EPA 904/9-77-021
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
GRAND STRAND REGION
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA PROJECT NO. C450381
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND ST., ATLANTA, GA. 30308
-------
ERRATA SHEET
Second and third pages of Figure I
following page 35 should be reversed
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
GRAND STRAND REGION, SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA PROJECT NO. C450381
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Court!and Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Approved
£.
gional Administrator
-------
SUMMARY SHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
GRAND STRAND REGION, SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA PROJECT NO. C450381
Draft { )
Final
(X)
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
1. Type of Action; Administrative (X)
Legislative ( )
2. Brief Description of Proposed Action
The subject action of this Environmental Impact Statement is
the awarding of grant funds to the Grand Strand Water and Sewer
Authority for the preparation of plans and specifications for
regional wastewater treatment facilities to service the Grand
Strand 201 area. The project consists of the construction of
three new wastewater treatment facilities with accompanying
outfall lines and interceptor systems and the upgrading of the
existing M3-1 wastewater treatment facility. Plant A will have
-------
a first phase capacity of 6.0 MGD facility discharging with
a tertiary level of treatment into the Intracoastal Waterway.
Plants G and C will have capacities of 6.0 MGD and 2.8 MGD
respectively discharging with a secondary level of treatment
into Naccamaw River. Plant PB-! will have a first phase capacity
of 12.0 MGD and will discharge into the Waccanaw River in the
same outfall line with Plant G with a secondary level of
treatment.
3. Summary of Major Environmental Impacts
The proposed action will have the following beneficial impacts:
(1) Alleviation of existing adverse conditions caused by
low quality wastewater discharges.
(2) Wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate existing
and future sources of wastewater.
(3) Allowance of orderly growth in the Grand Strand area.
The proposed action will have the following adverse impacts:
(1) Potential erosion of treatment plant sites and
interceptor routes during construction.
ii
-------
(2) "linor decrease in biological productivity of the
floodplain from construction and operation of Plant C.
(3) Temporary noise and odor impacts during construction.
(4) Potential of Plant C for incompatibility with Litchfield
Country Club Community.
(5) Potential burden of proposed action on solid waste
disposal system.
4• Summary of Alternatives Considered
A total of 13 basic regional wastewater treatment plant
configurations were identified. These configurations included
combinations of 1, 2, $ and 4 .regional treatment plants with
continued use of various existing plants. A detailed description
of each of these alternatives is presented in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
The initial analysis of the above 13 alternatives resulted in
the selection of a three region plant system with all plants
having secondary treatment. However, problems with the water
quality model used as a basis for the development of these
alternatives led to the development of seven additional treatment
alternatives. These alternatives included various combinations
of advanced wastewater treatment with discharge into the
111
-------
intracoast^l u'atervvay and land application of effluent from
Plants A and MB-1.
Following publication of the Draft CIS, additional water quality
modeling information became available which led the State to
prohibit any discharge into the ICVit; at Plant I-1D-1. Because
of these new developments, the feasibility of constructing a
force main from Plant ;:B-1 to Plant G was evaluated. This
alternative would allow the effluent from Plant M3-1 to be
discharged into the VJaccamaw Piver in the same outfall line
with Plant G.
5. The following Federal and State Agencies and interested
groups have submitted written comments on the Draft Impact
Statement:
Corps of Engineers
Department of the Air Force
Department of Commerce
Department of Health, education and Welfare
Department of the Interior
Department of Housing and Urban Development
South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
ntate Clearinghouse, Division of Administration
South Carolina Department of Archives and History
Pee Dee Health Systems Agency
IV
-------
South Carolina Viilrllife and Marine Resources Department
South Carolina Uater Resources Commission
South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission
City Hanager, North Hyrtle Beach
South Carolina VJildlife Federation, Waccamaw Chapter
Brookgreen Gardens
fi. Date made available to CEQ and the Public
The Final Statement was iTiade available to the Council on
environmental Quality and the public on August 12, 1977.
-------
PREFACE
On March 11, 1077, the ['nvironmontal Protection Agency, Region
I\f, issued a draft F.nvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the
administrative action of awarding grant funds to the Grand Strand
Water and Sewer Authority for the preparation of plans and
specifications for regional wastewater treatment facilities
to service the Grand Strand area. The EIS was filed with the
Council on Environmental Quality, circulated for review among
various Federal and State agencies with expertise in the matters
therein, and made available to the public.
Contained herein are revisions and additions to the Draft EIS.
These revisions and additions are based upon comments from
interested parties or further CIS information. The basic
configuration of the project has not changed from the alternative
recommended in the Draft EIS. Three new wastewater treatment
plants will be constructed with accompanying outfall lines and
interceptor systems. In addition Plant HD-1 will be upgraded
and expanded. Changes have been made in the treatment processes
and outfall location of Plant G and Plant MJ3-1. These changes
consist of the use of bio-disc systems at both plants and the
construction of a common outfall to a point in the VCaccamaw
River which allows for secondary treatment throughout the
planning period. The design year size of Plant MB-1 has been
VI
-------
expanded to 12.0 MGD.
Father than reprinting the text, figures, and tables of the
Draft EIS, the Final EIS should be read in conjunction with
the Draft. This document, when appended to the Draft EIS, shall
constitute the final environmental impact statement in accordance
with the Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality,
40 CFP 1500, and with EPA's Final Regulations governing
preparation of environmental impact statements, 40 CFR 6.
Chapter I contains a summary of the Draft PIS document. This
chapter presents an overview of the project history and area,
identifies significant impact issues to be dealt with in the
EIS and identifies key features of the existing environment.
It includes a summary of the alternatives analysis and the
proposed action, and it presents the principal findings and
conclusions of the EIS.
Chapter II contains additions and revisions to the content of
the Draft EIS.
A Public Hearing on the Draft was held in Myrtle Beach on March
11, 1377. Chapter III contains a transcript of that hearing
as well as Agency response to oil comirients and questions raised.
Chapter IV reproduces all written comments on the Draft EIC
with appropriate response to all comments and questions.
VII
-------
Finally, Chapter V presents EPA's conclusions and administrative
decisions concerning the Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority's
grant application.
Publication of the Final EIS ' n the awarding of grant funds
for the preparation of plans and specifications for regional
wastewater treatment facilities to service the Grand Strand
area fulfills EPA's responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act and EPA's regulations for environmental
review of construction grant application. In accordance with
these regulations, a Step II grant offer will be made to the
Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority thirty days after this
Final EIS is filed with the Council on Environmental Quality
and Tiade available to the public. Anyone receiving this document
who does not have a copy of the Draft may request a copy from:
John E. Hagan III, Chief
Environmental Impact Statement Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERS PAGE NOS.
Preface vi
I. Summary 1
A. Introduction and Background 2
B. Existing Environment Related to 17
significant Impact Issues
C. Summary of Alternatives Analysis 28
and the Proposed Action
D. Principal Findings and Conclusions 39
II. Additions and Revision to information 48
A. Bio-
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPE13DIX I PASTE LOADS CONDITIONS FOR DISCHARGES
TO TrJE ICHW
APPCHCIX II AFCriCOLOGICAL SURVEYS
APPCIIDIX III VEGETATIVE SURVEYS
TiSIX IV NATURAL L.VTDNAPK AREAS
-------
CHAPTER I
SUMMARY
-------
A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE EIS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the
administering agency for a major Federal environmental program
entitled "Grants for Construction of Treatment Works."^'This
program allows the EPA administrator to provide financial aid
to any state, municipality, intermunicipal agency, or interstate
agency for the construction of publicly owned water pollution
control facilities. The program will encourage reduction of
point sources of water pollution and improve national water
quality.
The FPA's granting of funds for a water pollution control
facility may require an EIS. Each proposed water pollution
control facility is evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the
appropriate CPA regional office to determine whether the proposed
facility is expected to have significant environmental effects
and whether the system proposed appears to be a cost-effective
solution to area water quality problems.
I. Authorized by Title II, Section 201 (g(l), of the Federal
Jater Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-
500 (FivPCA.A).
-------
The I'in is being issued pursuant to P.L. 91-90, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and Executive Order
11514, "Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality"
dated March 5, 1970. Both NEPA and Executive Order 11514 require
that all Federal agencies prepare such statements in connection
with their proposals for major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
This document has been prepared in accordance with the
regulations and guidance set forth in the President's Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Guidelines dated August 1, 1973
and the EPA's Final Regulations 40 CFR-Part 5, dated April 14,
1975.
2. SCOPE OF THE EIS
The EIS addresses the alternatives for meeting water quality
standards in the 400 square mile coastal area surrounding Myrtle
Ceach, South Carolina. On March 11, 1977 the Draft EIS was
filed with the Council on Environmental Quality and made
available to the public. Major chapters in the DEIS include
a description of the existing environment, an analysis of
alternatives for the provision of wastewater treatment
facilities, a description of the proposed project, a description
of the prinary and secondary impacts of the proposed project
upon the natural and manaiade environments, and recommended
-------
measures to initigate adverse impacts.
The Final EIS contains a summary of the information presented
in the DEIS, additions and revisions to information contained
in the DEIS, a transcript of the public hearing held April 11,
1977 and EPA references to comments presented at the hearing
and written correspondence received on the DEIS and EPA response
to these comments.
The question of controls for non-point sources of pollution
(e.g., surface runoff) is being dealt with separately under
the areawide wastewater management planning effort currently
underway in accordance with Section 208 of the 1972 Water Quality
Act Amendments.
3. OVCRVIEM OF THE PLANNING AREA
The Grand Strand sewer planning area is roughly defined as the
land area in Georgetown and Uorry Counties lying between the
Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean. It encompasses
four county census districts, three in Horry County, and one
in Georgetown County.
Within the planning region, there are three areas with unique
characteristics. Area 1 in Horry County has intensive
commercial, residential, and recreational development along
the Atlantic Ocean. Its growth and environmental problems are
-------
the most advanced. Area 2 in Georgetown County has development
similar to Area 1, but is somewhat protected from rapid growth
and seasonal change by the presence of large open areas. Area
3 combines commercial and in?'-itutional development along U.S.
501 with residential development between Nixon's Crossroads
and the Little Fiver. Although the remainder of the area is
undeveloped, the International Paper Realty Corporation has
begun to plan development for the Buist Tract.
Community services are provided by a combination of State,
county, and municipal agencies. The Waccamaw Regional Planning
and Development Council is a non-governmental organization which
initiates and coordinates planning and development for a seven-
county region which includes Georgetown and Horry Counties.
The Council is also the designated A-95 agency for reviewing
federally funded nrojects. The planning area is served by motor
transport (automobiles, trucks, busses) and aviation. There
is no mass transit system. Water and sewage services are
coordinated by the Planning Council, Grand Strand Water and
Sewer Authority, Horry County IVator and Sewer Authority, and
Georgetown County v.ater and Sewer District.
4. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Grand Strand uater and Gewer Authority is applying for a
Federal grant to build wastewater treatment facilities for the
-------
Grand Strand area of Horry and Georgetown Counties in South
Carolina. The proposed plan has as its main goal provision
for adequate treatment and disposal of the area's wastewaters,
both now and to meet the needs of the growing permanent and
tourist populations. Specific objectives include:
(1) Elimination of public health risks associated with
existing treatment facilities
(2) Opening of certain closed shellfish areas
(3) Attainment of water quality standards in the
Intracoastal Waterway and the Waccamaw River.
The existing regional treatment system consists of ten
municipal plants, the Myrtle Beach Air Force Plant, approximately
sixty package plants, three industrial wastewater treatment
plants, thousands of septic systems, and numerous sewage lagoons.
Much work has already been done in the development of this system
to attack surface water quality problems. However, critical
water quality problems remain in the several major waterways
in the area, and in coastal wetlands.
The Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority was created on June
2, 1971 to deal with the area's problems of water pollution
and wastewater management. Work on the plan began in January
1974 and a draft plan was made available for public review in
-------
May 1974. The planning area was divided into three separate
service areas accommodating the three new regional treatment
plants which comprise the final plan - treatment plant A,
approximately two miles inland from Atlantic Beach in the north;
treatment plant G, in-shore from Garden City and Surf Side,
near highway 544 in the coastal section of Horry County; and
treatment plant C, located on the site of the present Litchfield
beach plant, just inland from Litchfield beach in the south.
The facilities proposed in the 1974 plan incorporated the
following features:
(1) Secondary treatment of wastewater
(2) Flow equalization or modular treatment units to
accommodate high seasonal flows
(3) Discharge of effluent in the first two phases of
construction to the Intracoastal Waterway
(4) Sludge disposal by spraying of liquid sludge on golf
courses
(5) Location of transmission lines, primarily on roadway
rights of way
(6) Phasing of construction to meet expected patterns of
growth and water quality needs.
7.
-------
EPA determined that an Environmental Impact Statement was
required for the proposed action, and preparation for such a
statement began in July 1975. In November 1975, questions were
raised regarding water quality in the Intracoastal Waterway
as affected by effluent discharges from the northern plant A
and the central plant G. The environmental impact analysis
was suspended with the following additional activities taking
place:
(1) Water quality modeling studies of the Intracoastal
V.'aterway were conducted.
(2) Size of the wastewater treatment plants was scaled
down in accordance with the population projections.
(3) Seven modified alternatives were developed and evaluated
for the north service areas. The most significant of these
alternatives was an effluent disposal method using spray
irrigation of golf courses and rural land.
In October 1976, efforts were resumed to complete the
Environmental Impact Statement on the entire plan. Notice of
the Draft FIS was published in the Federal Pegister of March
11, 1977. A public hearing was held in Myrtle Beach on April
11, 1977.
-------
5. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ISSUES
(1) Water Quality
Water quality is of concern in the Grand Strand region
in four areas:
(A) The Intracoastal Waterway
(B) The Waccamaw River
(C) Certain coastal wetland shellfishing areas
(D) Beaches
Viater quality sampling was done in the Intracoastal Waterway
in April and August 1972. During April, the mean total and
fecal coliform densities were recorded as follows:
LOCATION (From Myrtle Beach
Waste Discharge)
COLIFORM DENSITY
MPN2'/100ml UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM
TOTAL 540 4700
FECAL . 59 1100
The largest waste discharge occurred from the lower Myrtle Beach
oxidation pond about 3 1/4 miles downstream from the Myrtle
Beach Air Force Base discharge.
2. Mptt=most probable number of organisms
-------
During the peak tourist season the corresponding results were
as follows:
LOCATION
COLIFORM DENSITY
UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM
TOTAL 700 67,000
FECAL 59 3,400
Class A standards for fecal coliforms call for a maximum of
200 MPN/100 ml.
A water quality model of a 36 mile segment of the ICWW from
the Little River Inlet to the junction with the Waccamaw River
was developed. Results are presented in Figure 1-1 in the DEIS
for this 36 mile segment for July low flows for the case of
non-point source discharges. Because of limited data the
accuracy of these results is considered questionable.
Nevertheless, results indicate that DO standards could be
marginally met with no discharges.
The h'accamaw River, downstream of Conway to the Route 17 bridge,
violated dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform criteria. Since
the central plant G was designed to have its outfall to the
Waccamaw River, water quality standards and associated wasteload
allocations are critical to the location of the outfall.
10
-------
Four primary shellfishing areas have been closed in recent years
as a result of water pollution:
(A) All of Little River Estuary
(3) All of the Midway Inlet up to the headwaters of the
northern area of Midway Inlet
(C) All of Parsonage Creek to its conjunction with Allston
Creek at Weston Flat at Murrell's Inlet
(D) All of Winyah Bay, up to the southern portion of North
island.
in addition, Hurrell's Inlet is open on a conditional basis.
Closings occur automatically when three inches or more of rain
falls, or when monitoring results so indicate. A primary
objective of the wastewater facilities plan is to reduce septic
tank use and improve the effluent quality of wastewater
facilities, to provide for reopening of these shellfishing areas.
(2) Projected Growth
The area includes two populations - a year-round permanent
population and a transient tourist population. During the period
1960-1970, population in the planning area grew approximately
20 percent, a higher rate than the county-wide growth rate of
either county. During this period, the population of Georgetown
11
-------
County declined. Since 1970, the two counties have experienced
greater growth, largely as a result of the growing tourist
economy.
In 1972, approximately 10 million people visited the Grand
Strand. On the basis of the total transient accommodation units
available and the number of persons per unit, the Waccamaw
Regional Planning and Development Council estimated the number
of overnight visitors and day visitors and the total peak day
population at 232,000.
The WRPDC population projections used in the 201 Plan estimated
a 1997 total of 149,641 permanent residents and 634,210 summer
residents. Questions were raised concerning the accuracy of
these projections.
(3) Treatment Configuration and Construction
The Grand Strand area is served by a proliferation of small
municipal treatment facilities, package plants, and septic tanks,
Because of its popularity as a resort area, continued growth
is anticipated. The problems addressed in the 201 Facilities
Plan and in the alternatives analysis section of this EIS, deal
with the development of the most effective area-wide treatment
system. Major issues include the following:
12
-------
(A) What are the real growth requirements which must be
met?
(B) Can the present configurations, supported by additional
septic tanks and package plants, effectively meet the anticipated
growth?
(C) Will interceptor construction and plant construction
disrupt the natural or manmade environment?
(D) If central treatment plants are to be built, how many
should be built, where should they be located, and what treatment
technology should be used?
(E) How can liquid effluent from wastewater plants be most
effectively disposed of?
(4) Sludge Disposal
The primary issue raised with regard to the disposal of
municipal sewage sludge relates to the direct application of
digested sludge on land areas, including golf courses and other
green areas, compared with composting or land fill as the two
primary alternatives.
(5) Secondary Impacts Resulting from Growth
A central issue in the construction of new wastewater treatment
facilities is whether the added capacity, in itself, will induce
13
-------
growth beyond that which might occur under the no action
alternative. Under the no action alternative, it is assumed
that septic tanks would continue to be used in suitable areas
(but with more stringent enforcement of size and maintenance
requirements) and that package plants would be used to meet
new community needs. If induced growth seems likely, one can
consider the community effects of this growth to be a secondary
impact of the plant.
impacts of growth on the community can be expected in the
following areas:
(A) Need for increased community services
(B) Increased transportation congestion resulting in a
demand for improved roads and a decrease in air quality
(C) Reduction of open spaces resulting in a loss of elements
of the natural environment.
(6) Ecological Impacts of Growth
Biological impacts may be experienced from continued
development of vacant and wooded lands. The increased vehicular
traffic and normal activities of an increasing population will
cause additional dust and pollutant loading in the air and
streams. Poor land development practices and alteration of
natural drainage patterns could eventually cause a gradual
14
-------
disappearance of the more delicate tropical plant species found
in the Grand Strand area, unless appropriate mitigative measures
are applied.
(7) IMPACTS TO HISTORIC AMB ARCHEOLOGICAL RRSOURCES
The planning area contains several types of historical
sites including houses of architectural significance,
plantations, historic churches and cemeteries, and
several sites which played a role in the Revolutionary
and Civil Wars. The area also has numerous archeological
sites. There is evidence of Indian camps and Confederate
earthworks as well as two mounds recently discovered
just north of Georgetown. Construction of sewage
treatment facilities without proper planning could
severely damage cultural resources in the area.
(8) Local Share of Costs
As in any public works program, the ability of the community
to meet its share of construciton costs, and the total annual
cost of operation, is of concern. The added cost to the
community compared with the additional revenue generated by
the increased population, must be evaluated.
The ability to finance or support these improvements will depend
15
-------
upon several factors including:
(A) Increases in the assessed valuation of real property
(B) Median income of permanent population
(C) Changes in tourist spending patterns and activity levels
(D) Federal and State grant and funding programs.
16
-------
D. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT RELATED TO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ISSUES
1. DEMOGRAPHY, LAND USE AND ECONOMICS
(1) Demography and Land Use
The planning area consists of three sections which each have
distinctive demographic and development characteristics. They
vary in density of development as well as in land use patterns.
The higher density occurs along the Atlantic Ocean, particularly
in the City of Myrtle Beach which contains commercial development
and several condominium projects. Along Route 17, opposite
the ocean, much land is undeveloped. That which is developed
is used for commercial and residential uses at a much lower
density than the ocean-front land. Beyond the Intracoastal
Waterway, developed land is devoted to manufacturing and
institutional facilities. Much of this area is .currently
undeveloped forest and open space.
(2) Economics
The planning area has four principal economic activities of
which tourism is the most important. Since the area offers
year-round recreational opportunities, the structural development
(hotels and restaurants) lends a more permanent appearance than
similar resort areas at coastal beach communities in the north.
17
-------
In addition to its importance as a source of employment, the
tourism industry brings money into the community. Tourist
spending on the Grand Strand reached nearly $400 million in
1972. This money flowed from Grand Strand retail and service
establishments to manufacturers and suppliers, thereby generating
dollars in trade and payroll in other economic sectors.
Manufacturing is the second most important economic sector.
It includes milled lumber, food processing, printing, and
production of furniture, textiles and clothing. Of the two
counties, Georgetown County is most dependent on manufacturing.
in 1973, manufacturing accounted for 22 percent of the total
county-wide industrial payroll of $110 million. Between 1970
ancl 1973, both Georgetown and Horry Counties added new
manufacturing units at a faster rate than the state rate,
although Georgetown County lags behind Horry County and the
State in adding new employees.
Agriculture has little economic importance to the planning area,
but still plays an important role in other areas of the two
counties. Major products are tobacco, eggs, soybeans, and
lumber. Fulltime agricultural employment levels have declined.
