Loading…

Leading Indicators are the most robust measures of the status of the Natural Environment.


Secondary Indicators are other measures of Natural Environment, variables that have a direct impact on the environment, are tangentially reflective of the state of Natural Environment, or derive from the Leading Indicators.


For additional information and explanatory content, download the full report!

Air Quality Indicators

Upstate South Carolina Ozone Data by County and Monitoring Site



4th 8-hr Average (ppm)
3 Year Average (ppm)
County
Monitoring Site
2010
2011
2012
2013
2008-10
2009-11
2010-12
Current 
2011-13
Anderson
Big Creek
0.072
0.076
0.071
0.051
0.066
0.069
0.073
0.067
Cherokee
Cowpens
0.072
0.07
0.07
0.054
0.069
0.066
0.07
0.066
Greenville
Famoda Farm
0.07
0.066
0.063
0.055
0.066
0.067
0.066
0.063
Greenville
Hillcrest
0.069
0.068
0.07
0.051
0.068
0.068
0.069
0.064
Oconee
Long Creek
0.069
0.061
0.063
0
0.069
0.065
0.064
0.048
Pickens
Clemson
0.072
0.075
0.068
0.051
0.072
0.071
0.071
0.066
Pickens
Wolf Creek

0.074
0.063
0.053
0.065
0.069
0.068
0.063
Spartanburg
N. Spartanburg 
0.076
0.081
0.07
0.056
0.076
0.074
0.075
0.07


Primary Emissions Sources - Upstate South Carolina

Source Category
Source Description
Events
·          Fires: prescribed and wildfires

Nonpoint
·          Commercial Cooking
·          Miscellaneous Activities
·          Fires: Agricultural Field Burning
·          Open Burning
·          Fuel Combustion: Commercial/Institutional
·          Petroleum Products: Storage/Transport
·          Fuel Combustion: Industrial
·          Solvent Usage
·          Fuel Combustion: Residential
·          Wastewater Treatment
Nonroad
·          Compressed Natural Gas
·          Off-highway Vehicle Gasoline, 2-stroke
·          Line Haul Railroads
·          Off-highway Vehicle Gasoline, 4-stroke
·          Liquid Propane Gas
·          Pleasure Craft
·          Off-highway Vehicle Diesel

Onroad Mobile
·          Mobile: On-road Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles
·          Mobile: On-road Gasoline Heavy Duty Vehicles
·          Mobile: On-road Diesel Light Duty Vehicles
·          Mobile: On-road Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles
Point
·          Industries
·          Private and public facilities
·          Business


Upstate SC Total Emissions by Source, 2010 & 2011

Download Chart Image

Total Nitrous Oxide (NOx) Emissions by Upstate SC County in Tons per Year (TPY)

Download Chart Image

Total Volatile Organic Chemical (VOC) Emissions by Upstate SC County

Download Chart Image

Water Quality Indicators

South Carolina's 8 Major River Basins

Chart Image

Spartanburg County Rivers, Streams and Lakes

Chart Image

Identified Impaired Water Bodies in Spartanburg County, 2014


Location
Use
Cause
Little  Thicketty Creek at S-42-307 1.2 mi NE of Cowpens
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Obed  Creek at Unnumbered Christopher Road off SC 11
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Motlow  Creek at SR 888
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Lawson’s  Fork Creek at S-42-40 BL Inman Mill Eff
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Meadow  Creek at SR 56
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Lawson’s  Fork Creek at S-42-108
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Lake  Blalock at US 221
Aquatic Life
Copper
Potter  Br on RD 30 BL Outfall from Housing project Cowpens
Aquatic Life
Dissolved Oxygen
Beaverdam  Creek at SC 357
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
N Tyger  River at US 29 7.2 miles W of Spartanburg
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Unnamed  Tributary to Timms Creek, first Tributary entering Timm Creek downstream of  Montgomery Pond
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Timm  Creek, 100 meters upstream of Felt Rd
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
South  Tyger River at 293
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Unnamed  Tributary to South Tyger River, Rogers Mill Subdivision, downstream of the  2nd Storm Water Discharge
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Tributary  to Fairforest Ck 200 ft below S-42-65
Aquatic Life
Nickel, Hydrogen Ion  Concentration
Fairforest  Ck at SC 56
Aquatic Life
Macroinvertebrate
Lake  Johnson at Spillway at S-42-359
Aquatic Life
Chlorophyll A, Dissolved Oxygen,  Hydrogen Ion Concentration, Total Phosphorus


Land Use Indicators

For details related to Land Use Planning in Spartanburg County, visit Spartanburg's Area Performance Planning website.

