DOCSLIB.ORG

Part Iv. Natural Resources Element

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Part Iv. Natural Resources Element PART IV. NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Geography 4-1 Geology 4-2 Climatic Conditions 4-3 Soils 4-4 Drainage Basins 4-6 Flood Plains 4-7 Water Resources 4-8 Forest 4-11 Plants and Wildlife; Rare, Threatened and Endangered 4-15 Rivers and River Related Resources 4-18 Wetlands 4-22 Summary, Observations, Conclusions 4-25 Goals and Strategies 4-27 PART IV. NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT This element of the Comprehensive Plan consists of an inventory and assessment of natural resources, and consideration of their role in the future development of Spartanburg County. Principal among the county’s natural resources are geography, geology, water, soils, floodways, drainage basins, forest, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, and climatic conditions. A summary assessment of each follows. GEOGRAPHY Spartanburg County is located in the northwestern part of the state, in what has come to be known as the “Piedmont Crescent”. The county lies just southeast of the Blue Ridge Mountains in the piedmont plateau, which is characterized by subdued topographic features and moderate relief. The land surface is inclined to elevations exceeding 1,000 feet in the northwest section of the county to less than 600 feet in the southeast. Hills have a well rounded appearance with no conspicuously prominent ridges or peaks. Valley floors are generally about 100 feet deep with well developed water courses. There are few swamp like areas. The general slope of the county is southeastward, which is the general direction of the main drainageways. The land ranges from nearly level to steep, but most areas are gently sloping to moderately steep. The highest point in the county, about 1,480 feet, is on Bird Mountain in the northwestern part. In the central part elevation ranges from 750 to 900 feet. In the northern part of the county, a series of hills rises about 200 feet above the surrounding land and does not conform to the general pattern of relief. The lowest elevation is on the Enoree River in the extreme southeastern part of the county near the Union County line. 4-1 GEOLOGY Thirteen geologic formations are found in Spartanburg County, but over 95 percent of the county is in five major formations, shown on the accompanying map. These formations are made up of alluvium, fine-grained rocks, medium-grained rocks, fine-grained to coarse-grained rocks, and coarse-grained rocks. Alluvium consists of material recently deposited on flood plains. The fine-grained rocks are quartzite, diabase, taluca quartz monzonite, and sericite schist. The medium-grained rocks are granite, biotite gneiss, and migmatite. The fine- grained to coarse-grained rocks are biotite schist, Yorkville quartz monzonite, and hornblende schist. The coarse-grained rocks are hornblende gneiss, coarse-grained granite, and muscovite pegmatite dikes. Nearly all of Spartanburg County, except for some small areas in the southeastern part bordering Union County, lies within the Inner Piedmont belt, a major subdivision of crystalline rocks in the Piedmont province. The small area in the southeastern part of the county contains rocks typical of the Kings Mountain belt. v e r m uch of the count y, the hard crystalline rock has weathered to a soft clayey or sandy material (saprolite), which maintains many of the original rock structures and extends from 4-2 Major Geologic Formations 1. Yorkville Quartz Monzonite 2. Hornblende Gneiss 3. Hornblende Schist 4. Biolite Gneiss Migmotite 5. Biotite Schist ground surface to depths of as much as 140 feet. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS Development attributed to the location of Spartanburg County is aided by climatic conditions, which have contributed to the accelerated growth of the southeast region of the United States (Sunbelt) over the last several decades, in contrast to the more frigid less hospitable temperatures in the northeast (Frostbelt) region. A humid, temperate climate characterizes the county. Spartanburg County is located on the lee side of the mountains, which provide protection from the cold air masses that move southeastward during the winter. At Spartanburg, temperatures usually are between 32 degrees and 90 degrees for eight months of the year; the average daily temperature for the county is about 60 degrees. Average annual rainfall is Rainfall Distribution 4-3 about 50 inches---an amount that exceeds the national average by 20 inches. Rainfall is usually well distributed throughout the year. Depending upon location, accumulations may vary from 30 inches in a dry year to over 80 inches in a wet year. Prevailing winds are from the southwest most of the year, but are 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. The average relative humidity for the year is approximately 70 percent. Warm weather generally lasts from some time in May into September with few breaks from the heat during midsummer. Temperatures of 90 degrees or higher are recorded on an average of 50 days. About 25 percent of the annual rainfall occurs in summer, chiefly in local thundershowers. Fall generally is the most pleasant season, especially from late September to early November. During this period, rainfall is light, the percentage of sunshine is high, and the temperature is generally moderate. About 23 percent of the total annual rainfall is in fall. Winters are mild and relatively short, though about 60 days have temperatures at freezing or below. About 26 percent of the annual rainfall occurs in winter, mainly in steady rains. Spring is the most changeable season. March is frequently cold and windy, but May is generally warm and pleasant. Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are most likely in spring. About 26 percent of the total annual rainfall occurs in spring. The climate of the county is favorable for crops such as peaches, apples, cotton, corn, small grain, 4-4 soybeans, hay, and vegetables. That the climate is favorable to crop production is evident by the fact that Spartanburg County ranks second in the state in the production of peaches and apples and fourth in harvested acres of hay. SOILS Soils and soil conditions have a significant affect on land use, often limiting its development. Such is the case with soils in many areas of Spartanburg County. In fact just over one-third of all soils in the county pose severe constraints to urban development. The principal constraints fall into two categories: (1) foundations for dwellings, and (2) use for septic tanks. Foundation limitations are the result of very low load bearing capacity, erodibility and steep slopes in some areas. Constraints in the use of septic tanks for on-site sewage disposal have to do with slow percolation rates, slopes, high water table, flooding, and hard rock at shallow depths. While it is not impossible to develop these soils, they are more costly to develop and often contribute to lingering problems. As a result, they are studiously avoided for the most part, at least for high intensity development, which generally has been the case in Spartanburg County. Unfortunately, lands with the fewest constraints for urban development also have the fewest constraints for agricultural use. And since development generally follows the path of least resistance, other factors being equal, there is the potential for conflict wherever agricultural lands (orchards) exist in an urbanizing environment. Something has to give, and it is generally the orchards. Table 4-1 Soils Posing Severe Constraints to Development Spartanburg County TYPE OF CONSTRAINT Percent Building Septic Soil Classification Land Area Foundation Tank Both Cataula 7.6 X X X Congaree 3.5 X X X 4-5 Enon 1.4 X Hayesville .2 Irdell .1 X X X Louisburg .8 X Madison 6.3 X X X Mecklenburg .3 X X X Musella 1.4 X Pacolet 9.0 X Vance .5 X X X Wilkes 3.0 X X X Worsham 1.4 X X X Total 35.5 Water .6 36.1 Thirteen of the 22 different types (series) of soils in Spartanburg County pose severe constraints to development. Table 4-1 lists these soils, establishing their extent in the county, and identifies the type of constraint each poses. Inherent constraints to urban development have kept most of these soils in a rural or undeveloped state, but with the expansion of public sewer service into these areas, one of the major obstacles will be no more, thus opening them to the prospects of more intensified development. Ignoring land use suitability's and limitations can cost not only money, but even lives when soils that cannot support roads or structures are used improperly. Improper land use can also damage the resource and reduce its value for more suitable uses. As a result, greater use of soils information is recommended as a prerequisite to development, including: (1) Considering soil survey information as one of the criteria for making land use plans and decisions. (2) Consulting a soil survey before commencing any earth-moving or construction activities. (3) Requiring the use of soil surveys in any large scale land 4-6 development or management projects. DRAINAGE BASINS Spartanburg County extends into three parallel drainage basins. Consequent or trunk streams in this area resulted from the initial tilt of the land surface, and streamflow is toward the southeast at a general slope of about 15 feet per mile, except for the northeast corner which flows northeast into the Broad River. About 3.5 square miles of basin are drained for each mile in length along a mainstem. One measure of natural drainage development is drainage density or the ratio of the total length of streams in a basin to the drainage area of the basin. In Spartanburg County, the ratio is estimated to be about 1.5 miles per square mile, indicating a fairly wide spacing of stream channels and a relatively long overland travel of surface water.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Piedmont Ecoregion Aquatic Habitats
    Piedmont Ecoregion Aquatic Habitats Description and Location The piedmont ecoregion extends south of Blue Ridge to the fall line near Columbia, South Carolina and from the Savannah River east to the Pee Dee River. Encompassing 24 counties and 10,788 square miles, the piedmont is the largest physiographic province in South Carolina. The piedmont is an area with gently rolling hills dissected by narrow stream and river valleys. Forests, farms and orchards Pee Dee-Piedmont EDU dominate most of the land. Elevations Santee-Piedmont EDU Savannah-Piedmont EDU range from 375 to 1,000 feet. The Piedmont Ecoregion cuts across the top of three major South Carolina drainages, the Savannah, the Santee and the Pee Dee, forming three ecobasins: the Savannah-Piedmont, Santee-Piedmont and Pee Dee-Piedmont. Savannah-Piedmont Ecobasin The Savannah River drainage originates in the mountains of North Carolina and Georgia. The Savannah River flows southeast along the border of South Carolina and Georgia through the piedmont for approximately 131 miles on its way to the Atlantic Ocean. Major tributaries to the Savannah River in the South Carolina portion of this ecobasin include the Tugaloo River, Seneca River, Chauga River, Rocky River, Little River and Stevens Creek. The ecobasin encompasses 36 watersheds and approximately 2,879 square miles. The vast majority of the land is privately owned with only 239 square miles protected by federal, state and private entities. Most of the protected land (192 square miles) occurs in Sumter National Forest. The ecobasin contains 3,328 miles of lotic habitat with 143 square miles of impoundments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historic South Carolina Floods of October 1–5, 2015
