DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plan 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. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. Francis Marion National Forest Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plan Berkeley and Charleston Counties, South Carolina Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Rick Lint, Forest Supervisor 4931 Broad River Road Columbia, SC 29212 For Information Contact: Mary Morrison, Project Leader 4931 Broad River Road Columbia, SC 29212 Telephone Number: 803-561-4000 Abstract: Three alternatives for revision of the 1996 Francis Marion National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan) are described, compared and analyzed in detail in this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Alternative 1 represents no change from the current forest plan. Alternative 2 is the alternative preferred by the Forest Service and is the foundation for the proposed plan. Alternative 3 is a variation of Alternative 2 and considers less prescribed burning near communities and major roads. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that the Forest Service can use them to prepare the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, would be part of the public record for this proposed action (40 CFR 1502.10). Send comments to: Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests Attn: Francis Marion Forest Plan Revision 4931 Broad River Road Columbia, SC 29212 The comment period will end 90 days after the notice of availability of the DEIS is published in the Federal Register. Please visit our website at http://bit.do/FMPlan for more information. Contents Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Issues Addressed .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Summary of Effects Analysis .......................................................................................... 1 1.5 Scope of the Decision ...................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Document Structure ......................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................... 10 1.4 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 11 1.5 Decision Framework ...................................................................................................... 12 1.6 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................ 14 1.7 Issues .............................................................................................................................. 14 1.7.1 Significant Issues ................................................................................................. 15 1.8 Relationship to Other Documents .................................................................................. 18 1.9 Other Related Efforts ..................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 2. Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 19 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail .................................................................................. 19 2.1.1 Alternative 1. No Action (1996 Forest Plan) ....................................................... 19 2.1.2 Alternative 2. Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ...................................... 19 2.1.3 Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................ 20 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ....................................... 20 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 21 2.3.1 Alternative 1. No Action (1996 Forest Plan) ....................................................... 21 2.3.2 Alternative 2. (Proposed Action) ......................................................................... 26 2.3.3 Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................ 32 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................... 39 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 39 3.2 Physical .......................................................................................................................... 40 3.2.1 Soils ..................................................................................................................... 40 3.2.2 Geology ................................................................................................................ 50 3.2.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 57 3.2.4 Climate Change.................................................................................................... 60 3.2.5 Watershed and Water Resources ......................................................................... 72 3.3 Biological Environment ................................................................................................. 92 3.3.1 Ecological Systems .............................................................................................. 92 3.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................. 131 3.3.3 Species Diversity (Species of Conservation Concern) ...................................... 154 3.3.4 Forest Health and Protection .............................................................................. 193 3.4 Economic and Social Environment .............................................................................. 212 3.4.1 Forest Products/Timber Harvesting ................................................................... 212 3.4.2 Community Wildfire Protection Planning ......................................................... 218 3.4.3 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 226 3.4.4 Special Uses, Energy, Minerals ......................................................................... 229 3.4.5 Land Use and Ownership ................................................................................... 231 3.4.6 Outdoor Recreation ............................................................................................ 234 3.4.7 National Wild and Scenic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Birth of a Colony North Carolina Guide for Educators Act IV—A New Voyage to Carolina, 1650–1710
