S.C. Code Regs. § § 30-21
The Act is intended to protect both life and property, protect unique habitats and preserve the beach for future use by all citizens. These visitors bring millions of dollars into the state's economy. A number of provisions in the Act address the preservation of a dry-sand beach and public access opportunities, measures to renourish eroding beaches, and the protection of natural vegetation within the beach/dune system. One important provision of the Act specifically requires the adoption of local beachfront management plans by local governments.
If a local government wishes to participate in the state bonding programs available for beach renourishment or other beach funding programs, the governing body must adopt and enforce a local beachfront management plan that is consistent with the Beachfront Management Act. Likewise, the State must also adopt a "long-range and comprehensive beach management plan" (Section 48-39-320A) specifically addressing the following items:
This section of the plan contains goals, objectives, and policies that will be used to guide the management of the State's beach during the future. The planning period is ten (10) years; every five (5) years the plan is to be reviewed and, if needed, revised. Revisions may include changes based on technical data gathered from the ongoing monitoring of the beachfront changes in the local beachfront management plans, or changes in State law.
The goals, objectives, and policies outlined in this document are organized in a hierarchical manner. First, broad goal statements derived from Section 48-39-260 of the Beachfront Management Act are listed. These goals are intended to be nonspecific and to represent broad courses of action or direction for the plan to follow. Second, the plan's objectives are defined to identify strategies that will be addressed to implement the goals. These objectives are more specific than a goal but do not describe the specific actions the Council will take in order to accomplish the objective. Lastly, a number of specific policy statements are listed under each objective to identify specific courses of action that will be used to implement the Beachfront Management Plan. These policy statements will be used in the Council's day-to-day actions which will implement the plan.
Following the section on goals, objectives and policies is a section describing plan implementation.
State Comprehensive Beach Plan
Goals: ( to the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, are given in brackets):
Protect, Preserve, Restore and Enhance the Beach and Dune Systems. [48-39-260(1)(a)(b) ]
Implement the Policy of Retreat. [48-39-260(2) ]
Improve Public Access. [48-39-260(6) ]
Protect Endangered Species Habitat. [48-39-260(1)(d) ]
Develop an Organized Disaster Response Plan. [48-39-260(8) ]
Improve Data Base of Coastal Processes. [48-39-260(7) ]
Improve Public Awareness of Coastal Issues. [48-39-260(1)(c); 48-39-260(2) ]
The following procedures will be used to implement the policies of the Beachfront Management Act.
This section describes the specific methods that will be used to implement the goals, objectives, and policies established in the preceding section.
Policies can be implemented through the permitting and certification processes that are in use by the Council. The review and approval of the local beachfront management plans can also be used to implement these policies.
Several beachfront management guidelines, developed in accordance with Section 48-39-320, address renourishment programs and maintenance of a dry-sand beach. These guidelines are:
The Permitting Rules and Regulations also address the maintenance of beach and dune systems. (Reference Section 30-13, Specific Project Standards for Beaches and Dunes.)
The local beachfront management plans will also be used to implement these goals, objectives, and policies. Each local beach management plan must be reviewed and approved by the Council based upon the guidelines provided by the Council and the requirements of the local beach management plans set forth in Section 48-39-350. (See Appendix 2 for these requirements.)
These policies will be implemented through the permitting and certification systems presently in effect. All permits and project notifications that are received by the Council, located within the 40-year setback line, will have to meet these policies. Local beachfront management plans can be required to implement Council policies within the setback area. Local plans must be approved by the Council.
Several beachfront management guidelines can be used to implement the policy of retreat during the Council's day-to-day review activities and the review of local beachfront management plans. These are (See Appendix 4 for Guidelines):
The Permitting Rules and Regulations also address the implementation of a policy of retreat (see Section 30-13).
The local beachfront management plans will also be used to require local development ordinances to implement a policy of retreat within the 40-year setback area. (See Section 48-39-250, Appendix 5.)
The Council will seek additional funds for access improvements through the annual grant request and recommendations for funding developed with S. C. Parks, Recreation and Tourism. Council funds could also be used to match funds acquired from Parks, Recreation and Tourism for the development of new beach access sites.
The mitigation guidelines will be used to provide a source of funds not matched by other state or federal funds to improve and create new public access sites. Local governments will be required to improve public access as a condition to local plan approval. Additional funds for public access should be requested from NOAA in the Council's annual grant request. The permitting and certification review procedures and local plan approval can be used to implement public access policies.
The guidelines that will be used to implement public access improvements are (see Appendix 4 for Guidelines):
The Council's Permitting Rules and Regulations under Section 30-13, Specific Project Standards for Beaches and Dunes, can also be used to preserve some existing public access sites.
The development of a public access plan as part of this beachfront management plan will be used to identify areas where improvements are needed, to make recommendations on where new sites should be developed, and to identify recommendations for funding these new acquisitions. This plan is to be developed in consultation with the S. C. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism.
These policies will be implemented through the review of the local beachfront management plans and through the Council's permitting and certification processes.
The following guidelines will be used to implement these goals, objectives and policies (see Appendix 4 for Guidelines):
The Permitting Rules and Regulations also address the protection of endangered species and will be used to implement the policies during day to day review of requested activities within the setback.
All local beachfront management plans must contain an element designed to protect endangered species, and this element must be reviewed and approved by the Council in order for a community to have an approved plan.
The plan, adopted as an element to this beachfront management plan, will be implemented by the staff of the Council. The plan will be updated annually and changes made as needed. Each year the plan will be reviewed, procedures evaluated and corrections made as needed. This will be the Council's plan of action for making preparations before a major damage event and after the event has occurred.
