows:
Table of Contents; List of Figures; List of Figures; List of Photos; List of Appendices; and
Definitions of Terms, Acronyms, and Abbreviations.
Section 1.0 – Introduction and Background Information.
Section 2.0 – Process Plan and Schedule and Communications Protocol.
Section 3.0 – General Description of the River basin, per 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(3)(xiii).
Section 4.0 – Description of Project Location, Facilities, and Operation, per 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(2).
MAY 2014
1-5
Section 5.0 – Description of the Existing Environment by Resource Area, per 18 CFR §
5.6(d)(3)(ii)-(xii).
Section 6.0 – Description of Impacts, Issues, Study and Information Needs, Resource Measures,
and Existing Plans, per 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(3) and (4).
MAY 2014
1-6
2.0
PLANS, SCHEDULE AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS
The ILP regulations 1 define specific procedures and timelines as part of the licensing process.
However, as previously stated, Spartanburg Water has predicated their efforts to license the
Project on the use of the TLP. Therefore, this section will focus on Spartanburg Water’s
proposed schedule for licensing, which provides for filing of the Final License Application on or
before the filing deadline of January 30, 2017. Spartanburg Water will carefully document the
entire process including any information received from the interested parties, as well as records
of communications. To keep the interested parties informed of the process, Spartanburg Water
will maintain records of licensing and other information which will be available to the public at
the Spartanburg Water System Corporate Office in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
2.1
PROCESS SCHEDULE THROUGH FILING OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION
The Process Schedule outlines actions by FERC, Spartanburg Water, and other participants in
the TLP through filing of the License Application (Table 2-1). Spartanburg Water developed this
schedule using the timeframes set forth in 18 CFR. The Schedule is based upon the License
Application filing deadline of January 30, 2017 and all subsequent dates provided are derived
from that date.
TABLE 2-1:
FINGERVILLE PROJECT LICENSING SCHEDULE – TRADITIONAL LICENSE
PROCESS
TLP STEPS
NOI/PAD Filed/TLP Request
Commission Notice NOI Filed and Request Comments on TLP
Stage 1 TLP Approved by Commission
Joint Agency Meeting
Comments on PAD, study requests
Stage 2 Conduct Studies
Issue Draft License Application (DLA) and Study Results
Comments on DLA and Need for Additional Studies
Dispute Resolution Process
Revise DLA to Incorporate Agency Comments
Stage 3 Final Application Filed
2.2
1
PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS
For more details on FERC licensing processes go to www.ferc.gov.
MAY 2014
2-1
DUE DATE
5/27/14
5/27/14
6/27/14
7/14/14
10/15/14
10/5/1412/30/15
6/30/16
9/30/16
10/30/16
11/30/16
1/30/17
Effective communication is essential for a timely, cost-effective licensing. Spartanburg Water
anticipates that the primary means of communication will be meetings, documents, email, and
telephone.
2.2.1
GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Communications will include written correspondence, emails, and notes from individual and
conference telephone calls. Spartanburg Water’s goal is to keep the lines of communication open
during the licensing process and make it easy for licensing participants and the public to get
information related to the licensing, as well as the interests of other interested parties.
2.2.2
MEETINGS
Spartanburg Water recognizes there are a number of agencies, groups, individuals, and tribes that
may want to participate in the process. Spartanburg Water will work with all interested parties to
develop meeting schedules that include practical locations and times to accommodate the
majority of participants. In general, Spartanburg Water will schedule most meetings between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The Joint Agency Meeting (JAM) and FERC Scoping meetings
will include at least one evening meeting. Spartanburg Water will make every effort to begin and
end meetings on time.
Spartanburg Water will notify all interested parties at least two weeks in advance of the next
planned public meeting. At that time, Spartanburg Water will provide a meeting agenda via mail
and by email. Spartanburg Water will also distribute any documents or other information that
will be the subject of meeting discussions.
Meetings, other than FERC Scoping Meetings, will be held at Spartanburg Water System’s
office at 200 Commerce Street, Spartanburg, SC, 29304 or at the office of Kleinschmidt
Associates at 204 Caughman Farm Lane, Suite 301, Lexington, SC, 29072. FERC Scoping
Meetings will be held at a location identified in consultation with the Licensee.
2.2.3
DOCUMENTS
Spartanburg Water will maintain copies of all mailing lists, announcements, notices,
communications, and other documents related to the licensing of the Project at Spartanburg
Water System’s office in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Spartanburg Water will regularly update
MAY 2014
2-2
the public files to ensure the public has the latest information related to the licensing process
available to them and that all public documents are available. Anyone may obtain documents, or
submit documents, by contacting Ken Tuck, Director of Water Treatment, Spartanburg Water
System at P.O. Box 251, 200 Commerce Street, Spartanburg, SC 29304; by telephone at
864.580.5642; or by email at [email protected]. In either case, all documents received become
part of the consultation record for the licensing and are available for distribution to the public.
2.2.3.1
PUBLIC REFERENCE FILE
Spartanburg Water will maintain a public reference file on the Fingerville Project at the
Spartanburg Water System office in Spartanburg, SC. The public reference file is a listing of
important materials pertaining to the licensing. This will include: reference material, relevant
studies, and data compiled during development of the Pre-Application Document; existing FERC
documents for the Project; the consultation record, including stakeholder correspondence and
meeting summaries and notices; and licensing study plans and reports. For a nominal copying
fee, hard copies of all documents are available upon request. Documents are available for
inspection at Spartanburg Water’s office at 200 Commerce Street, Spartanburg, SC 29304 during
regular office business hours. Appointments are appreciated.
2.2.3.2
RESTRICTED DOCUMENTS
Certain Project-related documents are restricted from public viewing in accordance with FERC
regulations. Most notably, information regarding the design and safety of dams and appurtenant
facilities is considered Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) (18 CFR 388.113),
access to which is restricted to protect national security and public safety. Anyone seeking CEII
from FERC must file a CEII request. FERC's website at www.ferc.gov/help/how-to/file-ceii.asp
contains additional details related to CEII.
Information regarding sensitive archaeological or other culturally important information is also
restricted under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Anyone seeking this
information from FERC must file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Instructions for
FOIA are available on FERC's website at www.ferc.gov/legal/ceii-foia/foia.asp.
MAY 2014
2-3
2.2.3.3
STUDY REQUESTS
In the development of the PAD, Spartanburg Water collected and summarized the information
available regarding the Fingerville Project and its effects on the human and natural
environments. The PAD, however, may also indicate areas where there is little or no information
related to areas of potential critical concern. In those cases, licensing participants may request
additional studies or investigations to add to the knowledge of the Project. FERC typically
requires specific information from parties requesting studies related to the licensing. Draft study
requests should follow the following format used in the ILP. Spartanburg Water will assist
parties with study requests as requested.
As specified by CFR 18, § 5.9(b) of FERC's ILP regulations, any study request must:
•
Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be
obtained;
•
If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian
tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied;
•
If the requestor is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest
considerations in regard to the proposed study;
•
Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and the need
for additional information;
•
Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or
cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the
development of license requirements;
•
Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection
and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including
appropriate filed season(s) and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted
practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers relevant tribal values
and knowledge; and
•
Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why any proposed
alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs.
The requestor should also describe any available cost-share funds or in-kind services that the
sponsor of the request may contribute towards the study effort.
Email completed draft study requests in MS Word or PDF format to [email protected] or mail
them to Ken Tuck, Spartanburg Water System, P.O. Box 251, 200 Commerce Street,
Spartanburg, SC 29304.
MAY 2014
2-4
2.2.3.4
DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION
Spartanburg Water will distribute, whenever possible, all documents electronically in standard
MS Word format or PDF. Spartanburg Water may distribute hard copies of some documents for
convenience or by request. Spartanburg Water is also planning to launch a website where Project
information will be available to the public. Stakeholders will be notified via email when the
website becomes available.
2.2.3.5
MAILING LISTS
There are two categories of participation in a FERC licensing and each requires different
notification or frequency and type of communication. Interested Parties are a broad group of
individuals and governmental and NGOs that have an interest in the licensing; sometimes this
group is referred to as "stakeholders." Spartanburg Water will maintain a Fingerville Licensing
Mailing List of all Interested Parties. The list will include both standard U.S. Postal Service
addresses and available email addresses for distributing notices and documents for public review
(Table 2-3).
TABLE 2-2:
ENTITY
FERC
FERC
Spartanburg
Water
System
FINGERVILLE LICENSING FERC PROJECT NO.14215 MAILING LISTS
TYPE
Project No.
14215 Mailing
List
Project No.
14215 Service
List
Project No.
14215 Interested
Parties Mailing
List
DESCRIPTION
A mailing list of interested parties prepared and maintained
by FERC throughout the Project licensing proceeding.
A mailing list of parties that have formally intervened in the
licensing proceeding, prepared and maintained by FERC after
it accepts the License Application.
A list of interested parties prepared by Licensee in
anticipation of the Project licensing proceeding. Spartanburg
Water anticipates that, once the licensing proceeding begins,
the Licensee’s Project 14215 Interested Parties Mailing List
and FERC’s Project No. 14215 Mailing List may be
consolidated into one common list.
Licensing Participants are a subset of Interested Parties. Licensing Participants are the
individuals and entities that are actively participating in a proceeding. Any Interested Party may
elect to be a Licensing Participant. Licensing Participants generally are active on specific aspects
MAY 2014
2-5
of the Licensing and receive additional communications relative to the specific activity or
function.
After Spartanburg Water files its License Application (scheduled for January 30, 2017), FERC
will establish an official Service List (Table 2-3) for parties who formally intervene in the
proceeding. Intervention is a formal legal process in the FERC regulations. Additional
information may be found on FERC's Website at www.ferc.gov. Once FERC establishes a
Service List, any written documents filed with FERC must also be sent to the Service List. A
Certificate of Service must be included with the document filed with FERC.
2.2.4
TELEPHONE
Spartanburg Water anticipates that telephone calls among licensing participants will be treated
informally, with no specific documentation unless specifically agreed upon in the discussion.
FERC has indicated that it will distribute to the FERC Project No. 14215 Mailing List summaries
of any informal decisional telephone calls in which it participates prior to acceptance of the
License Application. FERC will provide prior public notice of any decisional telephone calls in
which it participates after it accepts the License Application.
2.3
INTEGRATED LICENSING PROCESS FLOW CHART
The following diagram prepared by FERC and provided as Figure 2-1 illustrates the Integrated
Licensing process pursuant to 18 CFR Part 5.
2.4
REFERENCES
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2005. Integrated Licensing Process Flowchart.
[Online] URL: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/geninfo/licensing/ilp/flowchart.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2012.
MAY 2014
2-6
FIGURE 2-1: INTEGRATED LICENSING PROCESS FLOW CHART
Source: FERC, 2005
MAY 2014
2-7
3.0
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF RIVER BASIN
3.1
OVERVIEW
The North Pacolet River Watershed is located in the Piedmont physiographic region of the Broad
River Basin (SCDHEC, 2007) (Figure 3-1). The Broad River Basin, a subunit of the larger
Santee River Basin, covers 2,450.4 square miles across northwestern and central South Carolina
(Figure 3-2). The Broad River flows across the North Carolina/South Carolina state line and
accepts drainage from Buffalo Creek, Cherokee Creek, Kings Creek, Thicketty Creek, Bullock
Creek, and the Pacolet River. The Broad River then accepts drainage from Turkey Creek, the
Sandy River, the Little River, and Cedar Creek before converging with the Saluda River in
Columbia. Of the approximately 1.5 million acres of the Broad River Basin, over 60 percent is
forested land, 24 percent is agricultural land, and almost 10 percent is urban. The rest is split
between scrub/shrub, forested wetland, water and barren land. The basin contains approximately
2,798.6 stream miles and 14,603 acres of lake waters.
The North Pacolet River flows generally southeasterly, originating in the Blue Ridge Mountains
in southeastern Henderson County, North Carolina and merging with the South Pacolet River in
northern Spartanburg County, South Carolina. The North Pacolet River accepts drainage from
Vaughn Creek and Wolfe Creek, which originate in South Carolina. After flowing across the
state line, the river accepts drainage from Page Creek, Hooper Creek, Collinsville Creek and
Bear Creek, which all originate in North Carolina. There are 149.9 stream miles and 103.5 acres
of lake waters in the North Pacolet watershed with all of the water classified as freshwater, with
the exception of Vaughn Creek which is considered an outstanding water resource (SCDHEC,
2007). The watershed occupies 75,138 acres of the Piedmont region of South Carolina.
MAY 2014
3-1
FIGURE 3-1: MAJOR WATERSHEDS OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Source: SCDHEC, 2007
MAY 2014
3-2
FIGURE 3-2: BROAD RIVER SUB-BASIN IN SOUTH CAROLINA
MAY 2014
3-3
3.2
MAJOR LAND USES
Land use and land cover in the North Pacolet River watershed includes 60.3% forested land,
24.2% agricultural land, 11.1% urban land, 2.2% forested wetland, 0.9% scrub or shrub land,
0.7% barren land and 0.6% water (SCDHEC, 2007).
Development patterns and land use within Spartanburg County have formed as a result of
demographic trends, economic circumstances, social attitudes, and technological changes.
Because these factors are always evolving, land use patterns have changed significantly over the
last 30 years. The amount of farmland has steadily decreased, being lost to development.
According to the Spartanburg County Comprehensive Plan, the projected population increase in
Spartanburg County of approximately 65,000 by the year 2015 will remove another 100,000
acres of farmland (Spartanburg County, 1997). The majority of the urban, or built-up, areas in
the county are located in the approximate middle of the county, stretching from the towns of
Pacolet and Cowpens to the City of Greer (Spartanburg County, 1997). These urban areas
include, or are in close proximity to, the Project Area. Goals of the comprehensive plan include
encouraging a strong and diverse economy, protecting and conserving important natural and
historic resources, and maintaining and enhancing recreational opportunities in the region
(Spartanburg County, 1997).
3.3
MAJOR WATER USES
Water supply is abundant throughout Spartanburg County, making it the most important natural
resource in the area. Streams and lakes account for over 95% of local water resources for
industrial and domestic use (Spartanburg County, 1997). The water is soft, with uniform
temperatures throughout the county, and has low concentrations of individual dissolved
substances. Lake Blalock and Lake Bowen are the primary sources of surface water within the
county.
Ground water makes up the other 5% of the local water resources in Spartanburg County, being
the principle source of water for rural homes and farms, small to medium sized industries, and
some supplemental irrigation. Ground water is an important resource because of its generally
good quality, wide availability and economic value. Well yields range from 1 to 250 gpm and
average 20 gpm. Wells in topographically low areas, such as draws and gentle slopes, generally
MAY 2014
3-4
have the highest yields. Wells located on topographically high areas or on steep slopes generally
have the lowest yields (Spartanburg County, 1997).
To help protect these important resources, Spartanburg County has consulted with water
providers and identified several critical areas for management of the local water supply. These
include the establishment of planning policies related to ground withdrawals; implementation of
ordinances regarding the location of wells, irrigation ponds, and other water impoundments in
order to prevent or minimize adverse effects of ground water withdrawals and to encourage
water conservation practices; and the adoption of water management and conservation plans to
address the issue of competing water uses in the event of water shortages or adverse
environmental effects of ground water withdrawals (Spartanburg County, 1997).
3.4
CLIMATE
Spartanburg County is characterized as a humid, temperate climate, located on the lee side of the
Appalachian Mountains, which provide protection from the cold air masses during the winter.