Existing Land Use in Spartanburg County (in acres)

Download Chart Image
Strengths
Weaknesses
  • Increasing consciousness of sustainable, compact development patterns
  • Abundant supply of open space
  • Regulations support industrial/commercial development
  • Sprawling land use patterns dominate much of the Upstate
  • Development patterns outpacing community facilities and services
  • General lack of zoning
Opportunities
Threats
  • Large tracts of undeveloped land provide flexibility
  • Better integration of transportation and land use planning
  • Focus on redeveloping and revitalizing downtowns
  • Development pressure on prime farmland
  • Insufficient protection for established residential areas from incompatible development
  • Incompatible land uses across county borders

Land Use - Development and Sprawl

Researchers from Smart Growth America first issued detailed data on urban sprawl in their 2002 report, Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact, by ranking 83 US metropolitan areas. The formula used to calculate sprawl includes four factors: development density, land use mix, activity centering and street accessibility. The average index is 100, meaning areas with scores higher than 100 tend to be more compact and connected while areas with scores lower than 100 are more sprawling. The report provides detailed data and rankings for each of the four factors, but overall rankings for sprawl are listed in the tables below.

Most Sprawling Areas, Overall Measure by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2010

Rank

Metropolitan Region

Density Score

1

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA  MSA

14.2

2

Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC  MSA

46.8

3

Raleigh-Durham, NC  MSA

54.2

4

Atlanta, GA  MSA

57.7

5

Greenville-Spartanburg, SC  MSA

58.6

6

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach, FL  MSA

67.7

7

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk-Danbury  MSA

68.4

8

Knoxville, TN  MSA

68.7

9

Oxnard-Ventura, CA  PMSA

75.1

10

Fort Worth-Arlington, TX   PMSA

77.2

Most Sprawling Areas, Overall Measure by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2014

Rank

Metropolitan Region

Density Score

221

Hickory/Lenoir/Morgantown, NC 

24.9

220

Atlanta/Sandy Springs/Marietta, GA 

41.0

219

Clarksville, TN-KY

41.5

218

Prescott, AZ

49.0

217

Nashville-Davidson/Murfreesboro/Franklin, TN

51.7

216

Baton Rouge, LA

55.6

215

Riverside-San Bernardino/Ontario, CA

56.2

214

Greenville/Mauldin-Easley, SC

59.0

213

Augusta/Richmond County, GA-SC

59.2

212

Kingsport/Bristol/Bristol, TN-VA

60.0

Ten at the Top Upstate Urban Land Cover Change

Download Chart Image

Upstate South Carolina Future Land Use Map

Chart Image

Forestland Acres, Spartanburg County, Trend

Year
2013
2008
2003
2001
1993
1986
1978
1968
Category
Forestland
Forestland
Forestland
Forestland
Timberland
Timberland
Timberland
Timberland
Acres
225,640
232,823
249,110
256,868
262,954
254,865
271,113
261,585

Biodiversity Indicators

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species and Communities Known to Occur in Spartanburg County (June 2014)

 

Scientific Name
Common Name

Vertebrate Animals

 

Microtus pennsylvanicus
Meadow Vole

Vascular Plants

 

Aconitum uncinatum
Blue Monkshood

 

Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis

Enchanter’s Nightshade

 

Cypripedium pubescens
Large Yellow Lady’s Slipper

 

Fothergilla major
Mountain Witch Alder

 

Gaultheria procumbens
Teaberry

 

Hackelia virginiana
Virginia Stickseed

 

Helianthus laevigatus
Smooth Sunflower

 

Helianthus porteri
Porter’s Goldeneye

 

Hexastylis naniflora
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf

 