    Birth of a Colony North Carolina Guide for Educators Act IV—A New Voyage to Carolina, 1650–1710 Birth of a Colony Guide for Educators Birth of a Colony explores the history of North Carolina from the time of European exploration through the Tuscarora War. Presented in five acts, the video combines primary sources and expert commentary to bring this period of our history to life. Use this study guide to enhance students’ understanding of the ideas and information presented in the video. The guide is organized according to five acts. Included for each act are a synopsis, a vocabulary list, discussion questions, and lesson plans. Going over the vocabulary with students before watching the video will help them better understand the film’s content. Discussion questions will encourage students to think critically about what they have viewed. Lesson plans extend the subject matter, providing more information or opportunity for reflection. The lesson plans follow the new Standard Course of Study framework that takes effect with the 2012–2013 school year. With some adjustments, most of the questions and activities can be adapted for the viewing audience. Birth of a Colony was developed by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, in collaboration with UNC-TV and Horizon Productions. More resources are available at the website http://www.unctv.org/birthofacolony/index.php. 2 Act IV—A New Voyage to Carolina, 1650–1710 Act IV of Birth of a Colony is divided into three parts. The first part explores the development of permanent English settlements in North Carolina. For nearly 70 years after the mysterious disappearance of the Lost Colony, North Carolina remained void of European settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • A Qualitative Study John Mckie*1, Bradley Shrimpton2, Jeff Richardson1 and Rosalind Hurworth2
    Australia and New Zealand Health Policy BioMed Central Research Open Access Treatment costs and priority setting in health care: A qualitative study John McKie*1, Bradley Shrimpton2, Jeff Richardson1 and Rosalind Hurworth2 Address: 1Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia and 2Centre for Program Evaluation, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia Email: John McKie* - [email protected]; Bradley Shrimpton - [email protected]; Jeff Richardson - [email protected]; Rosalind Hurworth - [email protected] * Corresponding author Published: 6 May 2009 Received: 2 September 2008 Accepted: 6 May 2009 Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:11 doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-11 This article is available from: http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/11 © 2009 McKie et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background: The aim of this study is to investigate whether the public believes high cost patients should be a lower priority for public health care than low cost patients, other things being equal, in order to maximise health gains from the health budget. Semi-structured group discussions were used to help participants reflect critically upon their own views and gain exposure to alternative views, and in this way elicit underlying values rather than unreflective preferences. Participants were given two main tasks: first, to select from among three general principles for setting health care priorities the one that comes closest to their own views; second, to allocate a limited hospital budget between two groups of imaginary patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Hsgcfellowshipbooklet V24 SU14-S15.Pdf
    Summer 2014 – Spring 2015 HSGC Report Number 15-24 Compiled in 2015 by HAWAI‘I SPACE GRANT CONSORTIUM The Hawai‘i Space Grant Consortium is one of the fifty-two National Space Grant Colleges supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Material in this volume may be copied for library, abstract service, education, or personal research; however, republication of any paper or portion thereof requires the written permission of the authors as well as appropriate acknowledgment of this publication. This report may be cited as Hawai‘i Space Grant Consortium (2015) Undergraduate Fellowship Reports. HSGC Report No. 15-24. Hawai‘i Space Grant Consortium, Honolulu. Individual articles may be cited as Author, A.B. (2015) Title of article. Undergraduate Fellowship Reports, pp. xx-xx. Hawai‘i Space Grant Consortium, Honolulu. This report is distributed by: Hawai‘i Space Grant Consortium Hawai‘i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa 1680 East West Road, POST 501 Honolulu, HI 96822 Table of Contents Foreword………………………………………………………………………………… i REPORTS RADIO FREQUENCY OVER OPTICAL FIBER DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE EXAVOLT ANTENNA …………………………….……………………….. 1 James L. Bynes III University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa DIGITAL IMAGERY AND GEOLOGIC MAP OF CHEGEM CALDERA, RUSSIA …9 Christina N. Cauley Unversity of Hawai‘i at Hilo DESIGN OF A WIRELESS POWER TRANSFER SYSTEM UTILIZING MICROWAVE FREQUENCIES ……..……………………………………..………… 17 Steven S. Ewers University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa MULTI-WALLED CARBON NANOTUBE NANOFORESTS AS GAS DIFFUSION LAYERS FOR PROTON EXCHANGE MEMBRANE FUEL CELLS…..…………….25 Kathryn Hu University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa CORRECTING SPECTRAL DATA FROM EXTRAGALACTIC STAR-FORMING REGIONS FOR ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION………………………………………34 Casey M.