These policies will be implemented by Council staff who will conduct the beach surveys and enter the results of each survey into a computerized data base. This will be an ongoing activity that the staff of the Council will continually upgrade. The monitoring plan will provide the Council with a means to establish historic trends and to establish setback lines and better regulate development along the coastline. Data obtained from the monitoring program will be used to adjust the lines and evaluate the success of renourishment projects as required under Section 30-14 of the Administrative Procedures Section.
These policies will be implemented by the staff of the Council as part of the long-term implementation of the Beachfront Management Act. These activities are ongoing and will continue to be met as the need arises.
The following section contains the component programs that will be used to implement strategies required by the State Beachfront Management Plan. These programs will be implemented through the goals, objectives, and policies and through the rules and regulations and guidelines that have been adopted by the Council to administer the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended.
The following program elements are addressed: Beach Monitoring Plan; Beach Erosion Analysis and Nourishment Plan; Public Access Plan; Disaster Response Plan; Public Education and Awareness Plan;
The South Carolina Coastal Council's Beach Monitoring Program was established in 1985. At that time the purpose of the program was to study erosion and accretion along the state's beaches. The program was upgraded in 1987 in anticipation of the 1988 amendments to the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended. Except in areas designated as Unstabilized Inlet Zones under the amended Act, baselines and setback lines are formulated primarily on the basis of data collected at beach survey stations.
Beach profile monitoring stations, marked by a survey monument, are located every 1,000 feet along developed beaches and every 2,000 feet along undeveloped beaches. These monuments consist of a brass cap on a 36 inch breakaway tube, surrounded by PVC pipe and concrete. The brass caps are at ground elevation and are inscribed with identifying information and a specific four-digit number. Sites for survey monuments are chosen for accessibility and the degree to which any given site represents the beach under study. In establishing the Council's network of beach profile monitoring stations an effort was made to recover survey points where data existed from previous studies. Nearly eighty percent (80%) of South Carolina's developed shoreline had been monitored at some time in the past and much of the data has been archived as part of the program.
The specifications for accuracy in the location and elevations of Council monuments were determined by the South Carolina Geodetic Survey. As they are key elements in the determination of setback lines the accuracy of these monuments must be above reproach in a court of law. Third-order control, a term referring to survey accuracy, was selected as meeting the necessary stringent requirements. As a result, the location and elevation of these monuments are more accurate than necessary for property boundary surveys or flood elevation determination. Monuments which were destroyed by Hurricane Hugo have been replaced by the National Geodetic Survey using a new technology, global positioning satellites (GPS). Monuments established with the GPS system are second order in some cases of first-order accuracy. In either case, Council monuments are more accurate than most other monuments used for measuring beach movement in any coastal region.
Beach profiles are developed to satisfy three levels of need:
The profiles are surveyed every six months, spring and fall, to insure regular information flow and to document the normal condition of the beaches.
The profiles are surveyed following a significant storm to assess erosion and recovery.
The profiles are surveyed site-specifically to facilitate Council permitting or planning.
Of course, the beach profile monitoring stations are also available for any other surveying or civil engineering purposes. Most houses in the coastal zone are within 500 feet of a survey monument making the monuments a convenient survey reference. In future years these monuments will provide an accurate system for measuring the changes taking place along the South Carolina coast.
The location of coastal survey monuments are depicted on a variety of maps at Council offices. Maps exist of monuments by Northern, Central and Southern beaches. Maps of monuments by island or municipality are also available and are the type most often used by independent surveyors. (See figures 1-30 for a general representation of the location of these monuments along the South Carolina coast.) The most accurate and useful maps for determining monument locations are the Council's orthophoto maps which are rectified to a scale of 100 feet per inch. These photographic maps are based on aerial photographs flown in July of 1988. The orthophoto maps are essential to the Council's Permitting, Planning and Enforcement divisions. Copies of the maps are available to the public at a modest price from Duncan-Parnell, Inc. of Charleston.
The above described maps will indicate to the user the locations of monument or monuments of interest. Data sheets are also available for each monument. The sheets are indexed by number and contain the following information: the four-digit identifying number; latitude; longitude; northing; easting; elevation; nearby monuments; a verbal description of, and to, the monuments; and a schematic map of the site. This information is contained as an appendix to this report, or is available upon request form the Council.
The Council has prepared a collection of data called Surveyor's Packages. These information packets are divided by island or community and contain maps, monument data, and baseline and setback line information. They are available upon request from the Council.
The beach monitoring network is essentially complete as of July, 1990, with a total of approximately 400 beach profile monitoring stations installed. Over the years new stations will be needed for site specific needs or where currently unexpected shoreline changes develop. These types of shoreline changes are not common but can occur around large or dynamic inlets. The Beach Monitoring Program should account for 6-10 new monuments per year for this contingency. Another 6-10 monuments per year should be budgeted for those monuments lost in storms or to other causes. In the past, costs of installing new monuments have averaged about $300 per monument.
Beach monuments are presently surveyed twice a year to a depth of -5 MSL. The beach profile data gathered from these surveys is used to establish the location of the baseline and to determine the long-term erosion rate used to establish the setback line. The total annual cost for two surveys per year at all 400 monuments is presently about $35,000. It is planned to continue these beach surveys in the future and to use the data collected to generate an annual "state of the beaches" report which will document changes to the state's beaches on an island-by-island basis.
In addition to the twice yearly survey of beach profiles, the Beach Monitoring Program is intended to include two additional types of monitoring. Approximately every two years surveys of selected beach profiles will be extended seaward to -20 feet (MSL). This offshore data gives a better representation of sediment movement within the entire littoral zone. Hydrographic surveys of selected inlet systems will be performed, ideally on a five-year cycle. This additional monitoring will fulfill our information needs regarding the presence, movement, and availability of sand and other sediment in the coastal waters.
