DOCSLIB.ORG

Cultural Resources Survey of a Portion of Murphy and Cedar Islands, Charleston and Georgetown Counties, South Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cultural Resources Survey of a Portion of Murphy and Cedar Islands, Charleston and Georgetown Counties, South Carolina CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF A PORTION OF MURPHY AND CEDAR ISLANDS, CHARLESTON AND GEORGETOWN COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 455 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF A PORTION OF MURPHY AND CEDAR ISLANDS, CHARLESTON AND GEORGETOWN COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared By: Michael Trinkley, Ph.D., RPA and Nicole Southerland Prepared For: Mr. Jim Westerhold S.C. Department of Natural Resources 420 Dirleton Road Georgetown, SC 29440 CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 455 Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 Columbia, SC 29202-8664 803/787-6910 www.chicora.org August 28, 2006 This report is printed on permanent paper ∞ ©2006 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcribed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the authors, publisher, and project sponsor. ABSTRACT This study reports on an intensive cultural 38GE86, and 38GE88) were found around Cedar resources survey of a small portion of Murphy Island. 38GE83 and 86 were recorded during the Island in Charleston County and an equally same underwater survey as 38CH233. Site 38GE83 limited area of Cedar Island in Georgetown is described as three separate brick or ballast piles, County, both on the Santee River. The work was but has since been classified as nonlocatable. Site conducted to assist Jim Westerhold and the S.C. 38GE86 had both prehistoric and historic pottery Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) fragments represented. We were unable to find comply with Section 106 of the National Historic any information about 38GE88 because the site Preservation Act and the regulations codified in form was missing from the SCIAA site files. Keith 36CFR800. Derting (personal communication 2006), the site files manager, suggested the site might have been The work on Murphy Island would recorded during the same underwater survey. involve the extension of an existing dike from the west onto the island to the maintained road, which The maps at the S.C. Department of runs approximately northeast-southwest on the Archives and History were also consulted to see if island. The work on Cedar Island involves the any National Register of Historic Places sites were construction of an approximately 30-foot wide in the vicinity of the project area. None were spillway that would connect two ponds on the identified. A county-wide architectural survey north and south sides of the island. was performed for Charleston County in 1992 (Fick 1992), however, none of the small sea islands The proposed undertaking will require were included. A comprehensive survey for the clearing of the areas, followed by construction Georgetown County has not been completed, but of the dike or spillway. These activities have the with no standing structures on Cedar Island, it is potential to affect archaeological and historical unlikely that it will be included in the survey. sites and this survey was conducted to identify and assess archaeological and historical sites that The archaeological survey on Murphy may be in the project area. We were also Island incorporated shovel testing at 50-foot requested by the SCDNR to fill out site forms for intervals on transects which were placed at 50-foot some previously identified remains on Murphy intervals along the marsh at the northern portion Island. This was done, but these areas were not of the island. All shovel test fill was screened subjected to an intensive survey. through 3-inch mesh and the remains were recorded. A total of 18 shovel tests were An investigation of the archaeological site excavated along 6 transect lines. Testing at Cedar files at the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology Island incorporated a mixture of 50-foot and 100- and Anthropology identified one previously foot tests to located an area of no remains for the recorded site (38CH233) on Murphy Island. The construction of the spillway. A total of 11 shovel site, whose location is uncertain, was identified tests were excavated on the western end of the during an underwater survey in 1975 by SCIAA. island, just east of a dike. The site form (recorded by R. Wilbanks in 1975) states that nineteenth century ceramics and bottles As a result of these investigations one site were identified and that the site was probably a (38GE616) was recorded at Cedar Island. This is a wharf. Three previously recorded sites (38GE83, dike and associated causeway that is shown on i maps at least as early as 1873. Additional work is needed to fully assess this feature. Five sites (38CH2111-2115) were recorded on Murphy Island. Site 38CH2111 is a nineteenth century structure next to a canal. While its function is unknown, it may be connected to the production of rice on the island. Site 38CH2112 is the nineteenth century brick storm shelter; site 38CH2113 is a nineteenth century slave settlement; site 38CH2114 