← Students for Stewardship
Unlisted · research in progress · updated 2026-10-21

The back rooms

What I'm researching about Clemson's water and trees before it goes on the main site. Six rooms, one question each. Click a room to walk in.

Walk in →
Blueprint of the back rooms. Each room opens one question.Map roomWhat changed?land cover since 1985Tree roomWhat's still standing?263 champion treesThe hallway · six watersheds, most paved on the leftReedy River29% pavedHunnicutt26% pavedBerkeley21% pavedGolden16% pavedCalifornia Br.13% pavedEighteenmile8% pavedStream labWhat does it carve?Front hallStart hereyou are hereWorkbenchNot online yetentrance
Room fill = share paved under 10% 10–25% over 25%
Not to scale
Sheet 1 of 1 · 2026-10-21
Room 1 of 6Front hall

Come on in.

These rooms hold the research I'm working on before any of it goes on the main site. I'm trying to figure out what happened to the water around Clemson, and where we could start putting it back in the ground.

Each room asks one question. Walk them in order, or go wherever you want. Every claim on a board links to where it comes from.

Getting around

  • Doors on the walls and in the bar below take you next door.
  • The little plan up top gets you to any room.
  • Esc or Overhead pulls you back up to the blueprint.
  • Arrow keys flip through what's on the board.

Only sending someone one link? Send the watershed comparison. People get it fastest. The Clemson Water page ties the water work together.

What did Clemson change on the ground?

When rain lands on a forest, most of it soaks into the soil and reaches the creek slowly. When it lands on a roof or a parking lot, gutters and pipes carry it straight to the creek.

So the first thing I wanted to know was how much ground around Clemson switched from the first kind to the second.

Sources: Walsh et al. 2005

Since 1985

I pulled the USGS land-cover maps for every year back to 1985 and counted.

Forest−721 acres
Developed+819 acres

Sources: USGS Annual NLCD

What the creeks feel

That shows up in the creeks. USGS researchers in Atlanta compared an urban creek with less-developed neighbors: in the biggest storms its peak flows ran 30 to 100% higher, and in dry spells its low flows ran 25 to 35% lower.

The water that used to soak in and feed the creek between storms leaves all at once instead.

Sources: Rose & Peters 2001; Peters & Rose 2001

Where I'm going with it

The full page has the land-cover breakdown, a heat map, and a cross-section of a constructed wetland, one way to catch that water and let it soak back in.

Open A Water Story →

Is this just a Clemson thing?

One watershed doesn't tell you much. So I ran six of them through the same steps with the same public data, from Golden Creek at 1.5 square miles up to the Reedy River at 62.7.

Each one is a room off this hallway. On the blueprint, how full a room is tells you how much of that watershed is paved.

Sources: USGS Annual NLCD

The yardstick

The Center for Watershed Protection's impervious cover model draws the lines: streams start showing stress at about 10% paved, and past 25% most stream life can't hold on.

EighteenmileCalifornia Br.GoldenBerkeleyHunnicuttReedy River0%10%25%35%

Paved means roof, road and parking, from 2023 land cover.

Sources: Schueler 1994; Schueler et al. 2009

Why it can't hold on

  • Flashy flows. Pavement hands a storm to the creek all at once. The channel takes floods that reshape the bed and banks where the bugs and fish live, then drops back down. Walsh et al. 2005; Paul & Meyer 2001
  • Heat. Rain that runs across a sun-baked parking lot picks up heat on the way, and warmer water holds less oxygen. Cold-water fish like trout feel it first. Herb et al. 2008; USGS, dissolved oxygen
  • Less water between storms. Rain that never soaks in can't feed the creek later, so it can run lower in dry spells. Rose & Peters 2001; Peters & Rose 2001
  • What rides along. Nutrients, metals and other contaminants wash off the pavement with the runoff. Walsh et al. 2005

Ecologists call the whole package the urban stream syndrome. It works the other way too: anything that slows water down and lets it soak in cools it, cleans it, and feeds the creek between storms.