    Service Assessment The Historic South Carolina Floods of October 1–5, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service Silver Spring, Maryland Cover Photograph: Road Washout at Jackson Creek in Columbia, SC, 2015 Source: WIS TV Columbia, SC ii Service Assessment The Historic South Carolina Floods of October 1–5, 2015 July 2016 National Weather Service John D. Murphy Chief Operating Officer iii Preface The combination of a surface low-pressure system located along a stationary frontal boundary off the U.S. Southeast coast, a slow moving upper low to the west, and a persistent plume of tropical moisture associated with Hurricane Joaquin resulted in record rainfall over portions of South Carolina, October 1–5, 2015. Some areas experienced more than 20 inches of rainfall over the 5-day period. Many locations recorded rainfall rates of 2 inches per hour. This rainfall occurred over urban areas where runoff rates are high and on grounds already wet from recent rains. Widespread, heavy rainfall caused major flooding in areas from the central part of South Carolina to the coast. The historic rainfall resulted in moderate to major river flooding across South Carolina with at least 20 locations exceeding the established flood stages. Flooding from this event resulted in 19 fatalities. Nine of these fatalities occurred in Richland County, which includes the main urban center of Columbia. South Carolina State Officials said damage losses were $1.492 billion. Because of the significant impacts of the event, the National Weather Service formed a service assessment team to evaluate its performance before and during the record flooding.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Habitat Plan for American Shad
    SOUTH CAROLINA HABITAT PLAN FOR AMERICAN SHAD South Carolina Department of Natural Resources April 2021 Approved May 5, 2021 Introduction: The purpose of this Habitat Plan is to briefly document existing conditions in rivers with American shad runs, identify potential threats, and propose action to mitigate such threats. American shad (Alosa sapidissima) are found in at least 19 rivers of South Carolina (Waccamaw, Great Pee Dee, Little Pee Dee, Lynches, Black, Sampit, Bull Creek, Santee, Cooper, Wateree, Congaree, Broad, Wando, Ashley, Ashepoo, Combahee, Edisto, Coosawhatchie, and Savannah Rivers). Many have historically supported a commercial fishery, a recreational fishery, or both. Currently, commercial fisheries exist in Winyah Bay, Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Black, Santee, Edisto, Combahee, and Savannah Rivers, while the Sampit, Ashepoo, Ashley, and Cooper rivers no longer support commercial fisheries. With the closure of the ocean-intercept fishery beginning in 2005, the Santee River and Winyah Bay complex comprise the largest commercial shad fisheries in South Carolina. Recreational fisheries still exist in the Cooper, Savannah, Edisto, and Combahee Rivers, as well as the Santee River Rediversion Canal. For the purposes of this plan, systems have been identified which, in some cases, include several rivers. Only river systems with active shad runs were included in this plan, these include the Pee Dee River run in the Winyah Bay System (primarily the Waccamaw and Great Pee Dee Rivers), the Santee-Cooper system (Santee and Cooper Rivers with the inclusion of Lakes Moultrie and Marion), and the ACE Basin (Edisto and Combahee Rivers) (Figure 1). A joint plan with Georgia was submitted and approved for the Savannah River.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey of Newberry County, South Carolina
    United States In cooperation with Department of United States Department Agriculture of Agriculture, Forest Soil Survey of Service; South Carolina Natural Department of Natural Newberry Resources Resources, Land, Water Conservation and Conservation Division; Service and South Carolina County, Agricultural Experiment Station South Carolina How To Use This Soil Survey The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets. Note the number of the map sheet and go to that sheet. Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. Go to the Contents, which lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. The Contents shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. Also see the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. iii National Cooperative Soil Survey This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. This survey was made cooperatively by the Natural Resources Conservation Service; the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Land, Water and Conservation Division; and the South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation 61-69, Classified Waters