Peak seasonal flow is three to six times greater than permanent
population flow. This places excessive loads on existing
treatment facilities, including septic tanks, during March
18
-------
through September. Many existing systems fail to perform at
their designed capabilities due to poor operation and
maintenance.
2. TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY
Among the 150 or more species of trees, woody vines, shrubs
and other vegetation in the planning area are several rare or
infrequent types. These types occur in small numbers and in
restricted areas. Although not necessarily threatened with
immediate extinction, these species may require special care.
The large variety of Grand Strand region wildlife includes both
common and rare or endangered species of reptiles, birds, and
mammals. Over 100 species have been sighted, many of which
are established residents. Both established and migratory
wildlife rely upon the habitats provided by the area's natural
vegetation.
3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
There are six major municipal and military wastewater treatment
plants in the planning area which constitute 80 percent of the
total plant capacity of the area. These plants together with
their designed capacity and their effluent receiving stream
are summarized below.
19
-------
PLANT OFSIGN CAPACITY MOD
RECEIVING STREAM
MB-1 6.0 ICWW
MMB-1 1.0 ICWW
M.MB-2 1-2 ICWW
AF-1 0.75 ICWW
LE-1 0.5 Waccamaw River
MB-2 0.4 ICWW
4. MATER QUALITY
(1) Surface Water
The two major surface water bodies in the Grand Strand area
under study are the Waccamaw River and the Intracoastal Waterway.
Most of the Intracoastal Waterway was formed by dredging Little
River, which flows northeasterly, parallel to the coast, and
empties into the Atlantic Ocean through Little River Inlet.
In the vicinity of Myrtle Beach, the Intracoastal Waterway was
constructed by dredging a channel between the Little River and
the Waccamaw River. In addition to these two bodies of water,
water quality has been of concern as a result of certain closed
shellfishing areas, and potential contamination of some beach
waters. A summary of the water quality status for each of the
above four areas is presented in the following sections:
20
-------
(A) Waccamaw Piver
The fresh water reaches of the Waccamaw River have been
classified as Class A, by the South Carolina Pollution Control
Authority. Class A Standards require that fecal coliforms must
not exceed a geometric mean of 200 counts per 100 ml, and that
the dissolved oxygen must not be less than 5 mg/1. These
standards are not net at a number of sampling stations along
the river but South Carolina Water Classification Standards
state that standards will not be considered violated when values
outside the established limits are caused by natural conditions.
This appears to he the case for the ICWW. There is a reason
to believe that the entire stretch of the river from Conway
to a point about one mile below the confluence with the
Intracoastal Waterway does not :neet Class A standards. The
primary municipal contributor would be Conway which is outside
the planning ncea.
( 3) Intracoastal Viater
The ICVtfW from the North Carolina state line to the saltwater
line within Georgetown County is classified as Class A. Field
studies in April and August 1972 showed that total and fecal
coliform density exceeded standards as a result of municipal
plant waste discharges into the waterway. The largest waste
21
-------
discharge originated with the Lower Myrtle Beach oxidation pond
(Sec Chapter I Section 5 in the Draft EIS.)
(C) Shellfishing Areas
Shellfishing has been closed in the areas of Pawley's Island,
Litchfield Beach, Little River Estuary, Cherry Grove Inlet,
Midway Inlet, Parsonage Creek, and Winyah Bay. Hurrell's Inlet
is open on a conditional basis. These areas have been closed
as a result of discharges from oxidation ponds, treatment plants,
inadequate or malfunctioning septic tanks, and urban runoff.
(D)tleach Uaters
The bacterial quality of the majority of the bathing beach waters
sampled by the Environmental Protection Agency in September
1972 rfas within the recommended South Carolina standards for
primary contact recreation. Approximately half of the stations
sampled were in violation of the Class SA bacterial standard,
as a result of creeks and washes discharging to beach areas,
as well as the discharge of effluent from some existing waste
treatment facilities.
(2) Ground Water
in the Grand Strand-Conway area north of Little River, the water
table aquifer furnishes water for most domestic supplies.
22
-------
Chemical analysis of this water indicates conformance to U.S.
public Health Service drinking water standards except for natural
iron concentrations.
The principal aquifer in the area, the Pee Dee-Black Creek
aquifer—lies beneath the water table aquifer. All
municipalities, as well as many small industries and naval bases,
in the area draw their supplies from this aquifer. This water
conforms to drinking water standards except for excess flouride
and chloride content in several wells.
Almost all the recharge of the water table aquifer is from local
precipitation. From there it moves to discharge points such
as wells, streams, lakes, waterways and the ocean. Near areas
of heavy pumping from the Pee Dee-Black Creek aquifer, water
leaks slowly froir> the water table into the Pee Dee-Black Creek
aquifer.
Salt water intrusion into the Pee Dee-Black Creek aquifer does
not appear to be occurring.
5. HISTORICAL ARCTIEOLOGICAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
(1) Historical Sites
The planning area contains several types of historical sites
including plantation, historic churches and cemetarieo, houses
of architectural significance, and Revolutionary and Civil War
23
-------
sites. Several of these properties known as the Pawleys are
included in the National Register of Historic Places. Kobcaw
Barony and Arcadia Plantation are under review for nomination
for inclusion in the National Register.Other sites within
Brookgreen Gardens, but outside the 201 planning area, are
pending national Register approval.
(2) Archeological Sites
There are several identified archeological sites in the vicinity
of the proposed facilities. In designing the facilities, these
sites were taken into consideration so that they are not in
the path of any proposed transmission lines. Since detailed
surface investigations have not been made for much of the land,
the planning area contains other archeological sites.
(3) Recreational Resources
Natural areas such as the beach, ocean, bays, inlets and rivers,
state parks and gane management areas are popular recreational
sites, Huntington State Beach Park and Myrtle Beach State Park
are the major public facilities. Golf courses and tennis
facilities supplement the natural areas. Bathing, tennis,
boating, fishing, camping, golfing, and hunting are the principal
recreational activities.
24
-------
6. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
A combination of state, county and municipal agencies provide
community services in the planning area. In general, state
and county agencies provide health, welfare, educational, and
highway services. The municipalities and counties share water
supply, wastewater treatment, public safety, solid waste
treatment, and administrative services. The major areas of
community facilities and services in, or available to, the Grand
Strand area are summarized below:
(1) Medical Services and Public Health. Two hospitals
and a nursing center are located in Horry County but serve the
general population in the two county area. The year round
population contains 60 medical doctors and 20 dentists. The
County Health Department is responsible for public health issues
that include inspection of commercial kitchens, water supplies,
dairies, and the installation of septic tanks, package plant
systems and other waste disposal systems. The County Health
Departments are agents of the State DHEC.
(2) Law enforcement. Law enforcement activities are managed
by a Sheriff at the county level and by a Chief of Police at
the municipal level. Manpower is concentrated at the municipal
level with a moderate amount of technical equipment support.
The law forces utilize full and parttime staff to accommodate
25
-------
the peak season populations.
(3) Fire Protection The municipal fire departments are
staffed by both full time and volunteer firemen. Myrtle Beach
has the largest number of firemen with 29 full time and 25
volunteers. It operates two stations and several types of
equipment to meet the firefighting needs of high rise, high
density -.levelopraent.
(4) Education In addition to public schools, the area
has technical education, college, and university facilities.
The f^orry-Georgetown Technical Education Center is a post high
school facility offering many degrees. Although the goal of
the Center is to assist adults in obtaining immediate employment,
many of the degrees can be transferred to four-year college
programs. The curricula are geared to attracting and assisting
industrial firms in the area. The Coastal Carolina Regional
Campus, of the University of South Carolina, located between
Conway and fiyrtle Peach, offers a variety of two and four-year
pro-jra-r.s.
(",) Transixjrtation While approximately 98 percent of all
tourists arrive by car, the expansion of highway capacity has
not kept pace with the area's growth. The major access roads
are:
-------
(A) U.S. Route 17 which parallels the beach
(B) U.S. Route 501 which connects Route 17 to Interstate
95 for access from the north
(C) U.S. Route 378 which connects 1-95 to Route 501 at
Conway for access from the south
(D) South Carolina Routes 9 and 917 which provide access
to the northern end of the Grand Strand.
Access by air is provided at Myrtle Beach Airport (MBA), located
next to the Intracoastal Waterway near Crescent Beach, and at
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base (MBAFB). Commercial jet service
to MBAFB was initiated in July 1975. MBA will be used
increasingly for general aviation and should be expanded in
the near future to meet increased service demands.
27
-------
r SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS APD THE PROPOSED ACTION
W » — -.—• II-..- II '• ...!•.•. III. II-.— —. I. . .11—. .LI— I -• • — • I -I I . I I I. ...
1. USE OF SEPTIC TANKS AND PACKAGE PLANTS
The 201 facilities plan analysis of existing wastewater treatment
facilities determined that five municipal plants plus several
package plants were suitable for incorporation into the new
plan. All other public, semipublic, and private plants should
be phased out as soon as new regional facilities are available
because of previously discussed v;ater quality problems and
potential health hazards.
2. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL AMD ITS RELATION TO TREATMENT LEVEL
The two primary alternatives for disposal and/or reuse of
wastewater treatment effluent were discharge to the Intracoastal
Uaterway and Waccarcaw River, and spray irrigation with associated
distribution systems. Computer results indicated that secondary
treatment for discharges up to 6.0MGD is adequate for disposal
into the Waccamaw River below the confluence point with the
Intracoastal Waterway. However, tertiary treatment is required
for any discharge into the Intracoastal Waterway and total
discharges may be limited to 6.0MGD. It was also determined
that secondary treatment is adequate for discharge of effluent
from a single regional treatment facility, if the effluent is
.-Uncharged to the Waccamaw River below the confluence with the
28
-------
Pee Dee River.
To determine the feasibility and the economics of applying
effluents to the land, studies were conducted to determine soil
characteristics in the study area, as well as anticipated
effluent characteristics, percolation rates, and possible
irrigation sites. It was concluded that because of a seasonal
high water table in most soil types, land application could
not be utilized on a year round basis. Therefore, in order
to dispose of effluent on land, an alternative effluent disposal
system would have to be used when the water table is high.
Since a higher treatment plant standard would be needed to meet
effluent requirements during this period, land disposal was
rejected as a viable alternative.
3. COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ALTERNATIVES
AND PLAN SELECTION
Because of the large area encompassed by the facilities plan,
four regional wastewater treatment plant concepts were proposed
as alternatives. Each of the regional plants' alternatives
integrated various combinations of existing and usable wastewater
treatment facilities. A total of 13 basic potential regional
wastewater treatment plant configurations were identified for
the four conceptual alternatives. These treatment alternatives
were compared in terms of present worth and annual equivalent
29
-------
costs and the results are shown in Table 4-7 in Chapter 4 in
the Draft EIS.
The initial analysis of the above 13 alternatives resulted in
the selection of Alternative 9 as the proposed action.
Alternative 9 involves the construction of three regional
wastewater plants. A, Cf and G, in addition to the continued
use of the existing plants, MD-1, NMD-1, MM13-2, AF-1, and LB-
1. All existing plants except MB-1 were to be phased out by
19H2. However, as a condition of the November 21, 1975 approval
of the Grand Strand facilities plan, the South Carolina
Department of Health and environmental Control required the
analysis of seven additional alternatives affecting the north
and central service areas. These seven alternatives are as
follows:
(1) Discharge existing plant M3-1 and north plant A into
the Intracoastal ".Waterway, with a treatment level of 10 ppm
BOD5 and suspended solids, and 2 ppm ammonia.
(2) Utilize existing plant MB-1 effluent for land spreading
anc! discharge north plant A effluent into the Intracoastal
waterway with the same treatment as above.
(3) Utilize north plant A effluent for oublic land spreading
and discharge existing plant MC-1 into the Intracoastal Waterway.
30
-------
(4) Utilize existing plant MB-1 effluent for land
application and discharge north plant A effluent into the
intracoastal Waterway.
(5) Utilize north plant A for rural land application with
85 percent BCDc and SS removals, and discharge existing plant
MB-1 into the Intracoastal Waterway.
(6) Utilize existing tlE-1 and north plant A for effluent
rural land application.
(7) Transfer the maximum practical untreated effluent from
the north plant A and existing plant MB-1 to the central plant
C for discharge into the Vvaccamaw River.
A comparison of capital and annual O&M costs for these seven
new alternatives is summarized in Table 4-13 in Chapter 4 of
the DEIS. This table indicates that Alternative I which is
essentially the sane as Alternative 9 of the original 13 is
the lowest in capital costs; Alternative V is the second lowest.
Therefore, Alternatives I and V were considered further in the
facilities plan supplementary engineering report. Given these
two choices, Alternative I was selected because of the
determination that a seasonally high water table throughout
most of the area would preclude the land application of effluent
on a large scale.
31
-------
Following the publication of the Draft EIS, modeling work done
on the ICW'.v as part of the 208 planning effort was released
indicating a need for stringent control of wastewater discharges.
In addition the design year flow of plant HB-1 was increased
from 9 MGD to 12.0 MGD.
nased on this new information, the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control recommended the following
waste loads and conditions for discharge into the ICWW:
(1) Plant A: 10mg/l 30D5, 2 mg/1 ammonia, discharge at
6 nigd.
(2) I1E-1: Mo discharge at present site.
(3) Plant G at discharge point described in Draft EIS:
7 mgd of secondary effluent or a maximum allowable discharge
of 640C Ibs/UOD/day.
(4) Plant C, and ?1B-1 with discharge point at Node 48 of
ICKW rodel: 20 nigd at secondary treatment of 30 mg/1 BOD^.
Given this new information it was deemed most cost effective
and environmentally sound to move the discharge point for both
Plant G and Plant KD-1 to Node 48 to allow for discharge at
secondary treatment. Both plant sites will remain at their
present locations.
32
-------
Table 1 presents the phasinn of the proposed project and Figure
1 presents a nap of the proposed system.
33
-------
Table 1
Phasing of Proposed Action
WWTP's
Phase I
(1978-1982)
A
C
G
(1)
NMB-1UJ
NMB-2U)
AF-K2)
WWTP
Discharge
ICWW
Wacc.R.
Wacc.R.
Wacc.R.
ICWW
Treatment
Required
S+N+F
S
S
OP + F
Design
Capacity
6.0
1.2
Capital
Costs
$1.000
8,398
0 § M
Costs
$irooo
1,052
2.8
6.0
12.0
4,817
13,507
17,088 •
149
343
700
Phase II
(1982-1987)
Pjiase III
(1987-1997)
A
r
\s
G
.MB-1
A
C
G
MB-1
ICWW
Wacc.R,
Wacc.R.
Wacc.R.
ICWW
Wacc.R.
Wacc.R.
Wacc.R.
S+N+F
S
c
S+N +
S
S
S
6.0(3)
2.8
6.0
12.0
6.0(3)
2.8
7.5
12.0
(3)
1,264
5,461
0
(3)
695
3,225
0
1,052
232
343
700
1,052
314
656
700
Legend
(1) Plant C incorporates LB-1
(2) Plant phased out
(3) Cannot expand Plant A beyond 6 MGD due to water quality limits
ICV/W - Intracoastal Waterway
Wacc.R. - Waccamaw River
S - Secondary treatment (30 mg/1 BOD5 § SS)
S+N+F - Secondary treatment plus nitrification plus filtration
(10 mg/1 BODr, 2 rag/1 ammonia, and 5 mg/1 effluent DO)
OP+F - Oxidation pond plus filtration
T - Trickling filter
-------
Figure 1
Map of Proposed Project
35
-------
\
\
\
',
\\
-------
FIGURE
GRAND STRAND SERVICE AREA
-------
,
OCEAN
• •• GRAVITY
- fa1" •
— PHA
^— PHASE J
• PUMF'lf.'
SEWB SFL.r
-------
D. PRIMICPAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. ^ATER QUALITY
(1) Shellfish Areas
It can be expected that with one exception all closed shellfish
areas can be opener! as septic tanks and package plants are phased
out and as new central sewage plants are constructed. The one
exception appears to be Kinyah Bay, where preliminary analysis
by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control indicated that the primary pollution sources are
industrial. Resolution of this industrial point source problem
will require further study.
(2) Intracoastal Waterway
Although considerable water quality modeling of the Intracoasttal
vraterway has been conducted, the validity of indicated results
is atill somewhat questionable because of the limited water
ouality data. Nevertheless it can be stated that improvement
in water quality in the Intracoastal Waterway can be expected
as a result of the significant reductions of discharges from
municipal wastcwater treatment plants. It appears, however,
39
-------
that water quality criteria may not be achieved as a result
of natural conditions in the waterway. The State's new waste
load allocations based upon the latest 208 model are presented
in Appendix I.
(3) Waccamaw River
There is reason to believe that the River from Conway to a point
about 1 mile below the confluence with the ICWW does not meet
Class A standards. The most probable cause is the municipal
discharge from Conway which is outside the planning area.
Improvements in the water quality below the confluence with
the ICWK can be expected as a result of implementation of the
plan.
(4) Beaches
Beaches in the area currently meet the South Carolina State
contact standards, and general bacterial levels can be expected
to improve gradually as the wastewater treatment plan is
implemented. Nonpoint source controls, which are the subject
of the current areawide wastewater planning effort, should result
in further improvements to the beach areas.
2. TREATMENT SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
The final selection of a four-plant layout appears to be a cost-
effective solution to the general wastewater treatment problems
40
-------
of the Grand Strand area. Secondary treatment in plants C and
G and HB-1, and tertiary treatment for plant A, meet South
Carolina State point source regulations. Further analysis of
effluent land disposal is recommended especially with the
anticipated addition of many new golf courses.
3. SLUDGE DISPOSAL
In Phase I, sludge disposal by drying and offering the sludge
to local golf courses appears sound. However, sludge volumes
will increase significantly during Phases II and III; further
consideration should be given to direct spraying of digested
sludge and development of a sod farm and nursery utilizing liquid
sludge, as proposed in the Facilities Plan.
4. PROJECTED GROWTH
In reviewing the permanent population projections, the CIS study
compiled and examined an EPA estimate (1972), a LBC&v; estimate
(1972), and a Uaccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council
(1974) ntudy. The analysis showed that both CPA and LBC&tv had
relied heavily on historical trend data, and VJRPDC study had
focused on recent trends. As a result of the EIS analysis,
both the short and long term growth trends were revised downward,
For 1972-](;77 period, the WPPDC population projection was 40,702
for the permanent population, and 292,748 for the summer
41
-------
population. The revised estimate for that period is 38,000
for the permanent population, and 290,046 for the summer
population. The WRPDC estimate for 1997 was 149,641 permanent
residents and 634,210 summer residents. The EIS projections
are for 103,175 permanent residents and 498,418 summer residents.
5. SECONDARY IMPACTS RESULTING FROM GROWTH
(1) Impacts on Community Services From Population Growth
Will be Similar under the Proposed Action or the No Action
Alternative.
Population growth will continue under either the proposed action
or the no action alternative. The revision of WRPDC population
estimates assumes that oceanfront property will be fully
developed by 1990 and that even at the revised projected growth
rate the area will rapidly reach its density saturation. This
growth will be sufficient to produce a demand for additional
community services and facilities with specialized orientation
according to the relative proportions of growth of the discrete
populations in the areas. Pressure on the transportation network
should continue, as the existing highway capacity has not kept
pace with area growth. A need for limited bus service may well
emerge to serve both elderly and tourist populations.
42
-------
(2) Significant Impacts to Community Services will Result
From Projected Growth
Few guidelines and standards exist which specify the level of
services require.! in communities of different sizes. The
requirements of each coir.munity will vary on the basis of its
unique set of characteristics, of which size is only one.
Communities can evaluate and project the adequacy and
availability of services and facilities by considering:
(A) Population level
(0) Density
(C) Development patterns and land use
(D) Existing excess or deficiency of classroom, hospital
and other facility capacity
(") Population age characteristics
(F) Population income characteristics.
Specifically, for the population increase from current levels
to those projected for 1997, significant increases in the
requirements for the following community services can be
expected:
43
-------
(A) Schools
(B) Hospital beds
(C) Administrative facilities
(D) Police personnel and equipment
(E) Fire protection personnel and equipment
(F) Employment counseling
(G) Transportation.
(3) Impacts From the Pattern of Growth Will Vary Under
the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative
The no action alternative will tend to favor large-scale projects
of either low density single-family residences or high density
condominium and multi-family complexes. This is because septic
tanks are only suitable for single-family homes on fairly large
lots, due to poor soil conditions in the area. Moreover, the
economics of scale for package plants are such that larger plants
are more cost effective on a per unit basis and, thus, more
marketable. Fewer but larger plants would also be preferable
for quality control and growth management purposes by local
jurisdictions.
Under the proposed action, residential growth would continue
44
-------
in a similar fashion. However, there would be a greater
flexibility in design and land use plans. Industrial growth
would more likely be attracted by central municipal sewerage.
Expanded industry would provide a broader, more balanced economic
base for the Grand Strand area.
The mix of growth, residential , resort related, or
manufacturing, might have an impact on the population median
age and income level. Changes in these factors would influence
demands on community services. An increase in the retirement
age population may require additional health and welfare
services. Income levels of the population will affect spending
in the area, tax revenues, and therefore, the availability of
funds for expanding community services. Wages in the tourism
industry are traditionally lower than those in other industries
due to the seasonality and lower skill requirements of most
tourism jobs.