consists of the remains of a steam mill; and 38CH2115 is a brick pier of unknown function. No testing was performed to determine eligibility for each of these sites, so additional work will be needed to fully assess these resources. None of these sites, however, were identified within the two survey areas. Finally, it is possible that archaeological remains may be encountered in the project area during clearing or construction activities. Crews should be advised to report any discoveries of concentrations of artifacts (such as bottles, ceramics, or projectile points) or brick rubble to the project engineer, who should in turn report the material to the State Historic Preservation Office or to Chicora Foundation (the process of dealing with late discoveries is discussed in 36CFR800.13(b)(3)). No construction should take place in the vicinity of these late discoveries until they have been examined by an archaeologist and, if necessary, have been processed according to 36CFR800.13(b)(3). ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures iv Introduction 1 Natural Environment 5 Physiography 5 Geology and Soils 5 Climate 6 Floristics 8 Prehistoric and Historic Background 9 Previous Research 9 Prehistoric Synopsis 9 Historic Background 11 Tract Specific History 15 Methods 23 Archaeological Field Methods 23 Architectural Survey 24 Site Evaluation 25 Laboratory Analysis 26 Results of Survey 29 Introduction 29 Archaeological Resources 29 Architectural Resources 38 Conclusions 41 Sources Cited 43 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project vicinity in Charleston and Georgetown counties 2 2. Murphy and Cedar Islands shown with previously recorded archaeological sites 3 3. View of dense vegetation found on the islands 5 4. View of the marsh surrounding the islands 7 5. Generalized cultural sequence for South Carolina 10 6. Portion of the 1780 Map of South Carolina and Georgia showing the islands 15 7. Portions of the Mills Atlas maps of Charleston and Georgetown districts 16 8. Storm tower on the Santee Delta 17 9. Settlement on Cedar Island in 1863 19 10. Portions of Murphy and Cedar islands in 1873 20 11. Portion of the “Plan of the Shooting Preserve of the Santee Club” 21 12. Portion of the Minim Island topographic map showing location of the proposed work 23 13. Shovel testing on Murphy Island 24 14. Shovel testing on Cedar Island 25 15. Sites recorded on Murphy and Cedar islands 29 16. Sketch map of 38GE616, the earthen dike on Cedar Island 30 17. Portion of the 1879 map showing the dike (38GE616) 30 18. Sketch map showing 38CH2111 31 19. View of the canal and brick remains 31 20. Sketch map of 38CH2112, the storm shelter 32 21. View of 38CH2112 in 1980 32 22. View of missing brick from the storm shelter 33 23. View of the current condition of the storm shelter 33 24. Sketch map of 38CH2113, the slave settlement 34 25. Portion of the 1873 map showing 38CH2113 35 26. View of the well at 38CH2113 35 27. View of an arched hearth at a chimney in 38CH2113 36 28. Sketch map of 38CH2114, the mill remains 36 29. View of the boiler associated with 38CH2114 37 30. View of the octagonal chimney base at 38CH2114 37 31. View of 38CH2115, the brick pillar 38 32. View of the pillar in tidal marsh 38 iv INTRODUCTION This investigation was conducted by Dr. previously recorded site (38CH233) was identified Michael Trinkley of Chicora Foundation, Inc. for on Murphy Island. The site, whose location is Mr. Jim Westerhold of the S.C. Department of uncertain, was located during an underwater Natural Resources in McClelanville, South survey in 1975 by SCIAA. The site form (recorded Carolina. The work was conducted to assist the by R. Wilbanks in 1975) stated that nineteenth SCDNR with Section 106 of the National Historic century ceramics and bottles were identified and Preservation Act and the regulations codified in that the site was probably a wharf. Three 36CFR800. previously recorded sites (38GE83, 38GE86, and 38GE88) were found around Cedar Island. The project site consists of portions of two 38GE83 and 38GE86 were recorded during the island by the Santee River – Murphy and Cedar same underwater survey as 38CH233. Site 38GE83 (Figure 1). Murphy Island is to have a dike is described as three separate brick or ballast piles, extended onto the island while Cedar Island is but has since been nonlocatable. Site 38GE86 proposed to have a spillway cut through it to included both prehistoric and historic pottery connect two ponds. The islands are separated by fragments. We were unable to find any the Santee River with Murphy Island to the west information about 38GE88 because the site form and Cedar Island to the east (Figure 2).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Vegetation of the Carolinas: Classification and Description of Plant Communities of the Lumber (Little Pee Dee) and Waccamaw Rivers