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Regulation 61-69 Classified Waters Disclaimer DHEC provides this copy of the regulation for the convenience of the public and makes every effort to ensure its accuracy. However, this is an unofficial version of the regulation. The regulation's most recent final publication in the South Carolina State Register presents the official, legal version of the regulation. 2600 Bull Street | Columbia, SC 29201 S.C. Code Sections 48-1-10 et seq. December 12, 1977 - 1 16 August 1, 1979 - 3 17 April 11, 1980 - 4 6, Part 1 July 27, 1984 411 8 7 June 28, 1985 458, 459, 460 9 6 March 27, 1987 653 11 3 January 22, 1988 778 12 1 April 22, 1988 859 12 4 May 27, 1988 830 12 5 June 24, 1988 855 12 6 February 24, 1989 936 13 2 March 24, 1989 984 13 3 April 28, 1989 989 13 4 June 23, 1989 863 and 1052 13 6 April 27, 1990 1039 14 5 April 24, 1992 1385 and 1402 16 4 May 28, 1993 1466 17 5, Part 1 May 23, 1997 1928 21 5 June 26, 1998 2178 and 2221 22 6, Part 2 May 26, 2000 2455 and 2456 24 5 May 24, 2002 2637 26 5, Part 1 May 28, 2004 2854 28 5 June 23, 2006 3025 30 6 June 22, 2012 4212 36 6 June 26, 2020 4885 44 6 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Settlers in the Carolina Dutch Fork, 1744-*1760 Elmer B
    Wofford College Digital Commons @ Wofford Student Scholarship 6-1944 Early Settlers in the Carolina Dutch Fork, 1744-*1760 Elmer B. Hallman Wofford College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wofford.edu/studentpubs Part of the Geography Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Hallman, Elmer B., "Early Settlers in the Carolina Dutch Fork, 1744-*1760" (1944). Student Scholarship. 23. https://digitalcommons.wofford.edu/studentpubs/23 This Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Wofford. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Wofford. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EARLY SETTLERS IN THE CAROLINA DUTCH FORK 1744 - 1760 BY ELMER B. HALLMAN A thesis submitted to Wofford College, Spartanburg, South Carolina, in partial fulfillment of the Master of Arts degree in history 1944 - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To acknowledge all the many who have rendered help in this study would be very difficult. The writer's greatest indebtedness is to Dr. D. D. Wallace through whose writings and in whose classes there developed the interest in history which resulted in this attempt to picture the early settlers of the Carolina Dutch Fork. Cooperation and aid have be en given by Mr. Little and his associates in the outer office of the Secretary of State as they so patiently endured th e many days spent in the examination of grants and plats by this intruder. Mr. F. M. Hutson was always ready to assist in locating data in the files of the State Historical Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Clear-Water Abutment and Contraction Scour in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Provinces of South Carolina, 1996-99
    Clear-Water Abutment and Contraction Scour in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Provinces of South Carolina, 1996-99 By Stephen T. Benedict U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4064 Prepared in cooperation with the SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Columbia, South Carolina 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Suite 129 Box 25286 720 Gracern Road Denver, CO 80225-0286 Columbia, SC 29210-7651 888-ASK-USGS Additional information about water resources in South Carolina is available on the internet at http://sc.water.usgs.gov CONTENTS Abstract...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nutrients in Waters of the Santee River Basin and Coastal Drainages, North and South Carolina, 1973-93
    Nutrients in Waters of the Santee River Basin and Coastal Drainages, North and South Carolina, 1973-93 By Terry L. Maluk, Eric J. Reuber, anc/W. Brian Hughes U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4172 Prepared as part of the NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Columbia, South Carolina 1998 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas J. Casadevall, Acting Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Stephenson Center-Suite 129 Branch of Information Services 720 Gracern Road Box 25286 Columbia, South Carolina 29210-7651 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe how water quality is changing over (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the time. earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ Improve understanding of the primary natural tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- and human factors that affect water-quality ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound conditions. decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and This information will help support the development trends is an important part of this overall mission. and evaluation of management, regulatory, and moni­ One of the greatest challenges faced by water- toring decisions by other Federal, State, and local resources scientists is acquiring reliable information agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Architectural Survey of Newberry County, South Carolina
