Historic Landscapes

Preserving the Ashley River Corridor

In the past and in the present, the cultural and natural landscape history of the Ashley River, located in the South Carolina lowcountry, has been shaped and influenced by the river. It carves channels, floods the marshes and swamps, transports people and goods, and attracts settlement and development along its shores. The Ashley River is ever changing; its physical, chemical, and biological characteristics directly affected by activities on the land. In the late seventeenth century, the Ashley River and surrounding area supported an abundance of wildlife and natural resources. What remains today is just a remnant of the colossal live oaks and magnolias, cypress-tupelo swamps, longleaf pine savannahs, and bottomland hardwood forests. Man has continually exploited the resources of the Ashley Scenic River Corridor but never so much as on the present day scale. This paper examines the race against time by preservationists and conservationists to save the Ashley Scenic Corridors unique sense of place.

The Charleston area is facing unprecedented and historic changes in land ownership and use, the result of massive timber sales by MeadWestvaco, Plum Creek Timberland, and International Paper to developers.(Footnote 1) Many of the largest tracts which are located in the Ashley Scenic River Corridor have been sold to holding companies, who then sell the land to real estate investors. (Footnote 2)The public is unaware that the land is being sold for high density development until after the property closes. These sales have resulted in an unprecedented land rush, contributing to increased population growth, runaway land consumption, and dysfunctional suburban development patterns in areas that are largely rural.(Footnote 3) In an academic rating of the 100 worst cases of sprawl using U.S. Census numbers taken between 1970 and 1990 Charleston ranked 32nd. Two counties located in the Ashley Scenic River Corridor, Berkeley and Dorchester have as many as 85,000 new homes scheduled for construction. (Footnote 4)

The Ashley River is tidally influenced and situated in the southeastern coastal plain of North America with a semitropical climate. The area is ecologically rich, with both magnolia and maritime forests. The watershed of the Ashley River landscape is approximately 215,000 acres in size and includes portions of Berkley , Dorchester , and Charleston counties and the major population centers of Summerville, North Charleston and Charleston. (Footnote 5) It extends thirty miles from the Cypress Swamp in Dorchester County to its mouth at Charleston Harbor on the Atlantic Ocean . The entire drainage of the Ashley River system extends sixty miles. Along its winding course, the river passes through forested swamps and uplands, tidal marshlands, residential and commercial developments, historic sites and major urban developments at the city of Charleston. (Footnote 6)

In 1670, Charles Towne was founded by settlers from Barbados at Albermarle Point on the west bank of the Ashley River . Ten years later Charles Towne relocated to Oyster Point, a more strategic location for defense and transportation. The city was laid out on a peninsula between the Ashley and Cooper Rivers. In the colony's early year's economic development focused upon Indian trade and naval stores production. (Footnote 7) Rice was introduced to South Carolina in the early eighteenth century but the mastery of this grain took more than a generation. Rice was a crop which Englishmen, even those that lived in the Caribbean knew nothing about. Footnote 8) Gradually rice emerged as the mainstay of the lowcountry economy and the cultivation of this grain came to dominate Carolina life during the major part of the eighteenth century. Production steadily increased during the antebellum period, with an estimated 100,000 slaves planting between 168,000 to 187, 000 acres of wetlands to rice. The antebellum rice economy included the richest planters in the U.S. South, and the regions capital, Charleston gloried in one of the greatest concentrations of wealth in the world. (Footnote 9)

Unlike the Cooper River , where extensive rice cultivation was possible, the Ashley River was not a major rice producing area. While it had rich and fertile flood plains, the current was not strong enough to keep saltwater at bay. This resulted in waters with high concentrations of salt, which was unsuited for rice cultivation. The rice grown at the Ashley River plantations was probably sufficient to support each plantation population but no more. (Footnote 10) Support for this theory is provided by the Drayton Papers Collection and the Middleton Family's correspondence, which documents their holdings of extensive acreage in other parts of South Carolina and Georgia . Instead, the Ashley River became a favorite site for gentlemen's country seats, which served as retreats during the winter months.

