DOCSLIB.ORG

South Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Carolina SOUTH CAROLINA Cheryl Matheny Gloria Burns James G. Titus Andrew Hickok Daniel Hudgens The Likelihood of Shore Protection, Volume 2 February 2010. The following document can be cited as: Matheny, C, G. Burns, J. G. Titus, A. Hickok, and D.E. Hudgens. 2010. “South Carolina”. In James G. Titus, Daniel L Trescott, and Daniel E. Hudgens (editors). The Likelihood of Shore Protection along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Volume 2: New England and the Southeast. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official opinion of the Environmental Protection Agency. The primary referring page for this document is http://risingsea.net/ERL/SC.html Chapter 3: SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared by: Cheryl Matheny* Gloria Burns* James G. Titus** Andrew Hickok** Daniel Hudgens** Photos by Jim Titus * Matheny and Burns prepared portions of the report through the section on stakeholder review, but were not involved with the final review which substantially changed the results. ** Titus, Hickok, and Hudgens undertook the final review and produced the final report. 115 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 119 METHOD......................................................................................................................................... 123 SOUTH CAROLINA PERSPECTIVES............................................................................................. 130 South Carolina Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) ............................ 135 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR)........................................................ 137 South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT) ..................................... 138 South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT)............................................................... 138 Study Area Profiles ...................................................................................................................... 141 HORRY COUNTY ........................................................................................................................... 142 Geographic and Socioeconomic Profile........................................................................................ 142 Key Resources and Assets .......................................................................................................... 144 Economic Resources................................................................................................................ 144 Cultural, Historic, and Natural Resources ................................................................................. 144 Community Facilities and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 145 Residential, Resort, and Recreational....................................................................................... 145 Development Trends.................................................................................................................... 146 Local Policies and Regulations .................................................................................................... 147 Draft Maps ................................................................................................................................... 147 Response Scenario One........................................................................................................... 147 Response Scenario Two........................................................................................................... 148 Response Scenario Three ........................................................................................................ 148 GEORGETOWN COUNTY.............................................................................................................. 151 Geographic and Socioeconomic Profile........................................................................................ 151 Key Resources and Assets .......................................................................................................... 152 Employment and Economic Resources .................................................................................... 152 Cultural, Historic, and Natural Resources ................................................................................. 152 Community Facilities and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 153 Residential, Resort, and Recreational Resources..................................................................... 153 Development Trends.................................................................................................................... 155 Local Policies and Regulations .................................................................................................... 155 Draft Maps ................................................................................................................................... 156 Response Scenario One........................................................................................................... 156 Response Scenario Two........................................................................................................... 157 Response Scenario Three ........................................................................................................ 157 BERKELEY COUNTY...................................................................................................................... 160 Geographic and Socioeconomic Profile........................................................................................ 160 Key Resources and Assets .......................................................................................................... 160 Economic Resources................................................................................................................ 161 Cultural, Historic, and Natural Resources ................................................................................. 161 Community Facilities and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 162 Residential, Resort, and Recreational Resources..................................................................... 162 Development Trends.................................................................................................................... 162 Local Policies and Regulations .................................................................................................... 163 Draft Maps ................................................................................................................................... 163 Response Scenario One........................................................................................................... 163 Response Scenario Two........................................................................................................... 164 Response Scenario Three ........................................................................................................ 164 CHARLESTON COUNTY ................................................................................................................ 