(4) Under Either Alternative the Principal Concern will
be the Management of Growth
Since either alternative will result in continued growth, the
principal responsibilty of local authorities is to manage this
growth in an orderly way and protect the area's natural resources
and water quaity. In recent years, both Horry and Georgetown
counties have adopted zoning and subdivision regulations.
45
-------
Several of the municipalities have similar regulations and have
onga.jod in planning under HUD 701 grants urul State of Gouth
Carolina grants. Under the no action alternative, growth
.Tianagetf.ent should be focused on developing stronger system
standards and criteria for septic tank approvals; stringent
design and inspection criteria for package plant systems;
improved land use controls in the areas currently unzoned; and
a process to systematically monitor plant effluent and managment
and septic tank malfunctions.
(5) Ecological Impacts of Growth
The projected growth and proposed plans for land development
will irapact natural vegetation and wildlife. They will deplete
the habitats and food resources of Grand Strand wildlife. The
wildlife will be limited in its ability to migrate successfully
because other forests and vegetative areas have reached their
carrying capacity.
6. IMPACTS TO HISTORIC AND AKCHEOLOGICM. RESOURCES
Archeolcgical and historic surveys are being conducted on all
areas which will be subject to direct project impact. An old
cemetery was located along the route proposed for the original
Plant C outfall line described in the Draft EIS. This site,
is described in Appendix r; in the DEIS. A 19th century rice
^nill was located along the route of the Plant C outfall line.
46
-------
This site is described in Appendix II of the Final EIS. The
route for the outfall has been .noved to avoid disturbances to
this sites.
7. COSTS
The capital and operation and maintenance costs for each phase
of the project are shown in Table 1-1. A breakdown of total
capital cents for each plant system is shown below:
Plant A = 8.398 million
Plant C = 6.776 Million
Plant G = 22.193 million
Plant MB-1 = 17.088 million
The local share of cost on this project consists of 25 % of
construction cost and 100% of operation and maintenance costs.
Translating these costs into sewer service charges, the costs
for each plant system are as follows:
Cost/1000 gal.
Plant + System
A
C
I1B-1
Ph 1
$1.12
$0.60
$0.56
$0.52
Ph 2
$1.12
$0.60
$0.68
$0.48
Ph. 3
$1.12
$0.60
$0.84
$0.48
47
-------
Chapter II
ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS TO
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
THE DRAFT EIS
48
-------
A. nio-il^ric Treatment Process at Plant G and Relocation
of Plant C
In the Draft CIS, an activated sludge system, complete mix,
was selected as the treatment process for Plant G. Since the
DEIS was published, additional work was done on evaluation of
treatment processes including the evaluation of a bio-disc
system. This supplementary evaluation was undertaken because
of the problems associated with providing treatment facilities
for a tourist oriented service area with high fluctuations in
wastewater flow. The need to provide for peak flows during
the summer months can cause a high degree of underutilization
of facilities in the off season and lear1 to engineering problems
in the treatment of waste flows substantially smaller than the
treatment plant was designed to handle.
A bio-disc system can be easily designed to work in parallel
units to allow for maximum flexibility in operating and
maintenance. When waste flows are low, one bio-disc unit may
provide all necessary treatment. All units can be brought into
operation as the wasteflow approaches the design peak.
The supplementary cost analysis indicated that the bio-disc
system was the most cost effective type of treatment process
investigated. The Nummary Cost Table shows a summary of capital,
oresent worth, and annual equivalent costs.
49
-------
Table 2
Alternatives Summary Cost Table
Alternative Process Capital Cost Total Annual
Mo. Description Phase II Phase III Present Worth Equivalent Cost
1 Diffused Air $4,840,044 $1,986,078 $9,051,579 $854,379
Activated Sludge
2 Bio-disc $4,676,151 $2,713,534 $7,627,994 $720,008
3 Unox $4,812,692 $4,658,821 $9,767,244 $921,930
4 Mechanical-Air $4,582,190 $1,924,400 $8,850,870 $835,433
Activated Sludge
-------
Because of the factors discussed, a bio-disc system has been
chosen as the method of treatment in Plant G in the Final CIS.
The chosen treatment process is the most operationally
satisfactory and cost effective system evaluated. Following
publication of the DEIS, the location of the proposed treatment
plant G was changed from its planned location south of the county
road leading frorr, Paccon Pun Golf Course to Freewoods to a new
location on the north side of the road. The change was made
because it was easier to acquire the land north of the road.
The new site consists of an open field with no significant
vegetation. An archelogical survey of the new site is presented
in Appendix II.
51
-------
Increased Flow at Plant MB-1 and Evaluation of Treatment
Process
Following publication of the DEIS, new information was
developed indicating that the current flow into Plant MB-1
was greater than previously thought. The average daily flow
was found to be approximately 8.0 mgd with the exclusion of
extraneous flow and direct runoff from the pond. This was
an increase of approximately 3 mgd from the flow discussed
in the 201 Plan and Draft EIS. This information was developed
for the city of Myrtle Beach by consoer, Townsend and
Associates in a report entitled "Preliminary Engineering
Report on the Expansion of the Myrtle Beach Wastewater
Collection and Treatment Systems." EPA has reviewed the
report and has found the new information to be accurate.
Therefore, the ultimate capacity at Plant MB-1 will be
increased from 9 mgd to 12 mgd.
The existing aerobic-faculative lagoon does not have
sufficient capacity to provide secondary treatment to the
new projected design year flow of 12.0 mgd. Several alternatives
were evaluated to provide the additional treatment capacity
necessary. The cost analysis conducted is summarized in
table III.
52
-------
TABLE III
ESTIMATED COST OF SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Estimated Project Cost
Annual Debt Service Cost
@ 6-1/8% Interest Over
20 Years
Annual O&M Cost
(Power & Maintenance)
Total Annual Cost
(Thousands of Dollars)
Air Acti-
vated Sludge
(Surface Aeration)
$3,150
279
68
$ 347
Air Activated
Sludge (Dif-
fused Aeration)
$3,010
266
82
$ 348
Oxygen
Activated
Sludge
$3,400
301
65
$ 366
Activated
Bio-
Filter
$3,250
288
75
$ 363
Biodis C
$3,160
280
56
$ 336
Oxidation
Ditch
$3,140
278
65
$ 343
en
-------
Based on this cost comparison, it can be seen that the air
activated sludge processes, the bio-disc process and oxidation
disc process are similar in total cost. The final decision
among these three alternatives was based upon the following
considerations:
(1) Flows in the winter months are expected to be approximately
5 mgd lower than the average summertime design flow of 12 mgd.
This reduced flow can be treated entirely by the existing
aerobic-facultative lagoon. Therefore, substantial savings
can be achieved if the selected facilities have the
flexibility to operate separately or together without affecting
performance.
(2) Land costs are high in the vicinity of the existing site.
The oxidation ditch process would require a large tract of
land.
(3) Areas surrounding the plant site are expected to develop
in a predominantly residential land use pattern; therefore,
the selected process must keep odor and noise to a minimum.
Based on these factors the bio-disc system provides the best
54
-------
treatment process with its maximum flexibility and small space
requirements. Therefore, use of the activate-;! bio-disc is
recommended for the secondary treatment-nitrification process.
c> New Outfalls for Plant G and Plant ?1B-1 and Limitations
on Plant A Discharge
Following completion of the DEIS, some additional modeling work
done as part of the 208 study was completed. Dased upon this
analysis, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control issued waste load allocations for the
iCWVv {See Appendix I). These allocations indicated that no
discharge would be allowed at the existing Plant f!P-l location
and that Plant A would be limited to a discharge of 6.0 MGD.
This allocation will carry Plant A through Phase One.
Alternative nethods of discharge must be found for Phase Two
and Three.
Since no discharge will be allowed for Plant f^n-1 in the ICtfW,
a force *ain and outfall must be constructed to the Waccamaw
for discharge (See Figure 1). The point chosen for the outfall
can take 20 HOD of secondary treated wastewater. Since this
location is suitable for the design year flows of Plant C as
well as Plant fIU-1, the discharge point for Plant G will also
be moved to the- new site where discharges from both plants will
flow through a joint outfall. Therefore, secondary treatment
55
-------
will be sufficient for both plants through the design period.
D. Design Capacity for Plant C
The design capacity and costs for Plant C were printed
incorrectly on Table 5-1 in the DEIS. The numbers presented
in the Draft were based upon the figures presented in the 201
Plan before the population projections were reduced. The new
design year flow is 2.8 MGD. Because of the decrease in size
of the facility, it was found to be most cost effective to build
for the design period in Phase One rather than to have a three
phase project as originally proposed. The new cost figures
are presented in Table 1.
E Sludge Disposal Analysis
Four methods of sludge disposal were evaluated for use in the
Grand Strand 201 area. These methods were the following:
A. Disposal by land-spreading of liquid or dried sludge
B. Disposal by landfill of liquid or dried sludge
C. Disposal by incineration
D. Disposal by marketing (pelletization)
Method A was selected because of the availability of
timberland which could absorb the sludge in either liquid
56
-------
or dried fonn while .it the same time minimizing waste
.u'v.'i ore t: ret in i the
-------
Copper 0.1-0.2 mg/g
iron 0.5-0.6 mg/g
Lead 0.2-0.4 mg/g
Zinc 0.5-1.0 mg/g
Cadmium 0.01-0.015 mg/g
Selenium 0.001-0.005 mg/g
Mercury Undetectable
PCB Undetectable
Cyanide Undetectable
Loading rates on land will be less than 10,000 Ibs of
dry solids/acre/year.
Human contact will be minimal since forest land will
serve as the disposal site. All land used will be
restricted for that use only and and will be posted.
Potential for pathogenic organism contact will be
restricted to the operator and will be less than the
potential contact at the treatment plant. All
application areas will be impounded or burned to prevent
runoff.
The sane information must be available for Plant C and
Plant ? before Step II grants are issued on these
projects.
Sludge treatment facilities at Plant MB-1 consist of
58
-------
air flotation thickening of waste sludge, anaerobic
digestion of thickened sludge and land application of
digested sludge at a site adjacent to the existing plant
site. Because sludge cannot be applied on land during
wet periods, digested sludge storage tanks are provided
in conjunction with the digesters.
The total quantity of digested solids produced per year
from MB-1 is estimated to be 475 dry tons for the first
year of plant operation and approximately 700 tons during
the 1997 design year. Monitoring plans call for analysis
of solid ans sludge for fecal coliform, nutrients, heavy
metals and pH as required by the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control and EPA.
pm Archeological Surveys
An archeological survey of the sites and outfall lines for Plant
A and Plant C and of the site and first phase interceptors for
Plant G have been conducted by Dr. reinhold J. Engelmayer. No
sites eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places or otherwise of national, State or local significance were
found in the surveys for the Plant A, G and MB-1 systems. One
significant archeological site was located on the proposed route
for the outfall from Plant C. On the south side of the roadway
leading from the Plantation house to the marina are the remains
59
-------
of a colonial rice mill which was operated by Mr. John Tucker
in the 19th Century. This rice mill would be adversely affected
by the installation of the outfall line along the south side
of the road. The archeologist recommended that this segment
of the outfall be noved to the north side of the road. This
will be done so no adverse impact will result from project
construction.
A description of the surveys now available is presented in
Appendix II of the FEIS. An archeological survey on the
interceptor system for Plant A and Plant C the force main from
Plant MD-1 to Plant G, and the outfall for Plant G will be
conducted in the early stages of Sten II work.
A condition will be placed on future grants to require approval
of all surveys and any mitigation necessary to satisfy the State
Historic Preservation Officer, State Archeologist and CPA.
G. Vegetative Surveys
A vegetative survey on the new outfall lines for Plant G and
Plant MC-1 is included in Appendix III. No rare or unusually
large trees or trees with special historical value were found.
A vegetative survey on the interceptor system for Plant A and
Plant C and the force main from Plant n3-l to Plant G will be
conducted in the early st^es of Step II work. A condition
will be placed on future grants to require approval of all
60
-------
, urvoys
i t in nececnary to r.ati;:i>fy DP A
61
-------
Chapter III
public Fearing on Draft EIS and EPA Response
to Comments and Questions
62
-------
THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC
HEARING
on
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
GRAND STRAND REGION, SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA PROJECT NO. C450381
THE SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC MEETING HALL
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Monday, April 11, 1977
Fran Phillips, Moderator
This is to certify that the attached proceedings were held as
herein appears, and that this is the original transcript there-
of 'for the file of the Environmental Protection Agency.
^nJ.f ^
Reporter / /^~
WHITE KST PJBDFESSIONAL SECRETA
63 SERVICE
-------
THE
PROCEEDING
Moderator: May I call the meeting to order, please? Good evening,
and welcome to this public hearing on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Grand Strand Region, South Carolina
Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 requires an agency/ of the federal government
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement whenever that agency
proposes to take a federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. The Grand Strand Water and
Sewer Authority applied for a grant from the Environmental Protect-
ion Agency to construct wastewater treatment facilities for the
Grand Strand area of Horry and Georgetown Counties in South
Carolina. EPA, responding to the mandate of the National
Environmental Policy Act, determined that the issuance of funds
for the proposed wastewater treatment facilities was a major
federal action significantly affecting, the quality of the human
environment. Accordingly, on February 5, 1975, EPA issued a
notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
This public hearing is being held pursuant to the guidelines of
the Council of Environmental Quality and the rules and regulations
of the Environmental Protection Agency with regard to the preparat-
ion of the Environmental Impact Statements. The purpose of the
public hearing is to receive comments from the public on the
64
-------
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This Draft is being dis-
cussed in a public forum to encourage full participation of the
public in the decision making process, to develop greater
responsiveness of governmental action to the public's concerns
and priorities, and to develop improved public understanding
of projects funded with federal and state funds. An official
report of these proceedings will be made and become a part of
the record. Notice of the public hearing was published in the
Sun News on March 18, 1977, and April 8, 1977; in the Charleston
News and Courier on March 18, 1977, and April 8, 1977; and in the
Columbia State on March 18, 1977, and April 8, 1977. The Draft
Environmental Impact Statement was submitted to the Council of
Environmental Quality and made available to the public on
February 28, 1977. I would now like to introduce the hearing
panel. To my right and to your left, we have not Mr. Swartz, but
Bob King of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environ-
mental Control. Next to me is Mr. Joe Fransmathis, he's the
Director of the Water Division, EPA, Region IV. And, to your
right and my left, Mr. John Hagan, Chief of the Environmental
Impact Statement Branch, EPA, Region IV. And I am Fran Phillips,
Regional Council for Region IV, Environmental Protection Agency.
Some people I would also like to introduce, whose not a part of
the hearing panel are: Mr. Bob Cooper, EPA Project Officer for
the preparation of the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement).
Bob, where are you? Would you raise your hand? Okay... fine.
Mr. George White, Chief of the South Carolina State Section,
65
-------
EPA, Region IV. In the back. Sally Shaver, with EPA. Where's
Sally? Okay. Christine Beachy. She's the one out in the hall
taking names, Assistant Regional Council. We also have Barry
Harmon from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environ-
mental Control, with us. Mr. Harry Lockwood, Executive Director
of the Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority, is here. And,
Mr. Julian Richardson, Chairman of the County Council, Horry
County, is here Have I not introduced any elected official
that wishes to be recognized at this time? (Pause) Fine, I'll
continue. Before we begin citizen testimony, Mr. Bob Cooper
who I introduced as the EPA Project Officer for preparation of
this Environmental Impact Statement, will give us a brief sum-
mary of the Project, to date.
Speaker Bob Cooper: Thank you, Fran.; For the benefit of the
court reporter, I'll be talking from a prepared statement. The
Draft Environmental Impact Statement addresses alternatives for
the treatment and disposal of municipal wastewater generated in
the Grand Strand Region of South Carolina. The objectives of
constructing these treatment and disposal facilities are: The
attainment and preservation of high-quality waters for recreat-
ional, fish and wildlife, and aesthetic uses, and the provision
of treatment facilities to adequately service existing and future
sources of wastewater. A 201 Facilities Plan was prepared to
develop facilities to meet these objectives. This plan
recommended a regional system consisting of three new plants
66
-------
with the continued operation of Plant MB-1 throughout the twenty-
year planning period. The total cost of this system was projected
to be approximately $78 million dollars. Due to concerns related
to population projections and growth related impacts, the
Environmental Protection Agency issued a Notice of Intent to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The objectives of the
impact statement were to evaluate population projections; to
evaluate all reasonable alternatives for meeting project
objectives; to inform the public of the environmental consequences
of these alternatives; and, to form a basis for future decisions
on federal funding. As a result of the impact statement evaluat-
ion the total peak-day population for 1997 design year is
decreased from approximately six hundred and thirty thousand
(630,000) to four hundred and ninety-eight thousand (498,000).
This change did not affect the plant configurations developed in
the 201 Plan. It did, however, result in a decrease in the total
projected flow from about fifty (50) million gallons per day, to
about thirty (30) million gallons per day. And, a decrease in
total project cost to approximately $48 million dollars. The
proposed system is designed to be implemented in three phases.
In Phase One, ending in 1982, three (3) new regional treatment
plants, Plant A, Plant G and Plant C, will be constructed.
Plant A will be located on a seventy-two (72) acre site, across
the Intra-Coastal Waterway from the Myrtle Beach Airport. Plant
G will be located on a twenty-five (25) acre site, near Route 544
Southwest of Socastee. Plant C will be located on an eleven (11)
67
-------
acre site, at the site of the existing Plant LB-1, near the
Litchfield County Club. Existing Plant MB-1 will be up-graded
and expanded at its present site. Existing Plants NMB-1,
NMB-2 and AF-1 will be phased out. Existing Plant LB-1 will
be incorporated into Plant C. In the second phase of the pro-
ject, ending in 1987, all existing plants, except MB-1, will be
phased out. Periodic expansion and process up-grading will be
required during Phase III, ending in 1997, as the flows increase.
The Draft Impact Statement projects the following design capacity
for the 1997 design year: Plant A, ten (10) million gallons per
day; Plant G, seven point five (7.5) million gallons per day;
Plant C, four point eight (4.8) million gallons per day; Plant
MB-1, nine (9) million gallons per day. Other major changes
occuring during the preparation of the EIS were a result of
modeling work done by EPA. Plant A and Plant MB-1 will require
nitrification, plus filtration in Phase I, rather than just
secondary treatment as it was originally proposed. The outfall
line for Plant G had to be relocated to allow for secondary
treatment during Phase I. Only Plant C remained at secondary
treatment throughout the design period. The major environmental
effects of the proposed action may be summarized as follows:
One, the alleviation of existing adverse conditions caused by
low quality wastewater discharges. Two, the provision of
wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate existing and
future sources of wastewater. And, three, the allowance for
orderly growth in the Grand Strand area. Thank you.
68
-------
Moderator: Thank you Bob. The procedures for receiving public
comments will be as follows. Everyone that's registered to
speak will be given an opportunity to be heard. We will hear
from speakers in the order of registration. If you wish to
speak and have not registered, I would ask you to register as
soon as I have completed the recitation of the current proce-
dures. We will ask you to limit your remarks to ten (10)
minutes. You may have additional time after everyone desiring
to speak has had an opportunity to be heard. I will ask Bob
Cooper to stand, signaling that you have used eight (8)
minutes of your time. You're welcome to submit any written
statements of any length, and the record will remain open for
fifteen (15) days for this purpose. There will be no questions
to the panel from the speaker. You may submit questions, how-
ever, in writing which will be answered in the final Environ-
mental Impact Statement. I reserve the authority to ask you
to limit your remarks to relevant issues, and I will ask you
to submit your statements in writing if these remarks are not
so limited. Formal- formal rules of evidence will not apply
here. There will be no oath of witnesses. There will be no
cross-examination or direct questions to the speakers. However,
if there is a point that needs clarifying or data is submitted
that needs further documentation, I will ask one of the members
of the panel to address a question to the speaker
for purposes of clarification only. There will be no questions
by the audience of any persons who make statements here. If
you wish to rebut any statements that have been made> either
69
-------
register to speak again, or submit rebuttal in writing. When
you are called on to speak, please present a copy of your written
statement, if you have one, to the court reporter and another
copy to us. Then come and stand at the speaker's podium, give
your name and address, and the title or group of which you are
associated, if any. If you wish to speak and have not registered,
you may do so at this time. Otherwise, we are ready to begin.
Our first speaker is Mr. Julian Richardson.
Speaker Julian Richardson: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen,
and members of the panel. I'm Julian Richardson, Chairman of
Horry County Council. On behalf of the Horry County Council, I
would like to publicly take this opportunity to thank the Grand
Strand Water and Sewer Authority and the many others who contri-
buted during the preparation of the Grand Strand 201 Facilities Plan.
Before this effort was initiated, there was a serious water pollution
problem and potential health hazard on the Grand Strand. But,
through the efforts extended during the 201 planning process, a
program to correct existing pollution problems, potential health
hazards, and prevent others has been initiated. The Horry County
Council would like to go on record urging the rapid implementation
of the Water Pollution Control Projects recommended in the 201
Plan. I thank you on behalf of the County for allowing me to
comment.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Our next speaker will be
Mr. John F. Hodges.