The orthophotographs which are presently used to document the location of the survey monuments, baseline, setback line, and oceanfront structures were prepared in 1988. In areas impacted by Hurricane Hugo, many of the sand dunes, shore protection devices, and habitable structures which appear in the orthophotographs have been destroyed. As additional development occurs in the future these maps will become even more out of date. It is anticipated that new orthophotographs will become necessary for much of the State some time within the next 5-10 years, at an estimated cost of several hundred thousand dollars.
The Beachfront Management Act established a state policy of promoting "carefully planned nourishment as a means of beach preservation and restoration where economically feasible." The planning process must consider the following factors: The condition of the beach; The threat presented by continued erosion; The technical feasibility of the project, including the source of fill material; The initial cost and maintenance of the project; The availability of adequate funding on a continuing basis;
A wide dry-sand beach and a well-formed vegetated sand dune offer protection to the land behind them. A history of accretion or very low erosion would tend to reduce the risk of erosion damage. Conversely, the lack of a dry-sand beach and protective dune leave the property vulnerable. A severe episode of erosion could then cause serious damage in a short time. A recent (1990) report by Coastal Science and Engineering (CS&E) to the Council identified 18 locations that are endangered by erosion (Table 1). These locations total 54 miles of coastline. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers "National Shoreline Study," completed in 1973, identified 57 miles of South Carolina shoreline that were critically eroding. Although the methodologies were different, the two results are similar. For planning purposes, the CS&E report will be used as a guideline. This method selected areas that were deficient in sand volumes and needed nourishment to provide a 50-foot dry-sand berm. A ten-year reserve based on erosion rates was included.
Table 2 shows the sand deficits of South Carolina beaches.
In order to evaluate the benefits of a nourishment project, the value of projected losses needs to be determined. For developed beach communities, the assessed value of beachfront land and improvements provide a measure. For parks and public accesses the cost of purchasing replacement facilities could be used. Direct comparisons are difficult to make, but several published Corps of Engineers benefit/cost figures and an informal Council staff estimate, using unpublished data from several county tax offices, give the following range:
Table 2. Sand Deficits at South Carolina Beaches
| Beach | Deficit CY/FT | Annual Loss CY/FT |
| Seabrook, South Beach | 123 | 0 |
| Folly Beach/Folly Beach Park | 65 | 3 |
| Fripp Island | 45 | 5 |
| Hunting Island | 38 | 18 |
| Hilton Head | 30 | 6 |
| Daufuskie Island | 30 | 4 |
| Edisto Beach | 25 | 2 |
| DeBordieu | 22 | 2.5 |
| Sullivans Island (Breech Inlet) | 20 | 3 |
| Pawleys Island | 20 | 2 |
| Garden City | 20 | 2 |
| Briarclif | 12 | 1 |
| North Myrtle Beach | 10 | 1 |
| Surfside Beach | 5 | 1.5 |
| Huntington Beach | 0 | 2 |
| Myrtle Beach | 0 | 1 |
| Isle of Palms | 0 | 3 |
| Source: Coastal Science and Engineering Report, 1990 Note: The erosion rates shown in this table may differ slightly from the rates approved from each station by the S. C. Coastal Council. | ||
Low (Folly Beach) $500/ft.
Medium (Edisto/Pawleys Island) $2,000/ft.
High (Grand Strand) $14,000/ft.
Specific project evaluations should require updated, standardized assessments from the county tax office. The total value of all beachfront lots within the project limits would be reviewed and adjusted as necessary if the date of assessment is not current. At the present time, standardized assessments are not available, and it would not be cost effective or practical to incorporate dollar figures in this plan. However, at the first five-year update of local plans, each community shall be required to report the value of beachfront property and improvements as indicated in the county tax records for use in evaluating nourishment projects.
In order for a project to be considered, it must be shown that the project can succeed using known, available technology. There must be a borrow source of suitable material and an economic means to move it. The suitability of borrow material includes grain size, distribution, and freedom of unwanted material. Also, the environmental effects of removing the material from its existing location should be considered. The project needs to be clearly permittable and there should be no legal or administrative problems that could bar it. Of the 18 potential projects, CS&E identified seven as private (Table 4). Those projects would not be eligible for state funding.
The cost listed by CS&E (Table 1) is an estimate that is not far different from the Corps' "National Shoreline Study" if the latter were adjusted for inflation. The numbers are also close to a 1980 South Carolina Coastal Council staff estimate similarly adjusted. The numbers are quite reasonable for planning purposes; however, it should be clearly understood that bid prices can vary.
At the present time there is no firm state source of funds for beach nourishment. There are federal projects in various planning states for Folly Beach, the Grand Strand and Edisto Beach (Table 3). The first three projects shown in the table have been combined as a Grand Strand project proposed to renourish the beach from Hog Inlet to Garden City Beach. Real estate acquisition could start in 1994 and construction in 1995. These dates are subject to the federal budget process. The Folly Beach project has reached the point where real estate acquisition can begin provided the non-federal funding share money is available. This project could start within a year; however, this also is not certain. The Seabrook Island private project has been completed; however, additional renourishment is needed. The Hilton Head Island project has also been completed. The Folly Beach Project is the furthest along the approval process and could take place within the next two years. The federal share is expected to be about 75% of the $5.6 million project, leaving a $1.4 million non-federal share. The state has provided money for erosion control to local governments, in the past, on a 60%/40% basis. This would result in a state cost of about $840,000. The Grand Strand project is not as far along the approval process, but an estimate of the project shows a $45.3 million project with the federal share at 65%. This leaves a $15.9 million non-federal cost and a $9.5 million state cost using the 60%/40% state, local sharing method. The total state money for matching pending federal projects would total approximately $10.4 million. The remaining projects on Table 1, after eliminating the private projects and using the 60%/40% match (except for state parks), would cost about $10.2 million in state funds. Adding 10% for contingencies, the state total would be $23.1 million. A continuing requirement for maintenance will exist, estimated at about $1.5 million. This should be refined as information becomes available.