    Natural vegetation of the Carolinas: Classification and Description of Plant Communities of the Lumber (Little Pee Dee) and Waccamaw Rivers A report prepared for the Ecosystem Enhancement Program, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources in partial fulfillments of contract D07042. By M. Forbes Boyle, Robert K. Peet, Thomas R. Wentworth, Michael P. Schafale, and Michael Lee Carolina Vegetation Survey Curriculum in Ecology, CB#3275 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599‐3275 Version 1. May 19, 2009 1 INTRODUCTION The riverine and associated vegetation of the Waccamaw, Lumber, and Little Pee Rivers of North and South Carolina are ecologically significant and floristically unique components of the southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain. Stretching from northern Scotland County, NC to western Brunswick County, NC, the Lumber and northern Waccamaw Rivers influence a vast amount of landscape in the southeastern corner of NC. Not far south across the interstate border, the Lumber River meets the Little Pee Dee River, influencing a large portion of western Horry County and southern Marion County, SC before flowing into the Great Pee Dee River. The Waccamaw River, an oddity among Atlantic Coastal Plain rivers in that its significant flow direction is southwest rather that southeast, influences a significant portion of the eastern Horry and eastern Georgetown Counties, SC before draining into Winyah Bay along with the Great Pee Dee and several other SC blackwater rivers. The Waccamaw River originates from Lake Waccamaw in Columbus County, NC and flows ~225 km parallel to the ocean before abrubtly turning southeast in Georgetown County, SC and dumping into Winyah Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Republic Quarterly, 2010, Vol. 44, No. 1-2 Horry County Historical Society
    Coastal Carolina University CCU Digital Commons The ndeI pendent Republic Quarterly Horry County Archives Center 2010 Independent Republic Quarterly, 2010, Vol. 44, No. 1-2 Horry County Historical Society Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/irq Part of the Civic and Community Engagement Commons, and the History Commons Recommended Citation Horry County Historical Society, "Independent Republic Quarterly, 2010, Vol. 44, No. 1-2" (2010). The Independent Republic Quarterly. 151. https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/irq/151 This Journal is brought to you for free and open access by the Horry County Archives Center at CCU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The ndeI pendent Republic Quarterly by an authorized administrator of CCU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Independent Republic Quarterly A Publication of the Horry County Historical Society Volume 44, No. 1-2 ISSN 0046-8843 Publication Date 2010 (Printed 2012) Calendar Events: A Timeline for Civil War-Related Quarterly Meeting on Sunday, July 8, 2012 at Events from Georgetown to 3:00 p.m. Adam Emrick reports on Little River cemetery census pro- ject using ground pen- etrating radar. By Rick Simmons Quarterly Meeting on Used with permission: taken from Defending South Carolina’s Sunday, October 14, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. Au- Coast: The Civil War from Georgetown to Little River (Charleston, thors William P. Bald- SC: The History Press 2009) 155-175. win and Selden B. Hill [Additional information is added in brackets.] review their book The Unpainted South: Car- olina’s Vanishing World.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Form
    Form No. 10-300 ^0-' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOWTO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS __________TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______ I NAME HISTORIC ^^^ Battery White___________________________________ AND/OR COMMON LOCATION STREET & NUMBER Belle Isle Road, Belle Isle Gardens _NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Georgetown _X_ VICINITY OF #6 STATE CODE COUNTY CODE Snut.h Carolina 045 Georgetown Q43 CLASSIFICATION (part of condomfntutn complex] CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENTUSE _DISTRICT —PUBLIC X-OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM _BUILDING(S) X-PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL _JfeTRUCTURE —BOTH WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE ^.SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT —IN PROCESS —YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED — YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION —MILITARY —OTHER: OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME Belle Isle Gardens Company STREET & NUMBER P. 0. Box 796 CITY. TOWN STATE Georgetown VICINITY OF South CaroJina (LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS,ETC Georgetown County Courthouse STREET& NUMBER Screven Street CITY. TOWN STATE Georgetown South Caroltna REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Inventory of Historic Places In South Carolina DATE J9Z1 —FEDERAL X.STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS S. C. Department of Archives and History CITY. TOWN STATE Columbia South Carolina Q DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT _DETERIORATED JklNALTERED ^ORIGINAL SITE X.GOOD —RUINS —ALTERED —MOVED DATE_______ —FAIR _JUNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE Battery White is an earthwork artillery emplacement built and manned by Confederate troops during the Civil War. It was positioned on Mayrant's Bluff, upper Winyah Bay, where its guns could command the seaward access to the nearby port of Georgetown.