    [Show full text]
  • Charter Constitutionalism: the Myth of Edward Coke and the Virginia Charter*
    Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 7-2016 Charter Constitutionalism: The yM th of Edward Coke and the Virginia Charter Mary Sarah Bilder Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Mary Sarah Bilder. "Charter Constitutionalism: The yM th of Edward Coke and the Virginia Charter." North Carolina Law Review 94, no.5 (2016): 1545-1598. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 94 N.C. L. REV. 1545 (2016) CHARTER CONSTITUTIONALISM: THE MYTH OF EDWARD COKE AND THE VIRGINIA CHARTER* MARY SARAH BILDER** [A]ll and every the persons being our subjects . and every of their children, which shall happen to be born within . the said several colonies . shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities . as if they had been abiding and born, within this our realm of England . .—Virginia Charter (1606)1 Magna Carta’s connection to the American constitutional tradition has been traced to Edward Coke’s insertion of English liberties in the 1606 Virginia Charter. This account curiously turns out to be unsupported by direct evidence. This Article recounts an alternative history of the origins of English liberties in American constitutionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Pseudoscience and Science Fiction Science and Fiction
    Andrew May Pseudoscience and Science Fiction Science and Fiction Editorial Board Mark Alpert Philip Ball Gregory Benford Michael Brotherton Victor Callaghan Amnon H Eden Nick Kanas Geoffrey Landis Rudi Rucker Dirk Schulze-Makuch Ru€diger Vaas Ulrich Walter Stephen Webb Science and Fiction – A Springer Series This collection of entertaining and thought-provoking books will appeal equally to science buffs, scientists and science-fiction fans. It was born out of the recognition that scientific discovery and the creation of plausible fictional scenarios are often two sides of the same coin. Each relies on an understanding of the way the world works, coupled with the imaginative ability to invent new or alternative explanations—and even other worlds. Authored by practicing scientists as well as writers of hard science fiction, these books explore and exploit the borderlands between accepted science and its fictional counterpart. Uncovering mutual influences, promoting fruitful interaction, narrating and analyzing fictional scenarios, together they serve as a reaction vessel for inspired new ideas in science, technology, and beyond. Whether fiction, fact, or forever undecidable: the Springer Series “Science and Fiction” intends to go where no one has gone before! Its largely non-technical books take several different approaches. Journey with their authors as they • Indulge in science speculation—describing intriguing, plausible yet unproven ideas; • Exploit science fiction for educational purposes and as a means of promoting critical thinking; • Explore the interplay of science and science fiction—throughout the history of the genre and looking ahead; • Delve into related topics including, but not limited to: science as a creative process, the limits of science, interplay of literature and knowledge; • Tell fictional short stories built around well-defined scientific ideas, with a supplement summarizing the science underlying the plot.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan
    Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan South Carolina Department of Natural Resources February 2017 Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan Prepared by Lorianne Riggin and Bob Perry1, and Dr. Scott Howard2 February 2017 Acknowledgements The preparers thank the following South Carolina Department of Natural Resources staff for their special expertise and contributions toward the completion of this report: Heritage Trust data base manager Julie Holling; GIS applications manager Tyler Brown for mapping and listing of protected properties; archeologist Sean Taylor for information on cultural resources; fisheries biologists Kevin Kubach, Jason Marsik, and Robert Stroud for information regarding aquatic resources; hydrologist Andy Wachob for information on hydrologic resources; and wildlife biologists James Fowler, Dean Harrigal, Sam Stokes, Jr. and Amy Tegler for information regarding wildlife resources. 1 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Office of Environmental Programs. 2 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey. i Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan The goal of this conservation plan is to provide science-based guidance for future decisions to protect natural resource, riparian corridors and traditional landscape uses such as fish and wildlife management, hunting, fishing, agriculture and forestry. Such planning is valuable in the context of protecting Waters of the United States in accordance with the Clean Water Act, particularly when the interests of economic development and protection of natural and cultural resources collide. Such planning is vital in the absence of specific watershed planning. As additional information is gathered by the focus area partners, and as further landscape-scale conservation goals are achieved, this plan will be updated accordingly.