Temperatures for the county are usually between 32 degrees and 90 degrees for eight months of
the year, with an average daily temperature of 60 degrees (Spartanburg County, 1997). Overall
rainfall for the county averages around 50 inches annually, which exceeds the national average
by 20 inches. Rainfall is typically well distributed throughout the year, with approximately one
fourth of rainfall occurring in each season (Spartanburg County, 1997). Prevailing winds come
from the southwest the majority of the year, but blow from the northeast late in summer and
early fall. Average relative humidity ranges from 57 percent in winter to 47 percent in April and
May, with an annual average relative humidity of approximately 70 percent (Spartanburg
County, 1997). This climate is ideal for growing crops like peaches, apples, cotton, corn, small
grain, soybeans, hay and vegetables (Spartanburg County, 1997).
3.5
REFERENCES
Spartanburg County. 1997. Spartanburg County Comprehensive Plan: 1998-2015.
[Online]URLhttp://www.co.spartanburg.sc.us/govt/depts/pln/compplan/TOC.htm.
Accessed October 11, 2012.
MAY 2014
3-5
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. Watershed
Water Quality Assessment Quality Assessment; Broad River Basin. Technical Report No.
006-07. Bureau of Water, Columbia, SC. [Online]
URL:http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/shed/docs/bd-006-07.pdf Accessed
October 12, 2012.
MAY 2014
3-6
4.0
PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATIONS
The Fingerville Project is located on the North Pacolet River in northwestern South Carolina,
near the community of Fingerville, SC. The following information was gathered from the
preliminary permit for this Project.
4.1
PROJECT FACILITIES
There are no generating facilities within the proposed Project Boundary however the dam site
was used to electrify a manufacturing facility up until the 1980s. The existing infrastructure,
including the dam, spillway gate, and headrace are still standing and in fair condition. The
project will use the existing dam, which is not listed in the Army Corps of Engineers NatDam
database, but has been determined to be 11.3 feet high and 171 feet long.
4.1.1
FINGERVILLE RESERVOIR
The reservoir impounds a surface area of 11.69 acres at 756.21 feet msl and has a drainage area
of 212 acres. CPWSSC estimates that the area encompassing the proposed project boundary
would be approximately 12.45 acres.
4.1.2
FINGERVILLE DAM
The Fingerville Dam is run-of-river dam, approximately 11.3 feet high and 171 feet long, and is
of wood construction. The dam is constructed of a series of vertical timber support frames
(bents) with wood planking across the upstream face that serve as the water retaining surface
(Photo 4-1 & Photo 4-2). On the west side of the dam is an existing timber sluice gate located in
a concrete structure and the concrete headworks to the power canal. The concrete lined power
canal extends approximately 125 feet to the former hydroelectric powerhouse (Photo 4-3). The
existing powerhouse has been converted into a storage building and its tailrace has been filled
and its location is not evident on the ground.
MAY 2014
4-1
Canal and Intake
Structure
Former Powerhouse
PHOTO 4-1:
AERIAL VIEW OF EXISTING FINGERVILLE DAM SITE
Source: Bing 2009
PHOTO 4-2:
MAY 2014
VIEW OF EXISTING FINGERVILLE DAM
4-2
PHOTO 4-3:
4.2
VIEW OF EXISTING POWER CANAL AND POWERHOUSE
PROPOSED FACILITIES
The proposed Project will consist of developing the Fingerville Hydroelectric Project on the right
bank (looking downstream) making use of as much existing infrastructure as possible. The
Project will contain an expanded or new powerhouse, one that is slightly larger in dimensions to
the brick structure which currently exists at the site. The powerhouse will contain one Francis
type turbine and sized similar to the existing conditions.
Since there is no generation capacity currently at the site of the Fingerville Project, the Project
will require a short power line to an electrical distribution line on site (owned by Duke Energy)
interconnecting to the grid. To connect to the existing distribution line, Spartanburg Water
proposes to install 450 feet of overhead line consistent with generator voltage rating. The
existing distribution line on site has the capacity to handle the anticipated supply from the
proposed site, as it is rated for 12kV.
4.3
PROPOSED OPERATIONS
Flow data for the analysis of average annual energy production was obtained from the USGS
gage #01254500, North Pacolet River at Fingerville, SC. The gage has been continuous with no
MAY 2014
4-3
adjustments for variation in drainage area. While this gage has been in continuous operation
since 1930, only the most recent period, 1990 to 2011 was used. The mean daily data for the
noted period was used to develop the annual flow duration curve for the site as shown in
Figure 4-1.
FIGURE 4-1: PLOT OF HISTORICAL RESERVOIR LEVEL DATA FROM THE USGS GAGE
Based on the flow duration curve, the initial project design flow was determined based on the
25% exceedance flow for the site. This flow was determined to be 215 cfs.
Site survey data noted there is a gross head of approximately 11.3 feet at the site. A headloss
value of 1 foot was assumed for the project. This loss includes intake trashrack and gate loss as
well as turbine exit loss. The total loss was varied with the flow available to the generating unit
in determining the estimated annual generation.
The overall generating efficiency for the site was assumed to be 80%. Using this value, the noted
design flow and net head value, the project would have an installed capacity of 150 KW. It was
assumed that the generating unit would be able to operate with flows ranging from the design
flow down to a flow equal to 30% of the design flow or 65 cfs. Using assumptions and the
annual flow duration curve, the proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of
MAY 2014
4-4
approximately 770 MWH’s per year. This value is a net value and includes a 5% reduction in
generation to cover scheduled and unscheduled outages, station service, transformer and other
minor losses.
4.4
OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION
4.4.1
CURRENT NET INVESTMENT
As this is not an existing Project, the full capital investment for a complete hydroelectric project
has not been determined.
4.4.2
PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY
The Proposed Project Boundary will include only those lands necessary for project operations.
The Project Boundary will include the existing wooden dam, existing spillway gate, existing
headrace, new transmission line, and new or expanded powerhouse.
FIGURE 4-2: PROPOSED FINGERVILLE PROJECT BOUNDARY
MAY 2014
4-5
5.0
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
5.1
OVERVIEW
The Fingerville Project consists of creating a new hydroelectric facility at the Fingerville Dam on
the North Pacolet River. Since this is a new Project that has never been through the licensing
process, some vital and relevant environmental information within the Project Boundary is not
available yet. However, several other projects, including the Pacolet and Lockhart projects, are
located within the Project Vicinity and have recently been through the relicensing process. Much
of the data collected for these projects is relevant for the Fingerville Project and will be used in
the following sections to describe Spartanburg County and the Pacolet River basin. Figure 5-1
shows how these other projects relate to the Fingerville Project according to location.
MAY 2014
5-1
FIGURE 5-1:
MAY 2014
VICINITY EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED FINGERVILLE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
5-2
5.2
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
5.2.1
EXISTING GEOLOGICAL FEATURES
The Fingerville Project is located in the Piedmont Region of South Carolina (Figure 5-2). The
Piedmont extends from the Blue Ridge Region to the Fall Line, at Columbia, South Carolina
(SCDNR, 2005). The Piedmont is South Carolina’s largest physiographic province and is an area
that has been modified by both agriculture and development. This region is characterized by
relatively low, rolling hills with heights above sea level between 200 feet and 800 feet to 1000
feet. The Piedmont is what remains of several greatly eroded ancient mountain chains (USGS,
1997). The size of the land forms and the degree of slope on the ridges vary across the region,
but in the northern portions of the Piedmont the ridge divies are typically steep and narrow.
Within the project area, elevation ranges from 230 to 275 (750 to 900 ft) above mean sea level,
and the topography consists primarily of gently rolling hills and broad, shallow river valleys
(USGS, 1997).
FIGURE 5-2: GEOLOGIC REGIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Source: SCDNR, 2005
MAY 2014
5-3
The Piedmont geologic region consists of the same bedrock that underlies the adjacent Atlantic
Coastal Plain (Hunt, 1974) which extends toward South Carolina’s coast from southeast of the
Fall Line. Surficial bedrock within the Piedmont geologic region is dominated by granite. The
Piedmont region also includes other metamorphic and igneous rocks such as schist and gneiss,
with lesser occurrences of phyllite, slate, greenstone, diabase, quartzite and soapstone (Brown
and Mayne, 2003).
5.2.2
SOILS
Due to weathering, the igneous and metamorphic rocks listed in Section 5.2.1 have been reduced
to form a variety of soils, including clay topsoil with sandy silts and silty sands over most of the
Piedmont region in South Carolina (Brown and Mayne, 2003). Specifically, within Spartanburg
County, including the Project Area, soil series include: Cecil, Congaree, Louisburg, and Pacolet
(NRCS, 2006b). These are very deep, well drained moderately permeable soils that from the
weathering of mostly felsic igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont uplands. Slopes
typically range from 15 to 25 percent but this area can include slopes ranging from 2 to 60
percent. (NRCS 2006a) Slopes within the Pacolet River watershed average 10 percent and range
from 2 to 25 percent (SCDHEC, 2001).
5.2.3
REFERENCES
Brown, D.A. and Mayne, P.W. 2003. Site characterization of Piedmont residuum of North
America [Online].
URL:http://www.cptrobertson.com/pdfs/piedmontsitecharacterization.pdf Accessed
November 28, 2012.
Hunt, C.B. 1974. Natural Regions of the United States. W.H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco. 253-254.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil Survey Staff. 2006a. Official Soil Series
Descriptions [Online]. URL: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html
Accessed November 27, 2012.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006b. Web Soil Survey for Pacolet Mills,
South Carolina. [Online] URL:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Accessed November 27,
2012.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. [Online] URL: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/ Accessed November
27, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-4
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2001. Broad River
Water Quality Assessment, Technical Report 001-01, 2nd edition. [Online]. URL:
http://www.scdhec.gov/eqc/water/pubs/broad2k1.pdf . Accessed November 27, 2012.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. Physiographic division of the conterminous U.S. [Online] URL:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_l/L-text1.html Accessed November 27, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-5
5.3
WATER RESOURCES
5.3.1
OVERVIEW
The North Pacolet River watershed, formed by the North Pacolet River and its tributaries, is
located in Spartanburg County and occupies 75,138 acres of the Piedmont region of South
Carolina. The watershed is composed of 60.3% forested land, 24.2% agricultural land, 11.1%
urban land, 2.2% forested wetland, 0.9% scrub and shred land, 0.7% barren land, and 0.6% water
(SCDHEC, 2007).
5.3.2
DRAINAGE AREA
The reservoir for the Fingerville Project has a drainage area of 212 acres, and impounds a surface
area of 11.69 acres at 756.21 feet msl.
5.3.3
EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES OF WATER
Currently, the stretch of the North Pacolet River that will be part of the Fingerville Project is not
used for any purpose other than habitat for various plant and animal species. Eventually,
Spartanburg Water plans to use the water as a source of power that will be sold locally via
distribution through Duke Energy Carolinas LLC.
5.3.4
EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW USES
Currently there is no primary instream use for the stretch of the North Pacolet River that is
included in the Fingerville Project.
5.3.5
EXISTING WATER RIGHTS
The properties, including the existing dam, headrace and spillway, that are associated with the
proposed Fingerville Project as well as the water up to the crest of the dam, an elevation of
756.21 msl, are owned by The Commission of Public Works of the City of Spartanburg, South
Carolina, a political subdivision of the City of Spartanburg (legally doing business as
Spartanburg Water System).,. Project Bathymetry
The existing maximum depth of the North Pacolet River near the Project is approximately 4.5
feet, with an average depth of 3.5 feet (USGS, 2012). With the impoundment located at the top
MAY 2014
5-6
of the dam the water depth at the dam increases to approximately 11 feet resulting in an average
water depth for the impoundment of approximately 5 feet.
5.3.6
FEDERALLY APPROVED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The project waters are designated as Freshwaters (FW). The standards for this designation are set
forth in the South Carolina Regulation 61-68 Water Classification and Standards and are
presented in Table 5-1.
TABLE 5-1:
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR FRESHWATERS
ITEMS
a. Garbage, cinders, ashes, oils, sludge, or
other refuse
b. Treated wastes, toxic wastes,
deleterious substances, colored with
other substances or wastes in or other
wastes except those given sufficient
amounts to make the in (a) above.
c. Toxic pollutants listed in the appendix.
d. Dissolved Oxygen
e. Fecal coliform
f. pH
g. Temperature
h. Turbidity*
* Lakes only
STANDARDS
None allowed.
None alone or in combination with other
substances or wastes in sufficient amounts
to make the waters unsafe or unsuitable for
primary contact recreation or to impair the
waters for any other best usage as
determined for the specific waters which
are assigned to this class.
As prescribed in Section E of this
regulation.
Daily average not less than 5.0 mg/L with a
low of 4.0 mg/L.
Not to exceed a geometric mean of
200/100 ml, based on five consecutive
samples during any 30-day period, nor
shall more than 10% of the total samples
during any 30-day period exceed 400/100
ml.
Between 6.0 and 8.5.
As prescribed in E.12 of this regulation.
Not to exceed 50 NTUs provided existing
uses are maintained.
Not to exceed 25 NTUs provided existing
uses are maintained.
MAY 2014
5-7
5.3.7
EXISTING WATER QUALITY DATA
The SCDHEC monitors the North Pacolet River at three monitoring stations, and its tributaries at
six monitoring stations (Figure 5-3). The furthest upstream site on the North Pacolet River
supports aquatic life and recreational use. The midstream site on the river also supports aquatic
life, but there is a significant decreasing trend in dissolved oxygen concentration and in pH.
However, a significant decreasing trend in five-day biochemical oxygen demand, turbidity, total
phosphorus concentration, and total nitrogen concentration suggest that conditions for these
parameters are improving. Recreational uses at this site are not supported due to the presence of
fecal coliform bacteria. The downstream site supports aquatic life uses however there is a
significant increasing trend in five-day biochemical oxygen demand and a decreasing trend in
pH. There have been significant decreasing trends in turbidity and total phosphorus
concentration, suggesting improving conditions for these parameters. Also at this site,
recreational uses are only partially supported due to fecal coliform bacteria excursions. All sites
monitored on the river’s tributaries seem to show good water quality, with sites supporting
aquatic life and recreation.
MAY 2014
5-8
FIGURE 5-3: NORTH AND SOUTH PACOLET RIVER WATERSHEDS INCLUDING MONITORING
STATIONS
5.3.8
REFERENCES
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008. Control
Regulations 61-68 Water Classification and Standards. [Online] URL:
http://www.scdhec.gov/eqc/water/regs/r61-68.doc. Accessed November 27, 2012.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. Watershed
Water Quality Assessment: Broad Basin, Technical report 006-07, 2nd edition. [Online]
URL: http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/shed/docs/bd-006-07.pdf Accessed
November 27, 2012
Spartanburg Water System. (SWS) 2009b. Spartanburg Water- History. http://www.swssssd.org/about/history.php Accessed November 27, 2012.
United States Geological Service. 2012. National Water Information System: Web Interface.
USGS 02154500 North Pacolet River at Fingerville, SC. [Online] URL:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/. Accessed October 15, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-9
5.4
FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES
5.4.1
OVERVIEW OF FISH RESOURCES
Though site specific aquatic survey information for the Fingerville Project is limited, SCDNR
has performed sampling of streams in the North Pacolet River and Pacolet River drainages. Data
collected during these sampling efforts is shown below in Table 5-2.