70
-------
Speaker John Hodges: Good evening. My name is John Hodges,
Engineering and Construction Manager for the Grand Strand Water
and Sewer Authority. The Authority welcomes this opportunity to
present this statement tonight. During the three and a half
years since the 201 Facilities planning process began much pro-
gress has been made in water pollution control in the Grand
Strand Region. The Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority
was the lead agency in this effort but success was achieved
through the help of many others. The progress made to date
is a result of cooperation exhibited by the many: The
Cities of Myrtle Beach, North Myrtle Beach and Surfside Beach;
Horry and Georgetown Counties; The Georgetown Water and Sewer
District, The Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council,
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control;
and, the Environmental Protection Agency; and, of course, most of
all, the citizens of the area. The results of this effort is an
economical program of collection and treatment of wastewater in
the Grand Strand area. The initial phases of this program are
underway now with the design of the Central Wastewater Treatment
Plant which will serve the area from the Myrtle Beach Air Force
Base, down the coast to Murrells Inlet and as far inland as the
Coastal Carolina College. This effort is underway now because
of a superlative effort by the South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control and the Environmental Protection Agency
to get this project underway prior to completion of the Environ-
mental Impact Statement. We have made a great deal of progress
71
-------
during the last few years, but we have a long way to go. With
the strong spirit of cooperation exhibited during the past,
this effort promises to be equally successful. On behalf of
the Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority, I would like to
express our sincere appreciation to all those who have assisted
in the 201 Facilities Planning effort and say that we also look
forward to a future of continued cooperation. Thank you.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Hodges. Our next speaker will be
Mr. Douglas P. Windell, City Manager.
Speaker Douglas Windell: Thank you, Fran. Prior to going into
my semi-prepared statement, I would like to present another state-
ment. The City of North Myrtle Beach does endorse the regional
concept. The one primary concern we do have is about the cost
effectiveness of such a proposal. If it can prove to be cost
effective, we intend to endorse it one hundred (1001) percent.
There are several items in the EIS and the 201 Plan that is of
concern to us, and we would like to bring attention to these
particular aspects at this point in time. It always seems like
you dwell upon the negative on these statements, and I think, for
the most part, you assume you endorse everything else, and I think
that's the position that we find ourselves in today. The first
item, you've heard recently that there has been some adjustments
in concepts in reference to the service area involved. For
example, MB-1 is being projected now as possibly going to 12-MGD.
72
-------
This gives us considerable concern, for this would result in
substantial increase capacity in the MB-1. Primarily, I assume,
because of the I§I problem, that Myrtle Beach system, and also
due to the permanent inclusion of certain areas in the outskirts.
Such as the environ system. The city would like to go on record.,
the City of North Myrtle Beach, that the foundation of the 201
Plan and the EIS will be altered, creating a situation which
would require a complete review and re-evaluation of all the
alternatives, if this does go through. The expected result of
this change would be... proposed plan A would become not as cost
effective due to it's reduced service area as it pertains to the
North Myrtle Beach facility for the duration of the planning
period, with provisions for the up-grading. As a result, we
think that it's imperative that, especially in the Grand Strand
where such staggering cost are included, that the public not be
burdened with the projects that are not cost effective. I want
to stress the cost effective approach that we're taking. Our
second item of concern is the fact that the 201 Plan and the
EPA's EIS does not, we don't consider, it adequately reflect'
the true cost providing adequate sewer-service to the Grand
Strand. In the EPA Program Requirements, I think in the Memo-
randum seventy-six point three dash three (76.3-3) was stated
that the EPA policy was the required facility plans to project
adequate financial information to enable the public to ascertain
their financial obligations. It's reasonable to assume as a
result that the same would be required of the EIS written by
the EPA, if the 201 Plan does not present this information. In
73
-------
Section seven point seven (7.7) User Charges were projected,
but it was not there that the User Charges presented was
taken from a rate study prepared by Black, Crow, and Eidsness
in April of 1975. And we've had numerous conversations with
Grand Strand on that particular rate study, and I think the
Grand Strand realizes that some adjustments are necessary and
appropriate. We, as well. But, that rate study was not con-
sistent with the EPA Regulation in that all residents of the
Grand Strand were assessed a User Charge to finance all the
facilities proposed in the 201 Plan. Well, this means, for
example that the residents of North Myrtle Beach would be
required to assist in the financing of Plant G, which would
not serve them, and is not even in the same municipality.
Since the cost per customer determines public support of the
project and its resulting feasibility., we believe that it's
imperative that the EIS presents the public with a clear
representation of the cost of each operable treatment unit,
and the financial responsibility of each resident served by
that particular operable treatment unit. It is also imperative
that the public be informed of how the proposed facility would
be funded. EPA Grants, general obligation bonds, or what have
you. It has been projected that the monthly service charge
would be as much as three hundred (300) to four hundred (400)
percent above that shown in the EIS for the service area of
proposed Plant G, and we think that's considerable and it needs
to be addressed. Our third item, and these aren't as signifi-
cant as the other items, neither the 201 Plan or the EIS has
74
-------
adequately presented to the public what it would cost to operate
and maintain the proposed treatment systems, and of course, this
is another big concern of ours. Such things as the cost of
energy, man-power requirements, are key elements in the operat-
ional, the managing process of the facilities such as presented. Four,
no estimate has been made as to the cost of the collective sewers.
And we feel this is a vital component to the treatment system,
because you have the plant, but if you're going to have to be
burdened with the cost of the sewer lines, which could double
the cost of the 201 Plan, that it should be brought to the public's
attention and they should be addressed and they should be appraised
of what this is going to run them. Because it could be a critical
aspect as to whether or not they do endorse the 201 Plan implement-
ation. And fifth, we believe that the EIS does go to great length
to explain that the growth of the Grand Strand is not and will not
be influenced by the availability of sewer facilities as proposed
in the 201 Plan. But, we don't believe that this is the case by
any means. With increased regulatory requirements for waste
treatment and increasing red-tape to obtain NPDES Discharge Per-
mits and construction permits, the development cannot help but
be adversely effected. This is especially true considering the
fragile environment of the Grand Strand and the increased demands
on the EPA and (this word was indistinguishable)
to provide for it's protection. So, in essence, to reiterate my
original statement, outside of the primary financial concerns and
some adjustments that we've been appraised of as a result of MB-1,
we do believe the regional concept is the approach to take, if it
75
-------
can be proven to be cost effective. And, we think there is a
delicate balance there, especially with all the various, different
plants that we have along those lines, and the approach that we're
taking. Thank you for your time.
Moderator: Thank you.
Panelist Hagan: Would you give the reporter a copy of your state-
ment?
Speaker Whipple: It's in rough form and I para-phrased it. I'll
have it typed up in final form. I just developed it this after-
noon.
Panelist Hagan: Thank you, sir.
Moderator: Our next speaker will be Mr. E. S. Southern.
Speaker E. S. Southern: Members of the Panel. I'm E. S. Southern
with the Horry County Development, Planning and Tourism Commission,
and I have a prepared statement to read. The Horry County Develop-
ment, Planning and Tourism Commission is proud of the recent growth
the Grand Strand has experienced and the excellent reputation it
has as a recreational area. Our major assets are its people and
environment. Because of the rapid growth experienced over the
last decade, great pressures have been placed on our environment.
76
-------
Through the efforts of the people of the region, the environmental
problems were recognized and efforts were made to correct them
and protect the Grand Strand's environment. The Grand Strand
Water and Sewer Authority and the others involved have completed
a monumental task in the preparation of the Grand Strand 201
Facilities Plan. Implementation of the 201 Plan will insure
that the Grand Strand's waterways are protected from pollution
and available for recreational purposes. We appreciate the
opportunity to make this statement and recommend the implement-
ation of the Grand Strand 201 Plan as quickly as possible.
Moderator: Thank you, sir. Our next speaker will be Mr. Glen
Dukes.
Speaker Glen Dukes: My name is Glen Dukes, and I'm with the
Engineering Consulting Firm of Black, Crow and Eidsness in
Columbia. The Horry County Water and Sewer Authority has asked me
to read this prepared statement. The Horry County Water and
Sewer Authority recently completed a 201 Facilities Plan for the
Western Section of Horry County. During the planning effort, we
coordinated our efforts on numerous occasions with the Grand
Strand Water and Sewer Authority and became quite familiar with
the Grand Strand 201 Facilities Plan. We found the Grand Strand
Water and Sewer Authority to be most cooperative and aggressive
in doing everything in their power to provide adequate wastewater
collection and treatment facilities for the citizens of their
77
-------
service area. In order to continue this effort on the Grand
Strand and throughout all Horry County, we recommend imple-
mentation of the Grand Strand and Horry County 201 Facilities Plans
without further delays. Thank you very much for the opportunity
to make this statement.
Moderator: Our next speaker will be Mr. Michael Bell.
Speaker Michael Bell: I'm Mike Bell with the Waccamaw Regional
Planning and Development Council. The Waccamaw Council would
like to go on record with the following comments. There is a
pressing need for up-graded and expanded wastewater treatment
facilities in the Grand Strand Region of South Carolina. We
feel that further delay of the immediately proposed design and
construction activities of the Grand Strand Water and Sewer
Authority and the City of Myrtle Beach will not be in the best
interest of the residents and visitors to the Grand Strand.
Such a delay would be counter to the intent of Public Law 92-500
which is the betterment of the quality of our nation's waters....
Such a delay would be counter to the intent of Public Law 92-500
which is the betterment of our nation's waters, and ah- not
the drafting of countless revisions to Environmental Impact
Statements. We would like to take specific exceptions to two (2)
items on page 9 and the summary on page two dash eleven (2-11).
These recommendations for the closing of beaches following rain-
storms. This is in Myrtle Beach. We don't know of any such
78
-------
recommendations. No such recommendations have been made by the
Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council or by anyone
else, so far as we know. We also have some reservations about
the downward adjustments to the population projections originally
made by the Waccamaw, but we do not feel that this warrants any
further delay to the proposed design and construction activities.
Respective of the three previous comments and overlooking small
errors which do not affect the basic conclusions, we wish to
indicate our general support of the statements and conclusions
made in the Grand Strand Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Bell. That concludes my list of persons
who have registered to speak. Have I overlooked anyone, or does
anyone now wish to register? (Pause) Finally, I'd like to make
the comment that Mr. Upotia, on behalf of the City of Myrtle Beach,
has submitted a statement in writing which he would like to have
included in the Public Hearing Record. It will be so included.
I want to thank you for your testimony here this evening. All
the comments made in support of the Project, and Mr. Windell's
comments on the cost effectiveness aspect of the comments... of
the impact statement, will be carefully considered and responded
to in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The comments
received tonight should be a major determining factor in the
recommendation for funding as EPA does place great importance on
the desires of the local community. Let me remind you that the
record will remain open for an additional fifteen (15) days, if
you wish to submit further comments. The final Environmental
79
-------
Impact Statement will take a minimum of sixty (60) days to
complete. This is governed by regulations in the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality.
Upon completion, the document will be filed with the Council on
Environmental Quality and made available to the public. Those
of you who have commented tonight or submit comments, will
receive a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency wishes to thank you
for attending this public hearing and participating in this
process. Good evening.
STATEMENT TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA
APRIL 11, 1977
As a major wastewater collection and treatment entity within
the Grand Strand 201 Area, the City of Myrtle Beach, in conjunct-
ion with their Consulting Engineers, Consoer, Townsend § Associates,
has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement as prepared
by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Grand Strand Region
of South Carolina. This review was made as an effort of the City
of Myrtle Beach to insure that the wastewater needs of the City
and its area of influence have been properly addressed, both by
the 201 Facility Planning effort as well as the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
In consideration of the needs for wastewater facilities, the
City of Myrtle Beach authorized Consoer, Townsend § Associates
80
-------
on October 15, 1976, to study the wastewater facility needs of
the City of Myrtle Beach and its area of influence. As a result
of the City of Myrtle Beach's review of this Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, the City of Myrtle Beach desires that the
Engineering Report entitled "Expansion of the Myrtle Beach Waste-
water Collection and Treatment System - December 1974" be made
a part of the minutes of the public hearing. Further, the City
of Myrtle Beach desires that the conclusions and recommendations
set forth in that Report be considered for inclusion into the
final Environmental Impact Statement. In addition to entering
this document into the records, the City of Myrtle Beach desires
that the following items be considered in the preparation of the
final Environmental Impact Statement Documents. These items are
as follows:
(1) Existing average daily rehabilitated flow in the maxi-
mum month to the Myrtle Beach Treatment Plant (MB-1) is estimated
to be 8.0 MGD. During the planning period (year 1997) an additional
flow of 4.53 MGD is projected to be generated in the service area
of Myrtle Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant, thus the total average
daily flow of 12.53 MGD is projected in maximum month. The pre-
sent and projected flows are summarized in Table 1.
(2) The Draft EIS states that for the discharge to the Intra-
coastal Waterway, the effluent criteria for the Myrtle Beach
Wastewater Treatment Plant (MB-1) is 10 mg/1 of BOD and suspended
solids and 2 mg/1 of NH3-N. The Draft EIS states that to meet
this requirement, secondary treatment, nitrification, and effluent
81
-------
filtration be provided in order to comply with this effluent
standard. The estimated cost for providing these facilities
as set forth in the Draft EIS is approximately $1.7 million.
It is apparent that the Draft EIS utilized the construction
cost utilized in the 201 Facilities Plan wherein it was
recommended that grit and screening removal facilities and
effluent filters be provided.
As set forth in the Engineering Report prepared for the
City of Myrtle Beach by Consoer, Townsend § Associates, it is
the City's contention that the existing facilities will not
achieve the effluent criteria set forth in the Draft EIS without
the construction of additional biological treatment facilities.
It is further the contention of the City that the cost of pro-
viding such facilities will be substantially greater than the
$1.7 million set forth in the Draft EIS.
(3) In consideration of items 1 and 2 above, the Proposed
Action as stated in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS does not adequately
reflect the needs of additional wastewater treatment facilities
for the City of Myrtle Beach. As indicated above, the cost of
providing biological treatment facilities adequate to meet the
proposed effluent criteria of the Draft EIS will be considerably
more than the $1.7 million set forth in the Draft EIS. It is the
contention of the City of Myrtle Beach that these additional
biological treatment facilities will be required (to varying
degrees) whether or not the 12.5 MGD is accepted as the projected
1997 wastewater flow. In other words, if the 9.0 MGD wastewater
flow, as set forth in the Draft EIS, is maintained in the final
82
-------
EIS, it is the contention of the City of Myrtle Beach that
additional biological treatment facilities will be required
in order that the proposed effluent criteria be achieved.
Since tourism is the major source of income and employ-
ment for the Grand Strand Area, it is essential that all steps
be undertaken for the goal of preserving and maintaining the
quality of the environment of the Grand Strand Area. Inasmuch
as the quality of water within the Grand Strand Area is an
essential element of this goal, the City of Myrtle Beach is in
full support of the concepts of wastewater collection and treat-
ment set forth in the Draft EIS. With the proper consideration
by the Environmental Protection Agency of the items set forth in
this Statement, the City of Myrtle Beach is anxious to undertake
their part of the steps necessary to achieve the goal of preserv-
ing and maintaining the quality of water within the Grand Strand
Area.
83
-------
TABLE I
CD
Population:
1. Resident
2. Overnight
Transient
3. Day Visitor
Flow, MGD
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOW TO THE MYRTLE BEACH
wASTEwAtER TREATMENT PLANT FROM EXISTING
SERVICE AREA
Present Year 1982 Year 1987
iy/o Total Total
9,430 6,413 15,843 6,026 15,456
67,100 45,872 112,972 64,104 131,204
11,950 4,551 16,501 6,539 18,489
8.0* 3.04 11.04 3.97 11.97
Year 1997
Total
7,685 17,115
68,914 136,014
12,392 24,342
4.53 12.53
*Estimated present flow as indicated in preceding discussion.
The Environmental Protection Agency Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Grand Strand Region, South Carolina, Monday, April 11, 1977 closed, Monday,
April 25, 1977. Total number of pages of Transcript - 22.
-------
HPA rer.no rise to Comments and Questions
' i . .') u I I r, n i • i c •••! . j r . J s o n
IiTir>le>nen tat ion of the re commend a t ions of this
IG will begin 30 clays following publication of the Final
'.r. John Hodges
r.o response necessary.
••r. Douglas Vvindell
The Vvanteload allocation approved by the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(<".,::• pendix I) li
-------
f-'r. r.ichael EC 11
No recommendations have been niade to close beaches
following rainstorms.
F.PA believes that the population projections
contained in the Draft EIS are accurate. The selected
systo.u Described in this Final EIS is based upon these
projections.
Statement o£ the City of nyrtle Beach
1. The design year flow of Plant .MB-1 has been increased
to 12.0 mgd based upon information presented in the report
entitled "Expansion of the Myrtle Eeach Wastewater Collection
and Treatment Systems, December, 1976".
2. A bio-disc .cyste,Ti will be constructed at the existing
Plant '3-1 site. The projected capital costs of the expanded
"D-l facility arc as follows:
Plant r-'C—1 expansion - $8.125 million
Force to Plant C outfall - $5.823 million
Putp Station - $0.346 million
Portion of Plant G outfall - $2.294 million
3. The bio-disc syste.-n recommended will be instituted at the
86
-------
co£;ts ond coot:; for construction of collector lines :our;t 'no
funded at .the local level.
In answer to the request raised at the public hearing,
^iV. conducted a now estimate of newer service charges.
These costr. aro based upon the local share of construction
costs tor the planned project anJ the projected operation and
r.-.aintenance costs. iCo capital costs for now collector
sewers are included r- ince EPS will not participate in the
funding of collector sewers.
Cost/1000 gal
Plant -f System
PH 1
PH 2
!r. t'.0^ .Touthern
Ho response necessary
''r. Glen Duke:
^
-------
Plant MB-1 site and the design year size of the plant will
be increased to 12.0 mgd.
88
-------
CHAPTER IV
V?FITTE:;J ccririEi-JTG AMD QUESTIONS or: DRAFT
AND EPA PESPOUSE
89
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
REGIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER. EASTERN REGION (Htt USAF)
526 TITLE BUILDING. 30 PRYOR STREET. S.W.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
AFRCE/ER-V1 26 April 1977
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Grand Strand Region,
South Carolina Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
1. Refer to your letter, dated February 28, 1977, subject as above.
2. We have reviewed subject Draft EIS, and provide the following
comments:
a. Summary, Section III, paragraph 3, page 22. In the final
paragraph of summary, the statements tend to indicate that a decision
has already been made on which alternative should be selected. This
decision should not be made until the environmental analysis process
has been completed. Suggest this section be reworded to state that,
"Given these two choices, Alternative I was selected as the proposed
action in the environmental statement because of the determination... .
b. Chapter 4, paragraph 4.2.3, page 4-8. The statements do not
clearly establish whether existing Plants LB-1, MB-1, NMB-1, NMB-2, and
AF-1 are capable of providing secondary treatment starting 1 July 1977
in accordance with requirements of Public Law 92-500, Section 301.
Recommend that paragraph 4.2.3 address National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, and state whether those
plants will be in compliance.
c. Chapter 5, paragraph 5.2, page 5-1. Recommend that discussion
of Myrtle Beach AFB Treatment Plant (AF-1) state that this facility
will continue to be manned and operated by Air Force personnel until
the plant is phased-out.
d. Chapter 6, page 6-9.
(1) Paragraph 6-5. This section does not address the impact
of construction and plant operation upon air quality. Recommend that
this section discuss the anticipated increases in ambient air
pollutants and whether air quality standards will be exceeded.
ry
RtlilO,N IV, ATLANTA. GA.
-------
(2) Paragraph 6.5.2. Suggest that the number of residents
expected to be impacted by Elevated Noise Levels be identified.
Recommend that the anticipated adverse affects be further defined to
identify the degree of impact (i.e., public irritation, formal
complaints, hearing loss, etc.).
3. If you have any questions concerning the comments, do not
hesitate to contact this office.
WILLIAM J. BURHS Cy to: HQ USAF/PREV
Lt. Colonel, USAF TAC/DEV
Deputy Regional Civil Engineer 345CSG/DE
91
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY
Rockville. Md. 20852
C52/JLR
APR 13 877
TO:
FROM:
William Aron
Di rector
Office of Ecology and Environmental Conservation
. v/j\. > li A . , ~-/-J . n n
Deputy Director
National Ocean Survey
SUBJECT: DEIS #7703.04 - Grand Strand Region, South Carolina
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of NOS
responsibility and expertise, and in terms of the impact of the
proposed action on NOS activities and projects.
The following comment is offered for your consideration.
Geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed
project areas and/or along proposed sewer line routes. If there
is any planned activity which will disturb or destroy these monu-
ments, NOS requires not less than 90 days' notification in advance
of such activity in order to plan for their relocation. NOS
recommends that funding for these projects includes the cost of
any relocation required for NOS monuments.
92
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Southeast Region I 148 Cain St., N.E. I Atlmnla, Ga. 30303
MAY 2 1977
ER-77/219
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for wastewater
treatment facilities, Grand Strand Region, Georgetown and Horry Counties,
South Carolina, as requested in Mr. Jack E. Ravan's February 28, 1977,
letter to the Assistant Secretary, Program Policy.
We offer the following comments:
General Comments
The draft statement is generally adequate in addressing project impacts
on fish and wildlife resources in the project area.
Minor quantities of clay, sand, and gravel are produced in Georgetown
and Horry Counties at present. One clay operation is located near
Myrtle Beach, but there is no indication that it would be affected by
the proposed project. The statement satisfactorily covers the impact
the proposal would have on mineral resources of this area.
We are pleased to note identification of sensitive natural and cultural
(historical, archeological, architectural) resources in the planning
document.
Specific Comments
Page 1-5 section 1.2.2. - The term "water table" in relation to artesian
aquifers should be changed to artesian pressure or piezometric surface,
or some other term, to avoid confusion with the proper use elsewhere
in the text of "water table" in reference to shallow unconfined aquifers.