    [Show full text]
  • Colonial Failure in the Anglo-North Atlantic World, 1570-1640 (2015)
    FINDLEY JR, JAMES WALTER, Ph.D. “Went to Build Castles in the Aire:” Colonial Failure in the Anglo-North Atlantic World, 1570-1640 (2015). Directed by Dr. Phyllis Whitman Hunter. 266pp. This study examines the early phases of Anglo-North American colonization from 1570 to 1640 by employing the lenses of imagination and failure. I argue that English colonial projectors envisioned a North America that existed primarily in their minds – a place filled with marketable and profitable commodities waiting to be extracted. I historicize the imagined profitability of commodities like fish and sassafras, and use the extreme example of the unicorn to highlight and contextualize the unlimited potential that America held in the minds of early-modern projectors. My research on colonial failure encompasses the failure of not just physical colonies, but also the failure to pursue profitable commodities, and the failure to develop successful theories of colonization. After roughly seventy years of experience in America, Anglo projectors reevaluated their modus operandi by studying and drawing lessons from past colonial failure. Projectors learned slowly and marginally, and in some cases, did not seem to learn anything at all. However, the lack of learning the right lessons did not diminish the importance of this early phase of colonization. By exploring the variety, impracticability, and failure of plans for early settlement, this study investigates the persistent search for usefulness of America by Anglo colonial projectors in the face of high rate of
    [Show full text]
  • Early Puritanism in the Southern and Island Colonies
    Early Puritanism in the Southern and Island Colonies BY BABETTE M. LEVY Preface NE of the pleasant by-products of doing research O work is the realization of how generously help has been given when it was needed. The author owes much to many people who proved their interest in this attempt to see America's past a little more clearly. The Institute of Early American History and Culture gave two grants that enabled me to devote a sabbatical leave and a summer to direct searching of colony and church records. Librarians and archivists have been cooperative beyond the call of regular duty. Not a few scholars have read the study in whole or part to give me the benefit of their knowledge and judgment. I must mention among them Professor Josephine W, Bennett of the Hunter College English Department; Miss Madge McLain, formerly of the Hunter College Classics Department; the late Dr. William W. Rockwell, Librarian Emeritus of Union Theological Seminary, whose vast scholarship and his willingness to share it will remain with all who knew him as long as they have memories; Professor Matthew Spinka of the Hartford Theological Sem- inary; and my mother, who did not allow illness to keep her from listening attentively and critically as I read to her chapter after chapter. All students who are interested 7O AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY in problems concerning the early churches along the Atlantic seaboard and the occupants of their pulpits are indebted to the labors of Dr. Frederick Lewis Weis and his invaluable compendiums on the clergymen and parishes of the various colonies.
    [Show full text]
  • EYE EMPIRE Announces Extensive Fall Touring Plans with NONPOINT, SEETHER, and More
    For Immediate Release August 13, 2012 EYE EMPIRE Announces Extensive Fall Touring Plans with NONPOINT, SEETHER, and More New Album ‘Impact’ – In Stores Now! American hard rockers EYE EMPIRE recently joined up with Nonpoint on a tour of several Eastern states that will travel through the end of August. The band will then continue on with a headline tour of several Southern states across the U.S., ultimately linking up with Seether from October 5th through the latter part of the month. See below for all current tour dates. Corey Lowery (Dark New Day, Stereomud, Stuck Mojo) and B.C. Kochmit (Dark New Day, Switched) formed EYE EMPIRE in 2007 with a rotating line-up of drummers—a spot now permanently filled by Ryan Bennett, formerly of Texas Hippie Coalition. In 2009, Donald Carpenter (formerly of Submersed) joined the band as the vocalist. Their latest release, a double album entitled Impact, was released in June 2012 and contains several tracks from the band’s self-released 2011 album, Moment of Impact, plus unreleased, acoustic, and live versions of songs. Several songs on Impact were recorded with Sevendust drummer Morgan Rose, and the track ‘Victim (Of The System)’ features guest vocals from Lajon Witherspoon, also of Sevendust. EYE EMPIRE has posted a video for the track ‘I Pray’ on their official YouTube page consisting of band-filmed footage, as well as an official album trailer. Head to this location to get a good taste of the band’s sound and subscribe to the page to receive EETV video updates and more! Catch EYE EMPIRE on tour now!