In the antebellum period, over fourteen plantations with large main houses accented by extensive landscapes and gardens were located along the Ashley River . The Civil War took its toll on these plantations, with only Drayton Hall's main house remaining. With the political economy of slavery dead, what evolved was an alteration of the agricultural system to accommodate the economic and social changes of the time. In 1848, large deposits of phosphate rock were discovered along the Ashley River but were not mined until after the Civil War. A number of Ashley River plantations conducted mining operations employing their former slaves, who were housed in newly constructed tenant houses. Profits from phosphate mining provided many of the former planters with minimal wealth to preserve the status quo. By the 1890's, phosphate mining in the lowcountry had ended after a higher grade was discovered in Florida. ( Footnote 11) During this period rich northern industrialists began buying up former rice plantations for use as hunting preserves and as a winter escape.

The twentieth century brought major changes to the Ashley River's historic cultural landscapes. Large sawmill operations moved into South Carolina attracted by the state's vast virgin timberlands. By the end of World War I, most of South Carolina 's virgin timber was gone; leading many to believe the forest industry would disappear. In the 1930's, however, interest in reforestation, timber management, and sustained yield provided new promise for a failing timber industry. During the Great Depression, a number of timber companies opened paper mills in the Charleston area and began acquiring large tracts of land from the grandchildren of Charleston's planter elite. For the next fifty years timber companies with holdings in the Ashley River Corridor and through out Charleston prospered providing jobs and contributing to the areas economy. In addition, timber companies strategies centered around reforestation of pines and hardwoods, which maintained the land's value, promoted wildlife, and protected the soil. By the 1990's the timber companies began a program of expansion and diversification evolving into multi-national conglomerates whose focus began shifting to the bottom line and increased profit margins.

Between 1973 and 1993 Charleston 's urban area expanded from 70 square miles to 239 square miles, leading to increased development and suburban sprawl in the Ashley Scenic River Corridor. (Footnote 12) In 1994, as a result of concerns surrounding the area's rapid and unregulated growth, the Ashley River Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (Footnote 13) Almost immediately after its nomination, the National Trust for Historic Preservation placed the Ashley River Historic District on its 1995 “List of the Eleven Most Endangered Historic Places in America .” The intent of the National Trust was to highlight the seriousness of suburban sprawl and lack of regional planning, which threatened the Ashley Scenic River Corridor. Neither designation confers significant protection from development and suburban sprawl, but it does offer greater visibility and recognition.

Click on the images below to view images of Charleston's urban growth from 1973 to 2003.

1973	1993	2003

In response to the listing as an endangered site, the Ashley River Conservation Coalition was formed. Their mission became the preservation of the regions historic and scenic character. Through coalition efforts in 1996, the South Carolina General Assembly officially designated the Ashley River as a State Scenic River. (Footnote 14) The goal of the Scenic Rivers program is the conservation of South Carolina 's river heritage through the proper management of the natural and cultural character of the state's river corridors. The Ashley Scenic River Advisory Council along with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources drafted the Ashley River Scenic Management Plan, which made numerous recommendations but was unable to impose regulations or controls on private development. The plan encourages land registration, management agreements, conservation easements and donations, all of which are voluntary. (Footnote 15) One of the biggest challenges was convincing landowners to act in the interests of the community at large, for the common good. Simply stating that historic preservation and conservation enhances property values is a tough sell, when the benefits are long term but the profits from development are short term. (Footnote 16)

With the new millennium, Charleston 's urban area had redoubled to 356 square miles. (Footnote 17) Situated in the Ashley Scenic River Corridor were over 25 major parcels of timberland. Previous efforts at protection of the areas cultural and natural resources from development were only voluntary and carried no regulatory power. State law in South Carolina allows local governments to adopt zoning laws with protective and regulatory powers. Preservation ordinances enacted on the local level provides real and meaningful protection from private development but it must be regionally coordinated. One of the biggest historic preservation and conservation challenges facing the Ashley River Scenic Corridor is the inability of the counties and cities located along its banks to work together. Too often any attempts at zoning or planning on the part of one entity are subverted by another. North Charleston has consistently favored new development over historic preservation and conservation, no matter what the costs. Charleston , in an ongoing effort to promote smart growth; has pursued a strategy which centers on comprehensive zoning and planning. It has some of the most restrictive historic preservation ordinances in the United States . The battle between the two cities has become increasingly contentious, with the only winners, the developers.