93
-------
Page 1-5. section 1.2.3. - The discussion of the contribution to surface-
water pollution from nonpoint sources should consider exfiltration of
sewage in areas where the ground-water head is not sufficient to maintain
infiltration into the sewage transmission system.
Page 2-15, section 2.1.9. - Eel grass (Zostera marina) is described as
being the dominant submerged plant species in the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway in the Grand Strand 201 area. This statement is erroneous as
eel grass is not known to exist in the Grand Strand area.1
Page 2-22 - Although a more detailed analysis of impacts may have to await
completion of current studies, the environmental statement should utilize
the representative values for transmissivity and storage coefficient
given in section 2.2.2. to indicate the magnitude of drawdown produced
over the life of the project by a typical large-capacity well; this would
furnish a basis for comprehension of indirect impacts on ground water.
Page 2-30. section 2.3.3. - It is stated that the estuaries provide the
necessary habitat and spawning conditions for brown shrimp and white
shrimp. This statement is erroneous because white shrimp and brown shrimp
spawn offshore.
Page 2-37, Figure 2-6 - Figure 2-6 depicts fresh and saltwater marshes
rather than only freshwater marshes as the title suggests.
Page 2-64, section 2.6.2. - Three areas within the Grand Strand area have
been identified as having the potential for official recognition as Natural
Landmarks by the Department of the Interior. The names of the sites are:
Bellefield Plantation, Hobcaw Forest, and Huntington Beach State Park.
We are enclosing information on the three sites.
Page 2-67, section 2.6.4. - The threatened species list fails to include
the American alligator (Alligator mississipiensis) which is known to occur
in the Grand Strand 201 area.
Page 3-45, section 3.7.2. - The preliminary archeological survey report
by Dr. Reinhold J. Engelmayer describes the corridor examined, for sewage
lines, as being 7 feet wide. There is no indication in the report that
effort was made to determine the extent of a given site located in the
7-foot-wide path. It is possible that the sites extended beyond the
1. Radford, A.E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell, Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel mil,
North Carolina, 1968, page 44.
94
-------
boundary of the surveyed corridor. We recommend that the final statement
include discussion of the boundaries of all sites located in the survey.
The identification of a small disturbed portion of a larger relatively
undisturbed site may have occurred. The undisturbed area of a large
site may contain a resource eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places. All such sites must be evaluated for
significance. The considerations required by Section 106 of the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), Executive Order 11593, and
36 CFR 800 are applicable to significant sites.
Page 7-3, section 7.2.1. - This section stated ". . . where ditches have
probably already destroyed any archeological resources which might have
been there." It is the responsibility of the Federal agency to determine
the extent of any resources in the area of the proposal's potential impacts.
Only by making determinations of actual extent of such resources and
evaluating their potential or actual significance can an adequate determi-
nation of impacts be made.
Page 8-20 - There appears to be some inconsistency within the text concerning
the probable magnitude of induced growth as a secondary impact of the
project. In section 8.2.1. the prediction is made that with municipal
sewers available the Grand Strand area would be able to compete more
strongly for clean industry and a larger permanent population. Page 8-22
presents some estimates of population growth. On page 8-32 impacts of
induced growth are described. On page 8-33, however, the prediction is
made that the Grand Strand project would not induce further growth.
Inasmuch as increased industry and permanent population would result in
greater consumption of ground water, even if tourism decreased somewhat,
it seems that the appraisal of the related secondary impacts need reexaim-
nation.
Also, the potential for increasing land subsidence over the life of the
project as a result of withdrawals of ground water from aquifers should
be recognized both under present conditions and with increased industrial
development and induced population growth. The presence of clays and
fine grained sediments in the Pee Dee and Black Creek Formations suggests
that appreciable subsidence should occur ultimately.
Page 8-29, section 8.2.3.1. - See comments for sections 3.7.2. and 7.2.1.
Pages 8-32 and 8-33. section 8.3.2. - The decrease in recharge to water-
table aquifers represents not only an impact of induced growth, as stated,
but also more directly of decreasing discharges from septic tanks and
possibly seepages from other treatment facilities, as well as from the
construction of more impervious surfaces in residential and industrial
developments. The quantities involved may be comparatively small, but
-------
we suspect that the net impact on quality of the shallow water will be
beneficial. We suggest that this impact should be reassessed.
Page 9-5, section 9.2.2. - This section should be expanded to include
discussion on the Federal agency's responsibility to comply with 36 CFR 800
in the evaluation of cultural resources for significance and eligibility
for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and compliance
with Section 106 (Public Law 89-665) regarding significant resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this environmental statement.
Sincerely yoursy
James H. Lee
Regional Environmental Review Officer
Southeast Region
Attachment
96
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
REGION IV
50 7TH STREET N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323
April 12, 1977
REGIONAL. DIRECTOR
HEW-755-4-77
John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Subject: Grand Strand Region, South Carolina
EPA Project No. C450381
Dear Mr. Hagan:
We have reviewed the subject draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Based upon the data contained in the draft it is our opinion that
it does not address this Department's responsibilities. Information
on community facilities, services and economics are vitally necessary
for a proper evaluation. Some of these items are schools, health,
welfare, relocation of persons, fire departments, police departments,
minorities, etc. If the project does not impact these items, a state-
ment to this effect will expedite this office's review. These items
may be included in the Final Impact Statement.
The opportunity to review this statement is appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Philip PV Sayre
Regional Environmental Officer
DHEW-Region IV
97
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
PERSHING POINT PLAZA, 137] PEACHTREE STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
March 16, 1977
REGION IV
IN REPLY REFER TO:
4C
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
We have forwarded the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Grand Strand Region, South Carolina Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, to the HUD Area Office in Columbia, South Carolina, for
review.
Functionally the HUD Area Offices are our reviewing body for activi-
ties within their respective states. They have been advised to send
their comments directly to you.
Sincerely,
r\
XJ(>r>-u2 >
Charles N. Straub
Regional Administrator for
Community Planning and Development
98
AREA OFFICES
ATLANTA. GEORGIA- BIRMINGHAM. ALABAMA- COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA -GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA -JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA- KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE- LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
Insuring Offices
Coral Gables, Florida • Memphis, Tennessee-Nashville, Tennessee-Tampa., Florida
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CHARLESTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0 BOX 919
CHARLESTON, S.C. 29W2
SACEN-E
29 March 1977
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EES Branch
Envirormental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagen:
This is in response to your letter dated 8 March 1977 concerning
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the awarding
of grant funds to the Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority for
wastewater treatment facilities to service the Grand Strand 201
area in Horry and Georgetown Counties, South Carolina. We have
reviewed the DEIS and have no comment at this time.
Sincerely,
HARRY ST. WHfiCN, JR.
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Copy furnished:
BQDA (DAEN-CWP-V)
Wash DC 20314
Division Engineer, South Atlantic
Attn: SADPD-R
General Counsel (10 cys)
Council on Environmental Quality
Executive Office of the President
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
99
-------
(ttarolma
(£fttte of the
JAMES B. EDWARDS f DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION
GOVERNOR Edgar A. Brown Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
April 25, 1977
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Court!and Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
The State Clearinghouse has completed the review of the draft environmental
impact statement on the Grand Strand Region, South Carolina Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, Project No. C450381. The enclosed comments are
offered for your consideration in preparing the final statements from the
following state agencies:
S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
S. C. Water Resources Commission
S. C. Land Resources Conservation Commission
Pee Dee Health Systems Agency
S. C. Department of Health & Environmental Control
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Elmer C. Whitten, Jr.
State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
100
"Safety Belts — Save Lives and Reduce Injuries"
-------
BOARD MEMBERS
Lachlan L. Hyatt, Chairman
William M. Wilson, Vice-Chairman
I. DeQuincey Newman, Secretary
W. A. Barnette, Jr.
Leonard W. Douglas, M.D.
J. Lorin Mason, Jr., M.D.
WilliamC. Moore, Jr., D.M.D.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
E. KENNETH AYCOCK, M.D., M.P.H., COMMISSIONER
J. MARldN SIMS BUILDING — 2600 BULL STREET
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29201
March 25, 1977
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
This office has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Grand Strand Region, South Carolina (EPA Project No. C450381) and we have the
following comments:
Section 1.3.1 Proposed Facilities
Figure 4-1 referenced in this section shows the location of the facilities
but does not indicate the boundaries of the service areas. This information
would be helpful and should be included.
Section 2.1.3 Intracoastal Waterway
The last paragraph mistakenly refers to the Waccamaw River and cites tables
2-3 and 2-4 which are for the Intracoastal Waterway. This should be corrected to
read "the Intracoastal Waterway".
Section 2.3.3-4 Estuaries and Salt Water Marshes and Fresh Water Marshes
Actual acreage of the several types of wetlands found in the project area
should be included in the final impact statement. This information is
important in evaluating the magnitude of adverse and favorable impacts of the
project on these wetlands.
Section 2.3.5 Closed Shellfishing Areas
The final impact statement should include updated information on shellfish
area closings within the Grand Strand Area.
Section 3.11.4 Environmental Studies
The results and interim reports of the regional surveys and other environ-
mental studies should be included in the final impact statement when possible.
101
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
March 25, 1977
Page 2
Section 4.3.5 Comparison of Alternatives
The rationales and justifications given for assigning ratings to the
various alternatives are superficial and unclear. More detailed explana-
tions for the assigned ratings should be included in final impact statement.
These sections will come under close scrutiny since they form the basis for
selecting the most acceptable alternative.
Section 5 Proposed Action
Recently, the Preliminary Engineering Report on the expansion of the
Myrtle Beach wastewater collection and treatment system was submitted to
this Department. This report has shown a necessary flow increase of greater
magnitude during the upgrade of MB-1 than shown in the draft Environmental
Impact Statement. We therefore reserve comment on this development until
possible ramifications have been studied by our staff.
Section 8.3.6(2) Noise
The final environmental impact statement should include data on present
ambient noise levels in the project area. The anticipated percent increases
in noise levels are meaningless unless data on the present levels are given.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed project and
if we can be of any assistance, please contact us.
.E., Chief
rater & Stream Quality
Control
JCH:JME:bg
cci Mr. James G. Zack, Jr.
Mr. C. Barry Shedrow
102
-------
BOARD MEMBERS
Lachlan L. Hyatt, Chairman
William M. Wilson, Vice-Chairman
I. DeQuincey Newman, Secretary
W. A. Barnette, Jr.
Leonard W. Douglas, M.D.
J. Lorin Mason, Jr., M.D.
WilliamC. Moore, Jr., D.M.D.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
E. KENNETH AYCOCK, M.D., M.P.H., COMMISSIONER
J. MARION SIMS BUILDING — 2600 BULL STREET
COLUMBIA. SOUTH CAROLINA 29201
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
March 14, 1977
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
This office has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement on the
Grand Strand Region, South Carolina Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Project
No. C 450381. Due to the recent studies, particularly in the Georgetown area,
we recommend that Section 2.5.2, "Existing Air Quality" be corrected and up-
dated as follows:
2.5.2 Existing Air Quality
The permanent and seasonal residents of the planning area enjoy high
quality air for several reasons:
Weather conditions provide adequate dispersal of pollutants;
Few stationary sources of air pollution exist in the planning
area; however, such large sources as Georgetown Steel Corporation,
International Paper Company, Winyah Steam Plant, and Grainger Steam
Plant are located in the neighboring areas of Georgetown and Conway
respectively;
There is no widespread traffic congestion.
The major contributors to air pollution in the area are automobiles and
gasoline-engine boats. Aviation operations at Myrtle Beach Air Force Base,
Mrytle Beach Airport, and other smaller airports, together with stationary
sources at Conway and Georgetown are the other significant contributors to
air pollution.
103
-------
Mr. Hagan
March 14, 1977
page 2
Air quality data for Conway and Georgetown has been measured dally since
1972 by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control at
sampling stations located immediately at the boundaries of the planning area.
Summaries of the data are compared to standards for the corresponding air
quality parameters for 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976 in Table 2-10.
Interpretation of these data yields the following conclusions:
Concentrations of particulates in the Georgetown area have violated
the standards for the past several years, while concentrations of
particulates in Conway are well within the standards.
Sulfur dioxide concentrations for both Conway and Georgetown have
been about one-tenth of the standard.
Gasoline-engine-related pollutants, nitorgen dioxide and total
oxidants, have been well within the standards.
These results imply that:
Dispersion of particulates in the southern portion of the planning area
leads to concentration of particulates in the area which are within
standards.
In the remainder of the planning area, particulates are further dis-
persed so that the vast majority of the sections have particulate
concentrations which are well within the limits of the standards.
The area has very low concentrations of sulfur dioxide.
Gasoline-engine-related pollutants are well within the standards.
Analysis of data collected more recently in the Georgetown area has shown
only marginal attainment of the national standard for total suspended particu-
lates; however, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) has been declared inadeipiate
for maintaining the particulate standard over the next ten years. The Depart-
ment of Health and Environmental Control and Environmental Protection Agency
are now making further detailed studies of this area to more clearly define
the reasons for inability of the SIP to maintain this standard. Preliminary
results have indicated that this maintenance area is probably confined to the
city of Georgetown. Study of the area will continue with examinations of such
things as automobiles and their operations, fugitive emissions from industrial
sources, dust from traffic or other non-industrial activity, and malfunctions
of controls on sources normally in compliance, as well as the traditional
approach of emission limits on industrial sources. Results of the study are
expected to be completed by Fall 1977.
104
-------
Table 2-10
Air Quality Data for Conway, South Carolina
Air Quality Annual
Parameter Measure
Standard. Microgram/
Cubic Meter
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
Suspended
Particulates
ug/m3
Sulfur
Dioxide
ug/m3
Nitrogen
Dioxide
ug/m
Total
Oxldants
ug/m
Air Quality
Parameter
Suspended
Particulates
ug/m
Sulfur .
Dioxide 3
ug/m
Nitorgen
Dioxide
ug/m3
Total
Oxldants 3
ug/m
Geometric 60 40 42 36 43
Mean
3585
Arithmetic 80
Average
42 32 17 15
Arithmetic 100
Average
Arithmetic 100 19 20 16
Average
Air Quality Data for Georgetown, South Carolina
Annual Standard, Microgram/
Measure Cubic Meter 1972 1973 1974 1975
Geometric 60 62 76 72 73
Mean
Arithmetic 80 4696
Average
Arithmetic 100 . 40 40 17 22
Average
Arithmetic 100 12 10 15
Average
40
2
20
-
1976
72
6
33
-
105
-------
Mr. Hagan
March 14, 1977
page 3
Other areas of the state identified by the Department of Health and
Environmental Control as problem areas for air pollution include Charleston
(AQCR 199), Columbia (AQCR 200), Augusta-Aiken (AQCR 053), and Greenville-
Spartanburg (AQCR 202).
Very truly yours,
>ert E. Malpa^s, P. E.
Assistant Chief
Bureau of Air Quality Control
REM/ms
106
-------
South C&roHna
Project Notification
Review by-
PROJECT NOTIFICATION /(EFERRAL
St. Land Resource Conservation
P.O. 11708
Columbia, SC 29211
APR 04'£77
DIVISION OF
"ADMINISTRATION
08-2UU;
(Control Number) I
4/4 I
i
SUSPENSE DATEI
The attached project notification is being referred to your agency in
accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95. This
System coordinates the review of proposed Federal or federally assisted development programs
and projects. Please provide comments below, relating the proposed project to the plans,
policies, and programs of your agency. All comments will be reviewed and compiled by the
3«stc* Clesrinehouse, Any questions may be directed to this office by phone at 758-2946
Please return this form pHor to the above suspense date to:
State Clearinghouse
Division of Administration
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Signature
Name
Elmer C. Whitten, Jr.
RESULTS OF AGENCY REVIEW
Q PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH AGENCY PLANS AND POLICIES
AGENCY REQUESTS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS COMMENTS
AGENCY COMMENTS ON CONTEMPLATED APPLICATION AS FOLLOWS
For technical assistance in determining the suitability of soils for the
intended use and for the preparation of a sediment and erosion control plan,
please contact the local county Soil and Water Conservation Districts in
the Grand Strand Regions of South Carolina.
(Use separate continuation sheets if necessary)
FOR THE REVIEWING ,A€EtfCY: £<*V ^ ff
SIGNATURE :/<'\ . ./>«/* ,//• -./-^^"^—
director, Department of Soils and
TITLE: Resource Development
DATE: March 24. 1977
PHONE: ' 758-2823
TOT'
•••••I :•-//•,)
-------
State of South Carolina
Water Resources Commission
Clair P. Guoss, Jr.
Executive Director Apr112*,!977
Mr. Elmer C. Whitten, Jr.
A-95 Coordinator
Division of Administration
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, S.C. 29201
Dear Elmer:
Members of the staff at the Water Resources Commission have reviewed
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Grand Strand Region, South
Carolina, EPA Project No. C450381, and have the following comments:
First of all, to review the Draft EIS without a copy of the 201 Facili-
ties Plan CBlack.Crow and Eidsness} is difficult. We have, therefore, re-
viewed the report for data accurateness as opposed to plan feasibility. If
a copy of the 201 Plan is available we would appreciate receiving it.
2.1.3 Intra Coastal Waterway
Comment: The normal flow from Enterprise Landing is to the
North, not South. Under low flow the "null point1 may move further
south to Bull Creek and cause a change in flow from south to north.
refer to Frank Johnson report, A Reconnaissance of the Hydrology of
the Intracoastal Waterway from Bucksport to Little River. South
Carolinai
2.1.8 Aquatic Plants
Comment: Eladea is a serious pest in some areas.
2.3.3 Estuaries and salt water marshes
p.2-32 Low Marshland occurs from mean low water to about
mean high tide.
p. 2-36 In the estuary, detritus is the main source of
energy for a great number of aquatic species - shellfish,
shrimp, crabs and finfish.
Also,"Section_ of appendix__ presents a list..."?
108
,, it, t-
-------
Mr. Ulrcer Whitten
April 21, 1977
Page # 2
2.3.4 Freshwater marshes
Comment: The wildlife section could be expanded. There
is no mention of waterfowl.
As with most publications, it is highly recommended that a list of
references or a bibliography be included with the document.
Without the benefit of a detailed plan, we advise the applicant that
a permit issued by the State of South Carolina is required for any construc-
tion, alteration, dredging, filling or other activity when such activity in-
volves or will involve the use of any land below the mean high water line
or any submerged lands (to the three mile limit) on the coast or any naviga-
ble waterway within this state. If the applicant is in doubt as to whether
a State permit will be required, he may submit to the South Carolina Water
Resources Commission, P.O. Box 4515, Columbia, South Carolina, 29240, a
letter describing the location of the proposed construction.
Attached are specific comments from the Geology/hydrology division
of the S.C. Water Resources Commission to clarify statements and be used
as constructive criticism.
The staff of the S.C. Water Resources Commission appreciates the
opportunity to comment on this important matter and reserves the right to
further comment, if needed, at a later date. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Stephen T. Sutterfield
Civil Engineer
STSrrhv
Enclosures
109
-------
Specific Comments 0/
ADWn
Geology/Hydrology Division, South Carolina Water Wkm/G^I Commission
These comments are submitted to clarify statements and as constructive
criticism.
Section 1.2.2
1) Actually, only the water table (potentiometric surface) of the Black
Creek aquifer system has been "significantly" lowered as a result of
pumpage. Few large-capacity wells are completed in the Peedee aquifer
system and none are completed in the Tuscaloosa aquifer system.
2) The statements about saltwater intrusion and chlorides are somewhat
confusing. Although there is no evidence to date to indicate that saltwater
moves from the ocean into the artesian aquifers, there are many water-
bearing sands (aquifers) within the Peedee and Black Creek aquifer systems
which contain excessive concentrations of chlorides and dissolved solids,
(presumably "salty" ground water which has been imcompletely "flushed" from
the water-bearing sands). Therefore, the potential does exist that "salt-
water intrusion" could occur from improperly located and constructed wells
and near cones of depression.
3) The statements that the "water-table aquifer . . . does leak into
the main water supply aquifer ..." has not been confirmed by geohydrologic
data.
4) The statements concerning "contamination of the water table aquifer"
need clarification. What evidence is there to indicate that the water-table
aquifer has been contaminated? We agree that there probably is some threat
to the water table aquifer by existing regional wastewater treatment and
disposal systems but has this been confirmed? Again in section 6.2 con-
tamination of the shallow aquifer is mentioned and that "the groundwater
quality will most likely be improved enough to comply with present drinking
water standards." What data are available to show that the quality does not
now meet drinking water standards?
Section 2.2
5) The statement that "the study was completed and published in 1976"
is erroneous. The report has been finished and will be published in 1977.
6) In section 2.2.3 the statement that the mineral content of water from
the Tuscaloosa aquifer decreases from north to south may be true but few wells
have been completed in the Tuscaloosa on which to base this assumption.
7) In section 2.2.4 the statement that "heavy pumping activities near
areas such as Myrtle Beach have lowered the recharge potential of the Peedee-
Black Creek aquifer" is erroneous. To the contrary, pumpage may have
increased the recharge potential. The statement that "water from the water
110
-------
table aquifer will leak slowly into the Peedee-Black Creek and increase the
velocity of horizontal movement within the Peedee-Black Creek" has not been
substantiated; if leakage did occur, it would not increase horizontal velocity
in the Peedee-Black Creek.