167 Geographic and Socioeconomic Profile........................................................................................ 167 Key Resources and Assets .......................................................................................................... 168 Economic Resources................................................................................................................ 168 Cultural, Historic, and Natural Resources ................................................................................. 168 Community Facilities and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 169 Residential, Resort, and Recreational Resources..................................................................... 170 116 Development Trends.................................................................................................................... 170 Local Policies and Regulations .................................................................................................... 170 Draft Maps ................................................................................................................................... 171 Response Scenario One........................................................................................................... 171 Response Scenario Two........................................................................................................... 171 Response Scenario Three ........................................................................................................ 172 COLLETON COUNTY ..................................................................................................................... 175 Geographic and Socioeconomic Profile........................................................................................ 175 Key Resources and Assets .......................................................................................................... 176 Economic Resources...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Origin of Atlantic Coastal Plain Ponds in New York and New Jersey
    ORIGIN OF ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN PONDS IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY A Final Report Presented by Shuangtao Zhang to The Department of Geosciences in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Hydrogeology Stony Brook University August, 2008 Abstract of the Report The Origin of Fox Pond By Shuangtao Zhang Master of Science In Hydrogeology Stony Brook University 2008 This study places constraints on the origin of the Coastal Plain ponds in New Jersey and Long Island, which are a subset of the elliptical, small, shallow, groundwater- fed ponds found on the siliciclastic sands of the Atlantic Coastal Plain from Florida to Long Island. French and Demitroff (2001) considered a variety of hypotheses for the origin of the Coastal Plain ponds of New Jersey, known as spungs, and concluded that the most viable model is that the depressions are blowouts formed by eolian processes during the periglacial period between 20,000 and 13,000 years ago. More recently Howard et al, 2007 have suggested that the origin of the Coastal Plain ponds in North and South Carolina, know as Carolina Bays, may be due to a comet that broke up and then the pieces may have exploded over or on the Laurentian Ice Sheet near the Great Lakes and ii the Hudson Bay some 12,900 years ago. This impact would have made airborne large masses of ice from the comet and the glacier. When these ice masses landed, they created the shallow depressions forming the Carolina Bays. The approach used to test these models was grain-size analysis of the conspicuous rims of the Coastal Plain pond depressions.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing the Francis Marion
    How the Weeks Act benefited the lowcountry of South Carolina is a tale with a twist. Lumber companies were cooperating with the Forest Service on fire control and other issues two decades before the federal government purchased its first acre of land under the Weeks Act. Not surprisingly, when it came time to buy land, the Forest Service turned to those same companies first. Establishing the Francis Marion NATIONAL FOREST HISTORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA’S LOWCOUNTRY, 1901–1936 t the end of the nineteenth century, the center of lumber production was shifting from the Northeast and the Great Lakes states to the vast southern Apine belt that stretched in a crescent from Virginia to Texas. The big indus- trial timber corporations had begun running out of merchantable timber in the North and turned to areas with seemingly inexhaustible Atlantic Coast Lumber was considered one of the largest pro- lumber resources, the Pacific Northwest and the South.1 ducers on the eastern seaboard.2 Though logging and lumber milling had occurred in South When timber companies left the Great Lakes states, they left Carolina throughout the nineteenth century, the turn of the behind hundreds of thousands of acres of depleted lands, almost twentieth century marked the commencement of large-scale completely denuded of timber. Implicit in the growth of the industrial logging in the coastal plain pine belt. Funded by north- South Carolina lumber companies was the possibility that the ern capital, the Atlantic Coast Lumber Corporation, the E. P. same cycle would be repeated. However, the U.S. Bureau of Burton Lumber Company, the A.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial to Charles Wythe Cooke 1887— 1971 VICTOR T
    Memorial to Charles Wythe Cooke 1887— 1971 VICTOR T. STRINGFIELD 4208 50 Street, NW„ Washington, D.C. 20016 The death of Dr. Charles Wythe Cooke in Daytona Beach, Florida, on Christmas Day 1971, ended his long and successful career as geologist, stratigrapher, and paleontologist. He is survived by his sister, Madge Lane Cooke. Cooke was born in Baltimore, Maryland, July 20, 1887. He was a bachelor. He received the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Johns Hopkins University in 1908 and Ph.D. (in geology) in 1912. From 1911 to 1912 he was a Fellow at the university. In July 1910, while a grad­ uate student, he received an appointment as Junior Geologist for summer work in the U.S. Geological Survey, beginning his long career in that organization. In the U.S. Geological Survey, he was Assistant Geologist, 1913 to 1917; Paleontologist, 1917 to 1919; Associate Geologist, 1919 to 1920; Geologist, 1920 to 1928; Scientist, 1928 to 1941; Senior Scientist, 1941 to 1951; andGeologist-Stratigrapher-Paleontologist, 1952 to 1956. He served as research associate in the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C., from 1956 until his death. He was geologist in the Dominican Republic for the Geological Survey in 1919 and worked for the Tropical Oil Company, Colombia, South America, in 1920. After completing his 40 years of service in the U.S. Geological Survey, Cooke retired on November 30,1956. Also in 1956 he received the Meritorious Service Award of the Interior Department in recognition of his outstanding service. That citation in 1956 states: His scientific work lias been concerned with the paleontology, stratigraphy, and landforms (geomorphology) of the Coastal Plain, extending from New Jersey to Mississippi.