In 2001, MeadWestvaco, one of the largest timber companies in Charleston , identified 450,000 acres it wanted to sell. By October 2001, it had moved 120,000 acres or a total of $66 million dollars (averaging $550 /per acre) to undisclosed buyers. (Footnote 18) One of MeadWestvaco's' divestures included a 4,500 acre tract called Poplar Grove, which is located in the Ashley Scenic River Corridor. The tract was sold to developers who planned to build 3,500 homes on the property, which threatened a large area of wetlands. Poplar Grove served as the catalyst for the formation of the Ashley River Plantation District. Partnerships between historic preservation and conservation groups emerged, with Ducks Unlimited serving as the lead negotiator in the case. Ducks Unlimited raised 10 million dollars for a conservation easement at Poplar Grove and persuaded the developer to reduce the number of homes from 3,500 to 450. The commitment by the developer of Poplar Grove served as a catalyst for other property owners in the Ashley Scenic River Corridor to enact voluntary conservation easements. This was a win for everyone involved.

In the summer of 2004, MeadWestvaco sold off a 6,600 acre tract known as Watson Hill to Cooper Station L.L.C. The Watson Hill tract is located adjacent to Middleton Place on the Ashley River Road . Prior to this land transfer, conservationists attempted to purchase the Watson Hill tract from MeadWestvaco. (Footnote 19) Conservationists had offered “half its market value” according to the head of the company's land sales program. “The offer was declined because it was not in the shareholders interests.” (Footnote 20) Meanwhile, MeadWestvaco earnings for the third quarter of 2004 nearly quadrupled compared to the same period the year before, as a result of the sale of 89,000 acres of excess timberland. (Footnote 21) Selling unneeded timberland to developers strengthened MeadWestvacos bottom line but it raised questions regarding its commitment towards the preservation and conservation of the Ashley Scenic River Corridor.

Cooper Station L.L.C. in less than six months sold the Watson Hill tract to S.C. Property Holdings. Immediately, the new owner announced plans to build up to 4,500 homes, condominiums, and a hotel and golf course in the Ashley Scenic River Corridor in Dorchester County . Prices for the homes in the development were projected to range between $400,000 and $800,000. Upon closing on the tract, S.C. Property Holdings petitioned Dorchester Country to change its proposed zoning ordinance, which was one house per eight acres of land. (Footnote 22) A study, which was released during this period, revealed that the Watson Hill development would cost Dorchester Country $30,000 per new household. Losses would be incurred in capital costs for the Dorchester County School District and for construction of fire, police, sewer, water, and road improvements. (Footnote 23) On May 15th 2005 , the Dorchester Planning Committee held an open meeting so that citizens could voice their opinions regarding the developer's plans for Watson Hill. Over two hundred people from the Ashley River corridor attended and voiced their opposition to the development plans and zoning petition. Three days later the developers withdrew their proposal for further revision. (Footnote 24)

S.C. Property Holdings then approached the city of North Charleston , which allows for the construction of four to five houses per one acre of land. North Charleston announced plans to annex the Watson Hill tract even though it is located across the Ashley River . This is possible when a city annexes contiguous tracts of land. S.C. Property Holdings attempted to purchase property adjacent to Watson Hill providing North Charleston with such contiguity. They never divulged to the sellers that their property purchase would facilitate North Charleston 's annexation and the development of Watson Hill. When the seller's of the adjacent tract realized S.C. Property Holdings was the developer for Watson Hill they refused to close on the contract. S.C. Property Holdings and the sellers have both filed lawsuits alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation.

On another front, a coalition of local landowners who reside in Dorchester County along the Ashley River Road responded to North Charleston 's annexation by petitioning Summerville to annex the disputed parcels of land. On May 27th , 2005 Summerville voted for annexation. The significance of Summerville's annexation is that it prevents North Charleston from establishing contiguity with the Watson Hill tract of land. This prevents North Charleston from annexing it. On May 31 st North Charleston held a public hearing on Watson Hill and it too voted for the annexation of the land. (Footnote 25) Watson Hill and the plans for its development have evolved into a divisive legal battle, which the courts now must decide.