MAY 2014
5-10
TABLE 5-2:
SCDNR FISH COLLECTIONS WITHIN THE PACOLET RIVER WATERSHED
Buck
Creek
Site →
Date Sampled → 8/12/2010
Species ↓
Cudds
Creek
Gault
Creek
8/12/2010 3/24/2010
Hooper
Creek
North
Pacolet
River
4/6/2010
11/1/2012 11/13/2006 8/15/2007 7/15/2008 9/1/2009 7/27/2010 6/28/2011 3/24/2010 8/15/2007 7/10/2008 7/16/2009 7/27/2010 6/29/2011
Obed
Creek
Obed
Creek
Obed
Creek
Obed
Creek
Obed
Creek
Obed
Creek
Reedy
Branch
Vaughn Vaughn Vaughn Vaughn Vaughn
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Black crappie
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bluegill
4
142
-
7
-
14
3
22
16
24
37
-
-
2
-
-
4
Bluehead chub
69
150
34
205
82
156
99
85
43
34
47
5
76
26
39
32
Brassy jumprock
-
-
-
-
-
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Brown bullhead
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Creek chub
6
1
47
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
50
15
1
3
3
-
Eastern mosquitofish
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fieryblack shiner
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Flat bullhead
1
-
-
3
-
1
1
1
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
Golden shiner
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Greenfin shiner
-
-
-
8
208
1
-
-
12
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
Greenhead shiner
45
16
20
18
14
51
20
23
16
11
26
2
81
39
55
33
5
Highback chub
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Largemouth bass
1
14
-
-
1
6
3
-
1
1
1
-
1
-
1
4
-
Margined madtom
13
13
-
19
10
44
30
15
32
15
12
-
43
11
6
9
5
Notchlip redhorse
-
-
-
-
-
1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Piedmont darter
-
-
-
-
-
20
11
2
3
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
Redbreast sunfish
13
54
-
80
17
7
12
2
13
10
5
-
2
1
2
7
-
Redear sunfish
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rosyside dace
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
4
20
12
Sandbar shiner
2
-
-
60
8
26
19
35
54
12
28
-
-
-
-
-
-
Santee chub
-
-
-
1
47
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Seagreen darter
2
-
6
20
1
35
12
11
9
-
3
-
18
2
7
2
-
Spottail shiner
-
-
-
-
-
159
25
9
21
18
6
-
-
-
-
-
2
Striped jumprock
3
6
1
9
-
3
10
4
21
7
2
-
36
9
16
44
Tessellated darter
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Warmouth
-
5
-
1
1
6
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
White sucker
-
5
-
-
1
7
7
15
4
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Whitefin shiner
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yellow bullhead
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yellow perch
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MAY 2014
5-11
5.4.1.1
FISH RESOURCES AND HABITATS BY WATERSHED
The Fingerville Project is in the Broad River Basin, on the North Pacolet River, and is located
specifically in the Pacolet watershed. The North Pacolet River, the Pacolet River and the Broad
River support warm-water fisheries. Native species include largemouth bass, crappie, channel
catfish, yellow perch, sailfin shiner, spottail shiner, redhorse, bluegill, carp, gizzard shad,
redbreast sunfish, redear sunfish, and silvery minnow. A total of 35 species were collected
during surveys in the Broad River in the Lockhart Project Area (Lockhart, 1998). These species
were collected in habitats similar to what is found in the Fingerville Project’s impoundment,
bypass reach, and tailrace (Table 5-3). The collection is representative of a diverse fish
community with species from various feeding groups.
TABLE 5-3:
COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF THE FISH SPECIES COLLECTED BY
SCDNR FROM STREAMS WITHIN THE PACOLET WATERSHED
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Ameiurus natalis
Ameiurus nebulosus
Ameiurus
platycephalus
Catostomus
commersoni
Clinostomus
funduloides
Cyprinella chloristia
Cyprinella nivea
Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
Cyprinella zanema
Etheostoma olmstedi
Etheostoma
thalassinum
Gambusia holbrooki
Hybopsis hypsinotus
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis microlophus
Micropterus salmoides
Moxostoma collapsum
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notemigonus
crysoleucas
MAY 2014
COMMON NAME
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Flat bullhead
White sucker
Rosyside dace
Greenfin shiner
Whitefin shiner
Fieryblack shiner
Santee chub
Tessellated darter
Seagreen darter
Eastern mosquitofish
Highback chub
Redbreast sunfish
Warmouth
Bluegill
Redear sunfish
Largemouth bass
Notchlip redhorse
Bluehead chub
Golden shiner
5-12
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Notropis
chlorocephalus
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis scepticus
Noturus insignis
Perca flavescens
Percina crassa
Pomoxis
nigromaculatus
Scartomyzon
rupiscartes
Scartomyzon sp.
Semotilus
atromaculatus
COMMON NAME
Greenhead shiner
Spottail shiner
Sandbar shiner
Margined madtom
Yellow perch
Piedmont darter
Black crappie
Striped jumprock
Brassy jumprock
Creek chub
Source: SCDNR, 2013
In recent years, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), and SCDNR developed the Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage
Restoration Plan to restore migration and passage of diadromous fish in the Santee-Cooper River
Basin, of which the North Pacolet River is a part. The last major obstacle in reaching this goal is
that of reducing migration blockages and habitat degradation associated with impoundments
(USFWS et. al., 2001).
Historically, diadromous fish such as American eel, American shad, and likely herring (blueback
herring and alewife) and striped bass were found in the Pacolet River during migration
(Newcomb & Fuller, 2001; USFWS et. al., 2001). American eel is a catadromous species that
matures in freshwater and migrates to the ocean for spawning. Herring, shad, and striped bass are
all anadromous fish species that mature in the ocean and migrate to freshwater environments to
spawn. The Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration Plan indicates that
restoring fish passage within the Broad River Basin will provide the greatest benefit out of the
Santee's three main sub-basins (USFWS et. al., 2001).
5.4.1.2
DOWNSTREAM OF FINGERVILLE DAM
Downstream from the Fingerville Dam, the North Pacolet River converges with the South
Pacolet River, just after Spartanburg Water System’s Municipal #1 Dam at the RB Simms Water
Treatment Plant on the South Pacolet River. There are several dams located downstream of this
MAY 2014
5-13
confluence, including the Blalock Dam, the Clifton Mills Dams No. 3, 1 and 2, the Pacolet Dam
and the Lockhart Dam. Information was gathered for the area downstream of the Lake Blalock
Dam during the licensing and relicensing processes for the Pacolet Project and Lockhart Project
and is included as follows, as it relates to the Fingerville Project.
BYPASS REACH OF LOWER PACOLET DAM
The Pacolet River bypass reach extends approximately 250 yards downstream from the toe of the
Lower Pacolet Dam to the confluence with the powerhouse tailrace. This area appears to receive
a fairly consistent flow from dam leakage through the sand gates and flashboards and from
periodic spills from flood events. The substrate in the upper portion of the bypass reach consists
of ledge, boulder, broken rock, rubble, and cobble. This habitat is flanked by the training wall to
the west and bedrock ledge to the east. Further downstream, sand settles in low velocity areas
along the stream banks to form sandbars; however, midstream flow continually flushes fine
sediment, which provides riverine habitat dominated by boulder and cobble substrate.
Fisheries studies conducted at the Lockhart Project indicate that the bypass reach at that project
contained the most diverse riverine habitat. Because of the proximity and similarity of the North
Pacolet River and Pacolet River to the Broad River, downstream of the Fingerville dam is
expected to contain a diverse assemblage of similar fish species. Redbreast sunfish, bluegill, and
largemouth bass are likely the dominant gamefish in the bypass reach. The dominant non-game
fish of the bypass reach are expected to be snail bullhead, golden redhorse, and bluehead chub
(Lockhart, 1998; Bulak et. al., 2001).
TAILRACE OF LOWER PACOLET DAM
Flows exiting the powerhouse are discharged back into the Pacolet River via the Pacolet
project’s tailrace channel. The Pacolet powerhouse releases a range of flows up to 900 cfs, which
is the hydraulic capacity of the project. This channel extends for approximately 250 yards and is
armored with bedrock and/or forested along both banks. The training wall extends approximately
100 yards down the east bank of the tailrace, replaced by a steeply sloped, vegetated island with
bedrock shores that extends to the main river channel. The west bank of the tailrace channel
consists of steeply sloped, armored banks with many large overhanging trees. At low flows, the
tailrace is a shallow, fast flowing channel with a substrate of boulder, cobble, gravel, and sand.
MAY 2014
5-14
The depths at generation flows are estimated to range from 4 to 6 feet (Henry Mealing,
Kleinschmidt Associates, personal observations, August 24, 2006).
As with the bypass reach, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass are likely the
dominant game fish residing in the tailrace. Based on surveys from neighboring Projects, nongame fish such as spottail shiner, golden redhorse, and snail bullhead are also expected to
dominate the tailrace (Lockhart, 1998).
5.4.2
FISH SPECIES TEMPORAL/LIFE HISTORY INFORMATION
The Fingerville Project provides a lotic habitat that supports the majority of fish species that are
likely to occur in this region of South Carolina. The life histories of the species expected to be
found in the Fingerville Project Area are diverse. Representative fish families include the
Centrachidae (Sunfish), Catostomidae (suckers), Cyprinidae (minnow), Ictaluridae (catfish), and
Clupeidae (herring).
Centrachidae include dominant species such as redbreast sunfish, red ear sunfish, bluegill, and
largemouth bass. The redbreast sunfish prefers lotic habitat (Aho et. al. 1986), while red ear
sunfish (Twomey et. al., 1984), bluegill (Stuber et. al. 1982a) and largemouth bass (Stuber et. al,
1982b) prefer lentic habitat. Centrarchids nest on course substrates along the shores of lakes and
rivers. These species depend on cover such as woody debris, boulders, and submerged aquatic
vegetation to ambush prey and occasionally glean insects (Eddy and Underhill, 1978; Helfman
et. al., 1997; Lee et. al., 1980).
The most dominant Cyprinidae species likely include the bluehead chub and spottail shiner
(Lockhart, 1998). The bluehead chub will utilize habitats with a variety of substrates, but prefers
habitats with flowing water. The bluehead chub builds a gravel mound nest during spring
spawning. The spottail shiner is commonly found across all habitats, but spawn over sandy
shoals (Lee et. al., 1980; Scott and Crossman, 1973). Both the bluehead chub and spottail shiner
are omnivores that will eat primarily algae (Lee et. al., 1980).
The snail bullhead is likely the most abundant member of the Ictaluridae in the Project Area
(Lockhart, 1998). This species is of moderate conservation priority in the state of South Carolina
(Bettinger et. al., 2006; SCDNR, 2005). Preferred habitat for this species consists of hard, rocky
bottom streams with moderate to swift current. Snail bullhead use deep holes, flowing pools, and
MAY 2014
5-15
often riffles for microhabitat. Like most catfish, the snail bullhead is an omnivore, but unlike
other catfish, it principally subsists on snails (Lee et. al., 1980). Catfish are nesting species that
deposit eggs with depressions or cavities, and then the male parent will guard the nest until
several weeks after hatching (Eddy and Underhill, 1978).
Clupeidae are best known for their anadromous life histories; however, the Project Area likely
contains a gizzard shad population. Gizzard shad are typically non-migratory, spending most of
their life in freshwater (Williamson and Nelson, 1985). Gizzard shad spend most of their life in
open water feeding on plankton (Lee et. al., 1980). They broadcast spawn over a variety of
substrates (Williamson and Nelson, 1985). Juvenile gizzard shad are important forage fish, but as
adults they are too large for most predatory fish (Lee et. al., 1980). Other Clupeidae such as
blueback herring, alewife, American shad, and hickory shad have historically spawned in the
Pacolet River.
5.4.3
OVERVIEW OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
The presence of macroinvertebrates indicates the health and water quality of a river or lake. An
aquatic macroinvertebrate study of the Pacolet River, downstream from the North Pacolet River,
near the Project area was performed in 2011. Three sites were evaluated including the Pacolet
River approximately 100 meters above the confluence with Cherokee Creek, station B-838; the
Pacolet River approximately 50 to 10 meters upstream of Auriga Polymers NPDES Discharge
number 2, station B-839; and the Pacolet River immediately downriver of Interstate 85 bridge
crossing, station B-840 (Glover, 2011). The species collected and their tolerance values are
included in Table 5-4. Because of the composition of organisms collected, SCDHEC calculated
the stretch of Pacolet River that was studied, located just below Lake Blalock, to be in Good/Fair
condition (Glover, 2011). This rating was found to be comparable to upriver sites, as well as
historic data from the Pacolet River near the Broad River confluence.
MAY 2014
5-16
TABLE 5-4:
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM THE PACOLET RIVER
MAY 2014
5-17
5.4.4
REFERENCES
Bettinger, J., J. Crane, and J. Bulak. 2006. Piedmont stream survey- Broad River Basin draft
completion report. Prepared for the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
(SCDNR). 117 pp.
Bulak, J., J. Crane, J. Leitner, J. Bettinger, L. Rose, and J. Long. 2001. Statewide ResearchFreshwater Fisheries Annual Progress Report. Prepared for the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 132pp.
Eddy, S. and J.C. Underhill. 1978. How to know the freshwater fishes. William C. Brown
Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa. 215 pp.
Glover, J.B. 2011. An aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessment of the Pacolet River between
Lake Blalock and Interstate I-85 (Spartanburg County, SC). The South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control. Bureau of Water. Columbia, South
Carolina. S.C. DHEC Technical Report Number-8A19-11.
Helfman, G.S., B.B. Collette, and D.E. Facey. 2006. The diversity of fishes. Blackwell Sciences,
Inc., Oxford, United Kingdom. 528pp.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980.
Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural
History, Raleigh, North Carolina. 853pp.
Lockhart Power Company. 1998. Application for New License for Major Project – Existing
Dam. Lockhart Project (FERC No. 2620). Lockhart, South Carolina. Filed March 9,
1998. Accession No. 980310-0441.
Newcomb, T.J. and J.S. Fuller. 2001. Anadromous and catadromous fish survey of
Santee/Cooper Basin in North Carolina and South Carolina. Prepared for Duke Power.
27pp.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 966 pp.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 1995. Comprehensive wildlife
conservation strategy.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
(SCDNR), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). 2001. Santee Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration Plan.
50 pp. and appendices.
Williamson, K.L. and P.C. Nelson. 1985. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow
suitability curves: Gizzard shad. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Biological Reports. 82(10.112). 33 pp.
MAY 2014
5-18
5.5
WILDLIFE RESOURCES
5.5.1
OVERVIEW
Wildlife survey information for the Fingerville project is limited. However, there is existing
survey data for the Lockhart Project (FERC No. 2620), which is located within 100 miles of the
Fingerville Project. The Lockhart Project is located on the Broad River just 5 miles downstream
of the mouth of the Pacolet River. The terrestrial habitats available at the Lockhart Project would
be expected to be very similar to habitat at the Fingerville Project, as the two projects are located
in close proximity within the Piedmont Region; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the
wildlife habitat utilization and dominant species will likely be similar for both projects. Based on
that assumption, information available for the Lockhart Project was used to characterize the
Fingerville Project Area.
5.5.2
WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND HABITATS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Wildlife habitats in the Project Area are typical of the Piedmont region of South Carolina. The
shoreline area is predominately undeveloped forested uplands interspersed with various other
habitats. Details regarding the vegetative resources are presented in Section 5.6, Botanical
Resources.
MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST
Mixed hardwood forest is a dominant habitat type along the edge of the Project Boundary. This
habitat type is characterized by a high degree of structure, including both vertical complexity
(height class diversity of vegetation) and microhabitat features such as snags, dead-and-down
wood, and forest floors comprised of leaves and woody debris. The mixed hardwood forest cover
type typically contains a high density of small mammals. This may be attributable to the fact that
these areas produce substantial amounts of mast (seeds and nuts) that provide valuable forage
habitat for a variety of wildlife species (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1983). Wildlife utilizing these areas
include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), fox, wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), grouse, blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus),
red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), eastern
king snake (Lampropeltis getula getula), black racer (Coluber constrictor), black rat snake
MAY 2014
5-19
(Elaphe obsoleta), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus
horridus) (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1983; Conant and Collins, 1991).
FOREST EDGE
The forest edge habitat is the narrow transition area between open cover types and wooded cover
types. This habitat is located along the project boundary, but occurs primarily along the edge of
the tailrace and along the east side of the bypass reach. Wildlife species utilizing the forest edge
habitat type include red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed
deer, eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), wild turkey,
rough grouse (Bonasa umbellus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus), and common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1983).
OPEN FIELD
The open field habitat in the Project Area includes areas which are occasionally mowed to
maintain dominance by grasses. Due to its small size, few wildlife species are expected to use
this area, but typical wildlife species that likely utilize these areas include white-tailed deer, red
fox, various mice species, field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American robin (Turdus migratorius), eastern meadowlark
(Sturnella magna), common crow, American kestrel (Falco sparverius), Carolina anole (Anolis
carolinensis), northern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates hyacinthinus), and the eastern king
snake (Lampropeltis getula getula) (Ehrlich et al., 1988; Conant and Collins, 1991).
RIVER EDGE
The river edge habitat is located throughout the Project Area along the banks of the
impoundment, bypass reach and tailrace areas. Wildlife species that may potentially utilize the
river edge habitat for food and cover include beaver, muskrat, otter, mink, raccoon, wood duck
(Aix sponsa), woodcock (Scolopax minor), kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), great blue heron, green
heron (Butorides virescens), red-winged blackbird, various thrushes, banded water snake
(Nerodia fasciata), common tree frog (Hyla arborea), southern leopard frog (Rana
sphenocephala), and American toad (Bufo americanus) (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Whitaker, 1980;
Conant and Collins, 1991).
MAY 2014
5-20
WETLANDS AND AQUATIC BED
Wildlife species potentially inhabiting the Project Area wetlands include red-winged blackbird,
muskrat, ducks, bullfrog, southern leopard frog, common box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina)
and yellow-bellied turtle (Pelusios castanoides) (Conant and Collins, 1991). Aquatic bed habitat
is absent from the Project Area as a result of the natural flooding regime and sediment dynamics
associated with the Pacolet River, including large-scale and relatively frequent scouring and
deposition of sediments within the river bed (Henry Mealing, Kleinschmidt Associates, personal
observations, August 24, 2006).
OPEN WATER HABITATS
Open water habitats available for wildlife in the Project Area include the pool and riffle areas of
the bypass reach, and the Project tailwater. The open water habitats provide feeding
opportunities for a variety of wildlife species guilds including waterfowl, birds of prey, and
aquatic furbearers. These species may include belted kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), wood duck (Aix
sponsa), common merganser (Mergus merganser), various other waterfowl; otter (Lutra
canadensis); muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus); mink (Mustela vision); raccoon (Procyon lotor); great
blue heron (Ardea herodias); red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus); and various thrushes.
5.5.3
REFERENCES
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern/Central North America.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 616 pp.
DeGraaf, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. 1986. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and
Distribution. General Technical Report NE-108. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Forest Service (USFS). Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA. 491 pp.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook: a field guide to the
natural history of North American birds. Simon & Shuster, Inc., New York, New York.
785 pp.
Whitaker, J.O. 1980. The Audubon Society field guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. 745 pp.
MAY 2014
5-21
5.6
BOTANICAL RESOURCES
5.6.1
OVERVIEW
The Fingerville Project is situated at the northern edge of what is considered the Piedmont
ecoregion. This region is characterized by gently rolling hills and stream-cut valleys with
elevations that range from 375 feet to 1,000 feet msl (SCDNR, 2005). The landscape in the
Piedmont ecoregion has a long history of forest/wood clearing and other economic uses that date
back to the earliest European settlements (SCDNR, 2005). Today, it is dominated by agricultural
land, managed woodlands, and forests.
A subtropical climate prevails in this area, marked by high summer humidity and moderate
winters that rarely drop below freezing (Messina and Conner, 1998; Bailey, 1995). Average
annual air temperature is 60ºF to 70ºF. Rainfall is high year-round, with an annual average of 40
to 60 inches, but is typically greatest during the summer (Messina and Conner,1998; Bailey,
1995). Even the driest summer month receives at least 1.2 inches of rain (Bailey, 1995) (See
Section 3.4, Climate). As a result of such climatic conditions, the vegetative growing season in
the Piedmont ecoregion is in the range of 250 days a year (Messina and Conner, 1998).
5.6.2
UPLAND HABITAT COMMUNITIES AND SPECIES
Site specific data does not currently exist for botanical resources and vegetation communities in
the immediate Project Area. However, data is available for botanical resources in the Project
Vicinity. Specifically, the GAP Analysis of land cover types produced for Spartanburg County
(SCDNR, 2001) and biological surveys conducted in support of the Lockhart Project relicensing
(Lockhart, 1998) were used for this description. The terrestrial habitats available at the Lockhart
Project and Pacolet Project are expected to be similar to the habitat at the Fingerville Project, in
that the three projects are located in close proximity and are all within the Piedmont Region.
The Project Area and surrounding region include a mix of natural communities and ‘humancontrolled’ habitats. Rural developments make up the primary ‘human-controlled’ habitats that
are located around and near the Project Area. The primary upland communities consist of closed
canopy evergreen and mesic deciduous forest/woodlands (SCDNR, 2001). These vegetation
cover types are defined below.
MAY 2014
5-22
MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST
Mixed hardwood forest species dominate the Fingerville Project area and are characterized by
mature second-growth trees in the 10 to 20 inch d.b.h. (diameter at breast height) size classes.
Hardwood tree species include basswood (Tilia americana), ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), elm (Ulmus americana), walnut (Juglans spp.), cherry
(Prunus spp.), red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), and beech (Fagus
grandifolia).
Evergreen species present in this area are early successional species that occur after logging,
including loblolly and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata). Because this habitat has a closed canopy,
the substory consists mostly of the more shade tolerant species including young beech and oaks.
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and wood
sage (Teucrium canadense) make up the remaining shrubby stratum. Along the riverbank, shade
intolerant species such as sumac (Rhus spp.), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), daisy fleabane
(Erigeron philadelphicus), and blackberry (Rubus villosus) are common (Lockhart, 1998).
Within this mixed community are likely locations of pure stands of both evergreen and
deciduous forests. According to SCDNR (2001), two separate forest types are interspersed in this
area. They are referred to as Closed Canopy Evergreen Forest/Woodlands; dominated by pines,
cedars, hemlocks and evergreen oaks, and Mesic deciduous forest/woodland; which is dominated
by deciduous oaks and hickory.
GRASSLAND/PASTURE/AGRICULTURAL
Agricultural land exists in a few small locations on the southern region of the Project Vicinity.
This cover type includes areas associated with abandoned farmland, pasture, and tree removal
(SCDNR, 2001). It also includes areas that experience active human manipulation, such as
mowing or maintenance of croplands. In active agricultural lands, these habitats are
characterized by species such as corn, beans, and other crop species. In open fields, this cover
type includes early successional species such as daisy fleabane, horse nettle (Solanum
carolinese), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), pokeweed (Phytolacca spp.) and spiny amaranth
(Amaranthus spinosus), primarily in abandoned fields (Lockhart, 1998).
MAY 2014
5-23
5.6.3
INVASIVE PLANTS AND NOXIOUS WEEDS
According to the SCDNR (2006), aquatic non-native weeds occur throughout South Carolina;
however, nuisance plant populations have been most prevalent in the coastal plain region where
they can obstruct navigable waterways, restrict water flow, degrade water quality, interfere with
recreation, and upset fish populations. SCDNR has not identified any waters within the Piedmont
ecoregion, or within the Project Vicinity, as ‘potential problem areas’, which is defined as water
bodies or portions of water bodies where use impairment is not currently occurring, but given
existing circumstances, could be expected to occur in the near future (SCDNR, 2006).
The Piedmont ecoregion invasive plant populations are most often present within the forested
communities. Data from the Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA), collected by the U.S. Forest
Service, indicates that almost three quarters of sampled plots within the Piedmont ecoregion
contain at least one exotic plant (SCDNR, 2005). The South Carolina Exotic Pest Plant Council
(SCEPPC) identifies the following plants as severe exotic plant pest species in the Piedmont
ecoregion (Table 5-5).
TABLE 5-5:
EXOTIC PLANT PEST SPECIES IN THE PIEDMONT ECOREGION
SPECIES
SHRUBS
Russian olive
thorny olive
Japanese privet
multiflora rose
autumn olive
VINES
Kudzu
Chinese wisteria
Asian wisteria
HERBS
wart-removing herb
GRASSES
Japanese stilt grass
Bahia grass
Source: SCEPPC, 2004
MAY 2014
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Elaeagnus pungens
Ligustrum japonicum
Rosa multiflora
Elaeagnus umbellata
Pueraria lobata
Wisteria sinensis
Wisteria floribunda
Murdannia Keisak
Microstegium vimineum
Paspalum notatum
5-24
Although data is limited, at least one species identified by SCEPPC (2004) for the Piedmont
ecoregion is known to occur within Spartanburg County at troublesome levels. The County has
concerns regarding the effect of over 1,000 acres of kudzu vine infestation on beautification
efforts in the urban areas of Spartanburg.
Information regarding invasive plant species in the Project Area is unavailable and Spartanburg
Water does not currently have an invasive weed management plan in place. The abundant forest
habitat in the vicinity may harbor invasive exotic species but the distribution and extent are
currently unknown.
Fire suppression is proposed as the primary contributor to problems of invasive plant
colonization. Oak-hickory forests historically experienced frequent and low intensity surface
fires. With the suppression of fire that accompanied European settlements, forests of the
Piedmont became dominated by fire- intolerant species such as maple, beech and sweetgum, and
invasive exotic species were able to become established. Currently, prescribed burning on private
lands is limited due to concerns about liability, air quality, smoke management, as well as lack of
landowners with experience and equipment to conduct burns (SCDNR, 2005).
5.6.4
REFERENCES
Bailey, Roger G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Second edition;
revised and expanded. Misc. Publication No. 1391 (Revised). Washington, DC: USDA
Forest Service. 108 pp. with separate map at 1:7,500,000.
1998. Accession No. 980310-0441.
Messina, MG. and W.H. Conner (eds). 1998. Southern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and
Management. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 640 pp.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2001. A GAP Analysis of South
Carolina 2001 Final Report, A Geographical Approach to Planning for Biological
Diversity. [Online] URL: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/metadata.html. Accessed
October 17, 2012.
Conservation Strategy: Piedmont Ecoregion Terrestrial Habitats. [Online] URL:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/habitat/PiedmontHabitat.pdf. Accessed October 17,2012.
MAY 2014
5-25
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2011. South Carolina Aquatic Plant
Management Plan. [Online] URL: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/water/envaff/aquatic/plan.html.
Accessed October 17, 2012.
South Carolina Exotic Pest Plant Council (SCEPPC). 2004. Invasive Species of the South East.
[Online] URL: http://www.se-eppc.org/. Accessed October 17, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-26
5.7
RIPARIAN, WETLAND, AND LITTORAL HABITAT
5.7.1
OVERVIEW
Spartanburg County is situated in the northwestern part of the state, at the base of the Blue Ridge
Mountains. Topographic relief is moderate, with rounded hills and stream-cut valley floors
(Spartanburg County, 1997; SCDNR, 2005). Although wetlands are generally abundant in the
Piedmont ecoregion as a whole (Bailey, 1995), few have been mapped within Spartanburg
County. This is due primarily to the lack of survey effort but may also be because of a general
lack of non-forested wetland habitat (Spartanburg County, 1997). According to GAP analysis
performed by SCDNR limited amounts of various wetland habitats are present in the County
including marshes, pocosins, and swamps (SCDNR, 2001). However, the primary wetland type
that is represented in the Project Vicinity is bottomland/floodplain forest, which will be
discussed in the following section.
5.7.2
RIPARIAN, WETLAND AND LITTORAL HABITAT TYPES
A comprehensive inventory of wetlands within the Project Area has not been performed;
however, due to the general geography of the site, non-forested wetland and littoral habitats are
not expected to occur at significant levels. Although non-wetland and littoral habitat is likely
lacking within the Project Area and Vicinity, bottomland/floodplain forest habitat may be well
represented.
BOTTOMLAND/FLOODPLAIN FOREST
This complex includes river bottoms and low-lying floodplains of major rivers, such as the North
Pacolet River. In the Piedmont, the floodplains are confined to relatively narrow corridors by the
sloping topography. Bottomland/floodplain forests are characterized by moist alluvial soils and
are dominated by hardwood species such as sweetgum, loblolly pine, water oak (Quercus nigra),
willow oak (Quercus phellos), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
and American holly (Ilex opaca) (SCDNR, 2005).
Although not quantified for the Project Area and vicinity; SCDNR estimates a fairly high
coverage of this habitat in the general area (SCDNR, 2001). According to the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) map, forested wetland habitat is documented at a location just north of the
Fingerville Dam, parallel to South Carolina Highway 11 (Figure 5-4). Other locations specified
MAY 2014
5-27
by the National Wetlands Inventory include areas further upstream to the right of the
impoundment and downstream of the dam.
FIGURE 5-4: NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP
Source: National Wetlands Inventory , 2012
5.7.3
REFERENCES
Bailey, Roger G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Second edition;
revised and expanded. Misc. Publication No. 1391 (Revised). Washington, DC: USDA
Forest Service. 108 pp. with separate map at 1:7,500,000.
1998. Accession No. 980310-0441.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2001. A GAP Analysis of South
Carolina 2001 Final Report, A Geographical Approach to Planning for Biological
Diversity. [Online] URL: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/metadata.html. Accessed
October 17, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-28
Conservation Strategy: Piedmont Ecoregion Terrestrial Habitats. [Online] URL:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/habitat/PiedmontHabitat.pdf. Accessed October 17,
2012.
Spartanburg County. 1997. Spartanburg County Comprehensive Plan: 1998-2015. [Online] URL:
http://www.co.spartanburg.sc.us/govt/depts/pln/compplan/TOC.htm. Accessed October
17, 2012.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Wetlands On-line Mapper. National Wetland Inventory. [Online] URL:
http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html. Accessed October 17, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-29
5.8
RARE, THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
5.8.1
OVERVIEW
A number of species that are classified by state and federal agencies as rare, threatened or
endangered are known to occur in the general Project Vicinity. Specifically, the SCDNR has
identified 22 RTE plant and animal species occurring in Spartanburg County, South Carolina,
where the Fingerville Project is located (SCDNR, 2012 and Spartanburg County, 1997)
(Table 5-6 and Figure 5-5). These species are all listed as being within the Project Vicinity,
however, none are specifically known to be found within the Project Boundary.