    [Show full text]
  • Francis Marion Plan FEIS Chapters 1 to 4
    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • East Branch of the Cooper River, 1780-1820: Panopticism and Mobility Lisa Briggitte Randle University of South Carolina
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2018 East Branch of the Cooper River, 1780-1820: Panopticism and Mobility Lisa Briggitte Randle University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Randle, L.(2018). East Branch of the Cooper River, 1780-1820: Panopticism and Mobility. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4962 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. East Branch of the Cooper River, 1780-1820: Panopticism and Mobility By Lisa Briggitte Randle Bachelor of Arts University of South Carolina, 1979 Master of Arts University of South Carolina, 1990 Master of Arts University of South Carolina, 2009 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2018 Accepted by: Kenneth G. Kelly, Major Professor Leland Ferguson, Committee Member Michael E. Hodgson, Committee Member Kimberly Simmons, Committee Member Terrance Weik, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright by Lisa Briggitte Randle, 2018 All Rights Reserved. ii DEDICATION I am honored to dedicate this dissertation to my friend and mentor, Dr. Leland G. Ferguson, for initiating the East Branch of the Cooper River Project and for his wise words of support when the completion of this dissertation seemed overwhelming. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the financial support of the University of South Carolina’s African American Professorial Program, the Anthropology Department’s Dorothy O’Dell Travel Grant, and a grant from the Archaeological Society of South Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Public Comments
    Draft Revised Land Management Plan Francis Marion National Forest Berkeley County, South Carolina Charleston County, South Carolina Summary of Public Comments August 2016 Introduction The Francis Marion National Forest (Francis Marion or Forest) released the “Draft Revised Land Management Plan for the Francis Marion National Forest and Associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement” on August 14, 2015 to begin the official 90-day comment period. The comment period ended on November 12, 2015. The Francis Marion received a total of 37 comment letters and emails on the draft land management plan (draft plan) and associated draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). No form letters were received. Letters and emails were received from individuals, groups, organizations, agencies, and business owners. Letters and emails were either delivered by the U.S. Post Office, submitted by email, or directly entered through the Comment Analysis and Response Application (CARA) input form by the commenter. Most comments received were entered directly by comments, but letters and emails that were submitted were entered by Forest Service staff into the CARA input form for a complete record. Reports generated by CARA on the coding structure and coded comments are attached All of the comment letters and emails were analyzed using a process called content analysis, which was completed by Forest Service personnel and contractors (see Appendix A in this Content Analysis Report). Of the 37 comment letters that contained unique and substantially different comments, comments that were coded, analyzed, addressed, and entered into CARA and then associated with one of the 153ed Public Concern statements (PCs). Then the IDT then developed responses to each of the PCs.