The Ashley Scenic River Corridor contains over twenty six historic sites along with irreplaceable natural resources. The beauty and history of the area's cultural landscape, which encourage recreation and tourism, enrich not only local quality of life but the local economy. Poplar Grove is a model for future development, which respects cultural and natural resources. The Ashley Scenic River Corridor will continue to face increased development, as timber companies continue to sell off additional land. Research on rivers and estuaries confirms that when impervious surfaces cover more than ten percent of a watershed, the rivers, creeks, and estuaries they surround become biologically degraded. (Footnote 26) The region's local governments must begin working together in joint planning and zoning efforts. The passage of a proposed “Timber Conservation Fund,” in the South Carolina State Legislature would allocate more funding to non-profits for conservation easements. The timberland sell off is not a once in a lifetime opportunity, but the manner in which it is sold is the opportunity to preserve the Ashley Scenic River Corridor's cultural and natural resources.

Footnotes:

1. William Marshall, Ashley Scenic River Management Plan , ( Columbia : South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2003), 2.

2. Tony Barteleme and Yvonne M. Wenger. 113,000 Homes ( Charleston : Post and Courier December 4th , 2005.)

3. Dana Beach, Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States ,( Pew Oceans Commission: Arlington , 2005 ), ii-iii.

4. Bo Petersen. Tale of Two Cities Highlights Charleston's Growth Concerns (Charleston: Post and Courier, October 4th, 2005.), Local News.

5. Tony Bartelme and Chris Dixon. Protect Land, Sanford Urges ( Charleston : Post and Courier, December 6 th , 2005.), Local News.

6. Marshall , Ashley Scenic River , 16.

7. Marshall , Ashley Scenic River , 2.

8. Kovacik Charles F. and Winberry, John J. South Carolina: A Geography (Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1987), 70-71.

9. Peter Wood, Black Majority ( New York and London : WW. Norton and Company, 1974.), 35-36.

10. Judith A. Carney, Black Rice ( Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 2001.), 78-79.

11. Lynne Lewis, Drayton Hall: A`Preliminary Archaelogical Investigation at a Low Country Plantation , (Washington D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1978), 11.

12. Lynne G. Lewis, Drayton Hall Revisited , (Washington D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1982), 4.

13. Allen, Jeffrey and Shou Lu, Kang. Modeling Future Growth in the Charleston Area. (Clemson: The Strom Thurmond Institute of Government Affairs, 1998)

14. Norman Tyler, Historic Preservation,(New York: and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1974), 47-48.

15. Marshall , Ashley Scenic River , 6.

16. Marshall , The Ashley Scenic River , 6.

17. Samuel N.Stokes, A. Elizabeth Watson, Shelley S. Mastran, Saving America's Countryside , (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1989) 3.

18. Allen and Shou, Modeling and Predicting Future Growth.

19. Westvaco , Paper Age, March, 2002.

20. In a letter to the author dated 11 January 2006 , William Marshall of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources pointed out that Meadwestvaco had been discussing the sale of Watson Hill with Middleton Place for some time before it was actually sold. Middleton Place did not take any action. Meadwestvaco sold to another party. Both Middleton Place and Meadwestvaco were criticized for neglecting to bring others to the table to find a way to conserve the property before allowing it to be sold to a developer. The Department of Natural Resources was not looking to purchase land in the Ashley Scenic River Corridor and instead was pursuing a strategy of voluntary conservation easements.

21. Ron Menchaca and Tony Bartelme, Conservation Groups Save Land Tracts When Possible, ( Charleston : The Post and Courier, September 19, 2004), A.7 Section A.

22. John McDermott, Land Sales Prime Cash Pump , ( Charleston : The Post and Courier, October 29, 2004), B., Business.

23. Warren Wise and Dave Munday, Riley Knocks Watson Hill Plan ( Charleston : Post and Courier, April 26 , 2005 , Local) 1.

24. Donald Skunk and Dr. Douglas Woodward, Local Physical Impacts of the Proposed Watson Hill Development, ( Columbia : University of South Carolina Moore School of Business, April, 14 th , 2005.) 1-2.

25. Drayton Hall, Watson Hill's Many Developments (A National Trust Site: Interiors, Vol. 24, 2.), 1-3.

26. Dana Beach, Coastal Conservation Sprawl, 5.