TABLE 5-6:
RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY
COMMON NAME
ANIMALS
Meadow Vole
PLANTS
Blue Monkshood
Intermediate Enchanter’s Nightshade
Large Yellow Lady’s-slipper
Mountain Witch-Alder
Teaberry
Virginia Stickseed
Smooth Sunflower
Porter’s Goldeneye
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf
Piedmont Quillwort
Butternut
Georgia Rush
Ground Juniper
Yellow Honeysuckle
Climbing Fern
Virginia Bunchflower
One-flower Stitchwort
Sweet Pinesap
Nestronia
May White
White Goldenrod
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS DEGREE
Microtus Pennsylvanicus
SC
3
Aconitum Unicnatum
Circaea Lutetiana SSP Canadensis
Cypripedium pubescens
Fothergilla Major
Gaultheria Procumbens
Hackelia Virginiana
Helianthus Laevigatus
Helianthus Porteri
Hexastylis Naniflora
Isoetes Piedmontana
Juglans Cinerea
Juncus Georgianus
Juniperus Communis
Lonicera Flava
Lygodium Palmatum
Milanthium Virginicum
Minuartia Uniflora
Monotropsis Odorata
Nistronia Umbellula
Rhododendron eastmanii
Solidago Bicolor
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
FT
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
RC
SC
SC
SC
SC
2
1
3
1
1
4
4
1
2
2
4
4
4
2
1
4
4
1
2
2
1
Source: SCDNR, 2012
Status Abbreviations: SC = of state concern; RC = of regional concern; FT = Federal threatened Degree of
Endangerment: 1 - Critically imperiled state-wide because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it
especially vulnerable to extirpation; 2 - Imperiled state-wide because of rarity or factor(s) making it vulnerable; 3 Apparently secure in state, rare in county; 4 - Status unknown
MAY 2014
5-30
FIGURE 5-5: RTE SPECIES OCCURRING IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY
Source: Spartanburg County, 1997, modified by Kleinschmidt Associates
MAY 2014
5-31
5.8.2
RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED AQUATIC RESOURCES AND HABITATS
Conservation priority species potentially located in the Project Vicinity include two species
(Piedmont darter and quillback) listed as "high priority" species and two species (flat bullhead
and snail bullhead) listed as "moderate conservation priority" (SCDNR, 2005).
There are no known rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) fish or other aquatic species in the
Project Vicinity (SCDNR, 2012). This region of South Carolina, including the Broad River
watershed does not contain RTE macroinvertebrate species (Bettinger et. al., 2006).
5.8.3
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BY WATERSHED
There are no current records of federally managed fish habitat within the Project Vicinity.
However, there will be consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
stated in their 1999 Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate (NMFS, 2000):
Consultations at a project-specific level are required when critical decisions are
made at the project implementation stage, or when sufficiently detailed
information for development of EFH (Essential Fish Habitat) conservation
recommendations does not exist at the programmatic level.
5.8.4
RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND HABITATS
The meadow vole is identified as a species of state concern due to its lack of presence in
Spartanburg County however it is not identified as potentially occurring in the Project Area
(Spartanburg County, 1997). No known state or federal RTE wildlife are located in the Project
Vicinity (SCDNR, 2012).
5.8.5
RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED BOTANICAL RESOURCES AND HABITATS
There are a variety of rare communities located within the Piedmont ecoregion, and specifically
in Spartanburg County (SCDNR, 2012). The majority of these habitats are of concern on a global
level, meaning they are imperiled or vulnerable across their range. Vulnerable or imperiled
communities in the Project Vicinity include (Nelson, 1986 and SCDNR, 2012):
Chestnut oak forest – Ridges and dry south-facing slopes, dominated by chestnut oak, and with
several other xeric-adapted oaks, pines and hickories.
MAY 2014
5-32
Cove forest – Mesic ravines, sheltered slopes and rich broad flats next to streams, not necessarily
restricted to northern exposures.
Mesic mixed hardwood forest – Forested slopes and ravines with a canopy and understory with
varying composition of hardwoods.
Oak-hickory forest – Upland slopes, especially north-facing on the piedmont, dominated by a
diverse assemblage of hardwoods (primarily oaks and hickories) in combination with pines.
Piedmont seepage forest – Essentially saturated flat areas with closed canopy and distinctive
herbaceous flora.
The most commonly cited threats of many of the rare habitats, particularly the forested types, are
fire suppression, change in hydrology, and development. Many of the communities require
natural fire and hydrologic regimes for successful regeneration and maintenance of characteristic
species. In the absence of fire, many forest communities will succeed to other forest types, often
dominated by more common species and invasive, non-native species. Similarly, many plant
species that constitute rare habitats are adapted to particular hydrologic regimes. A change to a
wetter or dryer environment, such as when waterways are diverted or regions are flooded, often
leads to a reduction in species adapted to the original conditions and an increase in more
adaptable, and often invasive, species. Development may result in both direct effects, such as
ground disturbance and vegetation removal, and indirect effects, such as changes in hydrologic
regimes as a result of water regulation (NatureServe, 2006; Spartanburg County, 1997).
5.8.6
TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
BOTANICAL SPECIES
POTENTIALLY-OCCURRING PLANT SPECIES
A list of potentially-occurring rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) plant species for the
Project Area and Vicinity were derived from several sources. They include species occurrences
documented by SCDNR and reported in the Spartanburg County Comprehensive Plan and
species identified by USFWS as potentially occurring in the Lockhart Project Area and Pacolet
Project Area.
MAY 2014
5-33
SCDNR recently updated their list of 21 RTE plant species with known occurrences in the
County (SCDNR, 2012). All but one of the species is listed as South Carolina species of concern.
Only the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is listed as federally threatened (Photo 5-1).
PHOTO 5-1:
DWARF-FLOWERED HEARTLEAF
Source: www.flickriver.com
The USFWS listed four additional plant species that have a high possibility of occurring in the
Project Area (see Table 5-7), including the rocky shoals spider lily. These four species are
considered federal species of concern, which do not garner protection under the endangered
species act 2 (Amanda K. Hill, Fisheries Biologist, USFWS, personal communication, September
26, 2006).
2
In their communication, USFWS cautioned that the list provided should only be used as a guideline since
occurrence records are updated continually and may change.
MAY 2014
5-34
TABLE 5-7:
POTENTIALLY OR KNOWN OCCURRENCES OF RTE PLANT SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE FINGERVILLE PROJECT
COMMON NAME
biltmore greenbrier
butternut
Piedmont quillwort
Carolina birds-in-a-nest
Dwarf-flowered
heartleaf
False foxglove
Little amphianthus
prairie birdsfoot-trefoil
Puck's orphine
Schweintz' sunflower
rocky shoals spider lily
sweet pinesap
Virginia quillwort
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Smilax biltmoreana
Juglans cinerea
Isoetes Piedmontana
Macbridea caroliniana
Hexastylis naniflora
Agalinis
Amphianthus pusillus
Lotus purshianus var.
helleri
Helianthus schweinitzii
Hymenocallis coronaria
Monotropsis odorata
Isoetes virginica
STATUS
OCCURRENCE
FSC
FSC, SC
SC
FC
FT
known
possible
known
FC
FT
FSC
FC
FE
FC
FSC
FC
known
IDENTIFIED BY
USFWS FOR
PACOLET
PROJECT*
X
X
X
IDENTIFIED BY
USFWS FOR
LOCKHART
PROJECT**
IDENTIFIED BY
SCDNR FOR
SPARTANBURG
COUNTY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
possible
known
known
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Lockhart, 1998; SCNDR, 1997 as cited in Spartanburg County, 1997; SCDNR RTE Species list for Spartanburg County updated on March 13, 2012; and
Amanda K. Hill, Fisheries Biologist, USFWS, personal communication, September 26, 2006.
Status Codes: FE- Federally endangered, FT- Federally threatened, FC - Federal candidate for listing, FSC - Federal Species of Concern (does not provide legal
protection under ESA), SC - State concern
MAY 2014
5-35
5.8.7
REFERENCES
Bettinger, J., J. Crane, and J. Bulak. 2006. Piedmont stream survey- Broad River Basin draft
completion report. Prepared for the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
(SCDNR). 117 pp.
1998. Accession No. 980310-0441.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat
Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association, U.S. Department of Commerce. April 2000.
NatureServe. 2006. Explorer: Encyclopedia of Life. [Online] URL:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. Accessed November 28, 2012.
Nelson, John B. 1986. The Natural Communities of South Carolina. [Online] URL:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/publications/pdf/natcomm.pdf Accessed November, 28,
2012.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005. Comprehensive wildlife
conservation strategy. [Online] URL: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/index.html Accessed
November 28, 2012.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2012. Spartanburg County rare,
threatened, and endangered species. [Online] URL:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/species/pdf/Spartanburg2012.pdf Accessed November 28, 2012.
Spartanburg County. 1997 Spartanburg County Comprehensive Plan: 1998-2015. [Online] URL:
http://www.co.spartanburg.sc.us/govt/depts/pln/compplan/TOC.htm. Accessed November
28, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-36
5.9
RECREATION AND LAND USE
5.9.1
OVERVIEW
The North Pacolet River, specifically the stretch of the river that is included within the project
boundary line, has important recreational significance in the Spartanburg area. The river offers
recreational opportunities including boating, kayaking and canoeing, fishing and fly fishing.
5.9.2
REGIONAL RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
The Project is contained within the Greenville/Upcountry tourism region defined by the South
Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT). The Greenville/Upcountry
region, comprised of Oconee, Anderson, Pickens, Greenville, Spartanburg and Cherokee
counties, is a recreation and tourist destination, accounting for nearly $1.5 billion in travel
revenue in 2011 (SCPRT, 2011).
Among the noteworthy recreation opportunities in the Greenville/Upcountry region are Oconee,
Devil’s Fork, Table Rock, Caesars Head, Jones Gap, and Paris Mountain State Parks; KeoweeToxaway and Croft State Natural Area; Lake Hartwell State Recreation Area; and the Mountain
Bridge Wilderness Area. These areas cover a total of over 24,000 acres in the region and provide
opportunities for hiking, camping, fishing, boating, horseback riding, and picnicking, among
other activities (SCPRT, 2006a).
5.9.3
PROJECT VICINITY RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
Recreation activities occurring in the Project Vicinity are generally traditional outdoor pursuits
such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping and boating. Visitors to Spartanburg County spent an
estimated $312.23 million on travel and tourism in 2008, resulting in employment for
approximately 2,300 individuals, $55.4 million in payroll, and $20.59 million in total state and
local tax receipts. Spartanburg is ranked 7th of the 47 South Carolina counties for travel
expenditures, and 2nd in the Upstate of South Carolina (SCPRT, 2011).
Within Spartanburg County, there are 66 parks operated and maintained by the County
Recreation Department (Figure 5-6), supplemented by numerous, locally managed city and town
parks. Collectively, these parks provide a wide range of recreation opportunities including
picnicking; hiking; biking; swimming; and organized sports such as tennis, basketball and
baseball, among others (Spartanburg County, 1997).
MAY 2014
5-37
Croft State Natural Area, also known as Croft State Park, is the third largest state park in South
Carolina, covering approximately 7,054 acres. This park provides 50 campsites, equestrian
facilities, tennis courts, picnic areas and shelters, playgrounds, various hiking/biking trails, and
opportunities for fishing and/or boating at Lake Tom Moore Craig and Lake Johnson (SCPRT,
2006b). The park is located within the Project Vicinity, approximately 23 miles south of the
Project.
Musgrove Mills State Historic Site is also located within Spartanburg County and extends over
parts of Union and Laurens Counties, as well. The park covers 360 acres and is a historical site
of a Revolutionary War battle. It has an education center and interpretive trails leading to various
historical points of interest such as a grist mill and the old plantation house (SCPRT, 2006c). The
site is located within 45 miles of the Project.
The Pacolet River Heritage Preserve encompasses 278 acres of land bordering the Pacolet River,
approximately 20 miles downstream of the Project. The preserve is home to two Native
American soapstone quarries, dating from between 3000 and 1100 B.C. The preserve also
protects two uncommon plant species, a moss and a leafy liverwort. The preserve provides a
short, 1.5 mile hiking trail that follows the banks of the Pacolet River (SCDNR, 2006).
Angling activities on the Pacolet River occur primarily from shore and are concentrated in
tributaries and below dams. The Pacolet River Heritage Preserve has a trail that follows the
Pacolet River, which provides access for shoreline angling. The Pacolet River is identified in the
South Carolina Resources Commission’s Rivers Assessment Study (1988) as being an
outstanding recreational fishery of regional or local significance (Spartanburg County, 1997).
Bluegill, redear sunfish, and redbreast sunfish are the primary game fish expected in the Pacolet
River (Lockhart, 1998) (Section 5.4, Fish and Aquatic Resources). There is no fish consumption
advisory for the Pacolet River in the vicinity of the Project (SCDHEC, 2006). The North Pacolet
River and the South Pacolet River converge to for the Pacolet River, just a few miles
downstream of the Project.
MAY 2014
5-38
FIGURE 5-6: SPARTANBURG COUNTY OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES
Spartanburg County Tourism Action Plan and Feasibility Study, 2011
MAY 2014
5-39
5.9.4
EXISTING PROJECT RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES AND USE
There are no existing recreation facilities within the Project Boundary.
5.9.5
RECREATION NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN MANAGEMENT PLANS
Management plans that cover recreation resources within the Project Vicinity include the 2008
South Carolina Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), the Spartanburg
County Comprehensive Plan, and most recently, the Spartanburg County Tourism Action Plan
and Feasibility Study. Below are summaries of those reports, as portions are applicable to the
Project.
2008 SOUTH CAROLINA STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN
The 2008 South Carolina State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) serves as a
guide to federal, state, and local governmental agencies and the private sector involved in
recreation and natural resources planning and development (SCPRT, 2008). There are no
recommendations specific to the Fingerville Project, but the overall goals of the SCORP pertain
to recreation needs in the state, which may have implications at the regional, county or local
level. Among the goals of the 2008 SCORP are:
•
To provide the people of South Carolina and its visitors with a balanced and
comprehensive recreation system of public and private land and sites; and
•
To provide all segments of the population opportunities for outdoor recreation
experiences and an improved quality of life; and
•
To encourage cooperative efforts between various agencies and levels of government,
between private enterprise and government, and between volunteers and resource
managers; and
•
To encourage sustainable development and give consideration to the local economic,
social, and natural resource impacts resulting from the location and development of
recreation areas.
The SCORP also identifies major issues associated with recreation supply and demand in the
state and makes recommendations for addressing each one. Among the recommendations that
could have implications for recreation at the Fingerville Project are:
•
Promote increased collaboration between recreational facility managers and teachers on
formal and informal outdoor education opportunities;
MAY 2014
5-40
•
Provide or improve outdoor recreation facilities to enable greater accessibility and use by
multiple age groups and persons with disabilities;
•
Minimize conflicts between outdoor recreational activities that are not compatible
through education, regulation, and careful planning of new or expanded facilities and
programs;
•
Provide and properly maintain adequate facilities for and access to a diverse range of
outdoor recreation activities, from traditionally popular activities such as boating and
hunting to emerging activities such as rowing, rock climbing, disc golf, and dog parks;
•
Require and/or encourage the provision of connectivity between trails, outdoor recreation
facilities, open space and residential development on all levels – local, regional and
statewide;
•
Protect and acquire significant lands for natural and cultural resources and identify
opportunities for allowing public outdoor recreational use; and
•
Protect shorelines (rivers, lakes and beaches) and dedicate more waterfront lands for
public recreational use and access.