The state plan for beach renourishment is to accomplish the nourishment requirements of Table 1 by the year 2000. The sixty-five million dollar cost can be reduced provided planned federal projects are carried out. A revolving fund at the fifteen million dollar level would allow beach nourishment projects to be planned on a two to three year schedule.
Considering the preceding factors, the Council will have to allocate funds as they become available and comply with whatever restrictions or priorities the General Assembly attaches. Beyond that, the most effective allocation would be to help match federal projects that are already approved. The next choice would be for non-federal projects where expensive property is imminently threatened and all the technical conditions are favorable. It would be a mistake to undertake a project that does not have a high probability of success. A final goal is for the Council to seek a long-term funding source so that projects can be scheduled and designed on a rational basis.
Beach renourishment projects may be financed through the following state, federal, local or private sources. Projects often include a combination of several financing sources. The following section describes some of the funding options that are available.
The existence of federal interest in protecting property and lives from flooding and storm damage reduction can qualify a project for federal funding assistance from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Under existing shore protection laws Congress has authorized federal participation in shore protection projects to prevent or reduce damages caused by wind and tide generated waves and currents along the Nation's coasts and shores.
The types of improvements that fall within the intent of the shore protection legislation are generally structural measures including such features as beach fill, groins, seawalls, revetments, breakwaters, and bulkheads. Nonstructural measures, within the generally accepted definition, such as property acquisition, also are appropriate shore protection measures when they prevent damage caused by storms or erosion. (See Table 5.)
Table 5. Shore Ownership and Levels of Federal Participation
| Shore Ownership and Project Purpose | Maximum Level of Maintenance | Federal Participation Construction |
| Federally Owned | ||
| Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction | 100% | 100% |
| Loss of Land | 100% | 100% |
| Recreation | ||
| (Separable Costs) | 100% | 100% |
| Publicly and Privately Owned | ||
| (Protection Results in Public Benefits) | ||
| Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction | 65% | None |
| Loss of Land | 50% | None |
| Recreation | ||
| (Separable Costs) | 50% | None |
| Privately Owned, Use limited to private | ||
| Interests | ||
| Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction | None | None |
| Loss of Land | None | None |
| Recreation | None | None |
Funding can be provided through bonded indebtedness at the State level with bond sale proceeds going to beach renourishment project funding, with or without local matching requirements. The bonds can be retired and debt repaid through general appropriations or revenues earmarked from project user fees and returned to the State. General obligation bonds funded $10.0 million in 1988 for beach renourishment in South Carolina.
The General Assembly may appropriate funds on an annual basis for renourishment projects with funds to come from state tax revenues or other state income sources. Provisions of the General Appropriations Bill may specify repayment. This alternative is not commonly used for construction or permanent improvement projects. Supplemental appropriations and/or surplus revenues may be another source for funding at the end of the fiscal period.
Although restricted at this time in South Carolina to public sewer projects, revolving loan funds for public infrastructure can be used for financing renourishment projects, as is done in other states. Legislative affirmation of this project purpose for South Carolina would be necessary.
The State Division of Local Government also provides grants to local governments for public infrastructure projects. At this time, the priorities established for this program are for water and sewer projects, although other purposes could be funded depending upon public interest and need. The discretionary funds available to the State Budget and Control Board may also be another grant source.
The State Treasurer's Office can assist local governments by pooling local bond issues in order to gain more advantageous interest charges for the bonded debt.
Local governments can issue general obligation or revenue bonds for funding renourishment projects with the debt to be repaid through general local tax revenues, user fees and special tax assessments on property taxes, or special tax districts for project beneficiaries.
Local government annual budgets can appropriate tax revenues or other income to project financing on an annual basis.
The local government share of the state accommodations tax revenues may be allocated to renourishment as a means of promoting tourism. These revenues can also be used to retire debt from loans or bond issues for the same purposes.
Under proposed state law, special tax assessment districts can be enacted in order to finance and maintain renourishment projects and to assess beneficiaries within a project area for repayment purposes. Revenues can be gathered by the district by property tax assessment, direct bill to members, or other means. State legislation is needed to establish this process.
Local governments may finance renourishment project construction through a charge to the public for using the area through an admissions fee or other fees.
Renourishment projects can be paid for directly by the private sector through assessment of beneficiaries.
There are areas of the South Carolina coast where the public has lost the ability to reach the beach. The people of South Carolina, through a legal principle known as the public trust doctrine, own all land below the mean high water mark and consequently most of the beach. The development of restricted access communities and towns prevents public access to areas which the public has traditionally used for recreational purposes. Many local governments, either because of financial constraints or the desire to keep beaches private, will not support or maintain facilities designed to provide access to the general public. The population of the coastal region is also increasing; many of the fastest growing sections of the state are located in the coastal zone. For these reasons there is a great need for the State of South Carolina to provide the direction to preserve existing public access sites by regulatory control and to require that development projects in beachfront areas allow the public the right to reach the beach. A great need also exists for the State to develop new state park facilities which will provide access opportunities to large numbers of residents and visitors. These facilities have been shown to be of importance for attracting visitors to beachfront communities. Additional funding sources to develop smaller day-use parks are also needed. The state in requiring local governments to provide public access sites in order to receive renourishment funds has linked renourishment to public access. Coastal property is expensive and a need exists for the State to assist in these improvements. Following is a beach-by-beach assessment, from north to south, of public access needs and opportunities.