    [Show full text]
  • Prioritization of Carolina Bays As Mitigation Projects from Herpetofaunal Perspectives by James Edwards June 2011 Director of Th
    Prioritization of Carolina Bays as Mitigation Projects from Herpetofaunal Perspectives By James Edwards June 2011 Director of Thesis: Dr. Dan Marcucci Major Department: Geography Carolina bays are landform features of the southeastern United States that contain isolated depressional wetlands. These unique ecosystems are particularly valuable for herpetofauna and are at risk of being extirpated from the landscape because of recent legal developments. There are few available inventories of these landform features and associated wetlands, most notably the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources inventory. No known peer reviewed published inventory exists for North Carolina, which contains a high concentration of Carolina bays in the southeastern coastal plain. Wetland inventories offer planners and landscape managers a source of information that can be integrated with other information to aid in rapid natural resource assessment and planning. This research is designed to develop a methodology that directs limited resources and funds towards Carolina bays that contain attributes necessary to provide habitat, refuge, and hibernacula for general herpetofauna while meeting regulatory needs. The implications of the research are that it uses existing data and builds upon them to prioritize Carolina bays while still being generalizable to other regions containing depressional isolated wetlands. By not using specific organisms, the research is intended to serve as a tool to direct efforts to locales where ground based surveys and truthing can be conducted for target species. Prioritization of Carolina Bays as Mitigation Projects from a Herpetofaunal Perspective A Thesis Presented To the Faculty of the Department of Geography East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Art By James Edwards June, 2011 © 2011 James Dean Edwards Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Caroliniana Society Annual Gifts Report - April 2012 University Libraries--University of South Carolina
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons University South Caroliniana Society - Annual South Caroliniana Library Report of Gifts 4-2012 Caroliniana Society Annual Gifts Report - April 2012 University Libraries--University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/scs_anpgm Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation University of South Carolina, "University of South Carolina Libraries - Caroliniana Society Annual Gifts Report, April 2012". http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/scs_anpgm/3/ This Newsletter is brought to you by the South Caroliniana Library at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in University South Caroliniana Society - Annual Report of Gifts yb an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UNIVERSITY SOUTH CAROLINIANA SOCIETY SEVENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL MEETING __________ UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Saturday, April 28, 2012 Mr. Kenneth L. Childs, President, Presiding __________ Reception and Exhibit ..............................................................11:00 a.m. South Caroliniana Library Luncheon.....................................................................................1:00 p.m. The Palmetto Club at The Summit Club Location Business Meeting Welcome Reports of the Executive Council...................... Mr. Kenneth L. Childs Address......................................................................Dr. William A. Link Richard J. Milbauer Chair in History, University
    [Show full text]
  • ORIGIN of ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN PONDS in NEW YORK and NEW JERSEY Shangtao Zhang and Gilbert N. Hanson Department of Geosciences
    ORIGIN OF ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN PONDS IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY Shangtao Zhang and Gilbert N. Hanson Department of Geosciences Stony Brook University Stony Brook, NY 11794-2100 The origins of the Coastal Plain ponds of New Jersey and North and South Carolina have been proposed as blowouts formed by eolian processes during the periglacial period between 20,000 and 13,000 years ago (French and Demitroff, 2001) or created by airburst related to a comet that broke up and then the pieces may have exploded over or on the Laurentian Ice Sheet near the Great Lakes and the Hudson Bay some 12,900 years ago (Howard et al, 2007), separately. The approach used in this study to test these models was grain-size analysis of the conspicuous rims of the Coastal Plain pond depressions. Cumulative curves and plots indicate that the rim sediments from these ponds have alluvial not eolian characteristics. Extensions of the long axes of the Coastal Plain ponds including those of the Carolina Bays, New Jersey and Long Island converge on the Great Lakes and Hudson Bay in Canada where the proposed comet pieces burst or impacted. Comparison of Cumulative Curves 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Long Island Ponds -------- 30 New Jersey Spunges -------- Cumulative Weight (%) Weight Cumulative 20 Carolina Bays -------- Long Island Dunes -------- 10 0 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 Grain Size (phi) Figure 1 Comparison of the Cumulative Curves of sediments from the rims of New Jersey Spungs, Long Island Ponds, Carolina Bays and Long Island Dunes Figure 2 Plots of moment parameters: Skewness against Standard Deviation (After Friedman, 1961) Figure 3 Plots of moment parameters: Mean against Skewness (After Friedman, 1961) Figure 4 Plots of moment parameters: Mean against Standard Deviation (After Friedman, 1961) Figure 5 The orientation of the long axes of Carolina bays converge.