SPARTANBURG COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Spartanburg County Comprehensive Plan (1997) was developed to guide land use and
development patterns to meet existing and anticipated needs and conditions; protect natural
environments; and balance growth and stability; among other goals. The document guides
planning decisions, through the year 2015. The plan does not specifically address recreation
activities at or access to the Pacolet Project or the Pacolet River. Goals for the management and
provision of recreation services within Spartanburg County include:
•
Develop a geographically equitable countywide system of parks, recreation facilities and
programs to meet the diverse needs of county residents and visitors through the
development of a Master Park and Recreation Plan; and
•
Increase park-to-population ratios through the establishment of a land bank or reserve
fund for park land acquisition.
SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOURISM ACTION PLAN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
The Spartanburg County Tourism Action Plan and Feasibility Study were developed when the
Spartanburg County Council identified a need for a plan to take advantage of the great potential
of Spartanburg as a greater tourist destination. The mission of this Plan was identified as the
following:
MAY 2014
5-41
“To enhance the economic, social and cultural progress of Spartanburg County
and to enrich its quality of life through implementing sustainable tourism; to
encourage excellence in collaborations and partnerships; to facilitate greater
access to Spartanburg’s history, agriculture, recreation and manufacturing; and
to preserve our natural and cultural heritage.”
The Plan emphasizes the importance of outdoor recreation within the county as a source of
tourism and an investment in public health. The Plan specifies hospitality and accommodations
taxes as sources of funding for the maintenance, upgrading, and renovating of existing facilities,
as well as the construction of new recreation facilities.
5.9.6
LAND USES AND MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY
The Project lies wholly within Spartanburg County, South Carolina, which is approximately 811
square miles (U.S. Census, 2012). The Project Vicinity is dominated by coniferous forestland,
approximately 52 percent of the land cover, followed by hay pastures at approximately 9 percent
of the land cover (Table 5-8 and Figure 5-7). Agricultural crops include peaches, soybeans and
grain corn (Clemson University, 2007).
TABLE 5-8:
LAND USES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY
USE
URBAN/BUILT UP LAND1
Incorporated
Unincorporated
FARMLAND
Pastureland
Orchards
All other crops
Other farmland2
Woodland3
TOTAL
ACRES
PERCENT
25,408
94,980
5%
18%
48,427
7,820
56,698
15,976
269,731
519,040
9%
2%
11%
3%
52%
100%
Source: Spartanburg County, 1997
1
Includes idle and unused land within municipal and built up unincorporated areas.
2
Other farmland includes land in houses, barns, ponds, roads, wastelands, etc.
3
Includes woodlands in farm ownership.
MAY 2014
5-42
FIGURE 5-7: LAND COVER MAP OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY
Source: Spartanburg County, 1997; modified by Kleinschmidt Associates
MAY 2014
5-43
Land use on privately owned lands in the Project Vicinity is regulated by the Spartanburg
County Planning and Development Department. Any development or ground disturbance on
private lands requires the appropriate permits and must adhere to the design and development
standards of the Spartanburg County Unified Land Management Ordinance (Spartanburg
County, 1999). The shoreline of the project impoundment is primarily undeveloped.
5.9.7
LAND USES AND MANAGEMENT OF PROJECT LANDS
Project operations and maintenance will be the primary activities that occur on Project lands.
There are no formal public recreation facilities at the Project.
5.9.8
SHORELINE BUFFER ZONES
There are no Shoreline Buffer Zones presently at the Project.
5.9.9
REFERENCES
Clemson University, Department of Applied Economics & Statistics and South Carolina
Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007. Spartanburg County Agricultural Data for 2005.
[Online] URL: http://cherokee.agecon.clemson.edu/spartanb.htm. Accessed November
28, 2012.
1998. Accession No. 980310-0441.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2006. Fish
Consumption Advisory Areas for 2006. [Online] URL:
http://www.scdhec.gov/water/fish/pubs/fishadv_2006.pdf. Accessed November 28, 2012.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006. Pacolet River Heritage
Preserve. [Online] URL: https://www.dnr.sc.gov/mlands/managedland?p_id=38
Accessed November 28, 2012.
South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT). 2006a. South Carolina
State Parks. [Online] URL: http://www.southcarolinaparks.com/parkfinder/park_locator.aspx. Accessed November 28, 2012.
South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT). 2006b. Croft State
Natural Area. [Online] URL: http://www.southcarolinaparks.com/park-finder/statepark/1443.aspx. Accessed November 28, 2012.
South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT). 2006c. Musgrove Mills
State Historic Site. [Online] URL: http://www.southcarolinaparks.com/park-finder/statepark/3888.aspx. Accessed November 28, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-44
South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT). 2008. 2008 South
Carolina State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. [Online] URL:
http://www.scprt.com/tourism-business/outdoorrecreationplan.aspx Accessed November
28, 2012.
South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT). 2011. The Economic
Impact of Domestic Travel on South Carolina Counties. [Online] URL:
http://www.scprt.com/files/Research/SC%202011%20Report%20%20Email%20to%20Dudley%20on%20Aug%2019%202012.pdf Accessed November
28, 2012.
http://www.spartanburgcounty.org/govt/depts/pln/compplan/TOC.htm. Accessed
November 28, 2012.
Spartanburg County, Planning and Development Department. 1999. Spartanburg County Unified
Land Management Ordinance. [Online] URL:
http://www.spartanburgcounty.org/govt/depts/pln/ulmo/toc.htm. Accessed November 28,
2012.
U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2012. State and County Quick Facts: Spartanburg County.
[Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/45083.html Accessed
November 28, 2012.
Spartanburg County. 2011. Spartanburg County Tourism Action Plan. [Online] URL:
http://www.spartanburgcounty.org/govt/depts/pln/docs/SpartanburgTourismActionPlan.p
df. Accessed November 9, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-45
5.10
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
5.10.1 OVERVIEW
The Fingerville Dam is located on the North Pacolet River in northwestern South Carolina, near
the small community of Fingerville, South Carolina. Small residential communities are located
throughout the area, as well as the second largest city in the northwestern section of the state,
Spartanburg (Spartanburg County, 1997). The Project Vicinity is predominantly forested, with
rolling hills and moderate slopes. Lands surrounding the project are heavily vegetated and local
topography and vegetation in many areas prohibit or obstruct views of the Project from the
surrounding areas.
5.10.2 VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT VICINITY
The Fingerville Project is located within a relatively rural section of Spartanburg County,
southeast of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The topography of the Project Vicinity is characterized
by moderate slopes ranging in elevations of 1,000 feet to less than 600 feet, sloping generally
southeastward. The highest point is Bird Mountain, at about 1,480 feet in elevation, in the
northwestern section of the County (Spartanburg County, 1997). The North Pacolet River begins
in the Blue Ridge Mountains in southeastern Henderson County, North Carolina and flows
eastwardly into Polk County, before it turns southeastwardly and flows into northern
Spartanburg County, South Carolina. It converges with the South Pacolet River to form the
Pacolet River, which flows southeasterly through Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties,
South Carolina to the confluence of the Broad River.
Lands in the Project Vicinity that were historically used for timber and agriculture are now
transitioning to more residential, commercial and industrial uses. Approximately 52 percent of
the County is forested with mostly loblolly, oak, pine, and hickory trees, followed by, elm, ash
and cottonwood, gum and cypress forests. Most forest stands are found south and east of
Spartanburg, in the general vicinity of the Project (Spartanburg County, 1997). The remainder of
county lands are taken up in agricultural uses, 25 percent, (Spartanburg County, 1997)
interspersed with pockets of rural and urban development, 23 percent.
MAY 2014
5-46
5.10.3 MANAGEMENT PLANS
The Spartanburg County Comprehensive Plan provides goals and objectives regarding the
maintenance of natural viewsheds in the County through resource conservation and protection.
Among the goals and objectives that help to protect the visual quality of the County are
(Spartanburg County, 1997):
•
Preparation and distribution of educational materials and information relating to the need
for and value of incorporating site present natural resources into proposed projects and
development, including visual amenities;
•
Pursue the use of conservation easements as a means of perpetual protection for certain
unique and/or natural resources, including riparian buffer zones, and maintain natural or
comparable buffers in the riparian zones paralleling the County’s rivers and creeks,
where practical and feasible;
•
Improve or enhance existing land uses and physical settings, including addressing
visually blighted areas;
•
Establish an effective urban containment policy, promote cluster housing in rural areas
within specified design criteria, and establish lot size restrictions to minimize sprawl; and
•
Accommodate projected growth while conserving the rural and scenic character of the
area through revising the County’s subdivision regulations to include conservation
provisions and incorporating site amenities and resources, such as open space,
greenways, and wildlife corridors.
5.10.4 NEARBY SCENIC ATTRACTIONS
Within the Project Vicinity are numerous scenic attractions of regional and national importance.
The Project is located within proximity to the Croft State Natural Area and the Enoree District of
the Sumter National Forest. Croft State Natural Area covers 7,054-acres of rolling terrain of and
is home to two lakes which support a variety of flora and fauna habitat. The park offers several
trails which offer views of Lake Craig, Lake Johnson and Fairforest Creek (SC State Parks,
2012).
The Enoree District of Sumter National Forest is 161,216 acres in size and has three rivers
flowing through it, the Broad, the Enoree and the Tyger. There are numerous hiking, equestrian
and off-road vehicle (ORV) trails in the district which provide views of the Broad River, the
forest’s gently sloping landscape and rolling hills, and cultural sites such as old cemeteries,
wagon roads, and plantation sites (USFS, 2012).
MAY 2014
5-47
The Pacolet River Heritage Preserve covers approximately 278 acres and provides several miles
of hiking trails along the Pacolet River in Spartanburg County. Along with views of the river, the
preserve is home to two 5,000 to 3,000 year-old Native American soapstone quarries and two
uncommon plant species, a moss and a leafy liverwort, which are protected within the preserve.
The Preserve is located on the southern shore of the Pacolet River, downstream of the Project
(SCDNR, 2012).
5.10.5 REFERENCES
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2012. Pacolet River Heritage
Preserve. [Online] URL:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/managed/heritage/pacoletr/description.html. Accessed June 6,
2012.
South Carolina State Parks (SCSP). 2012. Croft State Natural Area. [Online] URL:
http://www.southcarolinaparks.com/park-finder/state-park/1443.aspx. Accessed June 6,
2012.
http://www.spartanburgcounty.org/govt/depts/pln/compplan/TOC.htm Accessed June 6,
2012.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Sumter National Forest:
Enoree Ranger District. [Online] URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms/forest/about/en.shtml.
Accessed June 6, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-48
5.11
CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.11.1 OVERVIEW
Although English settlers had been in what is now South Carolina from the late seventeenth
century, Spartanburg County remained in Cherokee hands until the 1760s and 1770s. In May
1777, the Cherokee Indians ceded the territory that included what is now Spartanburg County in
the Treaty of DeWitt’s Corner. With the end of the Revolutionary War in 1781 and the
ratification of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, white settlers began expanding into the state’s
upcountry. Surveys of the new territory, and sales of tracts, began in 1784. The South Carolina
General Assembly created Spartanburg District in 1785. The new town of Spartanburg was
located in the center of Spartanburg District, and roads radiated out to all parts of the District and
connected the county seat to the surrounding Greenville, Union, and Laurens Districts. The
numerous rivers and creeks in Spartanburg County provided many opportunities for the
development of manufacturing. The main industry in the area was iron mining and the district
was sometimes called “The Old Iron District.” The iron industry, while having a relatively mild
impact on the state’s economy, was an important element of Spartanburg District’s antebellum
economy.
The modern industrial development of what is now Spartanburg County began in 1815, when the
Weaver brothers from New England arrived by way of Charleston. The Weavers had experience
in using water power for textile mills in their native Rhode Island, and found a useful source of
power on the region’s many rivers and streams. Spartanburg County is located on the Fall Line,
where water from the mountains of North and South Carolina drains into larger streams that then
pass over a series of falls and shoals before broadening out into mature rivers. This drop in
elevation takes place in rivers that contain flows that are large enough to provide power and yet
small enough to be controlled by dams (Willis, 2002).
In 1850, Joseph Finger incorporated the first Pacolet Manufacturing Company, along with
Gabriel Cannon and Henry Kestler (Dill, 2012). Joseph Finger built one of the earliest textile
plants in the area along the North Pacolet River, near the community of Fingerville, which he
founded. Although his textile operation burned in 1885, the Fingerville Textile Mill was opened
a few years later at the same site (SCPL, 2012) (Photo 5-2). The mill was owned by a few
different people over the years before it finally closed in 1995.
MAY 2014
5-49
PHOTO 5-2:
FINGERVILLE TEXTILE MILL, 1920-1929
Source: Photograph courtesy of the Herald-Journal Willis Collection Spartanburg County (SC)
Public Libraries.
5.11.2 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
There are no places within the Project boundary or in the immediate Project area that are listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
5.11.3 DISCOVERY MEASURES
There are no known ongoing discovery measures such as surveys, inventories, or subsurface
testing within the Project boundary.
5.11.4 REFERENCES
Willis, Jeffrey. 2002. “Textile Town Pioneers 1816-1879,” in Betsy Wakefield Teter, ed., Textile
Town: Spartanburg County, South Carolina. Hub City Writers Project, Spartanburg,
South Carolina. Pages 15-27.
MAY 2014
5-50
Dill, Betty Jean Foster. 2012. The Piedmont Historical Society. Conveyance Book AA for
Spartanburg, 1848-1850. From SC Archives Microfilm C 609 (UP). [Online] URL:
http://www.piedmont-historical-society.org/records/frame-insert.html Accessed
November 14, 2012.
Spartanburg County Public Libraries (SCPL). 2012. Fingerville Textile Mill. Image taken by
Alfred T. Willis during the decade of 1920-1929 and is part of the Herald-Journal Willis
Collection. [Online] URL:
http://digital.infodepot.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/shjw/id/389/rec/12 Accessed
November 14, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-51
5.12
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
5.12.1 OVERVIEW
The Project is located less than one mile northeast of the small town of Fingerville, South
Carolina and approximately twelve miles north of the relatively large city of Spartanburg, South
Carolina. The Project is almost seven miles north of Interstate 85 and approximately four miles
east of Interstate 26. Interstate 85 traverses the northwest corner of South Carolina between
Charlotte, North Carolina and Atlanta, Georgia and Interstate 26 runs north-south between
Greenville and Columbia. The power produced from the Project will be used internally to offset
Spartanburg Water’s energy needs. Any surplus is anticipated to be sold locally via distribution
through Duke Energy Carolinas LLC. Currently capacity and demand information for the
southeast region indicates a net surplus of power production in the next several years, the
majority of this power production comes from fossil fuel consumption. Spartanburg Water
believes that the power produced by the Project allows them to provide a low cost, reliable, and
clean source of renewable energy for the region.
5.12.2 GENERAL LAND USE PATTERNS
Overall, approximately 52 percent of Spartanburg County, in which the Project is located, is
forested. Although historically timber has been an important industry and land use in South
Carolina since the 1600's, the forest industry has not been as substantial in Spartanburg County
and timber company holdings have declined substantially during the past several years, from
over 20,000 acres to less than 10,000 (Spartanburg County, 1997). Education is the largest
employer in Spartanburg County, followed by manufacturing and retail trade (SCBCB, 2012).