Waites Island
At the North Carolina border is located one of the coast's last undeveloped, readily accessible barrier islands. This island is approximately two miles long, three-quarters of a mile wide and about 800 acres in size. Waites Island is currently under private ownership and is presently tied up in an estate, pending final resolution of probate. Because of the island's size and location, it is obviously a very valuable piece of property. The South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism is interested in obtaining a portion of the property and has been in negotiations with the owners regarding the possibility of obtaining a portion of the estate for use as a park facility. Access to the island is achieved through use of an unpaved dirt road from the mainland. The island is presently protected under the Coastal Barriers Resources Act which will limit the development potential of the island. This classification, however, would not rule out the development of a park facility. Building would, however, be severely restricted by the classification, and federal funds for construction of buildings, roads, water and sewer lines, etc. could not be used.
Waites Island is not located in the City of North Myrtle Beach, but is a part of Horry County.
Assessment. This island is an excellent opportunity for development of a park facility. Acquisition costs would be expensive because of the location. However, the restrictions of the Coastal Barriers Resources Act (COBRA) might work to reduce the value of the land. Development of facilities will also be limited by the COBRA, and if the beach is used at all it would have to be in a natural and unimproved building style.
North Myrtle Beach
North Myrtle Beach consists of four beach communities that consolidated and formed a city. The city limits begin at Hog Inlet, just south of Waites Island and run to Briarcliffe Acres on the south. Beginning at the northern boundary the communities are Cherry Grove Beach, Ocean Drive Beach, Crescent Beach, and Windy Hill Beach.
Public access to the beach in the City of North Myrtle Beach does not appear to be a problem. A majority of the people visiting this beach stay along the coast and use the parking provided by the hotels and beach cottages. There is also some on-street parking located adjacent to street ends and along the roadside of Ocean Drive and the many streets that run perpendicular to the ocean. Hundreds of free or metered spaces are available and within easy walking distance of beach access points.
Beach access points are numerous. Pedestrian access in the Cherry Grove Section is excellent with access points usually at one-half block intervals. In the Cherry Grove Section alone there are seventy-one (71) access points, many with boardwalks and several designed for handicapped access. The Ocean Drive Section has access points at approximately one block intervals, many of which are improved with walkways and some handicapped facilities. Some access points also provide some limited amounts of on-site parking. In the Ocean Drive Section of North Myrtle Beach, forty-nine (49) different public access points are available. The Crescent Beach Section also contains many access points at spacings generally about a block apart. Most of the access points have been improved with walkways. Parking is on-street when available. The Windy Hill Section of North Myrtle Beach has fourteen (14) accessways, most with boardwalks. Several have on-site parking. However, parking, as with most places along the beach, must be acquired on the street at off-site locations.
The beaches in the North Myrtle Beach area are generally very wide and relatively stable. In most cases along the beachfront, beach widths are greater than 200 feet. Erosion rates in most cases are also well below a foot a year, so these beaches are considered some of the most stable along the coast.
In many sections of the City, facilities such as life guards, concessions, and other facilities are provided by the City. These facilities are not available at all sites, and there are probably areas which could be improved. Public restrooms, likewise, are not available over most of the beachfront, although many hotels and businesses make restroom facilities available.
Assessment. Public access along the City of North Myrtle Beach is in very good shape. The access points are plentiful and well-located. Parking is a problem along some areas and can be improved by marking on-street spaces and providing more off-site parking. Additional public restrooms need to be provided as well as minor improvements such as additional boardwalks or other facilities at the street-end access points.
Atlantic Beach
Atlantic Beach is a small city located between the Crescent Beach and Windy Hill Sections of North Myrtle Beach. The Town is only three (3) blocks in length, but a public access point is available at each street end. Parking is on-street with no spaces marked. Lifeguards are available along sections of the beach as are concessions. No public restrooms are available; however, plans are underway to develop these facilities.
Assessment. Public restrooms are needed as are additional public parking facilities. Signs and boardwalks are also missing from this beach and would improve access and use of the beachfront.
Briarcliffe Acres
Briarcliffe Acres is a small beachfront residential community that incorporated into a town. The Town of Briarcliffe Acres is located south of the Windy Hill Section of North Myrtle Beach above an unincorporated section of Horry County known as the Lake Arrowhead Campground area. The property owners association owns all property along the beachfront. There is no development along the beachfront except for several beach walkover structures owned by the property owners association. No public access facilities are provided and the Town is not interested in providing any public facilities.
Assessment. The Town of Briarcliffe Acres is not submitting a local beachfront management plan. Because of the undeveloped nature of the beach, very little of the Town is affected by the Beachfront Management Act. The Town is consequently not eligible to receive funds for renourishment. Opportunities for improving public access are very limited.
Lake Arrowhead
This section of beach is undeveloped but will be developing in the future as the campground changes over from the existing use to a more dense land use pattern. Public access is not presently provided although there are several walkovers through the campground.
Assessment. This area, because of its undeveloped nature, could provide opportunities for public access improvements, and measures to provide public access as the land use pattern changes should be included in the Horry County Beachfront Management Plan.
Myrtle Beach
Myrtle Beach is the Grand Strand's best known beach resort community. It is truly a destination resort serving as the vacation center for thousands of beach users each season which stretches from spring to fall. Along the beachfront there are many high-rise hotels, small "Mom and Pop" motels, condominiums, rental units, campgrounds, and dwellings occupied by permanent residents of the area. The city boundaries cover a prime piece of beachfront real estate, occupying approximately 10 miles of the Grand Strand. Tourism is the key industry of this community, and almost all of the community's economy derives from service industries related to tourism.
Myrtle Beach has recognized the need to provide access opportunities for people wishing to reach the beach. Accordingly, the City has approximately 150 public access points as well as hundreds of private access points from individual motels, condominiums and businesses. Many of the accessways provide boardwalks and small amounts of parking. Several provide landscaped areas for sitting and viewing. Some are associated with the central pavilion and amusement areas. Lifeguards and concession facilities are provided at many areas along the beach, especially those associated with the pavilion and hotel areas.