    Historical and Architectural Survey Of Newberry County, South Carolina Newberry Opera House HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF NEWBERRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA FINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 1, 2003 Submitted to: Newberry County Submitted by: Jennifer Revels Palmetto Conservation Foundation 1314 Lincoln Street, Suite 213 Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3154 Newberry County Historical and Architectural Survey iii CONTENTS I. PROJECT SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................2 II. PROJECT OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................3 III. SURVEY METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................4 IV. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................................6 Early Settlement in the South Carolina Backcountry ...........................................................................6 Conflict with the Cherokee...................................................................................................................8 The Revolutionary War (1770–1785).................................................................................................10 County Establishment and Growth (1785–1865) ...............................................................................12 Railroad Development in the Upcountry............................................................................................20
    [Show full text]
  • Notes About Scotch-Irish and German Settlers in Virginia and the Carolinas
    Notes about Scotch-Irish and German Settlers in Virginia and the Carolinas Copyright © 2000–2009 by William Lee Anderson III. All rights reserved. Scotch-Irish and German Settlers in Virginia and the Carolinas Introduction During the 1700s many Scotch-Irish and German immigrants arrived in America. They and their children settled parts of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Today, most of their descendants never think about their heritage. Most live in the present, are working on real-life problems, or planning their future. That attitude was shared by their ancestor immigrants 250 years ago. Nonetheless, I suspect most descendants have at least wondered what the word Scotch-Irish means. All my life, I have heard various facts, but never understood how they fit together. Some facts appeared contradictory. So, I investigated, and discovered a colorful story that far exceeded my expectations. My principal objectives were to: Understand certain comments made by grandparents and other relatives over 40 years ago. Understand the confusing adjective Scotch-Irish. Understand the confusing cultural icons of bagpipes, kilts, Celtic whistles, etc. Understand the history of Moravian, Lutheran, Mennonite, Amish, Dunkards, Presbyterian, Puritanism, Huguenot, Quaker, Methodist, Congregational, and Baptist denominations that have churches in the Carolinas. Understand why and when surnames became common. Understand ancestor Margaret Moore‘s recollections of the Siege of Londonderry in 1689. Understand motivations of Scotch-Irish and German immigrants during the 1700s and terms of their Carolina land grants. Understand relations between early Carolina immigrants and Native Americans. Understand why Scotland‘s heroine Flora Macdonald came to live in North Carolina in 1774.
    [Show full text]
  • Sumter National Forest
    Summary Final Environmental Impact United States Department of Statement and Revised Land Agriculture Forest Service and Resource Management Southern Region Plan Sumter National Forest Management Bulletin R8-MB 116D January 2004 Summary of the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Sumter National Forest Jerome Thomas Forest Supervisor Abbeville, Chester, Edgefield, Fairfield, Greenwood, Laurens, McCormick, Newberry, Oconee, Saluda, and Union Counties January 2004 1 The picnic shelter on the cover was originally named the Charles Suber Recreational Unit and was planned in 1936. The lake and picnic area including a shelter were built in 1938-1939. The original shelter was found inadequate and a modified model B-3500 shelter was constructed probably by the CCC from camp F-6 in 1941. The name of the recreation area was changed in 1956 to Molly’s Rock Picnic Area, which was the local unofficial name. The name originates from a sheltered place between and under two huge boulders once inhabited by an African- American woman named Molly. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Union County, South Carolina Comprehensive Plan 2040
    UNION COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 A SHARED VISION FOR OUR TOMORROW JANUARY 26, 2021 DRAFT ADOPTED (INSERT DATE) UNION COUNTY | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1 1 This page left blank intentionally. 22 UNION COUNTY | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 2 THE VISION .................................................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 3 POPULATION .............................................................................................................. 23 CHAPTER 4 LAND USE ..................................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................... 43 CHAPTER 6 HOUSING ..................................................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER 7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 63 CHAPTER 8 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 85 CHAPTER 9 NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 93 CHAPTER 10 COMMUNITY FACILITIES .....................................................................................107 CHAPTER 11
    [Show full text]