Isoetes piedmontana
Piedmont Quillwort

 

Juglans cinerea
Butternut

 

Juncus georgianus
Georgia Rush

 

Juniperus communis
Ground Juniper

 

Lonicera flava
Yellow Honeysuckle

 

Lygodium palmatum
Climbing Fern

 

Melanthium virginicum
Virginia Bunchflower

 

Minuartia uniflora
One-flower Stitchwort

 

Monotropis odorata
Sweet Pinesap

 

Nestronia umbellula
Nestronia

 

Rhododendron eastmanil
May White

 

Solidago bicolor
White Goldenrod

Communities

 

Chestnut - Oak Forest

 

Cove Forest

 

Mesic Mix Hardwood Forest

 

Oak - Hickory Forest

 

Piedmont Seepage Forest

Geological

 

Granitic Flatrock

 

Monadnock

 

Outcrop

Ecological Importance of Spartanburg County's Land Cover Types

Land Cover Type
Rank
Mesic deciduous forest/woodland
10
Rock outcrop
10
Aquatic Vegetation
9
Bottomland/floodplain forest
9
Dry deciduous forest/woodland
9
Dry mixed forest/woodland
8
Needle-leaved evergreen mixed forest/woodland
8
Closed canopy evergreen forest/woodland
7
Open canopy/recently cleared forest
4
Cultivated land
0
Dry shrub/shrub thicket
0
Fresh water
0
Grassland/pasture
0
Marsh/emergent wetland
0
Urban development
0
Urban residential
0
Wet shrub/shrub thicket
0


Special Places Inventory Land Cover Map

Chart Image

Special Places Inventory Co-occurrence Map

Upstate Forever created a resource co-occurrence model for Spartanburg County in 2010 that shows where the biodiversity “hot spots” in the county are still intact. This model incorporates the following five data layers into one map:

  • SC DNR Species Richness
  • SC DNR Rare and Endangered Plants
  • SC DNR 27 Class Land Cover
  • Stream Systems
  • Population Density

 Each data point in the second map below, Co-occurrence Roster, Spartanburg County, SC, represents a cell size of 10 meters x 10 meters and each cell has a potential biodiversity richness score ranging from 0 to 50. The highest score a cell achieved in the county was 45 for an area near Landrum in the northwestern part of the county. On this map, the best areas of remaining biodiversity are shown in red and the least biodiverse areas are shown in blue.

Special Places Inventory Co-occurence Raster, Saprtanburg County, SC

Chart Image

Secondary Indicators

Participant Hours, Spartanburg County Parks, FY2013 and FY2014

Download Chart Image

Spartanburg County Parks

Chart Image

Transportation SWOT Analysis for Upstate South Carolina, 2014

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Interstate 85 connects the Upstate to Atlanta and Charlotte
  • Extensive freight rail network
  • Wide variety of scenic highways
  • Greenville-Spartanburg Airport and smaller, regional airports facilitate connections to local and national markets
  • Limited public transit coverage
  • Abundance of automobile-oriented development
  • Lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities
  • Poor road quality
  • Absence of transit oriented development (TOD)

Opportunities

Threats

  • Open space and waterways could act as corridors for a regional greenway and multi-use trail network
  • Commuting patterns create demand for cross-county transit
  • Lack of sufficient funding for infrastructure improvements despite increased usage of roadways
  • Increased congestion leads to poor air quality and the possibility of falling out of attainment
  • Sprawling land use patterns are not pedestrian friendly


Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled, Spartanburg County

Download Chart Image

Vehicle Miles Traveled per Year in Spartanburg, with Projections, 1990-2030

Download Chart Image

Spartanburg County Annual Farm Statistics

  2009 2010 2011
Number of farms 1,242 1,242 1,242
Land in farms (acres) 109,917 109,917 109,917
Average farm size (acres) 89 89 89
Crops:  acres harvested and (rank by SC County)  
Corn for grain 500  (25) 800  (26) 400  (26)
Hay 21,700  (9) 22,000  (5)  
Soy beans 800  (28) 900  (28) 1,300  (25)
Wheat (winter) 400  (24) 400  (22) 400  (24)
Livestock  and livestock products:  Number and  (rank by SC County)
All cattle and calves* 15,800  (7) 16,700  (7) 15,400  (7)
Cash  receipts:  dollars and (rank by SC  county)    
Crops $24,660,000 (17) $30,141,000 (12) $26,732,000  (18)
Livestock $16,119,000 (23) $18,052,000 (22) $21,022,000  (21)
Total $40,780,000 (22) $48,198,000 (20) $47,754,000  (23)