    [Show full text]
  • Waccamaw River Blue Trail
    ABOUT THE WACCAMAW RIVER BLUE TRAIL The Waccamaw River Blue Trail extends the entire length of the river in North and South Carolina. Beginning near Lake Waccamaw, a permanently inundated Carolina Bay, the river meanders through the Waccamaw River Heritage Preserve, City of Conway, and Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge before merging with the Intracoastal Waterway where it passes historic rice fields, Brookgreen Gardens, Sandy Island, and ends at Winyah Bay near Georgetown. Over 140 miles of river invite the paddler to explore its unique natural, historical and cultural features. Its black waters, cypress swamps and tidal marshes are home to many rare species of plants and animals. The river is also steeped in history with Native American settlements, Civil War sites, rice and indigo plantations, which highlight the Gullah-Geechee culture, as well as many historic homes, churches, shops, and remnants of industries that were once served by steamships. To protect this important natural resource, American Rivers, Waccamaw RIVERKEEPER®, and many local partners worked together to establish the Waccamaw River Blue Trail, providing greater access to the river and its recreation opportunities. A Blue Trail is a river adopted by a local community that is dedicated to improving family-friendly recreation such as fishing, boating, and wildlife watching and to conserving riverside land and water resources. Just as hiking trails are designed to help people explore the land, Blue Trails help people discover their rivers. They help communities improve recreation and tourism, benefit local businesses and the economy, and protect river health for the benefit of people, wildlife, and future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Battery White Historic Registry Application
    cçêã =k çK=NMJPMM íÑyÉ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM pbb=fk pqor ` qfl k p=fk =HOWTO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS | | | | | | | | | | | qvmb=^ i i =bk qofbp=J=` l j mi bqb=^ mmi f` ^ _ i b=pb` qfl k p| | | | | | INAME e fpql of` = { { { Battery White___________________________________ ^ k a Ll o=` l j j l k LOCATION pqo bbq=C=k r j _bo Belle Isle Road, Belle Isle Gardens | k l q=cl o=mr _ i f` ^ qfl k ` fqvI=ql t k ` l k d o bppfl k ^ i =a fpqo f` q Georgetown | u| =s f` fk fqv =l c pq^ qb ` l a b ` l r k qv CODE påì íKÜ= ` ~êçäáå~ MQR Georgetown n QP CLASSIFICATION ` ^ qbd l ov l t k bope fm pq^ qr p mobpbk q=r pb | a fpqof` q= ! mr _ i f` = uJl ` ` r mfba ! ^ d of` r i qr ob= ! j r pbr j | =_ r fi a fk d EpF= uJmofs^ qb ! r k l ` ` r mfba ! ` l j j bo` f^ i JgÑÉqor ` qr ob ! _ l qe ! t l oh=fk =mol d obpp ! ba r ` ^ qfl k ^ i ! mofs^ qb=obpfa bk ` b mr _ i f` =^ ` n r fpfqfl k ^ ` ` bppf_ i b ! bk qbo q^ fk j bk q= ! o bi fd fl r p ! l _ gb` q | fk =mol ` bpp ! vbpW=obpqof` qba ! d l sbok j bk q= ! p` fbk qfcf` ! _ bfk d =` l k pfa boba ! =vbpW=r k obpqof` qba ! fk a r pqof^ i ! qo^ k pml oq^ qfl k *- N private park ! j fi fq^ ov ! l qe boW OWNER OF PROPERTY k ^ j b Belle Isle Gardens Company pqobbq=Uí=k r j _ bo mK= MK= _çñ= TVS ` fqv K=ql t k pq^ qb Georgetown sf` fk fqv=l c South CaroJina [LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION ` l r oqe l r pbK o bd fpqo v =l c=a bba pIbq` = d ÉçêÖÉíçï å=` çì åíó=` çì êíÜçì ëÉ pqo bbq=C=k r j _bo Screven
    [Show full text]
  • Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge Climate Change Impacts
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge Climate Change Impacts Located in portions of Horry, Georgetown, and Marion County, South Carolina, Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is South Carolina’s newest Wildlife Refuge. Waccamaw NWR was established Photo by USFWSby Photo on December 1, 1997 after completing a two-year environmental impact statement. The refuge acquisition boundary spans over 55,000 acres and includes large sections of freshwater tidal wetlands associated with the Waccamaw and Great Pee Dee Rivers and a smaller section along the Little Pee Dee River. The Refuge currently manages approximately 23,000 acres which translates to 34 square miles of floodplain wetlands. In addition to refuge lands, there are an additional 13,500 acres of land permanently owned and protected by either the state or through private easements within the Refuge Waccamaw River Acquisition Boundary. The wetland diversity within the Refuge is significant and includes some of the most diverse freshwater wetland systems in the world. Because of the proximity of these wetlands to the Winyah Bay Estuary, these systems are heavily influenced by daily tides and they Photo by USFWSby Photo serve an important role in providing essential ecological functions that sustain this estuary. Signature wildlife species throughout the refuge include wood storks, osprey, black bear, and swallow-tailed kites. Kites have made Waccamaw NWR their northernmost nesting area within their range. Recently Waccamaw NWR developed a Strategic Habitat Plan for swallow-tailed kites that is focused on understanding the relationship between conservation lands in and Swallow-tailed kite around the Refuge as well as adjoining unprotected private lands which are also important to kite nest productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Impact Development in Coastal South Carolina: a Planning and Design Guide
    LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL SOUTH CAROLINA: A PLANNING AND DESIGN GUidE Low Impact Development in Coastal South Carolina: A Planning and Design Guide This publication was made possible through support from the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Sci- ence Collaborative, a partnership of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of New Hampshire. The Science Collaborative advances the use of science in coastal decision making by engag- ing intended users of the science in the research process—from problem definition to practical application of results. Cover Photo credits: Kathryn Ellis, Kathryn Ellis, Seamon Whiteside + Associates, Erik Smith. Recommended Citation for this Guidebook: Ellis, K., C. Berg, D. Caraco, S. Drescher, G. Hoffmann, B. Keppler, M. LaRocco, and A.Turner. 2014. Low Impact Development in Coastal South Carolina: A Planning and Design Guide. ACE Basin and North Inlet – Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserves, 462 pp. Download a digital copy of this document and the spreadsheet tools at http://www.northinlet.sc.edu/LID Low Impact Development in Coastal South Carolina: A Planning and Design Guide ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Project Team Sadie Drescher, Center for Watershed Protection Kathryn Ellis, EIT, North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Greg Hoffmann, P.E., Center for Watershed Protection Blaik Keppler, SC Department of Natural Resources & ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve April Turner, South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium Michelle LaRocco, North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve; University of South Carolina Wendy Allen, North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve; University of South Carolina Advisory Committee The Advisory Committee provided guidance and feedback on the content of this document, devel- oped and participated in workshops, and engaged stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Reserve in Review 2020 Newsletter
    North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 2020 in Review Erik Smith Reserve Manager As with so many, 2020 has been a challenging year here at the Reserve. The on-going pandemic forced us to curtail a great many of our activities, especially our K-12 and public education programs and a number of exciting new citizen science programs that were just spinning up. Nonetheless, the Reserve successfully maintained all its core programs, and even established a number of new efforts, thanks to a dedicated and resourceful staff, our many program partners, and our wonderful friends and volunteers. As you can read below, reserve staff effectively pivoted to virtual platforms where necessary to offer programs and trainings; were able to provide some socially distant outdoor activities to let folks get away from screen-time and stay connected with nature; and managed to maintain our priority long-term monitoring efforts, which are an essential contribution to NOAA’s nation-wide coastal monitoring network. In addition, thanks to both long-standing and new partnerships, we were able to engage in several new opportunities and programs this year. The Reserve was proud to be one of several entities that partnered with the South Carolina Maritime Museum to bring the Smithsonian Institution’s traveling Water/Ways exhibit to Georgetown this past fall and contributed a real-time environmental data exhibit that is now part of the Museum’s permanent collection. A new collaboration with long-standing partners Clemson Extension and SC Sea Grant Consortium is providing stormwater pond management training to diverse audiences in Georgetown and Horry counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Winyah Bay Fact Sheet
    The Nature Conservancy in South Carolina Winyah Bay SANDY ISLAND © TOM BLAGDEN At a Glance • Acres Protected: The Nature Conservancy has helped protect 20,300 acres in the Winyah Bay project area. • Ecological Significance: Contains the state’s largest tidal freshwater wetlands; supports more than 66 songbird species and more than 1,000 nesting egrets and herons; 12,000 acres of mature longleaf pine forest and cypress-tupelo swamps • Threats: Incompatible development practices; conversion of The Winyah Bay project area map indicates Conservancy projects in forestland to urban use purple and federal, state, and private protected lands in green. The Winyah Bay project office is located in Georgetown. Flowing through swamps and wooded areas, the slow moving waters of the Black, Big Pee Dee, Little Pee Dee, Sampit and Waccamaw rivers converge along the coast of Georgetown County to form the third largest estuarine drainage area on the Eastern Seaboard—Winyah Bay. LITTLE PEE DEE RIVER © TOM BLAGDEN Biological Diversity Goals Encompassing 525,000 acres, the Winyah Bay project area contains the state's largest The Nature Conservancy strives tidal freshwater wetlands, including 146,000 acres of forested wetlands and tidal to work with public and private freshwater marshes. The Winyah Bay landscape harbors more than 66 songbirds, partners to protect ecologically including painted buntings, prothonotary warblers and summer tanagers. The project significant areas throughout the area is also a preferred stopover for countless migratory birds such as waterfowl and Winyah Bay project area. Conservation birds of prey. The longleaf pine forests of the project area support the federally easements, acquisitions and other endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.
