Florence County takes next steps on plan to conserve Pee Dee land 31%

By Deirdre Weaver-Currin35%

8/5/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Halo Effect, and Anchoring Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 13.9% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 642 faulty-reasoning hits from 552 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.4% and a BS Rank of 31% (21,111 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.00% of the article peer group.

FLORENCE  The mixed woodlands, vast rivers and expansive farmland of Florence County make up the natural beauty of the Pee Dee that officials are trying to preserve for decades to come. 
The county has experienced solid economic growth, most recently with large manufacturing expansions at companies such as Cheney Brothers Inc. and SteelFab Inc. 
Now it’s time for conservation to have its day. 
“Florence County's done a great job of economic activity over the past 25 years, so now, we also need to do a great job in conservation,” County Administrator Kevin Yokim told The Post and Courier. 
The county is taking steps toward protecting its land with the creation of a conservation master plan. 
The goal of the plan is to promote responsible land-use planning and encourage the preservation of open space, County Council Vice Chairman William Schofield said at a July council meeting. 
“Its purpose is simple, but it's critical to ensure that as we grow, we do so in a way that protects what matters most for future generations and that conservation and economic development can work hand in hand together,” Schofield said. 
The $90,000 master plan, half of which was funded by the Darla Moore Foundation, is being created in partnership with the environmental consulting firm Weston & Sampson and the environmental organization Open Space Institute. 
The plan will guide future decision-making, public investment and coordinated planning efforts around conservation and economic development. 
“A lot of people that live in the Florence area don't realize how rural Florence County is, particularly as you go south and east,” Yokim said. 
“I think one of the underlying motives for doing this plan is to ensure we preserve the natural beauty we have in Florence County for generations to come.” 
Multiple meetings were held throughout the county at the beginning of the year to gather public opinion on conservation priorities. 
Residents were asked to take a survey and choose what they most wanted preserved, with choices including historically significant areas, farmland, bodies of water and wildlife habitats, among others. 
The three primary conservation priorities identified were wildlife habitats, outdoor recreation opportunities and water quality. 
With these three priorities in mind, a geographical information system (GIS) analysis identified 10 priority conservation regions, making up 30 percent of the county’s land area. 
These regions are spread throughout the county and include parts of Johnsonville, Lake City and Olanta. 
The county will need to discuss how it will fund additional conservation work, Yokim said. 
Officials will also need to determine whether the county will look at both land acquisition and conservation easements. 
Conservation easements permanently protect certain properties from being developed and are cheaper than buying land outright. 
The finalized plan will be presented to county council at its Aug. 20 meeting, according to Yokim. 
The governor wants roughly 30 percent of the state’s land be in conservation, Yokim said. 
More than 5 percent of the county’s land is already in conservation. 
Hundreds of acres of environmental land have already been conserved within the county. 
The historic site Snow’s Island became protected in recent years, as has nearly 8,500 acres of land  with 8 miles of frontage on the Great Pee Dee River to be used by Francis Marion University. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.1%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 1.2%Post and Courier: 1.6%Confirmation Bias5.1%This article: 8.3%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 1.5%Post and Courier: 0.5%Anchoring Bias8.3%This article: 4.7%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 2.9%Post and Courier: 2.1%Availability Heuristic4.7%This article: 2.9%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.8%Post and Courier: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 1.4%Post and Courier: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias2.7%This article: 13.9%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 2.0%Post and Courier: 2.2%Framing Effect13.9%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.3%Post and Courier: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.2%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 1.1%Post and Courier: 0.7%Status Quo Bias8.2%This article: 2.4%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.3%Post and Courier: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.4%This article: 7.4%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 4.2%Post and Courier: 2.8%Optimism Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.9%Post and Courier: 0.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 1.0%Post and Courier: 2.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 1.5%Post and Courier: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.3%Post and Courier: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 9.1%Post and Courier: 3.0%Halo Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 1.2%Post and Courier: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.6%Post and Courier: 0.1%Primacy Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.2%Post and Courier: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.8%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 6.4%Post and Courier: 2.4%Appeal to Authority13.8%This article: 3.3%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.2%Post and Courier: 0.6%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.1%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.3%Post and Courier: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.1%This article: 2.7%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 1.4%Post and Courier: 1.7%Hasty Generalization2.7%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 2.3%Post and Courier: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.4%Post and Courier: 0.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.2%Post and Courier: 0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.9%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.2%Post and Courier: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.9%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.2%Post and Courier: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.8%Post and Courier: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.2%Post and Courier: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.1%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 1.1%Post and Courier: 0.8%Unattributed Quote5.1%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.6%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 1.6%Post and Courier: 1.4%Biased Writer Voice1.6%This article: 5.4%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.3%Post and Courier: 0.4%Indoctrination5.4%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deirdre Weaver-Currin: 0.9%Post and Courier: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

552 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers38%attributed speech345writer words
Selected voice

William Schofield

100%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words34% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+42.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%William Schofield: 42.3%42.3%Biased Writer Voice-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%William Schofield: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.