8) Section 2.2.5 contains contradictory statements. See comment number
2.
xc: Al Zack and Ken Sis/ens
John Stall ings
111
-------
ouxh Carolina
19//
Project Notification & Review System
PROJECT NOTIFICATIONTftEEERRAL-..
Pee Dee Health System Agency
P. 0. Box 5959
Florence, SC 29502
WAR 2 91977
DIVISION OF
ADMINISTRATE
STATE APPLICATION ;
IDENTIFIER
08-2003-7 '
(Control Number) £
4/4 I
SUSPENSE DATEI
The attached project notification is being referred to your agency in
accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95. This
System coordinates the review of proposed Federal or federally assisted development programs
and projects. Please provide comments below, relating the proposed project to the plans,
policies, and programs of your agency. All comments will be reviewed and compiled by the
State Clearinghouse. Any questions may be directed to this office by phone at 758-2946
Please return this form prior to the above suspense date to: ^
State Clearinghouse
Division of Administration
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Name
Elmer C. Whitten, Jr.
RESULTS OF AGENCY REVIEW
I
'..-..PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH AGENCY PLANS-AND POLICIES ^',
AGENCY REQUESTS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS COMMENTS
AGENCY COMMENTS ON CONTEMPLATED APPLICATION AS FOLLOWS:
^^)^f^^/0CA^^
i!
(Use separate continuation sheets if necessary)
FOR THE REVIEWING AGENQ
SIGNATURE:
TITLE:
DATE:
PHONE:
112
-------
South Carolina Department of Archives and History
1430 Senate Street
Columbia, S. C.
P. O. Box 11,669
Capitol Station 29211
803 — 758-5816
April 13, 1977
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Re: C450381, Grand Strand Region,
South Carolina - Draft EIS
Dear Mr. Hagan:
This office has received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement:
Grand Strand Region. South Carolina, EPA Project No. C450381.We concur with
the conclusions reached in 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 9.2.2 that adequate measures have
been, or will be, taken to avoid impacting archeological and historical
resources. We note that these conclusions are based on survey data found
acceptable by the State Archeologist in his letter of June 11, 1976, included
in Appendix G.
We would appreciate receiving a copy of Dr. Reinhold J. Engelmayer's
final archeological survey report before we comment on the final environmental
statement.
The Federal procedures for the protection of historic properties (36 CFR
800) require that the Federal agency official in charge of a Federally funded
or licensed project consult with the appropriate State Historic Preservation
Officer. The procedures do not relieve the Federal agency official of the
final responsibility for reaching an opinion of his own as to whether or not
historic values have been adequately taken into account in allowing the
project to proceed. The opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer
is not definitive, either by law or by established Federal procedure. In
reaching a conclusion of his own, the Federal^ agency official may well wish
to consult other experts.
Si
larles E. Lee
State Historic Preservation Officer
CEL/sa
CC: Dr. Robert L. Stephenson
USC Institute of Archeology and Anthropology
Miss Kathy Hendrix
Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council
-------
South Carolina
Wildlife & Marine
Resources Department
James A. Timmerman, Jr. Ph.D.
Executive Director
H. Wayne Beam, Ph.D.
Director of
Natural Area Acquisition and
Resources Planning
April 15, 1977
4 Carriage Lane, Suite 205
Charleston, South Carolina 29407
(803) 556-4070
Elmer C. Whitten, Jr.
State Clearinghouse
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina
29201
Re: 08-2003-7; DEIS, Grand
Strand Region, South Carolina,
EPA Project No. C450581
Dear Mr. Whitten:
The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for EPA Project
No. C450381 concerning planned regional wastewater treatment facilities
in the Grand Strand 201 area and offer the following comments.
This document generally provides an adequate assessment of the
projects impacts on the marine and wildlife resources of the area. In
our opinion, the proposed action is needed since it will improve the
overall water quality of areas currently affected by low quality waste-
water discharge and will result in the re-opening of estuarine areas now
closed or conditionally opened to shellfish harvesting. However, the
Department does realize that increased growth in this area does pose a
most serious threat to wildlife populations, but in turn we also realize
that this growth is projected to be substantial regardless of whether or
not plans for a new wastewater treatment system are implemented. The
DEIS correctly points out that the lack of a centralized wastewater
collection and treatment system has not impeded growth in the past.
Therefore, the Department endorses this project and recommends
approval of federal assistance so that the project can commence as soon
Suite 1116 Bankers Trust Tower ° Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Q Telephone (803) 758-8442
115
-------
Elmer C. Whitten, Jr. -2^ Jforil 15, 1977
as possible.
General and specific conments regarding certain portions of the
document follow:
Direct effects of the wastewater treatment system on wildlife
habitat will not be great. The construction of several treatment plants,
settling ponds, excavating and dredge disposal activities, and pipeline
right-of-ways will probably require 200 acres or less.
It would appear from the projections of economic and population
growth in the report that deer management on a renewable resource basis on
the Buist tract will be phased out within the next five to ten years. With
encroaching land development the black bear in this area will, in all
likelihood, become a tiling of the past. The report correctly points out that
the ability of displaced wildlife to move to other areas is limited. These
resources and management options could be lost.
The report mentions several species of orchids and insectivorous
plants which occur on the Buist tract. These species will be threatened
by land development not because certain natural areas and greeribelts will
not be preserved, but because entire systems of land management will be
changed. It is our belief that changes involving drainage and fire
exclusion may significantly threaten these plant populations.
Specific comments regarding certain portions of the document are
as follows:
1.) P. 2-2. Water Quality and Quantity: Reference is made to
Figure 2-1 which is supposed to indicate water usage class of each water
system in the planning region. This figure shows the location of sampling
stations, but does not indicate classifications in its present form.
2.) P. 2-7. Intracoastal Waterway: The effect of the Pee Dee River
upon the AIWW is unclear and needs clarification. Is this relationship the
result of tidal influences during low flood periods?
3.) P. 2-12. Sources of Wastewater: Figure 2-2 according to para-
graph 2 indicates the locations of the areas served by septic tanks, municipal
wastewater treatment plants, private and semi-public wastewater treatment plants,
and industrial wastewater plants. This figure does not differentiate between
these types of wastewater treatment, but shows sampling locations. Also, symbol
for hatched areas is not presented.
4.) P. 2-14. Pondweed Potamogeton is incorrectly spelled.
5.) P. 2-15. Aquatic Plants: The statement concerning the
presence of eel grass near beaches of the planning area is not true. To
the best of our knowledge, the southern limit of eelgrass (Fostera marina)
is Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Consequently, eelgrass would notl>e
present in the Grand Strand 201 area.
116
-------
Elmer C. Whitten, Jr. _ -3- _ April 15, 1977
6.) P. 2-17, Paragraph 3. Aquatic Life- This paragraph should
briefly mention the importance of artificial reefs and live bottom areas
to offshore sportsfishermen.
7.) P. 2-30, Paragraph .4. L.F. The estuary does not provide
spawning habitat for white and brown shrimp, as stated. These shrimp
spawn offshore. However, the estuary does serve as an important nursery
ground for these species.
8.) P. 2-35. Figure 2-5 does not indicate important shellfish
growing areas in North Inlet, Pawleys Island, or Little River.
9.) P. 2-36. Estuaries and Salt Water Marshes (Cont|d.). The
last paragraph of this section states that "only a small fraction of the
detritus is used by the salt marsh". The validity of this statement is
questioned since, studies by John Teal, ("Energy flow in the salt marsh
ecosystem of Georgia" Ecology 43, 1962) estimates, that approximately 45%
of the marsh production is exported to the estuaries, whereas the remaining
55% is consumed in the marsh by a variety of organisms. Also, in this
paragraph, reference is made to "Section of Appendix " (?) concerning
a plant list of salt marsh vegetation. This section could not be found in
the document.
10.) P. 2-36. Freshwater marshes. The Marine Resources Division
of the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department has mapped
the region's tidal freshwater non- forested wetlands. Also, a list of the
fish species utilizing these areas as spawning or nursery grounds would
be valuable.
11.) P. 2-36. Figure 2-6 not only shows freshwater marshes and
swamps, but .also depicts salt and brackish marshes. These latter areas
should be deleted from the map, if only freshwater wetlands are to be
represented.
12.) P. 2-65. North Island. Nesting of loggerhead turtles on
the beaches of North Island should also be mentioned in this section, since
North Island is one of the more important nesting beaches.
13.) P. 2-66. Huntington State Park. Some of the ducks that
overwinter in these ponds should be indicated, such as canvasback, ruddy
ducks and widgeons. Waiter Island. Panicum amarulum is misspelled.
14.) P. 2-67. The American alligator should be added to the list
of endangered species, as should others that were mentioned on P. 2-56 and
57.
We appreciate having the opportunity to review this statement.
Please feel free to contact us at any time if additional information is
required.
Sincerely,
James A. Timmerman, Jr.
Executive Director
117
-------
Elmer C. Vlhitten, Jr. ±: April 15, 1977
JATjr:lsb
cc: John E. Hagan, III
Charles Bearden
H. Wayne Beam
Jeff Fuller
118
-------
TOWN OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH
"WATCH US GROW"
Box 1038 — Phone 272-5202
North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29582
April 12, 1977
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Prefacing my comments, I wi»h to note the City of North Myrtle Beach
endorses the "regional" concept in waste water treatment. It must be
stressed, however, that we believe any regional plant must be cost effective.
With the many diverse demands placed upon governmental jurisdictions and the
ever increasing costs associated with them it has become even more imperative
to ensure the cost effectiveness of all projects. As a result, the following
conments are offered in a positive constructive manner, for the record of the
public hearing for the Grand Strand Environmental Impact Statement, with the
hope fiscal affordability and responsibility will be ensured.
1) We have been notified the City of Myrtle Beach has expressed an interest
in expanding and upgrading their treatment facility (MB-1) to 12.0 MGD. It has
been noted that none of the alternatives evaluated considered MB-1 at that
capacity. The substantial increase in capacity is anticipated due to the
discovery of I/I problems within the Myrtle Beach system and also due to the
permanent inclusion of the service area of the Environs Sewer as part of the
Myrtle Beach system. If this request is approved by DHEC and EPA, it will be
in direct conflict with the 201 Plan and the EIS. Also, the foundation of the
201 Plan to EIS will be altered creating a situation which would require a complete
review and reevaluation of all the alternatives considered. An expected result
of this change would be the proposed plant "A" becoming not as cost effective
due to its reduced service area as the retention of the North Myrtle Beach facilities
for the duration of the planning period with provisions for their upgrade. It is
imperative, especially in the Grand Strand, that the public not be burdened with
projects that are not cost effective.
2) Both the 201 Plan and the EPA's EIS have not adequately reflected the true
cost of providing adequate sewer service to the Grand Strand. In EPA Program Re-
quirements Memorandum No. 76-3, it was stated that it was EPA policy to require
facility plans to project adequate financial information to enable the public to
119
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
April 12, 1977
Page 2
••certain their financial obligation. As a result, we believe it i» reasonable
to •••IBM that the »ame would be required of an EIS written by BPA if the 201
Plan did not adequately present this information. In section 7.7 user charges
were projected but it was observed that the user charge presented was taken from
a rate study prepared by Black, Crow and Eidsness in April, 1975. This rate study
is not consistent with the EPA regulation* in that>all residents of the Grand
Strand were assessed a user charge to finance all the facilities proposed in the
201 Plan. This Mans, for example, the residents of North Myrtle Beach would be
required to assist in the financing of plant "G" which would not serve thesi and
is not even in the sane municipality. Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority
has indicated this is no longer a viable approach to be considered but due to .
consideration of the April, 1975 study in the EIS we believe our concerns needed
to be on record.
Since the cost per customer determines public support of the project and its
resulting feasibility, it is important that the EIS present to the public a clear
representation of the cost of each operable treatment unit and the financial
responsibility of each resident served by that particular operable treatment unit.
It is also imperative that the public be informed of how the proposed facilities
will be funded, i.e., BPA grants, general obligations bonds, etc.
Further, neither the 201 Plan nor the EIS have adequately presented to the public
what it will co»t to operate and maintain the proposed treatment systems. Such
things •• the cost of energy and manpower requirements are key elements in O&M
cost that deserve special attention.
Also, no estimate has been made as to the cost of the collector sewers that are a
vital component to the treatment system. The cost of collectors could as much as
double the cost presented in the 201 Plan. It is important for the public to also
understand that collectors are not awarded grants by the EPA which means much more
of a financial burden on each resident. We realise that these costs will be present
no matter what plant system is developed but believe the cost impact of them should
be noted so the public is not misled as to the total cost of providing sanitary
sewer service.
In summary, it should be noted the Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority believes
the financial aspects can be equitably worked out. This has been reiterated
numerous times. The City of North Myrtle Beach believes, however, it is important
to have a firm handle on the financial arrangements prior to commencement of con-
struction. We look forward to working with you, DHEC and the Grand Strand Water
and Sewer Authority in moving towards our common objectives.
tacerely yours,
Douglas P. Wendel
City Manager
OPW/par
cc: Mayor Bryan Floyd, Hugh Miley, Harry Lockwood, Rayford Vereen
120
-------
BROOKGREEN GARDENS
A SOCIETY FOR SOUTHEASTERN FLORA AND FAUNA TELEPHONE
MURREULS INLET, S. C. 29576 PAWLEYS ISLAND M7-4657
4 May 1977
Mr. John E. Ragan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
3^5 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Yesterday I saw a copy of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Grand Strand Region, South
Carolina, EPA Project No. C450381 and read most of
it with interest.
I congratulate you for doing a comprehensive study
of the region but am left to wonder why Brookgreen
Gardens has been left out of the planning district.
All other remote forest and beach areas, no matter
what the ownership, are included in the service area.
At no time during this study was Brookgreen Gardens
contacted about future plans, plans which may be
complete before all other remote areas are fully
developed.
I also note that in Appendix C, on page A-8, on the
second line from the top, "The gardens are now owned
by.the State of South Carolina and administered by
a private board." The fact is that Brookgreen Gardens
is not owned by the State of South Carolina but by
Brookgreen Gardens, A Society for Southeastern Flora
and Fauna and is operated by the Trustees as a charity
for the benefit of the public. Huntington Beach State
Park is also owned by Brookgreen Gardens and was leased
to the South Carolina Forestry Commission in I960, who
later transferred the lease to the Department of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism. This lease was made by the
Trustees for a period of 50 years without charge.
-------
John E. Ragan, III
page 2
May 1977
I think it is important that this erroneous statement
in the draft be corrected as it casts doubt on the
accuracy of the presentations of other matters. I
hope more thorough research was conducted in compiling
the facts on other facets of the statement.
Enclosed is a copy of a clipping regarding the status
of the Murrells Inlet Jetty project which goes into
some detail regarding the ownership and operation of
Brookgreen Gardens.
Sin
irdon L. Tarbox, Jr
Director
GLT/at
122
-------
WACCAMAW CHAPTER
South Carolina Wildlife Federation
P.O. Drawer 320, Conway, S.C. 29526 Phone 248-5721 (Ext 45)
April 26, 1977
DIRECTORS, 1977:
A. Mitchell Godwin (President)
Hayward Ammons
Wayne Graham
aftillHucks .
Kenneth C.lnman
James T.Mclnvaill
Donald J.Millus
Sherry S. Sawyer (Sec.-Treasurer)
Witter S.Stilley
Jack V.Taylor
William B. Woodward
John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
RE: Project No. C450381
Dear Mr. Hagan:
The Waccamaw Chapter would like to go on record supporting the
Environmental Impact Statement on the Grand Strand Region, South
Carolina Wastewater Facilities, Project No. C450381, as presented
at the public hearing held April llth at the South Carolina Public
Service Auditorium, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
We do request, however, that attention be given to the forth
coming areas that will be able to be developed as a result of
this Wastewater Project. It has been mentioned that our local
canals and rivers will be much cleaner and would be able to with-
stand riverside development for private interests. We would like
to go on record opposing any alterations that would take away the
rights of the public or seriously hamper the environment as an end
result of this project.
Sincerely,
AMG:sis
CC: South Carolina Wildlife Federation
FP<\ -!W:'-:T ^'TEMENTS §SS^hBCar6linIt6ifSl?re1a3dSSarine Resources Department
..
- Art^ b 1977 ;|
123
AN AFFILIATE OF
UTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE FEDERATION
-------
1. Answers to Comments of the Department of the Air
Force
a. The final decision on the configuation and size
of the project is presented in the FEIS. No
final decisions were made in the DEIS.
b. Plants LB-1 and NMB-1 will be able to meet permit
requirements. Plants MB-1 and HMB-2 can probably
meet BCD5 requirements but not suspended solids.
Plant TVF-I will not meet secondary standards.
c. EPA concerns that Plant AF-1 will continue to
be nanned and operated by Air Force personnel
until the plant is phased out.
d. (1) Since no incinerators are proposed, the
construction and operation of the project will
have no significant impact upon the region air
quality.
(2) The increased noise levels expected during
project construction will be limited to minor
irritation. No one should be affected by the
increased noise level at Plant A since the area
surrounding this site is uninhabited. There
124
-------
are about four dwellings near the proposed
Plant G site which will be impacted - Relatively
large homes on large lots are situated to the
northeast and east of the Plant C. site. Wooded
undeveloped areas lie to the north, west, and
south of the site.
2. Answers to Comments From the U.S. Department of
Commerce
If any planned activity will disturb or destroy
the geodetic control survey monuments, proper
notification and mitigative measures will be taken.
3. Answers to Comments From the Department of Interior
Page 1-5, section 1.2.2 The term "water table"
in relation to artesian aquifers should be changed
to artesian pressure or piezometric surface.
Page 1-5,section 1-2-3 The contribution to surface
water pollution from non-point sources will be
addressed in the 208 study now underway.
Page 2-15 EPA concurs that eel grass are not known
to exist in the Grand Strand area.
page 2-22 The analysis presented in Chapter 3 of
125
-------
the DEIS concludes that population growth will not
be significantly effected by the project. Therefore,
no indirect impacts on qroundwater are expected
from the proposed action. A detailed description
of the groundwater supply situation in the Grand
Strand area can be found in the Capacity Use Study
conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Page 2-30 Brown and White shrimp spawn offshore
rather than in the estuaries.
Page 2-37 The title of Figure 2-5 in the DEIS should
be changed to read Freshwater and Saltwater Marshes.
Page 2-64 Mo part of the proposed facilities will
effect the potential Natural Landmark areas. The
areas identified are presented in Appendix IV.
Page 2-67 The threatened species list should include
the American alligator which is known to occur in
the Grand Strand 201 area.
Page 3-45 The methodology and suitability of the
survey were approved by the State Archeologist.
EPA feels this constitutes an adequate safeguard
against any destruction of significant cultural
resources by ground disturbance from this project.
126
-------
Page 7-3 The discussion concerning the destruction
of archeological sites by ditches was only met to
present a general description of the situation.
Archeological surveys have been or will be conducted
on all areas of direct project impact. The survey
for the Plant G interceptor system is located in
Appendix G of the DEIS. The surveys, for the sites
for Plant G, and Plant C with their respective
outfalls and the outfall from Plant MB-1 are
presented in Appendix II of the FEIS. A survey for
Plant site A has been completed but a write up is
not yet available . Surveys for the Plant A and
Plant C interceptor systera will be completed in
the early stage of the preparation of plans and
specifications on these two projects. Page 8-20
The DEIS concluded that the prepared project would
have no significant impact upon population growth
in the planning area. The reasons for this conclusion
are presented in Sections 8.1.1.1 and 8.1.1.2. The
estimates of population growth presented on page
8-22 are projected both with and without the proposed
project. The impacts of projected growth discussed
on page 3-22 are not impacts of induced growth.
The DEIS concludes on page 8-31 that the total growth
127
-------
projected for the Grand Strand is expected to occur
whether or not the proposed project is initiated.
The first sentence in Section 8.3.2 should read
"A major impact of projected growth on
groundwater..."
The provision of a regionalized wastewater
treatment system will put the Grand Strand area
in a nore competitive position for the attraction
of clean industry. However, the land costs in the
tourist oriented Grand Strand area are significantly
greater than in other areas of the region. Therefore
it is doubtful that significant amounts of new
industry will locate in the area during the planning
period.
8-32 - EPA concurs that the net impact of the
proposed project upon the quality of the shallow
water aquifers will be beneficial.
9-5 Under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665) it
is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection
Agency, prior to the approval of the expenditure
of any Federal funds, to take into account the effect
the undertaking on any district, site, building,
128
-------
structure, or object that is included in the National
Register. Prior to agency decision concerning an
undertaking, EPA shall identify properties located
within the area of the undertaking's potential
environmental impact that are included in or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register. To identify
properties included in the National Register, EPA
shall consult the National Register, including
monthly supplements. To identify properties eligible
for inclusion in the national Register, EPA shall,
in consultation with the appropriate State Historic
Preservation Officer, apply the National Register
Criteria to all properties possessing historical,
architectrual, archeological, or cultural value
located within the area of the undertaking's
potential environmental impact.
EPA has followed this proscribed procedure in
determining that no properties on or eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
will be effected by the proposed action.
4. Response To Comments From The Department of Health,
Education and Welfare
129
-------
The analysis conducted in the development of
the DEIS indicates that the proposed project will
not adversely impact the region's community services
and facilities. Chapter 3 of the DEIS discusses
the effects the proposed project will have on growth
and development in the Grand Strand area. The
conclusion reached is that the estimated growth
attributable to the system is essentially the same
amount of growth expected to occur under the no
action alternative. Therefore, the projected growth
rate of demand for community services and facilities
will be the same whether or not the project is
constructed. It is expected that the increase in
demand will be large and should be planned for now
by the communities involved. However, this increase
will not occur as a result of the proposed wastewater
treatment facilities and will not be discussed in
detail in the EIS.