    [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]
  • Archaeological and Historical Examinations of Three Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Rice Plantations on the Waccamaw Neck
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL EXAMINATIONS OF THREE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURY RICE PLANTATIONS ON THE WACCAMAW NECK A B o 30 MILLIMETER S ]).~ 1-3-/ffo ~IL =- I ~r - 1/1 ,~ /~ CHICORA FOUNDATION RESEARCH SERIES 31 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL EXAMINATIONS OF THREE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURY RICE PLANTATIONS ON THE WACCAMAW NECK RESEARCH SERIES 31 Michael Trinkley, Editor contributors: Natalie Adams Debi Hacker David R. Lawrence Rowena Nyland Michael Trinkley Jack H. Wilson, Jr. Chicora Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 866~ • 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, South Carolina 29202 803/787-6910 May 1993 ISSN 0882-2041 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Archaeological and historical examinations of three eighteenth and nineteenth century rice plantations on the Waccamaw Neck / Michael Trinkley, editor i contributors, Natalie Adams •.. ret al.]. p. cm. -- (Research series, ISSN 0882-2041 i 31) "April 1992." Includes bibliographic references. $27.00 1. Waccamaw River Valley (N.C. and S.C.)--Antiquities. 2. Plantations--Waccamaw River Valley (N.C. and S.C.) 3. Excavations (Archaeology)--Waccamaw River Valley (N.C. and S.C.) 4. Indians of North America--Waccamaw River Valley (N.C. and S.C.)- -Antiquities. I. Adams, Natalie, 1963- II. Trinkley, Michael. III. Chicora Foundation. IV. Series: Research series (Chicora Foundation) i 31 . F277.W3A73 1992 975.7'89--dc20 92-6710 CIP The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. i Of the great tropical and semitropical staples in the Americas, rice was by far the least significant.
    [Show full text]
  • 03040207-02 (Great Pee Dee River/Winyah Bay)
    03040207-02 (Great Pee Dee River/Winyah Bay) General Description Watershed 03040207-02 is located in Marion, Florence, Williamsburg, Georgetown, and Horry Counties and consists primarily of the final segment of the Great Pee Dee River from the Lynches River through Winyah Bay and their tributaries. The watershed occupies 223,613 acres of the Lower Coastal Plain and Coastal Zone regions of South Carolina. Land use/land cover in the watershed includes: 37.4% forested wetland, 28.6% forested land, 8.6% water, 11.0% agricultural land, 10.9% nonforested wetland, 3.0% urban land, and 0.5% barren land. This lowest section of the Great Pee Dee River accepts drainage from its upper reaches, and with Flax Patch Swamp and Negro Lake Run (Maple Swamp) together with numerous oxbow lakes, including Hodge Lake, Balloon Lake, Thomas Lake, Big Ben Port Lake, Little Ben Port Lake, Johnson Lake, and Wildhorse Lake. Clark Creek accepts drainage from Muddy Creek (Snow Lake, Mill Creek, Soccee Swamp, Island Branch, Cedar Branch, Shaler Branch) before draining into the river. Apple Orchard Slough also connects Clark Creek to the river through Staple Lake. Further downstream, the river accepts drainage from Jacobs Creek, Port Creek (Flat Run Swamp, Boser Swamp, Squirrel Run Bay, Pennyroyal Swamp, Bells Swamp, Tyler Creek), Larrimore Gully, Gravel Gully Branch, and Jordan Lake (Jordan Creek). Dog Lake and several unnamed oxbow lakes drain into the river. Conch Creek (Sally Branch) enters the river next, followed by Bradley Branch (Sheep Pen Branch), and Bull Creek (Cowford Swamp, Horsepen Branch). Also draining into the Great Pee Dee River are Vandross Bay, Yauhannah Creek (Tupelo Bay), Pole Castle Branch, St.
    [Show full text]