Map of General Sherman's March : Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, 1865 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map: Map showing route of marches of the army of Genl. W.T. Sherman, from Atlanta, Ga. to Goldsboro, N.C. : to accompany the report of operations from Savannah, Ga. to Goldsboro, N.C., prepared by order of the Secretary of War for the officers of the U.S. Army under the command of Maj. Gen. W.T. Sherman. It was published by the Engineer Bureau, War Dept. in 1865. Scale [ca. 1:1,950,000]. Shows Sherman's March through the Carolinas covering South Carolina and portions of North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator projection (WGS 1984 UTM Zone 17N). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, railroads, cities and towns, drainage, and more. Relief shown by hachures. The routes of the 14th, 15th, 17th, and 20th corps and the cavalry are indicated by colors and symbols. This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps of the Civil War from the Harvard Map Collection. Many items from this selection are from a collection of maps deposited by the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States Commandery of the State of Massachusetts (MOLLUS) in the Harvard Map Collection in 1938. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features, in particular showing places of military importance. The selection represents a range of regions, originators, ground condition dates, scales, and purposes.

Hydraulics and dynamics of North Inlet, South Carolina, 1975-76 /

"September 1978."

Report of radiometric reconnaissance in Virginia, North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and parts of South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama.

"Contract Number AT (49-1) 860 - Mod. # 1-4."

Monazite placer at the junction of the North Tyger River with the Middle Tyger River, Spartanburg County, South Carolina /

"January 1955."

Soil survey laboratory data and descriptions for some soils of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina /

"September 1967."

The cost of living among wage-earners, Greenville, South Carolina; Pelzer, South Carolina; Charlotte, North Carolina, January and February, 1920 ...

Mode of access: Internet.

Mountain scenery. The scenery of the mountains of western North Carolina and northwestern South Carolina.

Mode of access: Internet.

The early history of the southern states : Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia /

"Illustrated by tales, sketches, anecdotes, and adventures : with numerous engravings."

The Conterminous United States Mineral Assessment Program : background information to accompany folio of geologic, geophysical, geochemical, mineral-occurrence, mineral-resource potential, mineral-production maps of the Charlotte 1⁰ x 2⁰ quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina /

Mode of access: Internet.

Plan of 59 different tracts of land (of 1000 acres each) containing in the whole 59,000 acres : situate on different waters of south Edisto River, except seven tracts (or 7000 acres) are lying on the waters of north Edisto River in the District of Orangeburgh, State of South Carolina /

Pen-and-ink and watercolor.

Assessing tourist demand for traditional coastal dependent businesses on the South Carolina coast

Tourism driven development and coastal gentrification have resulted in a notable decline in traditional coastaldependent businesses on the South Carolina (SC) coast. We examined the sustainability of these businesses by assessing tourists’ demand for local, traditional, and marine related products and services. The research integrated focus groups and an intercept-based mail survey. This paper reports selected survey results and discusses how the findings will be incorporated into small-business training materials. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Challenges in using science-based shoreline setbacks: Examples from South Carolina

Beachfront jurisdictional lines were established by the South Carolina Beachfront Management Act (SC Code §48- 39-250 et seq.) in 1988 to regulate the new construction, repair, or reconstruction of buildings and erosion control structures along the state’s ocean shorelines. Building within the state’s beachfront “setback area” is allowed, but is subject to special regulations. For “standard beaches” (those not influenced by tidal inlets or associated shoals), a baseline is established at the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dune; for “unstabilized inlet zones,” the baseline is drawn at the most landward point of erosion during the past forty years. The parallel setback line is then established landward of the baseline a distance of forty times the long-term average annual erosion rate (not less than twenty feet from the baseline in stable or accreting areas). The positions of the baseline and setback line are updated every 8-10 years using the best available scientific and historical data, including aerial imagery, LiDAR, historical shorelines, beach profiles, and long-term erosion rates. One advantage of science-based setbacks is that, by using actual historical and current shoreline positions and beach profile data, they reflect the general erosion threat to beachfront structures. However, recent experiences with revising the baseline and setback line indicate that significant challenges and management implications also exist. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Shoal manipulation as an effective solution to site specific beach management, examples from three South Carolina beaches

Soft engineering solutions are the current standard for addressing coastal erosion in the US. In South Carolina, beach nourishment from offshore sand deposits and navigation channels has mostly replaced construction of seawalls and groins, which were common occurrences in earlier decades. Soft engineering solutions typically provide a more natural product than hard solutions, and also eliminate negative impacts to adjacent areas which are often associated with hard solutions. A soft engineering solution which may be underutilized in certain areas is shoal manipulation. (PDF contains 4 pages)