5. Response To Comments From The Department of Housing
and Urban Development
No response required.
130
-------
6. Answers To Comments From the Department of The Army
Vo response required.
7. Response to Comments From The State Clearinghouse
Ho response necessary.
3. Response to Comments From The South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control
1.3.1 The boundaries of the service areas are shown
on Figure 1-2 in the DEIS and Figure 1 in the FEIS.
2.1.3 The first line on page 2-3 should refer to
the Intracoastal Waterway rather than the Waccamaw
River.
2.3.3-4 The only wetland area to be affected by
the project will be along the outfall routing of
Plant G near the Waccamaw Fiver (see vegetative
survey in Appendix III). Appropriate mitigative
measures such as upland disposal of disturbed soil
and re-vegetation will be taken to insure that no
significant adverse impacts will occur,
2.3.5 The information on shellfish closing included
in the DEIS is currently accurate.
131
-------
3.11.4 Appendix II in FEIS includes archeological
surveys on the sites and outfall lines for Plant
A, Plant G, and Plant C and the new outfall for
Plant MC-1. Appendix III contains a vegetative
survey for the new Plant G outfall. Archeological
and vegetative surveys will be conducted for the
Plant A and Plant C interceptor systems during the
early stages of Step II work on these projects.
4.3.5 Since the ratings were done on the original
group of 13 alternatives, additional significant
information has been developed largely related to
water quality conditions in the ICVfH and Waccamaw
River. This information has greatly limited and
altered the viable alternatives for treatment and
disposal of wastewater. For this reason, it would
not be beneficial to generate more detailed
information concerning the original evaluation.
Section 5 The projected design year flow for Plant
MB-1 has been increased from 9.0 mgd to 12.0 mgd.
8.3.6(2) Average noise levels for different types
of environmental conditions are shown on Figure
8-1. Noise levels in much of the Grand Strand area
should be in the range from 45 to 50 Ldn. The more
132
-------
highly developed areas along the beach are probably
in the area of 65 Ldn during major holiday periods.
All three of the proposed treatment plant sites
, have noise levels in the 45 Ldn range.
9. Response To Comments of the Bureau of Air Quality
Control
EPA concurs with the data presented by the South
Carolina Bureau of Air Quality.
10. Response To Comments From South Carolina Land
Resources Conservation Commission
The local county Soil and Water Conservation
District will be contacted for technical assistance
in the preparation of a sediment and erosion control
plan.
11. Response To Comments From The South Carolina Water
Resources Commission
2.1.3 As the DEIS notes on page 2-7, the normal
flow of the Intracoastal Waterway is from south
to north.
•5.1.8 Eladea is a serious pest in some areas.
?.3.3> P. 2-32 Low marshlan-'l occurs from ;nean low
133
-------
water to about mean high tide.
2.3.3, p. 2.36 The appendix referred to is not
presented in the DEIS or FEIS.
2.3.4 Appendix B provides a list of common birds
which frequent one or more types of coastal salt
marsh. Many of these same birds are also present
in freshwater marshes. Nore detailed lists should
be available from university departments and local
wildlife conservation groups.
1.2.2 1) Clarification noted.
1,2.2 2) Clarification noted.
1.2.2 3) Correction noted.
1.2.2 4) The "Capacity Use Study" conducted by the
U.S.G.S. should have the most up to date information
concerning aquifer contamination.
2.2 1) The "Capacity Use Study" will be published
in 1977.
2.2 2) On rage 2-24 the DEIS concurs that few wells
havo been completed in the Tuscaloosa aquifer.
2.2 3) Correction noted.
2.2 4) Correction noted.
134
-------
12. Response To Comments From Pee Dee Health Systems
Agency
i'o response necessary.
13. Response To Comments From the South Carolina
Department of Archives and History
Ho response required.
14. Response To Comments From The South Carolina Wildlife
and Marine Resources Department
(1) Figure 2-1 does not indicate water usage
class of each water system in the planning
region as indicated on page 2-2 of the DEIS.
This information is however, presented in
the discussion on page 2-2.
(2) The Pee Dee River has a major influence
on the characteristics of the ICWW during
low flow periods of the Waccamaw.
(3) Figure 2-2 is a map of sampling stations
in a beach study area rather than a nap
showing areas served by various wastewater
treatment facilities.
135
-------
(4) Correction noted.
(5) Correction noted.
(6) EPA recognize the importance of artificial
reefs and line bottom areas to offshore
sports fishermen.
(7) Correction noted.
(3) Tho shellfish growing areas in worth Inlet,
Parleys Island, and Little River are
indicated on page 3-34.
(9) EPA concurs that approximately half of the
detritus produced by a salt marsh is exported
to estuaries in the area under consideration.
(1C) The proposed project described in the CIS
will not have any significant adverse impact
upon wetlands in the project area. CPA is
vitally concerned with the protection of
wetlands and rocon.Tioiv's that care be taken
to prevent their destruction as development
continues in the Grand Strand area.
136
-------
(11) The title of Figure 2-6 should be changed
to read "Marshes".
(12) Omission noted.
(13) Omission and correction noted.
(14) The American alligator is found in the
Grand Strand area.
15. Response To Comments From The Town of North Myrtle
Eeach
A response to this comment is given in Chapter
III in response to Mr. Wendel's comment at the public
hearing.
16. response To Comments From Brookgreen Gardens
(1) Brookgreen Gardens will be included in the
service area for Plant C.
(2) Brookgreen Gardens is not owned by the State
of South Carolina but by Brookgreen Gardens,
a Society for Southeastern Flora and Fauna
and is operated by the Trustees as a charity
for the benefit of the public. Huntington
Beach State Park is also owned by Brookgreen
Gardens and was leased to the State of South
137
-------
Carolina in 1960 for a period of 50 years
without charge.
17. Answers to Comments of the South Carolina Wildlife
Federation
Construction of the proposed project will cause
tne alleviation of.existing adverse conditions caused
by low quality wastewater discharges. The project
will not take away any rights of the public or
seriously ha.r.per the environment. Page 2-63 of
the D"IS identifies sensitive natural areas located
in ti-.e Gran:! Strand area. The project will not
adversely affect any of these areas.
138
-------
CHAPTER V
AGENCY DECISION
139
-------
The proposed projct consists of the construction
of three new wastewater treatment facilities with
accompanying outfall lines and interceptor systems
and the upgrading and expansion of existing plant
MB-1. Plant A will be a 6.0 mgd facility discharging
into the Intracoastal Waterway. Plants G, Cr and MB-1
will have first phase capacities of 6.0 mgd, 2.8 mgd and
12.0 mgd respectively discharging into the Waccamaw river.
The costs, phasing, and treatment levels are presented
in Table I of this FEIS.
Special conditions on the grants will require the
following:
1. The completion and approval by the State Historic
Preservation Officer and State Archeologist of
archeological surveys on all remaining segments
of the project during the design phase of these
segments.
2. Vegetative surveys on the Plant A and Plant C interceptor
systems, and the Force Main from Plant MB-1 to Plant
G must be completed and approved by EPA during the
140
-------
design of these systems.
3. A signed contract for specific sites for sludge
disposal and approval by SCDHEC's Director of Solid
Maste of specific sludge disposal sites for use
by each of the three new plants must also be obtained
before additional grants are awarded on these
projects.
4. All new grants being awarded as a result of this
CIS will be conditioned upon the receipt by EPA
of an implementation schedule and/or application
to provide sewer service to the Hurrells Inlet area
of the Grand Strand.
141
-------
WASTE LOADS AND CONDITIONS FOR
DISCHARGES TO THE ICWW
142
-------
Lachlan L. Hyatt, Chairman
William M. Wilson, Vice-Chairman
I. DeOuincey Newman, Secretary
W. A. Barnette. Jr.
Leonard W. Douglas, M.D.
J. Lorin Mason, Jr., M.D.
William C. Moore, Jr.. D.M.D.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
t KENNETH AYCOCK, M.D.. M.P.H.. COMMISSIONER
J. MARION SIMS BUILDING — 2600 BULL STREET
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29201
May 23, 1977
George White, Project Manager
Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. White:
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
recommends the following waste loads and conditions for dischargers to
the Grand Strand area, of the Intracoastal Waterway.
1. Plant A North Myrtle Beach: 10 mg/1 BODs, 2 mg/1 ammonia,
discharge 6 mgd.
2. Myrtle Beach - 1: No discharge at present site.
3. Plant G/MB-1 at proposed discharge point (Node 43 on ICWW
Model): This site can assimilate 7 mgd of secondary
effluent or a maximum allowable discharge of 6400 Ibs/UOD/day.
4. Plant G/MB-1 with discharge point at Node 48 of ICWW Model:
20 mgd at secondary treatment of 30 mg/1 WD$.
We have yet to complete the transition of the ICWW Model to our
computer facilities and therefore, have not made first-hand computer
runs.
*"
The above recommendations are, however, consistent with our assessments
made using the information now available.
If I can be of further assistance, please call.
J. \c: HawkinsV,Chief
Bureau of Wastewater and
Stream Quality Control
JCH/LEM/cep
cc: Roger Davis
aBob King
Larry McCullough
-------
APPENDIX II
ARCHELOGICAL SURVEYS
144
-------
REPORT
on an
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
and
CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
of an area
Located in
Soceustee Township, Horry County
South Carolina
to be affected
by
the construction of
A New Wastewater Treatment Plant
for Area G
of
THE FINAL PLAN FOR THE REGIONAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES
of the Grand Strand Region
by
Black, Crow, and Eideness, Inc.
conducted by
Reinhold J. Engelmayer, PhD
Professional Archaeologist
November 17, 1976
145
-------
INTRODUCTION
The archaeological assessment was undertaken in behalf of Black, Crow, and
Sidsness, Inc., consulting engineers C+!?08 3t. Andrews ftoad, Suite 1? - l8,
Columbia, South Carolina), and the Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority
(Conway, South Carolina). The area investigated is the proposed site for a
new sewage treatment plant to process sewage from Area G of the Grand Strand
Wastewater Facilities Plan. This survey and Cultural Resources Assessment was
necessary due to the change of the location of the proposed treatment plant from
its plained location south of the county road leading from Racoon Run Golf Course
to Freewoods to its new proposed locatio$. (see survey map and R. Engelmayer
^v/ne9, 1976) The environmental impact study was carried out by Dr. Reinhold
Engelmayer and one field assistant.
DESCRIPTION OF AKEA
The area is located west of Highway 5M+ in Socastee Township, Horry County, South
Carolina, east of the Waccamaw River and consists of 25»5 acres owned at present
by Eddie Williams and Betty Williams, who have proposed to convey it to the Grand
Strand Water and Sewer Authority.
The area investigated consists of an 866.9 foot long access road 50 feet wide
located at the west end of the property line of afore mentioned owners from the
County Road north ^5 degrees 30' westso* an area for the proposed sewage plant
approximately 1,060 feet by 1,060 feet. The area is overgrown with tall grass
and weeds with scattered long leaf pines. The area is wet with a foot of standing
water towards the middle of the construction area, due to a gray clay base 50
to 50 cm below the surface (see plaTe I and II). On the left side of the access
road about 100 feet from the county road there is a si/iall thicket of hardwood and
pine separated from the access road by a wire fence. Few insect eating plants are
found in this area due to its modern useage as a cow pasture.
Due to the fine texiureJLsoil, there is little or no subsurface water movement and
therefore the owners have tried to drain the area by means of large surface ditches
which run along south of the proposed plant area to the east of it and through the
146
-------
noi-thern part of the proposed construction area. The afore mentioned county dirt
road is also one of the watershed boundaries (Feasibility Study 1975* sheet 11).
Geologically the area is part of the Myrtle Beach Formation, which is dated according
to Jules K.DuBar ir.tr the Late Pleistocene (J.R.DuBar; 1971, p.** and 7). In the south-
western jntrt of the V.'accamaw Ileck the backbarrier flat merges with the fluvial
terraces and sediments of the ancient Waccamaw Kiver. J.DuBar estimated a thickness
of the underlying basis cf tight clayVa thickness of 6 to 10 feet. A drill hole
drilled by H.S. Johnson for the Division of Geology, S.C.otate Development Board
on June 1^, 19&5 with 3 power auger to a total depth of 31 feet at a spot at the
very end of the county road leading to the Waccamaw River ( Hole # 159, Drill Records,
USGS, Conway Office) confirms these data. He encountered from 0-5' sandy, plastic,
moist clay of orange brown color, from 5 - 8' sandy, plastic moist, creamy clay of
gray color, from 8 - 27' soupy, slighlty yellow and shelly sand, yellow in the
upper portions and becoming greenish gray downward, the sand contained very sparse
tiny shell fragments. At 27 feet he encountered sediments of the Pee Dee Formation,
consisting of marl or calcareous clayey sand of very dark greenish gray color, at
31' hin Brill hole ended on a hard cemented bed. He encountered at a collar ele-
vation of 22' th- water table alreadyat V.
Our own drill holes drilled with a hand auger confirmed his results for the area
of the proposed construction site of the sewage plant ( see plate III).
DOCUMENTARY BVID5HCE
An Archive research of all avaiikble historic maps for this area and interviews with
tenants living close by to the affected area did not turn up any evidence for any
prehistoric or historic sites once located in the affected area. A survey of the
files of the Archaeological Site Survey of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthro-
pology of the University of South Carolina and the files of the Horry County
Archaeological Site Survey proved negative also.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH PLAN
After examination of historic and contemporary maps and records, aerial photographs,
147
-------
soil maps, and geological records, an on-the-ground survey was decided upon.
THE SURVEY
The area to be affected by the construction of a new sewage plant and access road
was surveyed archaeologically on October 27. The survey was conducted by Dr.Hein-
hold oSngelmayer and one assistant. The ground was found to be standing in most of
the area of the plant construction site under water 5 to 10 cm deep. Only the
access road was reasonably dry due to its slight elevation^ plate I and II).
Exposed profiles along the county dirt road where the access road to the plant
is supposed to begin (plate I/I) (plte Ill/profile 1, see also map) and along
the two ditches travesring the area of the construction site of the sewage plant
(profile 2 and 3» see plate Ill/profile 2 and 3» and also map) where checked and
measured, however no cultural remains or artefacts were observed.
An open ground survey was conducted over 90 % of the suface of access road and
plant area, with equally negative results as far as cultural remains and artefacts
were concerned.
In addition three core sampj.es on the access raod and five core samples in the
plant area were taken with a three inch hand auger. The results confirmed the
geological data expected from previous geological drilling mentioned before in
this report.
Not a single site of prehistoric or historic origin, nor a single artefact was
located by the survey and sampling. A description of the drill samples is com-
piled on plate III.
LIMITATIONS OF THS SUHVfcY
No limitations &s far as survey plan or actual survey are concerned existed*
Standing water on the surface in most of the area investigated did not affect
the accuracy of the on-ths-ground search nor the core drilling. Vegetation did
not pose any problems, since modern usage as a cow pasture has reduced the
ground vegetation to mostly grass.
148
-------
ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUE CF THE SURVEY '
llo sites of prehistoric or historic times will be endangered by the project. As
far afl it cculd b. Engelmayer, R. , Report on an Archaeological Survey in Kegard vdth prehiatoric
and historic sites located in Horry and Georgetown County of South
Carolina to be affected by tht construction of the Central Wastewater
Treatment Plant,Phase I., Pawleys Island, June 9t 1976 C Coastal Carolina
Archaeological Field Station Research Report # ^
k. Feasibility Study of Requirements for Kain Drainage Canals, Horry County,
South Carolina, Government publication number I+-jfo?39 2-7?, United
States Department of Agriculture, Coil Conservation Service, Fort
Worth, Texas-. 1975-
This report is filed as research report ^ 8 at the Coastal Carolina Archaeological
Field Station, Pawleys Island, South Carolina.
149
-------
PLATE III
Soil Profiles and Drill Holes on Access Road and Plant Site
DESCRIPTION
Profile 1:
0 - 2O cm black damp topsoil with grass roots
20 - 38 cm dark brcwn sand mixed with topsoil, traces of iron oxyde
38 - 5O cm plar;tic, moist creamy clay, grey color with streaks of iron oxyde
50 - 6? cm plastic, moist, creamy clay, yellow with streaks of grey clay
6? - 8c cir plastic, moist, ye!3ow clay with red iron oxyde streaks
Vatsrtable at 65 cm
Profile 2:
0 - 20 cm black humus mixed with brown sand, containing grass roots
2U - 7? cm plastic, moist, creamy clay with yellow streaks of iron oxyde
75 - 90 cm increasingly yellowish clay, moist, and creamy, remains of cypress
stumps at this level.
toatertable at 75 cm
Profile 3;
Identical to profile 2. Watertable at 8c cm
Drill Hole i 1
0 - 12 cm black, damp topfaoil with grast, roots
18 - 35 cm damp topsoil mixed with brown sand
35 - 50 cm moist, plastic, creamy clay, grey color with strsaks of yellow iron
oxyde
50 - 80 cm moist, plastic creamy clay, yellow with strraks of grey, ironoxyde.
Watertable at 68 cm
Drill Hole ../ Z
0-13 err, black moi&t topsoil with sand of medium grain mixed in, grassroots
13 - 3O era moist yellow clay with grey streaks, organis material and roots
50 - 95 cm moist yellow clay with grey straeks ?nd iron oxyde
Watertabls at 60 cm
Drill role f 3
0 - 20 era sandy dark brown humus with gras.T roots, dry
2C - 35 cm dark brwon sand , mixed with hurcus and grey clay , some iron oxyde
35 - 90 cm grey clay with streaks of yello, moist plastic and creaciy
Watertable at 60 cm
DriDl nole ,- *»
C - 22 en: a -irk aiojst topsoil with aon.e saiu' ind ^ra
22 - 75 en moittt, plastic, creamy clay with yellow streaks and iron oxyde
75 - -V cm greyish, mcist, plastic, creamy clay with iron oxyde
Waiertaole at 60 err
Drill :-:nlsg ./ :• - .r *
Identic il tc jr ]\
150
-------
WWTP Area. 6
2.5
AOZ-fc*3 OF- U^NJC^ INJ vSOOAsSTfcfc.
ip Hoe.K.v oouMT->r o e
T-O
AUTHOR! TV
: MAP
. cox x
30, -
4C*-l-fc
>. D. OOX.
O BOX.
BY-
...
a. KJ2-
-------
Field Report of Archaeological Survey
In the area of Wastewater Treatment
. Plant "C" and Outfall
On Monday, May 23, 1977* the field survey off the area to be
affected by the enlargement of and outfall of Wasterwater Treatment
Plant "C" began (Phase II).
We started by investigating the area of the present WWTP, at
Litchfield Country Club, which is to be enlarged. The present plant
(which is enclosed by a fence) stands on fill dirt brought in to
t
raise the plant area above the low areas around.
The area to be affected by planned enlargement is a low swampy
area. Major vegetation observed: Bald Cypress, Cabbage Palmetto,
Water Oak, Sweetgum, Southern Magnolia, Water Tupelo, Sweetbay,
Flowering Dogwood and American Holly. In the area adjacent north to
the existing WWTP, Southern Magnolia was in great abundance (a Plan-
tation garden?). However archive research of the existing plats of
Litchfield Plantation (as far back as 1794) did not show any gardens
in this area. Two subsurface samples were taken with a hand auger
in this area, but no evidence of cultural remains were found.
• :
No artifacts, either prehistoric or historic were found in this
area (enlargement of WWTP C). At this point, it can be safely assumed
that there is no danger of disturbing any archaeological sites on this
site.
Following the. planned outfall of the plant along an existing
dirt road, artifacts are infrequent and consist of a few pieces of
oyster shell, colonial sherds, and small pieces of colonial brick.
All there artifacts were found in the freshly plowed roadway, not
in sit*-.
152
-------
Close to the road entrance of the Litchfield Plantation gate,
a large Paleo-Indian end scraper was found on the north side of the
same dirt road. The material is fossil chert and the working marks
are distinct.
On the South side of the dirt road a few scattered pieces of
sand tempered prehistoric pottery were found indicating a possible
site. A 1m x 1m test square was dug to a depth of 60cm below surface.
•
One piece of plain pottery and one end rhyolite tool was found. How-
ever no extensive site can be expected.
Continuing down the outfall into Litchfield Plantation no other
sites were encountered until reaching the present marina at Litchfield
Plantation. On the South side of the roadway leading from the Plan-
tation house to the marina are the remains of a colonial rice mill
which was operated by Mr. John Tucker in the 19th century. This rice
mill is a very valuable piece of history and would be affected advert;
by the installation of an outfall line. However, the outfall can be
safely moved to the north aide of the road.
*
Continuing from the marina, following an old rice dike
colonial period, no artifacts or features are noted except for an
island about 500 yards to the south of the rice dike. This island
merits further investigation as it could be a shell mound. However
this island would not be adversely affected by the proposed outfall.
On June 1, 1977, the area of the outfall into Waccamaw river
was surveyed under water. Scuba gear was used and the area was
well searched. There were no artifacts noted in this area. With
153
-------
-3-
the exception of a alight change in the outfall in the area of the
historic rice raillQ, no important archaeological site would be
affected by Phase II of the WWTP - Plan (Area C).