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative 3.Pdf
    LESLIE WATKINS ALTERNATIVE 3 EDITED AND WITH A NEW FOREWORD BY ANONYMOUS ARCHIMEDES PRESS NANTWICH, BURROUGH OF CHESHIRE EAST, UNITED KINGDOM FREIE HANSESTADT BREMEN, GERMANY COPYLEFT 2010 ARCHIMEDES PRESS ALTERNATIVE 3 – 33RD ANNIVERSARY EDITION To the extent possible under law, all copyright and related or neighboring rights to the aforementioned text have been waived. EDITOR‘S NOTE Members of Parliament Bruce Kinslade and Michael Harrington- Brice are works of the author‘s imagination, and any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental. John Hendry, Dr. James E. McDonald, Sir William Ballantine, Hank McDermott, Dr. Ann Clark, Robert Patterson and Brian Pendlebury are likewise works of the author‘s imagination. Similarly, ―Trojan‖ and the A3 Policy Committee are fabrications. In short, if not untrue, everything is wrong. LICENSE NOTES The editor has made the digital version of this work available under a Creative Commons License. You are welcome to share it with your friends until served with an injunction. The digital version may be reproduced, copied and distributed for noncommercial purposes. FOR MAJOR AUBREY LELAND OAKES, BARON BUXTON OF ALSA 15 JULY1918 – 1 SEPTEMBER 2009 & GEORGE JOHN PATRICK DOMINIC TOWNSHEND, 7TH MARQUESS TOWNSHEND 13 MAY 1916 – 23 APRIL 2010 F O R E W O R D IKE Milton William Cooper‘s Behold a Pale Horse, Leslie Watkins‘1 Alternative 3, inspired L by the Anglia Television hoax of the same name, is a repository for memetic cues designed to disinform and confuse. Like Cooper‘s cult-classic, Watkins‘ novella is printed and reprinted without editing. All typos and factual inaccuracies are preserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Music Globally Protected Marks List (GPML) Music Brands & Music Artists
    Music Globally Protected Marks List (GPML) Music Brands & Music Artists © 2012 - DotMusic Limited (.MUSIC™). All Rights Reserved. DotMusic reserves the right to modify this Document .This Document cannot be distributed, modified or reproduced in whole or in part without the prior expressed permission of DotMusic. 1 Disclaimer: This GPML Document is subject to change. Only artists exceeding 1 million units in sales of global digital and physical units are eligible for inclusion in the GPML. Brands are eligible if they are globally-recognized and have been mentioned in established music trade publications. Please provide DotMusic with evidence that such criteria is met at [email protected] if you would like your artist name of brand name to be included in the DotMusic GPML. GLOBALLY PROTECTED MARKS LIST (GPML) - MUSIC ARTISTS DOTMUSIC (.MUSIC) ? and the Mysterians 10 Years 10,000 Maniacs © 2012 - DotMusic Limited (.MUSIC™). All Rights Reserved. DotMusic reserves the right to modify this Document .This Document 10cc can not be distributed, modified or reproduced in whole or in part 12 Stones without the prior expressed permission of DotMusic. Visit 13th Floor Elevators www.music.us 1910 Fruitgum Co. 2 Unlimited Disclaimer: This GPML Document is subject to change. Only artists exceeding 1 million units in sales of global digital and physical units are eligible for inclusion in the GPML. 3 Doors Down Brands are eligible if they are globally-recognized and have been mentioned in 30 Seconds to Mars established music trade publications. Please
    [Show full text]
  • The Yamasee War: 1715 - 1717
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Archaeology Month Posters Institute of 10-2015 The aY masee War: 1715 - 1717 South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archmonth_poster Part of the Anthropology Commons Publication Info Published in 2015. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina. Archaeology Month Poster - The aY masee War: 1715 - 1717, 2015. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2015. http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/sciaa/ © 2015 by University of South Carolina, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology This Poster is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Archaeology Month Posters by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE YAMASEE WAR: 1715 - 1717 Thomas Nairne, “A map of South Carolina shewing the settlements of the English, French, & Indian nations from Charles Town to the River Missisipi [sic].” 1711. From Edward Crisp, “A compleat description of the province of Carolina in 3 parts.” Photo courtesy of Library of Congress 24th Annual South Carolina Archaeology Month October 2015 USC • South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology • 1321 Pendleton Street • Columbia S
    [Show full text]