Parking for public and day use is limited in many areas, and the beach using public must compete for spaces with the business traffic. The City has provided public parking facilities in some areas, and there are several public parking garages along the beachfront.
Assessment. Public access in Myrtle Beach and the upper Grand Strand is much better than in most of the rest of the State. However, there remains a need to improve parking and some access areas along sections of the City. A shortage of public restroom facilities also exists, and this need also requires attention.
Myrtle Beach State Park
Myrtle Beach State Park is located at the southern boundary of the City of Myrtle Beach and provides 350 camping spaces, day use, and fishing (formerly from a 750-foot fishing pier destroyed by Hurricane Hugo). The Park is 312 acres in size and has a swimming pool, public restrooms and beach area and concession facilities. Approximately 400 public parking spaces are available for day-use visitors. The pier was destroyed September 1989 by Hurricane Hugo but is being rebuilt and scheduled for opening in early 1992.
Assessment. This park provides excellent access opportunities for the southern Myrtle Beach area. Improvements are not necessary.
Southern Campground Area
Between Myrtle Beach State Park and the Town of Surfside Beach are located several large undeveloped pieces of land that are presently used for campgrounds. One subdivision has also been built in the area. This area covers about 3 miles of beachfront. There are several pavilions and other structures associated with these campgrounds; however, the beachfront is mostly undeveloped.
Assessment. In the future this area will probably be developing into a hotel, condominium, high-rise type of land use pattern. As this development has not yet occurred, this would be a good area in which to investigate the possibility of acquiring a portion of land for a public access site.
Surfside Beach
Surfside Beach is an oceanfront community that, until a few years ago, consisted of mostly beachfront cottages. In recent years small condominiums and high-rise buildings have been built along the beachfront. Almost without exception most of the construction is well setback. Public access to the beachfront exists at each street end running perpendicular to the beachfront. There are 33 of these street ends. Parking is a problem; most parking is on-street with a few off-street areas available. There are no public restrooms.
Assessment. It is recommended that restroom facilities be pursued as well as the development of additional public parking areas.
Garden City Beach
A portion of Garden City Beach is located in Horry County, but most of it is located in Georgetown County. The Horry County beachfront section has developed into mostly high-rise hotel projects built on narrow pieces of land very close to the beach. The beach is very erosional and narrow. During Hurricane Hugo a great deal of damage took place at Garden City Beach, and one contributing factor was the lack of sand in front of the beach. Public access in this area is a problem. Parking and traffic circulation problems during the summer months are severe. Traffic moves very slowly down South Waccamaw Drive, the only street. Off-street parking for public day use is limited to only the area around the King Fisher Pier. There are 44 street-end access points along the Garden City area which the public can use to reach the beach. In the Georgetown County section, street-end access points are the only access for the public to reach the beachfront. There is no off-street parking available, and on-street parking is extremely limited by the development pattern.
Assessment. Because of the development pattern, major improvements to public access opportunities will be difficult. It is recommended that several lots be acquired for use as a park providing both an access site and parking area. Restrictions on building might make some of this land available in the future. Parking is very much needed as are several public restroom facilities.
Huntington Beach State Park
Huntington Beach State Park is a state park facility located just south of Murrells Inlet on the ocean. The park is about 2500 acres in size and provides 200 camp sites, wildlife observation, beach day use and fishing opportunities via a walkway constructed over the south jetty protecting Murrell's Inlet. A paved parking lot for 275 cars is available as are restrooms and concession facilities. The park is heavily used, especially during the summer months. The park is leased to the State from Brookgreen Gardens.
Assessment. The park has ample area to expand parking if need be. This is a very important resource to the State and it provides the only large-scale public access opportunity for the Waccamaw Neck and Grand Strand areas.
North Litchfield Beach
North Litchfield Beach is a residential area of mostly beachfront houses. There are seventeen public accesses and approximately 110 parking spaces along North Litchfield Beach. All parking is off-street. There are no restrooms.
Assessment. Improvements to on-street parking are needed. Off-street parking facilities are also needed. It is recommended that accessways be clearly marked at the beach and from Highway 17.
Litchfield-by-the-Sea
Litchfield-by-the-Sea is a private development. Access is controlled by a security gate. Public access does not exist at Litchfield-by-the-Sea. In order to use any of the community access facilities to the beach, residency or rental of one of the units is a requirement.
Assessment. Access opportunities, because of the developed nature of this community, are very limited.
Litchfield Beach
Litchfield Beach is a mixture of mid-rise condominiums and beach cottages. Beach access is limited. There are seven public access points and approximately 24 public parking spaces along Litchfield Beach. Access to the beach is reached via seven 10-foot wide walkways and one five-foot wide path. The southern end of Litchfield Beach, or Litchfield Spit, is under the COBRA and would be an excellent site for an unimproved access point with services provided by a shuttle system from the mainland.
Assessment. Recommended improvements for additional parking spaces and better marking of access points is needed. This area could also be an excellent opportunity for creation of an access point by improving access (with very limited facilities to the Litchfield Spit). It is recommended that the opportunities for expanding access into this area be further investigated.
Pawley's Island
Pawley's Island is an incorporated town located just south of the Litchfield Beach Area. In recent years, Georgetown County has made improvements to public access by providing a parking area on the southern tip of the island. This area contains parking for 101 cars. There is no access along the middle section of the island, a very narrow row of houses one lot wide. In the upper central section of the island a few small access points with several off-street spaces are available. There is no access on the northern end of the island. There are no public restroom facilities on the island.