*Numbers of cattle reported on January 12, 2012, January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2010

Resident Population by County, Annual 2011-2014

 
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Spartanburg
284,767
286,092
288,421
290,818
293,542
Greenville 
452,695
459,009
466,758
474,223
482,752
Richland
385,800
389,600
393,677
397,893
401,566
Charleston
351,235
357,737
365,472
372,913
381,015
SC
4,636,290
4,673,054
4,722,621
4,771,929
4,832,482

Annual Percentage Population Growth by County

Download Chart Image

Population Density (persons/sq. mile)

Download Chart Image

Spartanburg Area Landfills

Facility

County

Ownership

Permitted Annual Rate of  Disposal

FY14 Disposal

Estimated Remaining Capacity of Facility

Estimated Remaining Life of Facility Based On:

Permitted Disposal Rate in Years

Current Disposal Rate in Years

Palmetto Landfill

Spartanburg

Private

1,200,000

219,884

179,849

0.1

0.8

Wellford Landfill

Spartanburg

Public

260,000

117,022

581,452

2.2

5.0

Upstate Regional Landfill

Union

Private

730,000

690,772

3,724,807

5.1

5.4


Landfill Disposal Trends in Tons

Download Chart Image

Tons of Waste Imported to South Carolina

Download Chart Image

Municipal Solid Waste Recycling, Disposal and Generation Rates, 2014

Download Chart Image

Recycled Municipal Solid Waste by County


Spartanburg
Greenville
Richland
Charleston
Type of Waste
2010
2014
2010
2014
2010
2014
2010
2014
Total Glass
83.9
45.81
3,919.80
25.28
1,423.00
289.5
3,153.30
11.32
Total Metal
21,891.20
27,776.29
43,732.70
45,872.11
27,628.70
50,073.35
27,510.10
22,841.68
Total Paper
28,381.80
30,673.30
57,95.7
38,538.95
23,310.80
30,107.20
31,333.80
16,625.79
Total Plastic
1,860.80
2,202.88
5,010.00
679.07
726.5
2,959.02
1,509.60
276.29
Banned Items*
16,542.00
3,770.06
74,998.10
12,296.27
7,807.40
5,085.66
60,763.00
5,943.51
Commingled Recyclables**
1,961.10
3,839.09
104
14,895.24
7,988.80
12,467.13
4,546.00
31,552.07

*appliances, DIY used motor oil, lead-acid batteries, tires, yard trimmings Note: Yard trimmings were included in 2010 but not 2014.

**recyclables that are not collected separately



Natural Resources SWOT Analysis for Upstate South Carolina, 2014

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Widespread support for strategies supporting soil quality
  • Abundance of water for utilities and recreational purposes
  • Awareness of watershed health and methods for adaptation
  • Strong presence of regional/local conservation organizations
  • Awareness and documentation of endangered species
  • No comprehensive inventory or point source water pollution outfalls
  • Need for greater groundwater awareness and preservation
  • General lack of discussion of storm water management regulations

Opportunities

Threats

  • Desire for regional air quality improvement strategies
  • Prospect for regional approaches to watershed health
  • Joint marketing of opportunities for eco-tourism
  • Development pressures on environmentally sensitive and scenic areas
  • Loss of forest and habitat
  • Increased runoff and associated water quality concerns
  • Loss of prime farmland to development


What Can I Do?

Horn

Stay Informed

Connect with us by email or mail and follow us Facebook and Twitter.  Our handle is Spartanburg CIP.

Explore
Horn

Volunteer With Our Partners

Find and post volunteer opportunities on United Way of the Piedmont's Get Connected site.
Explore
Horn

Attend an Event

Check out our calendar of community events and don't forget to share!

Explore