The Fingerville Project is located in the Piedmont region of South Carolina; about 30 percent of
the Piedmont region is used for agriculture; the main crops are soybean, corn and cotton (LPC,
1998). As with timber, agriculture is an industry that has experienced a decline in Spartanburg
County. Croplands accounted for almost 40 percent of total land in Spartanburg County in 1978
(Spartanburg County, 1997); currently less than 25 percent of the County is cropland (SCBCB,
2006). There are approximately 1,242 farms in Spartanburg County (SCBCB, 2006).
MAY 2014
5-52
5.12.3 POPULATION PATTERNS
Spartanburg County is a densely populated area encompassing 808 square miles (mi2), and
having a population density of 351.9 people/mi2 (Table 5-9). The exact population of
Spartanburg County in 2010 was over 284,307. The population of Spartanburg County increased
12 percent from 2000 to 2010 (U.S. Census, 2012). The County includes the city of Spartanburg,
the second largest city in the northwestern region of the state.
TABLE 5-9:
POPULATION STATISTICS FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG
COUNTY
POPULATION
Population (2010)
Population (2000)
Population Growth (1990 to 2000)
GEOGRAPHY (2010)
Land area in square miles
Population Density
GENDER (2010)
Male
Female
AGE (2010)
Persons under 5 years old
Persons under 18 years old
Persons 18 to 64 years old
Persons 65 years old and over
RACE (2004)
Caucasian
Black
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Hispanic or Latino
Two or more races
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012
SOUTH
CAROLINA
284,307
253,791
12.0%
4,679,230
4,012,012
15.3%
807.9
351.9
30,060.7
153.9
48.5%
51.5%
48.3%
51.4%
6.7%
24.4%
62.2%
13.4%
6.5%
23.4%
62.9%
13.7%
72.3%
20.6%
0.3%
2.0%
0.0%
5.9%
1.7%
66.2%
27.9%
0.4%
1.3%
0.1%
5.1%
1.7%
5.12.4 HOUSEHOLDS/FAMILY DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME
In 1999, the annual per capita personal income in Spartanburg County was $18,738, which is on
par with the per capita income for the state of South Carolina, and is ranked 15th highest in the
state on a county level (Table 5-10) (U.S. Census, 2012 and SCBCB, 2012). The County has a
lower poverty rate than the overall state average, ranked 10th lowest in the state on a county
MAY 2014
5-53
level, (SCBCB, 2012), and a high rate of homeownership, comparable to the state overall
average (U.S. Census, 2012). The County was ranked as having the 10th highest median home
value in the state in 2000 (SCBCB, 2012). Spartanburg County has the 13th highest percentage of
individuals with a college degree (Associate, Bachelor’s or Graduate) and is ranked the 12th
highest in the percentage of individuals with a graduate or professional degree (SCBCB, 2012).
TABLE 5-10: COUNTY HOUSING AND INCOME STATISTICS FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND
SOUTH CAROLINA
HOUSEHOLDS
Households (2010)
Persons Per Household (2010)
INCOME
Per capita money income (2010)
Median household income (2010)
Persons below poverty (2010)
HOUSING
Housing units (2011)
Homeownership rate (2010)
Median value of owner-occupied housing units (2010)
SPARTANBURG
COUNTY
SOUTH
CAROLINA
106,397
2.54
1,741,994
2.51
$21,924
$42,680
14.8%
$23,443
$43,939
16.4%
122,926
71.2%
$116,300
2,157,033
69.9%
$134,100
5.12.5 PROJECT VICINITY EMPLOYMENT SOURCES
Table 5-11 below provides 2005 data on employment sources in Spartanburg County. The
manufacturing sector provides greatest number of jobs and accounts for the largest annual
payroll in the County. The healthcare and trade sectors are also important, accounting for
approximately 11 percent and 16 percent (retail and wholesale) of the workforce, respectively.
Accommodation and food service industries employ relatively few people in the County
(SCBCB, 2006), though tourism and visitation contribute significantly to the local economy
(SCPRT, 2005). Spartanburg County was ranked 21 out of the 47 counties for having the lowest
unemployment rate; which is slightly higher than the state overall average.
MAY 2014
5-54
TABLE 5-11: EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG
COUNTY
EMPLOYMENT STATUS (2005)
Number Employed
122,441
Unemployment Rate
5.8%
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (2007)
Manufacturing
Number of Employees
26,108
Annual Payroll (Thou.)
$1,204,897
Number of Establishments
462
Health Care and Social Assistance
Number of Employees
13,349
$520,831
510
Retail Trade
Number of Employees
13,937
$309,041
1,089
Wholesale Trade
Number of Employees
6,437
$278,474
440
Administration, Support, Waste Management, Remediation Services
Number of Employees
10,156
$302,259
331
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
Number of Employees
3,860
$193,167
469
Accommodation and Food Services
Number of Employees
10,002
$113,584
528
Other Services
Number of Employees
2,920
$69,809
433
Real Estate, Rental and Leasing
Number of Employees
1,279
$45,101
279
MAY 2014
5-55
SOUTH
CAROLINA
1,938,741
6.8%
204,251
$9,219,131
3,966
215,865
$8,784,062
9,724
217,558
$4,866,049
17,708
59,186
$2,919285
4,899
122,322
$3,411,861
5,407
78,343
$4,176,947
9,701
174,563
$2,485,204
9,532
76,953
$1,706,955
11,114
25,128
$812,480
4,723
5.12.6 TRIBAL RESOURCES
There are no known tribal cultural or economic interests within the Project boundary or within an
area that may be affected by the Project. Project construction and operation should not affect any
Indian tribal interests. No other projects in the vicinity likely affect Indian tribe interests.
5.12.7 REFERENCES
South Carolina Budget and Control Board, Office of Research and Statistics (SCBCB). 2012.
South Carolina Statistical Abstract. [Online] URL: http://abstract.sc.gov/ . Accessed
November 14, 2012.
http://www.spartanburgcounty.org/govt/depts/pln/compplan/TOC.htm . Accessed
November 14, 2012.
U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2012. State and County QuickFacts: Spartanburg County.
[Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/45083lk.html Accessed
November 14, 2012.
MAY 2014
5-56
6.0
PROJECT EFFECTS, ISSUES, STUDIES, AND MEASURES
A primary purpose of the PAD is to identify environmental issues that exist at the Project and to
determine if additional information is needed in order to understand the effects that the Project
may have on those affected resources. This section presents information on known or potential
project related effects; preliminary issues; potential studies and information gathering needs; and
proposed Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement (PM&E) measures.
6.1
KNOWN OR POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS
This section identifies any known or potential effects resulting from Project construction and
Project operations on the resources specified in Section 5.0. Project effects are fundamentally
neither positive nor negative however they might possibly create issues that could be viewed as
positive or negative, depending on the point of view. Identification of Project effects is
particularly useful for assessing whether an identified issue is Project-induced or a result of some
non-Project cause.
6.1.1
PRIMARY PROJECT EFFECTS
Primary Project related issues will mainly be the result of the construction and updating of the
Project. Any construction related impacts will be temporary, and may include increases in
turbidity, which could affect aquatic species, including mussels and macroinvertebrates, within
the immediate vicinity of the Project. Riverine habitat within the Project area should not be
significantly affected since the construction of the powerhouse will be located at the base of the
dam, an area that is composed of scoured bedrock, removing the potential for increased turbidity.
Projected project operations should not affect the environment within the Project area more than
it does currently, with the existing dam and tailrace. Flows should not be altered from what they
are today since this is a run-of-river operation, however, they may be slightly rerouted.
Downstream flows should remain the same except during periods of drought, where there may
be some impacts due to flow reductions and available habitat.
MAY 2014
6-1
6.2
LICENSEE PROPOSED STUDIES AND INFORMATION GATHERING NEEDS BY RESOURCE
The following sections identify initial information gathering and studies for each resource based
upon possible issues identified in Section 6.1. Any proposed study will require a study plan be
filed in accordance with 18 CFR §5.11 within 45 days following the deadline for filing
comments on the PAD and the issuance of a Scoping Document by FERC. Spartanburg Water
may agree to certain studies and information gathering activities prior to the formal filing and
may voluntarily initiate those activities or studies prior to the formal filing. Spartanburg Water
understands that FERC’s Scoping meetings and additional comments by resource agencies,
tribes, or the public may alter suggested studies or require additional studies. Any information or
study requests must comply with the requirements of 18 CFR §5.9(b) that are presented in
Section 2.2.3.3 above.
A similar level of effort to what was expended for the downstream lower Pacolet Project (FERC
No. 2621) will be undertaken to evaluate the effects of the Fingerville Project on human and
natural environments and the various resources, using existing studies and materials (where
possible) provided by and developed with stakeholders. Some of the studies from the lower
Pacolet Project will be directly applicable to the Fingerville Project as the size and scopes of the
projects are similar in nature and within the same river system. If necessary, Spartanburg Water
will supplement this information with additional site specific studies related to the Fingerville
Project and developed through consultation with state and federal resource agencies.
All studies and related work will be performed with the intent to provide Spartanburg Water with
the information necessary to prepare the application for license and to ultimately construct the
optimal development plan for the project. Spartanburg Water proposes to conduct the following
studies to determine the feasibility of the proposed project and to support an application for
license, if reasonable. Study plans will be developed and studies conducted in consultation with
the appropriate federal, state and local agencies as necessary to provide an accurate and complete
assessment of the proposed project.
MAY 2014
6-2
6.3
RELEVANT QUALIFYING FEDERAL AND STATE OR COMPREHENSIVE WATERWAY
PLANS
Section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(2)(A), requires FERC to
consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Federal or state comprehensive plans for
improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the Project. On April
27, 1988, FERC issued Order No. 481-A revising Order No. 481, issued October 26, 1987,
establishing that FERC will accord FPA Section 10(a)(2)(A) comprehensive plan status to any
Federal or state plan that:
•
Is a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or
waterways;
•
Specifies the standards, the data, and the methodology used; and
•
Is filed with the Secretary of the Commission.
FERC currently lists 31 comprehensive plans for the State of South Carolina. Of these listed
plans, seven are potentially relevant to the Project, as listed below in Table 6-1. These plans may
be useful in the relicensing proceeding for characterizing desired conditions.
TABLE 6-1:
LIST OF QUALIFYING FEDERAL AND STATE COMPREHENSIVE WATERWAY
PLANS POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE FINGERVILLE PROJECT
RESOURCE
Water Resources
Water Resources
Water Resources
Water Resources
Recreation
Water Resources
Water Resources
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1985. Water
classifications and standards, and classified waters. Columbia, South Carolina. June
1985. 58 pp.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1988. Statewide
water quality assessment, FY 1986-1987: a report to Congress pursuant to Section
305(b) of the Clean Water Act. Columbia, South Carolina. May 1988. 165 pp.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1989. Assessment
of non-point source pollution for the State of South Carolina. Columbia, South
Carolina. April 1989. 83 pp. and appendices.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1989. Non-point
source management program for the State of South Carolina. Columbia, South
Carolina. April 1989. 227 pp.
South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, & Tourism. 2008. South Carolina's
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Columbia, South
Carolina. 2008.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2004. South Carolina Water Plan –
Second Edition. Columbia, South Carolina. January 2004.
South Carolina Water Resources Commission. National Park Service. 1988. South
Carolina rivers assessment. Columbia, South Carolina. September 1988. 249 pp.
Source: FERC Revised List of Comprehensive Plans, April 2012
MAY 2014
6-3
6.4
RELEVANT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS
In addition to the qualifying Federal, state, and Tribal comprehensive waterway plans listed in
Section 6.3, some resource agencies have developed resource management plans to help guide
their actions regarding specific resources of jurisdiction. The resource management plans listed
in Table 6-2 may be relevant to the Project and may be useful in the relicensing proceeding for
characterizing desired conditions.
TABLE 6-2:
LIST OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE
FINGERVILLE PROJECT
RESOURCE
Recreation and Land
Use; Aesthetics
Recreation and Land
Use; Aesthetics
Water Resources;
Recreation and Land
Use
Terrestrial
Resources
Aquatic Resources
Botanical Resources
MAY 2014
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Spartanburg County Comprehensive Plan
Spartanburg County Unified Land Management Ordinance
Broad Scenic River Management Plan
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Comprehensive State
Wildlife Plan
Santee-Cooper River Basin Diadromous Fish Restoration Plan
South Carolina Aquatic Plant Management Plan
6-4
7.0
SUMMARY OF CONTACTS [§ 5.6 (D)(5)]
The Licensee is distributing this PAD and accompanying NOI simultaneously to FERC, federal
and state resource agencies, local governments, Native American tribes, NGOs, and others
potentially interested in the licensing proceeding. Appendix B details the distribution list for the
PAD and NOI. This PAD appropriately references all information sources cited and Appendix B
contains a record of all contacts made with agencies and other organizations to date to discuss
the Project.
MAY 2014
7-1
8.0
PURPA BENEFITS [§ 5.6 (E)]
As the proposed Project is expected to satisfy the requirements for a qualifying facility, Spartanburg
Water will seek benefits under section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. The
proposed Project is not located at a new dam or diversion that would create a new impoundment or
raise an existing one. Spartanburg Water requests that agencies review of this PAD provide their
opinion of that statement.
MAY 2014
8-1
APPENDIX A
CONSULTATION RECORD
MEETING NOTES
SPARTANBURG WATER
Blalock Pre-Application Document Review and Discussion
June 20, 2013
Final KDM 7-16-13
ATTENDEES:
Ken Tuck (Spartanburg Water)
Alicia Rowe (SCDHEC)
Tom McCoy (USFWS)
Bill Marshall (SCDNR)
Sue Schneider (Spartanburg Water)
Rebecca West (Spartanburg Water)
Alan Stuart (Kleinschmidt)
Kelly Miller (Kleinschmidt)
These notes serve to be a summary of the major points presented during the meeting and are not
intended to be a transcript or analysis of the meeting.
Alan opens the meeting and explains that the purpose of this informal meeting is to review the draft
Blalock Pre-Application Document (PAD) and discuss any missing information needs, as identified
by the agencies. Sue then gives the group a brief history of Spartanburg Water, including Lake
Blalock and Lake Bowen, as well as the recent acquisition of the Fingerville Project. The group
then begins reviewing the PAD, noting any deficiencies in information and identifying any study
needs.
Bill gives the group a document he created which summarizes the issues and information needs that
should be considered for any hydroelectric Project, from DNR’s perspective. He then highlights
some of the information needs he has for section four in the PAD, including the addition of the
existing flow regime for the Project, a more detailed description of the dam, and a description of
proposed Project operations. Alicia adds that she would like to see more existing water quality data
for Lake Bowen and Lake Blalock, as well as downstream of the dams. Alicia also notes that the
SCDHEC list of impaired waters, water quality standards, and the Pacolet River watershed map
have all been recently updated. Kelly says she will update this information in the PAD.
Bill asks if Spartanburg Water has an Erosion Control Plan and Ken answers that they have an
erosion inventory which is part of their Watershed Management Group and can be included in the
PAD. Bill explains that DNR has an interest in keeping or enhancing the habitat around the
projects. Ken says that Spartanburg Water does a lot to promote habitat protection and
enhancement and even have law enforcement officers who patrol the lakes and enforce the rules.