Assessment. There are several areas where steps could be taken to improve access. Restrooms could be added to the park on the southern end. This facility could also be increased in size. A walkway to the beach should be acquired in the middle section of the island with parking provided at some interior location. Additional walkways along with on-and off-street parking facilities could be acquired especially in the middle and northern sections of the island.
Arcadia Beach
Arcadia is an undeveloped piece of land between Pawley's Island and Debidue.
Assessment. Arcadia is a very large undeveloped piece of land. Because of the growth rate taking place in the Waccamaw Neck area, this large piece of land will eventually be developed. It is recommended that some governmental unit, whether it is the State or County, acquire a portion of this land to develop a public beach facility.
Debidue Beach
Debidue is a private beach community. Access is controlled by a security gate. The entire beach is developed, and public access is nonexistent. The island is highly erosional in areas.
Assessment. Very little can be done to improve access to Debidue Beach because of its private and closed status.
Baruch Property (Hobcaw Barony)
The Baruch property is used for research purposes and has several miles of excellent beaches. The property is undeveloped with the exception of several laboratories and buildings remaining from the time when the Baruch family occupied the property. Public access to the beach is nonexistent.
Assessment. It might be possible to dedicate a certain portion of the property for public beach use and improvement under the authority of the University of South Carolina provided that the research goals and objectives of the property are not compromised. Any access improvements would have to be under those guidelines. Access would have to be provided by ferry because the beachfront tract is not accessible by land. It is recommended that this possibility be investigated.
North Island-South Island
These islands are known as the Yawkey Center and are dedicated to wildlife preservation and research. They are operated and managed by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. Access is managed by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department.
Assessment. It is recommended that the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department explore the possibility of increasing public beach access while keeping with the management objectives of the Wildlife Reserve.
Cedar Island-Murphy Island
These are undeveloped barrier islands owned by the State of South Carolina and controlled/managed by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. Public access is managed by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department.
Assessment. It is recommended that the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department explore the possibility of increasing public beach access while keeping with the management objectives of the Wildlife Reserve.
Cape Romain-Bulls Island
The Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge consists of 34,000 acres of barrier islands, sand spits, and marshlands. Bulls Island, located on the southern end of the complex, is six miles long and 5400 acres in size. There are over twenty (20) miles of undeveloped beaches in this complex. The area is accessible by boat, and while access is allowed to private boats, there is only one concessionaire providing day-trip visitation to Bulls Island. Camping is generally not allowed except in specific areas on Bulls Island during designated times.
Assessment. Public access opportunities to Bulls Island and Cape Island and several other areas in the Cape Romain complex should be expanded. Chiefly, these improvements should involve improving the facilities on Bulls Island to accommodate new visitors and providing a means of transportation to enable visitors to reach these areas through the use of ferries and similar systems. The development of public access improvements should not be allowed to have a detrimental impact on the maintenance of the natural characteristics of this property. Any attempted improvements must carefully balance the need for improvements with the need to protect these islands and marshlands.
Capers Island
Capers Island is an undeveloped barrier island located south of Bulls Island. It is owned and managed by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. The Wildlife Department operates the island as a wildlife preserve and recreational area. Access is limited; the island must be reached by private boat. Few facilities are available on the island.
Assessment. It is recommended that Parks, Recreation and Tourism and the Wildlife Department look into ways to improve access. By providing a regularly scheduled ferry (possibly from the Isle of Palms or Charleston Harbor area) and making additional improvements, such as restrooms and changing facilities, to accommodate day visitors to the beach, many more residents of the State could enjoy this resource. The area provides an excellent opportunity for improvements.
Dewees Island
Dewees Island is a private island of about three (3) miles in size located between Capers Island and the Isle of Palms. There is no bridge or ferry system; access must be reached by private boat. The island is mostly undeveloped with only a few houses on the northern end. There are plans to develop the island in large-lot, low-density houses.
Assessment. Because of the difficulty of reaching this island the development might not be successful. If the anticipated development does not occur, S. C. Parks, Recreation and Tourism should look into acquiring all or most of this island for the development of a beach access park. Access could be provided by shuttle ferry from Charleston Harbor or the Isle of Palms and could also service Capers Island. Additional facilities to accommodate day or possibly overnight visitors would need to be developed if the decision is made to acquire and develop the property.
Isle of Palms
The Isle of Palms provides a great deal of access for the Charleston area. Wild Dunes, a private resort development, covers the eastern end of the island. Public access to this section of the beach is nonexistent. The remaining portion of the island is about three (3) miles in length and is completely open to the public through forty-four beach access walkways, on-street parking and two very large public parking areas located in the central business district. The Town of the Isle of Palms and Charleston County are in the process of constructing public restrooms in the central business district. Also a new county park is under development in this area.
Assessment. Public access along the Isle of Palms beaches with the exception of the Wild Dunes area is excellent. With the construction of the public restroom facilities, few if any improvements other than marking access points and parking areas are recommended.
Sullivan's Island
Sullivan's Island also provides some beach access for the Charleston area. Access to the beach is provided by twenty-four (24) access points located at every block and street-end along the beachfront. Parking is in short supply and most parking occurs on-street in unmarked spaces. No restrooms are provided other than those at Fort Moultrie.
Assessment. Access ways to the beach are sufficient to serve the day use demand. However, additional improvements are needed to improve parking facilities along the beachfront. It will be necessary in future years to provide additional on-street parking as well as some off-street lots. It is also recommended that public restrooms be provided.
Morris Island
Morris Island is an undeveloped barrier island located on the south side of the Charleston jetties. A large portion of the island is diked to form a disposal area for sediment dredged from the harbor channels. The remaining sections of the island are a small area of highland and a very erosional washover terrace/sandbar that changes shape seasonally. The entire area is located in the COBRA. Public access is nonexistent.