Dr. Reinhold Engelraayer
Professional Archaeologist
154
-------
APPENDIX III
VEGETATIVE SURVEYS
155
-------
PLANT COMMUNITIES
VEGETATION STUDY ALONG PROPOSED ROUTE
FOR SEWER LINE
PREPARED FOR
MR. GLENN DUKES
BLACK, CROW $ EIDSNESS,
ENGINEERS
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
INC,
JUNE 7, 1977
BY
JOHNNIE E. BRIGMAN
REGISTERED FORESTER
NO. 540
156
-------
VEGETATION STUDY ALONG PROPOSED ROUTE FOR SEWER LINE
Vegetation from Cypress Creek wastewater treatment to Stalvey/Pine Island
Road.
The actual route for the twelve inch sewer line from Cypress Creek waste-
water treatment plant was sampled, The area from the plant site to the
power line right-of-way appeared to have been logged in the past 5 to 7
years. Scattered loblolly pine, Pinus taeda, 10 inches in diameter at
breast height (DBH) , 56 feet total height, predominated. Near the power
line right-of-way a small depression with some standing water was en-
countered. The predominate species in this area were sapling sized
sweetgum, Liquidambar styraciflua, scattered blackgum, Nyssa sylvatica,
and persimmon, Diospyros virginiana.
Under the power line right-of-way to Stalvey/Pine Island Road the vege-
tation was predominately sprout growth of various species: blackgum,
sweetgum, red maple, Acer rubrum, and swamp cyrilla, Cyrilla racemiflora.
A few loblolly pine and pond pine, Pinus serotina, seedlings were noted.
The lower vegetation consisted of numberous annual grasses, gall berries,
blackberries and muscadine vines.
Vegetation along Stalvey/Pine Island Road
The proposed twelve inch sewer line runs down Stalvey/Pine Island Road
for approximately three miles. Since the road is well traveled there
was no vegetation in the road itself. The road right-of-way had various
annual grasses that normally invade a previously disturbed site. No
infrequent or rare species were noted along the entire road. Both sides
of the road alternated between planted loblolly pine and fallow or cul-
tivated fields .
Vegetation from Forestbrook wastewater treatment plant to Stalvey/Pine
Island Road.
From the Forestbrook wastewater treatment plant, the proposed twelve inch
sewer line passed through a small swampy area. The predominate species
in the areaPwere sweetgum, blackgum, persimmon and to a lesser extent
Baldcvpress Taxodium distichum, water oak, Quercus Nigra and willow
oak Quercus'phellos.- This area was relativly small InTThanged to an area
of siilifrid'WoTly pine with various species such as wild cherry
^
srnwn
th Sidef ?hS d?ainage ditch were in second growth loblolly pine.
Most of this pine was young, under 15 years of age
157
-------
Ve^ej:at ion from Staivey/Pine Island Road to Intracoastal Waterway
Through this area the proposed sewer line will follow the road right-
of-way. This area is almost entirely second growth loblolly pine 10
inches DBH and 50 to 60 feet total height. Along the ditch banks were
common annual grasses. Occasionally, wild blackberries, sweetgum, and
myrtle, Myrica cerifera, were observed along the ditches on either side.
The vegetation began to change about 1300 feet from the Intracoastal
Waterway as the site became more xeric. The area appeared to have been
a spoil area. Woody species present consisted of wild cherry, sweetgum,
smooth sumac, Rhus glabra, persimmon, wild plum, Prunus americana,
southern red cedar, Juniperus silicicola. Various annual grasses along
with muscadine, and trumpet creeper were also present.
Vegetation from Intracoastal- Waterway down power line right-of-way to
Highway 544
The area under the power lines showed evidence of repeated mowing and
probably some chemical control of vegetation. Most woody plant growth
was from root sprouts. Species present include sweetgum, persimmon, red
maple, loblolly bay, Gordonia lasianthus, green ash, Fraxinus pennsylvani ca
var. lanceolata, river birch, Betula nigra, black willow, Salix nigra,
black gum, Nyssa sylvatica, poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans, sassafras,
sassafras albidum, dogwood, Cornus florida, American holly, Ilex opaca,
blackjack oak, Quercus marilandica, southern red oak, Querous falcata,
and willow oak. Some loblolly and pond pine seedlings were also present.
Various annual grasses and sedges were also interspersed with the woody
species.
As previously noted most vegetation in the area was from root sprouts and
no unique, rare, or endangered species were observed.
Vegetation along roadway from Cimarron to Highway 707
The area near the plant was low. The predominate species being sweetgum,
and persimmon with some green ash and pond pine along the roadway near
the plant. The land rose slightly nearing Highway 707. As the site be-
came drier loblolly pine predominated.
Conclus ions
Based on this vegetation study, the constuction of the sewer line will
cause no significant damage to the plant environment by following road
right-of-ways and power line easements. Only very short lines must be
cut through relatively undisturbed areas. No unique, rare, or endangered
species were noted along the entire proposed route. Following construction
the plant communities will quickly reestablish themselves along the im-
pacted area.
158
-------
V\AH\ WJN
SWCVTLN' ,\Ufi*G
VlttV.1l
TORCE
I,
. I.
LRt
NO. SAU
-------
FROM
1
SUWEX KLCWG
GRAND STRAND WATER
\SNSTfcViKTT.R
SBKER
KUTHORIT^S
PiKST |
Introduction.
This p*per
force nal
wastewater
study
lot or
overlap
the
10
Ci addresses itself to the proposed route of the effluent
in fro* Grand Strand Hater and Sewer Authority's regional
treatment plant. For the purpose df this survey, the
initiated at a point Just nOTtfc of y,r. Pord Veils swine
Craig >»all Road, This point was chosen to ensure sowe
with the original vegetation survey, j The actual route
main would follow was sampled.; Flt.s were taVen evtry
chains or at each ecotone.
force
Sea
height (d.b.h.) and 90 feet total height v)ere observed.
wei
we rje
we
Vegetation Along CTSJR V-all *oad Mr. Tord Vi^Us Swine Lot to Mr.
X.L. Jordan's House. r
The (proposed effluent force main would remajin in the road r
of-vay along the entire segment. The total length oE force
in ihis segment would be approximately 200* feet* Lobloily
Tints taeda, was the dominate limber specips along the roul
Uercd loblolly pine 18 to 22 inches inj dianeter.at breast
Loblolly pine,
the route.
nese
...
probably old property line trees before tha individual tracts
consolidated. In any event, the few I individuals were located
l off the road-right-of-way and would
be impacted by the
of the effluent line. Other! species noted along
right-of-way were: sveetguns, Liquidahbar sj^racj_f]iia, smooth
IBC, Rhus glabra, American hoi ly »T!fX ppg_c.f , va tei ba>. t Quercus
coi struction
thi
su
ni
_.
•ra, wild cherr-y, Prunus s c r p t i naTSTac jc; v 11 1 ov , Salix
ow poplar, Lirio^cnoTon tulipTTcra^anjd post oaX, Quercus
llata. Occasionally white nuloerry, Horus albe.swarcp cyrjl
la,
ye
Cyril la racemif Icara and Anerican elderberry, Sambucus
wejre observed. FTear the swine pens, chiriaberry, Kelia_
can Carya illinoensis and ^ small livej oaY, Quercus vzj^^'.ana
observed Due to the "rooting" by (the
V*
were
sv
k'l'ie, ^\osT o-: "the
•J^r Vi^**V'4.«>rWfc* M^Tlf^r ^. V X,«»*^ «»***-W*.»B^ «,,^._.-_ _-._ w ^
:sser vegetation had been destroyed, ar>d the ground was esser, .iaiiy
ware. Along the road right-of-vay past]the swine pens were DlacK-
berry. Virginia creeper, Parthenocissus {ctuinquef olia, greer.brier,
Sroilax rotundifolia and various annual grasses. ........,.^.
Vegetation along Collins Cree* Church Rbad from Hr..W,L^ Jordan'A
house to Woodstock Road. •"' •-.",.' ; .:/ ;•/;•.; •' " ' ''• *•'*-'' '
traveled with any yeg-
Only
-.M-=
This 1300 feet section of road was
etation being on the cxtrcne :«dge of trie
snail saplings and sprouts were preset. Spctiei observed -
eluded swamp cyr ilia, sweetgun. and peYsitnisvori.' giospyros Virginian
Various annual grasses along vlth some loblolly:
, Merc -also ^observed; U--v,; •;. 'ky^ .*• 'g&d ^ '^. •^^
• .. . •.-.:'' . :.ii'--':..-\-f.--:t'r-, ,-^' -' - ' ;-^:^
VeRcation along 'yoodstocV. ^Road to
a
s . Bice TielAV-
.
The area surveyed was approxiwately
! route
Ms^op^ho:,^
.
miles. ; .Agairt, t^.e ^proposed ?
-------
growth lobloilly pine cither in natural stands or plant-
ations. These areas were well oft the right-of-way, and would
not be impacted by! the construction of the new effluent force
nain. Vegetation islong the extreme edges of the right-of-way
consisted of ir\V.borry, Ilex glabra> loblolly bay, GoTdonia_
lasianthus, red nj\plc» ^cer^ tub rum, blackjack oak, C^uercus
narTIanlTca, blucijack oaYJ QUCTCUS incana, persimmon, winged
sumac, swamp cyrijlla, and \merican holly. Various annual grasses,
sedges, squaw huckleberry» Vaccinium stamineum, blackberry, and
poison ivy, loxifodetidroa radioaixs~were, also observed.
s Pages Rice Field to Waccamaw River/Intracoastal
The proposed roiute across Pages Rice Field to the VJaccamaw River/
Intracoastal 'Mterway had not been firmed at the time the vege-
tation survey was completed. Two routes across the rice field
were proposed ,| one parallel to the Hor-ry/Georgetown Courxty line,
and the other ja more southerly route, ^oth routes begin at the
extreme westerly edge ot the pine plantation at the end of Viced-
stock \load ana proceeds to the Viaccamaw River/ Intracoastal Water-
way. X survejy of the vegetation along both routes was conducted.
The route parallel to the county line was along an old r;.ce field
ditch much o|E the way. The vegetation on the ditch, shoulder con-
sisted oi a (variety of species indigenous to areas with high ^watet
tables. B\icV.gvw\, flyssa sylvatica, bald cypress, Taxodiuu dis*:vr>
and water tiupelo, %ssa ao.uatxca, -xere the 4QT^in^^e species^ Cc
_-.";• • «*^jj > i • i i • "**T "" ^ j\ _ _ _ V. K.^\jk..b • . A ^ f^. f* W »^ **»
-------
APPENDIX IV
NATURAL LANDMARK AREAS
162
-------
PRIORITY RATING: P = 2 2"
NAME OF SITE: BELLEFIELD PLANTATION (Belle W. Baruch Research Foundation)
ONE-LINE DESCRIPTIONi One of the very few relatively undisturbed and
unpolluted estuaries and marshlands on east coast.
THEME/SUBTHEME
CLASSIFICATION; 8, 24, 29, 30/A, M, Nd
LOCATION: Georgetown County, SOUTH CAROLINA
LATITUDE - LONGITUDE: 33° 20' North/ 79° 10' West
~~ Georgetown, SC 1:250,000
USGS QUADRANGLE REFERENCE:
SIZE: 17,500 acres
OWNERSHIP; Private foundation-Belle W. Baruch Research Foundation. University
of South Carolina has responsibility of marshland management except
S.E. portion of East marsh owned by Mr. T. F. Yawkey.
ADMINISTERING AGENCY:
CURRENT LAND USE; Management of forests, marshlands, research on ecology,
oyster fishery. New permanent lab facility (5,000 sq.ft.)
at Oyster Landing.
DANGERS TO AREA OR VULNERABILITY:
Immediate landowner to north wants to develop land for exclusive homes and
marinas. If permitted to dredge, this could have adverse effects on what
is now a pristine estuary.
SENSITIVITY OF AREA: None
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA:
Former property of Mr. Bernard Baruch. The North Inlet estuary and adjacent
salt marshlands are an ideal location for an estuarine sanctuary. The
Foundation is dedicated to conservation, marine biology, and forestry.
Estuary is quite unpolluted and undisturbed.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Estuary fringes Waccamaw Neck, including marsh facing Winyah Bay and Rabbit
and Hare Islands. Depth variable with tidal stages from fex, centimeters to
7 meters.
163
-------
OUTSTANDING GEOLOGICAL FEATURES; 3
Holocene sediments of silt, clay, fine sand and organic debris overlaying
Pleistocene sediments.
ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION:
There are four major marsh areas: East Marsh (approx. 7432 hectares);
Polyhaline-raesohaline tidal salt marsh bounded on the west by Waccamaw
Neck and Winyah Bay, to the east by Debidue Beach, the Atlantic Ocean and
North Island, to the north by the Baruch Foundation property line (approx.
33° 21' North lat.), to the south by North Island. West Marsh (approx.
787 hectares); Oligohaline-mesohaline tidal salt marsh bounded on the west
by Winyah Bay, to the east and south by Waccamaw Neck to the north by U.S.
17. South Marsh (approx. 509 hectares); Mesohaline salt marsh bounded on
the west, north and east by Waccamaw Neck, on the south by Winyah Bay.
Rabbit and Hare Islands (approx. 135 Hectares); Oligohaline-mesohaline
tidal salt marsh surrounded by Winyah Bay.
DOMINANT SPECIES OF PLANTS: Not Known
DOMINANT SPECIES OF WILDLIFE: Not Known
RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES OF PLANTS OR WILDLIFE; Not Known
SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES ON AREA;
At least 30+ publications on area available from Belle W. Baruch, Coastal
Research Institute, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
CONTACTS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT AREA;
Dr. F. John Vemberg, Director, Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine
Biology and Coastal Research Institute, University of South Carolina, Columbia,
South Caroline 29208 (803) 775-5288 or 777-5289.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommended as potential Natural Landmark, however, more information is
needed.
164
-------
Bellefield Plantation
Georgetown, S. C., 1:250,000
•|» V "
V " ~-lr~\
/ ***ii _. X
W, •BW-X^i
1 Germsntown ,«• i ''••/ .-~
'-='=0^.,* A'v ^ •• •
• : «*.*M - ?'" o
-
**^//? - • f
mer /
*
165
-------
311
PRIORITY RATING: P = 2
NAME OF SITE: HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE PARK
ONE-LINE DESCRIPTION: Three miles of fine sand beach, dunes, inlets,
marshland, ponds, and maritime forests.
t
THEME/SUBTHEME
CLASSIFICATION; 10, 24, 29, 30, 32/A, Ca, Fb, Gb, Ne, Ob, Oa
LOCATION; Georgetown County, SOUTH CAROLINA
LATITUDE - LONGITUDE: 33° 20' North/79° 20' West
USGS QUADRANGLE REFERENCE; Brookgreen, 7.5'
Magnolia Beach, 7.5' , S.C.
SIZE; 2,800 acres
OWNERSHIP: State
ADMINISTERING AGENCY; Division of State Parks, Department of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism
CURRENT LAND USE; 30+% recreational by public (swimming, fishing, surfing,
picnicking).
DANGERS TO AREA OR VULNERABILITY: Overuse by public; sea erosion.
SENSITIVITY OF AREA; None
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA;
Ecological diversity and one of finest beaches on East Coast. Magnificent
seaside area with lush marsh growth. Three miles of sand beaches, dunes,
and freshwater marshes. Unspoiled barrier beach and sand dunes. Abundant
shells exposed on beaches.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Three miles of white sand beach.
OUTSTANDING GEOLOGICAL FEATURES;
ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION;
Area has sand beach, dunes, salt marsh, freshwater ponds and maritime
forest.
DOMINANT SPECIES OF PLANTS: Live oak, hickory, pine
166
-------
312
DOMINANT SPECIES OF WILDLIFE; raccoons, many shorebirds, waterfowl, terns
RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES OF PLANTS OR WILDLIFE:
Terns, Osprey, Southern Bald Eagles (no nests) and American alligators
SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES ON AEEA:
South Carolina Tidelands Report, p.54, South Carolina Water Resources
Comm., 1970
CONTACTS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT AREA:
Mr. Van Stickle, Resident Manager, Huntington Beach State Park (803) 237-4440,
Mr. Bob Papenfus, Chief Naturalist, Division of State Parks, Department
of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Columbia, South Carolina.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommended as potential Natural Landmark.
167
-------
Huntington Beach
Brookgreen, S. C.,
Magnolia Beach, S. C
168
-------
SC5. Hobcaw Forest. Acreage: Unknown.
I/ocation: Georgetown Co., just N across the Pee Dee River from Georgetown on Rt. 17.
North Island Quadrangle.
Description: This area is dominated by Pine Fiatwoods consisting of longleaf pine, with
an cncL-rstory of turkey oak. blue jack oak, scrubby post oak, and black jack oak.
Cj'presvGum Swamp Forest also is rqiresentct.1 on this site. The vegetation of the area
has been described in: Barry, J. M., and W. T. Batson. 1969. The vegetation of (he
JJaruch Plantation, Georgetown, South Carolina, in relation to soil types. Castanea
34(0:71-77.
Ownership: Belle Baruch Foundation.
Data Source: Personal field examination.
Priority: 1.
3
1
-
-
X
:
I
169
-------
Hobcaw Forest
The Hobcaw Forest is part of the Baruch Plantation at Georgetown. Since
the death of Bernard Baruch it has been under the control of the Baruch Founda-
tion with the Clemson School of Forestry active in its management.
The Spanish under the leadership of Lucas Vazquez de Ayllon attempted
a settlement there in 1526 but dissention and disease soon forced their abandon-
ment. The rise of English influence resulted in 1718 in a grant by George II
to Lord Carteret of the original Hobcaw Barony. During succeeding generations
the Barony was divided several times but purchases by Baruch just before the
middle of this century largely collected together again the original holdings.
The coastal route of the Indians from what is now Wilmington to Charleston
continued to be used by the colonists as the King's Highway and was traveled
by George Washington during his presidential tour in 1791. Much of what is
now U.S. £L7 is this old highway.
This very large plantation lies about three miles north of the city of
Georgetown and occupies the southernmost part of an area known as Waccamaw
Neck. It is surrounded by water on three sides. On the south and west it
is bordered by Winyaw Bay and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. About 7000
of its 17,000 acres-;are forests which vary from pine and turkey oak associations,
characteristic of the central part of the state, to cypress-gum swamps. The
area now designated as the natural area is a 285 acre tract surrounding the
upper and innermost end of the tidal marsh known as the Thousand Acre Rice Field.
Some variation exists in the topography of the natural area since it
slopes up, although almost imperceptably, from the high tide line.
Some variation also exists in the soil. The major portion is underlain
by the St. Johns series which runs from moist to dry with very little likelihood
of standing water, at least for any significant lengths of time. Rutledge
Sand, Leon and Onslow Loamy Sand make up the remainder of the area. The Leon
series closely resembles the St. Johns in both character and vegetative cover.
170
-------
Narrow fingers of Rutledge Sand underlie the low, often under water, swampy
parts. The very small area of Onslow Loamy Sand is well drained and heavily
vegetated.
In terms of the arboreal dominants this tract is somewhat like the Congaree
Swamp and the de la Howe Forest. The most numerous big trees are pines of
the loblolly and longleaf types and not much pine reproduction is in evidence.
Unlike the other two areas, Hobcaw is within the Southeastern Evergreen or
Pine belt where pines are to be expected, but the lack of significant reproduc-
tion will eventually result in transformation to a hardwood forest closely
related to the type once common in the Piedmont. The large pines are reported
by Mr. Nolan Taylor, long time caretaker of the area, to be from 80 to 160
years old and since but little reproduction is in evidence continued pine
dominance seems dependent on some missing factor. In light of the view held
by many that pines are a disc climax the factor that may be missing is firet
Fire would have kept the shrub and ground layers thin and the canopy more or
less free of hardwoods. As it is, shrub and ground cover layers are mostly
very dense and hardwoods are well represented in the canopy. All of this
prevents the heliophytic pine seedlings from getting started.
Several penetrating transects yielded the following:
Trees — Pinus, Liquidambar, Quercus (Live, Laurel, Post, Water),
Nyssa sylvatica, Persea, Diospyros, Magnolia virginica,
Acer Sassifras, Taxodium and Nyssa aquatica.
Shrubs —Arundinaria, Clethra, Hypericum, Ilex, Lyonia, Myrica,
Gelsemium, Rhus (copallina, radicans), Smilax (2),
Vaccinium (3), Tillancsia, Vitis, Sabal and Parthenocissus.
Herbs — Andropogon, Pteridium, Panicum, Polygala, Pterocaulon,
Clitoria, Centella, Rhynchospora, Tephrosia, Carex,
Uniola, Oplismenus.
171
-------
Mikania, Justica, Juncus, Solidago, Eupatorium and Oxalis. 'The upper end
of the tidal marsh is included in the natural area but is considered in this
report not to be a part of the Hobcaw Forest. The area of it comprises only
10-15% of the whole, if that.
I am certainly enthusiastic about preserving and recognizing any natural
area but I am less so about this one than most. It seems likely to be in for
long protection and it will be interesting to see what progressive changes
take place in the future. It lies in a well known plantation and where much
research is likely to take place. It will be viewed and possibly referred
to by many. If progression from disc climax to climax is finally taking place
the last stages of this and the final result will be interesting.
It is with some hesitation that I recommend this areasas a Registered
Natural Landmark.
172
-------
A I N Y A H
3 A Y
173
H 0 5 C_A »' F 0 n ^ S T
------- |