The group then focuses on section five of the PAD, identifying information to be included with the
description of the existing environment. Bill notes that much of the information included in the
Blalock PAD is from data collection efforts for the Pacolet Project, which is located more than ten
miles downstream of Lake Blalock. He mentions that updated data concerning section 5.4, fish and
aquatic resources, might be available from recent efforts by the DNR “Stream Team” and promises
to follow up by contacting a member of the team. If the data is not there, Tom and Bill request a
Page 1 of 3
localized fish community survey to be completed. Bill also mentions that he will talk to other DNR
biologists to see if there are any species of concern in the Project Area and whether or not there is a
need for a study.
Regarding section 5.5, wildlife resources, Bill notes that there is not a lot of information included in
the PAD that is site specific, which he would like to see. Tom asks about Spartanburg Water’s
efforts on wildlife protection, and Ken says that information on their wildlife protection policies and
efforts can be found on their website, in the stewardship section. Kelly says she will include these
specifics in the PAD.
Section 5.6, botanical resources, needs to reflect information on the dwarf-flowered heartleaf, which
is currently included in the rare, threatened, and endangered species section. Bill and Tom would
like to see more information on the species overall, including GIS locations of populations and
education efforts. Tom asks about Spartanburg Water’s invasive weed management plan, which
Ken says is explained in the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). He mentions they have been
working with Chris Page from DNR on aquatic weed management for the lakes. This information
needs to be included in the PAD as well.
Ken says he will provide information on buffer zone management, to be included in section 5.7,
riparian, wetland and littoral habitat. Bill asks if Spartanburg Water has a good handle on the
condition of their buffer. Sue says yes, they do through monitoring efforts by lake wardens and
others. Bill says in general he would like to see more information included in the PAD on the
wetlands and littoral habitats located around the lakes.
Bill mentions that he wants a South Carolina Species of Concern list to be included in the PAD, as
part of section 5.8, rare, threatened, endangered and special status species.
Regarding section 5.9, recreation and land use, Ken and Rebecca mention that a new kayak launch
is currently being installed on Lake Blalock. Kelly says she will update the PAD to reflect this
addition. Tom asks if there is a Recreation Management Plan in place for the Project. Alan says
that since there is currently no FERC license at the Project, they are not required to have one,
however, they will need to develop one when the project is licensed. Ken, Sue and Rebecca
mention several of the different recreation activities that are held on Lake Blalock, including a
Paddle-fest, an international carp fishing tournament, and other smaller fishing tournaments that are
held regularly. Spartanburg Water is also in the process of partnering with DNR to create a
waterfowl management area on Lake Blalock. Other recreation opportunities are available at the
Lake Blalock Park which provides boating and fishing opportunities, but does not have a beach area
for swimming. There is also no overnight camping allowed on the islands in Lake Blalock. Ken
and Sue explain that due to state laws, the lake is closed to the public from midnight until one hour
before sunrise. Bill asks that this detailed information, including a buffer zone map be added to the
PAD.
Bill asks about the need for a Recreation Use and Needs Study for the Projects. He says that this
will be important when developing an RMP, and will help Spartanburg Water plan for any future
recreation needs.
Page 2 of 3
Tom and Alicia ask if there are any sediment issues at the Projects, including sediment releases.
Ken says that while there may be a slight insignificant build-up of sediment at Lake Bowen, they
don’t have any issues with sediment downstream at Lake Blalock.
Bill and Tom mention that they will be interested in seeing an Entrainment and Turbine Mortality
Study be conducted, which can be handled as a desktop study.
While Spartanburg Water is still considering the economic feasibility of moving forward with these
projects, the individual PADs will be updated to reflect the issues discussed at the meeting. The
group agrees to meet again in January of 2014. Action items stemming from the meeting are listed
below.
ACTION ITEMS:
•
Alicia will check to see if there is an updated Pacolet River Watershed Map available from
DHEC.
•
Bill will contact the DNR Stream Team to find out if there is any information already
collected on the local fish community. Bill will also talk to other DNR biologists to
determine what the species of concern are for the Project Areas.
•
Ken will send the group information on buffer zone management for the Projects.
•
Kelly will update the PADs according to the information requests identified in this meeting.
Page 3 of 3
MEETING NOTES
SPARTANBURG WATER
Discussion of Potential Hydro Development at Blalock, Bowen and Fingerville
Initial Meeting
final KDM 8-28-12
August 23, 2012
ATTENDEES:
Ken Tuck (Spartanburg Water)
Alicia Rowe (SCDHEC)
Amanda Hill (USFWS)
Bill Marshall (SCDNR)
Prescott Brownell (NOAA) via conference call
Alan Stuart (Kleinschmidt)
Kelly Miller (Kleinschmidt)
These notes serve to be a summary of the major points presented during the meeting and are not
intended to be a transcript or analysis of the meeting.
Alan opened the meeting and, after brief introductions, presented an overview of the three potential
hydro development projects that Spartanburg Water is considering. Ken also explained to the group
why Spartanburg Water is interested in these projects and related that interest to the overall mission
of Spartanburg Water.
Ken emphasized that the primary focus of Spartanburg Water is, and always will be water supply.
The development of these hydro projects will not be used as a source of profit for the company, but
instead as a way to off-set energy costs and increase efficiency. This will allow Spartanburg Water
to take advantage of resources already in their possession, as well as keep prices reasonable for their
customers.
Currently the company operates one hydro plant located at the RB Simms Water Treatment Plant,
390 Spartanburg Water Works Road in Chesnee, South Carolina. This hydro operation produces
one megawatt and utilizes the Reservoir #1. Built in 1926 as part of the RB Simms WTP, the hydro
facility historically produced power for local residents, but is now only used as an internal power
source for the company. The RB Simms WTP is located on the South Pacolet River, and upstream
of the plant is the Reservoir #1 and Lake Bowen. The tailrace of the hydro plant’s dam meets the
North Pacolet River, on which the Fingerville project is located. Downstream of the RB Simms
Plant, the North and South Pacolet Rivers converge and form the Pacolet River. This is where Lake
Blalock is located.
The Fingerville project, as mentioned, is located on the North Pacolet River and consists of a
wooden dam, approximately 15-18 feet high, and an existing hydro infrastructure. The dam and
infrastructure are currently not in use, but these existing structures may be utilized by Spartanburg
Page 1 of 4
Water, or may be reconstructed. The project would consist of one unit, probably a single Kaplan, or
a drop-in type turbine. Fingerville is the least likely project, and lowest priority, of the three
potential sites that Spartanburg Water is looking to develop but is still an option.
The Bowen project is located on the South Pacolet River and is an ambursen type dam,
approximately 58 feet high. The water supply reservoir is 1450 acres. This project backs up to
Reservoir #1, so there are no minimum flows. Due to the type of dam at this site and safety
concerns surrounding it, the feasibility of developing this project is less than that of the Blalock
project.
The Blalock project is located on the Pacolet River and underwent improvement construction in
2006. During this time, the level of Lake Blalock was raised from 700msl to 710msl and three
hydraulically operated crest gates and a cone valve (which aids with aerating the water during low
flows) were installed, among other things. This project is considered Spartanburg Water’s highest
priority due to the fact that it only needs a few additions to be ready to produce power. This project
does include a rare, threatened, and endangered species, the dwarf-flowered heartleaf plant, which is
already being cared for by Spartanburg Water, through awareness programs and mitigation.
Greater detail on the individual projects was included in Alan’s opening presentation, which he will
email out to the group for reference.
Ken mentions that a Buffer Zone Management Plan is already in effect for Lakes Bowen and
Blalock. The plan developed for Lake Blalock is very detailed and requires permitting for most
activities on and around the lake. Since Lake Blalock was built in the 1960s, there was heavy
development on the lake before a modern Buffer Zone Management Plan was put into place.
However, new development and maintenance of the old development is heavily regulated. The full
Buffer Zone Management Plan for Lake Blalock can be found at http://www.swssssd.org/pdfs/lbbmp.pdf and details regarding boating, irrigation and permitting for Lake Bowen
can be found at http://www.sws-sssd.org/lakes/bowen-details.php.
Ken also mentions that since the primary concern of Spartanburg Water is water supply, water
quality is already heavily analyzed and managed, so this should not be an issue during the licensing
process. Water quality data is largely available, which will be very beneficial during development
of the PADs.
The Fingerville preliminary permit was issued about six months ago and the Blalock and Bowen
preliminary permits were issued about one month ago. All are good for a three year period. During
this time, the NOI and PAD are submitted and all study plans are developed. After three years, the
application can be submitted.
As a note, if these projects are developed for hydroelectric purposes, the dam safety would no
longer be subject to state regulations, but would be regulated by FERC.
After lunch, the representatives of the agencies were given the opportunity to present and discuss
any of their potential concerns, mostly directed toward the Blalock project, since this is of the
highest priority to Spartanburg Water. Prescott started the discussion by bringing up the subject of
diadromous fish and the possibility of stocking the river with larvae and juveniles. He also
suggested a study that would help identify the best flow to support aquatic resources. Another
Page 2 of 4
concern of Prescott’s is the temperature of the lakes and rivers, and the possible reasonable
adjustment of these temperatures and reservoir levels. Alan asked Prescott if NOAA would require
formal or informal consultation. Prescott said that formal consultation would be unlikely, but could
happen over the next 20 years, so they would reserve the right for formal consultation in case the
need presented itself. Due to other engagements, Prescott had to leave the meeting after listing
these possible concerns.
Amanda then runs through the list of typical needs and concerns of the USFWS. A baseline
fisheries study to see if state conservation species are in the 5-7 mile stretch of river between the
Blalock project and the Clifton #3 dam will be needed. A baseline macroinvertebrate survey that
includes gastropods and mussels will also be required. Ken brings up the fact that the rare,
threatened and endangered species in the areas have already been surveyed and documented with a
restrictive covenant already in place. For example, bald eagles are known to reside within the
project boundaries. Also, the Blalock project is 401 certified and has a minimum flow regime
already established. Amanda and Bill both brought up the state 20/30/40 optimum flows and Bill
explained that the flows need to meet this requirement or another flow regime that is determined to
be acceptable. The flow regime needs to be included in the PAD. Bill also added that a fisheries
study of the Blalock impoundment needs to be performed to characterize the downstream fish
versus the upstream fish. It was mentioned that Dan Rankin of DNR is already doing some similar
work in the area.
Bill brings up the idea of writing a draft PAD so that the agencies can see what issues Spartanburg
Water has already addressed and what still needs to be studied. Alan informs the group that a draft
PAD has already been started and will be distributed to the group unofficially.
Bill raises the subject of recreation to the group. Ken describes the many recreation options that
Spartanburg Water provides on the lakes and rivers, including public parks, a new paddle launch on
Lake Blalock for canoeing and kayaking, and accessibility for boating and fishing on Lake Bowen
and Lake Blalock. Ken also mentions that traffic counters are already installed at Lake Bowen and
Lake Blalock. It is noted that currently there is no feasible access to the river between the Blalock
Dam and the Clifton #3 Dam.
The Buffer Zone Management Plan was again brought up and Amanda asked that the plan be
included in the PAD. Ken then explained Spartanburg Water’s policy on the building and
maintaining of docks, which is detailed in the plan, and that all permitting for this work goes
through Spartanburg Water. Ken then makes the point that all dredging goes through DHEC. He
also mentioned that Spartanburg Water does not sell their property for development and that they
own all shoreline included in the project boundary lines and beyond.
Amanda asks if Spartanburg Water has any issue with sediment transport and whether or not there
is a Sediment Management Plan in place. Ken explains that there is no issue with sediment
movement and that at Blalock the raw water intake and hydro intake are the same structure.
However, if the Fingerville project were to be developed, there could be a sediment issue, since it
would be operated as a run of river.
Alicia is familiar with Spartanburg Water already, since water quality is obviously extremely
important for a water supply company. She does ask if Ken has any knowledge of the water quality
upstream of Bowen and downstream of Blalock. It will be important to have a record of what’s
Page 3 of 4
coming into the system and what’s going out before any generation starts so it can be compared to
what happens during generation. She also is interested in the water quality data upstream and
downstream of Fingerville. Alicia and Ken decide he will provide 10 years of data on dissolved
oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity, and specific metals, including chromium, cadmium,
mercury, iron and copper.
Wrapping up the discussions, Ken tells everyone that he will look at what studies, surveys, and data
Spartanburg Water already has collected and completed for the Blalock project. This will be
included in our draft PAD for Blalock so that the agencies will be able to see what has been done
and can decide what they still want completed.
An internal decision within Spartanburg Water, weighing the feasibility of developing Fingerville,
will be needed before a PAD is started.
A draft PAD for the Blalock project will be sent out to the attendees of this meeting in October,
2012.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA have claimed the right to reserve authority for all
three potential projects.
Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX B
DISTRIBUTION LIST
May 2014
Bill Marshall
SCDNR
PO Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
David Bernhart
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service – SERO
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505
Bob Perry
SCDNR
PO Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Byron Hamstead
USFWS
Chairman
P.O. Box 188
Catawba, SC 29704
Alicia Rowe
SCDHEC
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Chairman
Public Service Commission of South Carolina
101 Executive Center Drive #100
Columbia, SC 29210
Elizabeth Johnson
SHPO
8301 Parklane Road
Columbia, SC 29223
John M. Sullivan
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office
411 Briarwood Dr. Ste 404
Jackson, MS 39206-3058
Hal Beard
SCDNR
Pace Wilber
NOAA
219 Fort Johnson Road
Ron Ahle
SCDNR
Tom McCoy
USFWS
Vivianne Vejdani
SCDNR
PO Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
Office of Energy Projects
Federal Energy Regulatory Comm, ARO
3700 Crestwood Pkwy, NW, Ste 950
Duluth, GA 30096-7155
Mayor Junie White
City of Spartanburg
145 W. Broad Street
Sue Schneider
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Ken Tuck
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Rebecca West
Chief Operating Officer
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
May 2014
Chad Lawson
Communications Manager
200 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 251
Angie Price
Regulatory Programs Specialist
Spartanburg Water
297 South Avenue
Regional Director of Bureau of Indian Affairs
US Department of the Interior
545 Marriott Drive Suite 700
Nashville, TN 37214
Regional Director of National Park Service
Southeast Region
100 Alabama Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
United States Forest Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Office of the Governor
State of South Carolina
P.O. Box 12267
Columbia, SC 29211
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Chairman
P.O. Box 188
Catawba, SC 29704
U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy
4th District of South Carolina
101 West St. John St.
Ed Memmott
City Manager
City of Spartanburg
145 W. Broad Street
John Condrey
City Manager
Town of Forest City
128 N. Powell Street
Forest City, NC 28043
Inman-Campobello Water District
5 Prospect Street
Inman, SC 29349
Gerrit Jobsis
American Rivers
215 Pickens Street
Columbia, SC 29205
Merrill McGregor
SC Coastal Conservation League
1202 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Columbia, SC 29201
Executive Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1100 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 803
Regional Administrator
Federal Emergency Management Agency
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, GA 30341
Regional Engineer - Division of Dam Safety and
Inspections
Gwinnett Commerce Center
3700 Crestwood Pkwy NW
9th Floor
Duluth, GA 30096
Document Content(s)
P-14215 PAD Fingerville Cover Letter 05-27-14.PDF.....................1-5
NOI Fingerville.PDF...................................................6-10
P 14215 -FINAL PAD Fingerville 052714.PDF.............................11-117

Spartanburg, South Carolina

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

It`s Giving Season! - The Spartanburg County Foundation

AM 1450 - WHKP.com

August 2014 - Boys and Girls Clubs of the Upstate

Lease Brochure - The Montgomery Building

imni Ni

- Digital Commons @ Wofford