Sources: Walsh et al. 2005

Pick a door

Reedy River (to Lake Conestee) Non-supporting

Size
62.7 mi²
Paved
28.6%
Since 1985
+4.3 pts
Extra runoff
+331 af

Drains to Lake Conestee / Saluda River. Clean Water Act: 11 impaired segments: impaired biota (cause unknown), metals, pathogens (bacteria).

Open Reedy River →

Hunnicutt Creek Non-supporting

Size
2.8 mi²
Paved
25.8%
Since 1985
+6.7 pts
Extra runoff
+22 af

Drains to Lake Hartwell (Seneca arm). Clean Water Act: Not individually listed.

Open Hunnicutt →

Berkeley Creek Impacted

Size
2.8 mi²
Paved
21.1%
Since 1985
+6.9 pts
Extra runoff
+22 af

Drains to Lower Eighteenmile Creek. Clean Water Act: Not individually listed.

Open Berkeley →

Golden Creek Impacted

Size
1.5 mi²
Paved
16.1%
Since 1985
+3.5 pts
Extra runoff
+6 af

Drains to Twelvemile Creek / Lake Hartwell. Clean Water Act: Not individually listed.

Open Golden →

California Branch Impacted

Size
4.4 mi²
Paved
13.1%
Since 1985
+2.6 pts
Extra runoff
+10 af

Drains to Coastal Plain (Moncks Corner). Clean Water Act: Not individually listed.

Open California Br. →

Lower Eighteenmile Creek Sensitive

Size
24.9 mi²
Paved
8.4%
Since 1985
+3.6 pts
Extra runoff
+90 af

Drains to Lake Hartwell (Seneca arm). Clean Water Act: 3 impaired segments: nutrients, pathogens (bacteria), turbidity.

Open Eighteenmile →

Sources: Schueler et al. 2009; USGS Annual NLCD; NOAA Atlas 14; EPA ATTAINS

Add it up

Across all six, an ordinary two-year storm now sends 482 acre-feet more water downstream than the same storm did on 1985 ground. That's about 157 million gallons.

Every bit of it can be slowed down, spread out and soaked in close to where it falls. The comparison page lets you try that with rain gardens.

Compare the six →

Sources: NOAA Atlas 14; USGS Annual NLCD

What does all that water do to a creek?

A creek's channel is shaped by the floods it carries. Send it bigger, faster floods and it starts to dig down or spread out to make room.

I wanted to see if I could measure that on our own creeks without wading every one of them.

Sources: Paul & Meyer 2001; Walsh et al. 2005

Reading channels from the air

bankfull benchlow point ≈ water surface

I cut cross-sections across four local streams from USGS 3DEP LiDAR, a laser survey flown from a plane, and compared each channel to what a stable channel that size should look like.

LiDAR can't see under water. Wherever there's water, the lowest point I can measure is the water surface, and every reading says so.

Sources: USGS 3DEP; Nayegandhi, NOAA NGS

Giving it a name

Then each reach gets a Rosgen stream type, a method that sorts channels by shape: how entrenched, how wide for its depth, how steep and how winding. Where the data can't support a call, I mark it indeterminate and leave it for a field visit.

Open Four Streams →

Sources: Rosgen 1994

What's still standing?

After all that counting of what got paved, I wanted to go see what's still here. South Carolina keeps a register of the biggest known tree of every species.

263in the state
26within 1.75 mi of Tillman
14in the Botanical Garden

Sources: Clemson Extension registry

How a tree gets the title

Every tree gets points: trunk circumference in inches, plus height in feet, plus a quarter of the crown spread in feet. Biggest score for its species wins.

215 points

Try a tree in your yard. Measure around the trunk 4½ feet up.

Sources: American Forests

Biggest isn't always best

13 of them are national champions, the biggest of their kind in the country. And 7 are on South Carolina's invasive plant list, like Chinese tallow and tree-of-heaven.