    [Show full text]
  • Carolina Bays and the Shapes of Eddies
    Carolina Bays and the Shapes of Eddies By C. WYTHE COOKE A SHORTER CONTRIBUTION TO GENERAL GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 254-I Presenting corroborative evidence that the elliptical Carolina bays were shaped by tidal eddies and that the shape of the ideal eddy is elliptical UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1954: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Douglas McKay, Sec"retary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 70 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Page Abstract __________________________________________ _ 195 Occurrence of eddy-built bars-Continued Hypotheses of origin _______________________________ _ 195 Wicomico (100-foot) sea leveL __________________ _ 202 Ideal outlines of an eddy ___________________________ _ 196 Okefenokee (145-foot) sea leveL ______________ -_-_ 203 Structures built by eddies ___________________________ _ 199 Sunderland (170-foot) sea leveL _________________ _ 204 Stationary tidal eddies _________________________ _ 199 Coharie (215-foot) sea leveL ____________________ _ 204 Eddy-built bars or Neptune's racetracks __________ _ 199 Hazlehurst (270-foot) sea leveL _________________ _ 204 Occurrence of eddy-built bars _______________________ _ 200 Summary _________________________________________ _ 204 Relation to Lhe contemporary sea leveL __________ _ 200 Practical applications ______________________________ _ Silver Bluff (6-foot) sea leveL ___________________ _ 200 205 Talbot (42-foot) sea leveL ______________________ _ 202 Literature cited _________________________ ------------ 205 Penholoway (70-foot) sea leveL ____________ ~ ____ _ 202 Index ____________________________________________ _ 207 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates follow index] PLATE 41. Halfmoon Island and vicinity, Accomac County, Va. A low spit partly surrounding a tidal eddy.
    [Show full text]
  • US Environmental Protection Agency Region 4
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 David Wilson Chief South Carolina Department of Environmental Control Bureau of Water 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 SUBJ: Approval of the State of South Carolina's 2008 303( d) List Submittal Dear Mr. Wilson: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4, has completed its review of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control's Final 2008 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list of water quality limited segments. EPA has determined that each of the water quality limited segments still requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads identified on the State's 2008 list meets the requirements of the CWA Section 303( d) and its implementing regulations, 40 CFR 130.7. EPA hereby approves the State of South Carolina's decision to include each of the waters designated by the State in its 2008 303( d) list. Enclosed for your information is the accompanying decision document for this approval action. Appendix C of the enclosed decision document contains 23 waters of concern for which EPA is not acting on at this time. These waters were submitted based on a preliminary assessment method that has recently been modified in the State's monitoring program so that more representative data can be obtained. Listing determinations for these waters should be included in the 2010 303(d) list submittal. If you have questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at (404) 562-9345 or Annie Godfrey, Chief, East Standards, Monitoring, and TMDL Section at (404) 562-9967.
    [Show full text]
  • Langdon Cheves of Charleston
    METROMONT MATERIALS A name to grow on. You may not recognize the name, source for all your concrete needs­ but actually, we're old friends of prestress, block, ready mix, pipe yours. Because we've been around or whatever. for over a third of a century-as So pass the word. Metromont Greenville and Spartanburg Concrete Materials is getting around. In fact, Companies. But we've been growing we've added a new look and symbol a lot ... so we combined two fine to go along with our new name. But old companies into one and changed basically, we're the same company the name-to Metromont Materials. you've known all along. And you A name to grow on. can count on us to give you that same Try Metromont Materials on service, quality and dependability for size. We think it fits. And we hope that our company was founded on. you'll like it as well as we do. After all, some things never change. Why Metromont Materials? 'I Well, we serve the entire Piedmont­ which has certainly become a fast­ moving metropolitan area-and we METROMONT thought that " Metromont" was a good MATERIALS name for the region-and for us. Greenville Division Then, we added the "Materials" to Box 2486 / Greenvi lle, S.C. 29602 803/269-4664 Spartanburg Division ~mphasize the fact that we're one Box 1292 / Spartanburg, S.C. 29301 803/585-4241 TBE GltEAT C&S EALAHCIHG ACT (\-\((KING J>-((O\JN1 S1 I>-1f.i'.A(N1 PAG< NO S1 A1tfAtN1 OA1< 1 Of 1 A(COUN1 NO .
    [Show full text]