The register measures size. I mark the invasive ones so nobody walks away thinking they're something to plant.

Sources: Clemson Extension registry; SC-IPC 2024

Two walks

  • Campus core5 trees · 0.72 mi from Tillman Hall · 0 of 5 walked
  • The Botanical Garden14 trees · 1.45 mi from the Discovery Center and back · 0 of 14 walked

Nobody has walked these with a tape yet. That's the next field day.

Open The Champion Trees →

On the bench

Stuff that's drawn or built but doesn't have a page yet.

A greenhouse pad for the Food Forest

A 16 × 40 ft pad fit to 1 m lidar at the west end of the Hunnicutt Food Forest. About 3 cubic yards of cut and 3 of fill, so a wheelbarrow-and-mattock job.

July 2026
Field sheets for the tree walks

One printable sheet per walk, a line for every tree, with room for a girth reading and a note.

October 2026
About these rooms, and where the numbers come from
References (everything cited on the boards)
  1. American Forests. Champion Trees National Register: point formula (circumference in inches + height in feet + ¼ average crown spread in feet). www.americanforests.org/tree/white-oak-va/
  2. Clemson Cooperative Extension / CAFLS. South Carolina Champion Tree Database. services1.arcgis.com/x5wCko8UnSi4h0CB/arcgis/rest/services/South_Carolina_Champion_Tree_Database/FeatureServer/0
  3. Herb, W. R., Janke, B., Mohseni, O., & Stefan, H. G. (2008). Thermal pollution of streams by runoff from paved surfaces. University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory (research record). experts.umn.edu/en/publications/thermal-pollution-of-streams-by-runoff-from-paved-surfaces/
  4. Nayegandhi, A. Green-wavelength (bathymetric) lidar. Course material, NOAA National Geodetic Survey. Near-infrared lidar is absorbed at the water surface. www.ngs.noaa.gov/corbin/class_description/Nayegandhi_green_lidar.pdf
  5. NOAA National Weather Service. Precipitation Frequency Data Server (NOAA Atlas 14): 2-year storm depths. hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/
  6. Paul, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2001). Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32. doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114040
  7. Peters, N. E., & Rose, S. (2001). Urbanization effects on hydrology in Atlanta, Georgia (USA). U.S. Geological Survey publication record. www.usgs.gov/publications/urbanization-effects-hydrology-atlanta-georgia-usa
  8. Rose, S., & Peters, N. E. (2001). Effects of urbanization on streamflow in the Atlanta area (Georgia, USA): a comparative hydrological approach. Hydrological Processes 15. doi.org/10.1002/hyp.218
  9. Rosgen, D. L. (1994). A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22(3): 169–199. doi.org/10.1016/0341-8162(94)90001-9
  10. Schueler, T. (1994). The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3): 100–111. www.stormwatercenter.net/Library/Practice/1.pdf
  11. Schueler, T., Fraley-McNeal, L., & Cappiella, K. (2009). Is impervious cover still important? Review of recent research. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 14(4): 309–315. doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2009)14:4(309)
  12. South Carolina Invasive Pest Council (formerly SC Exotic Pest Plant Council). (2024). South Carolina Invasive Plant List. scnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2024-SC-Invasive-Plant-List-SCIPC.pdf
  13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ATTAINS: assessment and impaired-waters (303(d)) data. www.epa.gov/waterdata/attains
  14. U.S. Geological Survey (2024). Annual National Land Cover Database (NLCD) Collection 1, 1985–2023. Data release. doi.org/10.5066/P94UXNTS
  15. U.S. Geological Survey Water Science School. Dissolved oxygen and water. www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/dissolved-oxygen-and-water
  16. U.S. Geological Survey. 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) lidar. www.usgs.gov/3d-elevation-program
  17. Walsh, C. J., et al. (2005). The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24(3): 706–723. doi.org/10.1899/04-028.1