Assessment. It is recommended that the potential for acquiring this area by Parks, Recreation and Tourism or the Heritage Trust be investigated. A limited system of providing public access to the beach should be developed. While this area should remain in its natural state and facilities should not be constructed, it is recommended that it be acquired for public use purposes.
Folly Beach
Folly Beach is a barrier island located on the south side of the Charleston Harbor jetties. The island is very erosional. Public access is provided all over the island by twenty-eight (28) access ways located at street ends along the five miles of beachfront. A public park has been built on the southern end of the island.
Assessment. Public parking is very limited along most of the beachfront. Only on-street spaces are available in most areas and those are unmarked and difficult to use because of planting in the road right-of-way and the sandy surface of the roadway. Additional parking needs to be developed. There are no public restrooms on Folly with the exception of those located at the park. The Coast Guard Base at the northern end of the island is being abandoned. There is a possibility that this site could be acquired and developed into a regional beach access facility. This opportunity should be further pursued by Parks, Recreation and Tourism or Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission.
Kiawah Island
Kiawah Island is a closed beachfront community. As a condition to the initial development approval, land for a county beachfront park was set aside for development. This park is managed by Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission and is open seasonally. There is no other public access on Kiawah Island.
Assessment. The Beachwalker Park on the end of the island needs to be expanded and opened more than seasonally. This area is providing the only access into this section of the county, and it is not presently meeting access needs. It is recommended that, if additional land cannot be acquired adjacent to the site, an off-site parking area with shuttle service should be established. This would enable more people to reach the beach.
Seabrook Island
This is a private resort community. There is no public access on Seabrook.
Assessment. There is very little likelihood that public access could be acquired on Seabrook unless Parks, Recreation and Tourism is given the power to use eminent domain to condemn land for public access purposes. The likelihood of any facilities developed here is low.
Botany Bay Island
Botany Bay Island is located just across the North Edisto River from Seabrook Island and is mostly undeveloped with the exception of a few large lots and scattered houses. The Nature Conservancy purchased the development rights to the island several years ago, and the island will remain undeveloped.
Assessment. Public access is limited and probably will not take place because of the protected nature of the property and the inaccessible location of the island.
Eddingsville Beach
This is a very erosional section of the coast where very little highland exists. It is under private ownership and difficult to reach. The South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism is interested in the possibility of acquiring this land and using it as an addition to the Edisto Beach State Park.
Assessment. Public access improvements within this area are a possibility. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism is interested in acquiring this site.
Edisto Beach State Park
Edisto Beach State Park covers 1225 acres on Edisto Island and provides access to the beach for day visitors as well as camping, wildlife observation and many other activities. The park has 103 camp sites and five (5) cabins. The park provides about 250 parking spaces and can easily accommodate any overflow in other areas of the park. Restrooms and concessions are available.
Assessment. The park provides good access for day use visitors and campers. Any improvements needed are minor in nature.
Edisto Beach
The Town of Edisto Beach is a beach community characterized by one-and two-story beach houses. There is a lot of public access to the beach along Palmetto Boulevard, the main street parallel to the beach. There are many footpath access-ways to the beach, approximately one access-way for every 400 feet. Palmetto Boulevard is a very wide street, and on-street parking is available along the entire length. The pier/pavilion area located adjacent to the State Park also provides some off-street parking. There are no restrooms available to the public along the beachfront.
Assessment. Only minor improvements to beach access are needed along Edisto Beach. These improvements would involve better marking of the access-ways and on-street parking areas. As demand increases in future years long-range planning measures should include the development of public restroom facilities and off-street parking lots.
ACE Basin Islands (Otter and Pine Islands)
These very remote islands are located in the ACE Basin and are designated to be part of the National Estuarine Reserve System.
Assessment. Because of the remote nature and protected status of this area, public access improvements are not needed or recommended in this area.
Harbor Island
Harbor Island is a private resort development. Public access to the island is not allowed. Access is controlled by a security gate.
Assessment. Because of the private nature of the island, the prospects of improving public access are very limited.
Hunting Island State Park
This island is owned by the State of South Carolina, and a park covers most of the island. Day-use beach access, camping, cabin rentals, wildlife observation, and a fishing pier are available to the public for use. The park has 200 campsites, fifteen (15) cabins, and provides parking for 400 plus cars. There are public restrooms and concession facilities. When the park was created in the 1930's, a tract of land on the south beachfront was divided into lots and leased for private beach homes. The private lots limit the potential for public beach access from the park. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism is trying to purchase the homes and reclaim the lots for future use by the public. This park is heavily used. The beach has experienced severe erosion in past years, but in 1990 was renourished with sand dredged from offshore sources to create a wide, more stable beach.
Assessment. Hunting Island is one of the most important public beach access facilities for the State. Additional improvements are not needed at this time. However, a beach usable to the public should be maintained through continued renourishment and/or a gradual retreat and establishment of a natural beach. Also, the land to the south of the park should be gradually acquired to expand the park.
Fripp Island
Fripp Island is a private resort community. There is no public access to Fripp Island. The beach is very narrow because of extreme erosion.
Assessment. Opportunities for improving access onto Fripp Island are very limited. It is unlikely that these facilities will be provided.
Pritchards Island/St. Phillips Island/Bay Point Island
All three islands are owned by private individuals. Pritchards and St. Phillips Islands are protected from development and have been designated to the University of South Carolina for research purposes. Bay Point Island has been proposed to be developed under several different proposals, none of which has ever come to pass. All three are difficult to reach because of their remote location and lack of land access.
Assessment. The feasibility of acquiring some form of right to access Pritchards or St. Phillips should be looked into by the State. This would require a joint use arrangement with the University and development of a ferry system. Also, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism or Beaufort County should look into acquiring Bay Point Island and the possibilities of developing a park on the island. This island has many historical and natural resource features and would make an excellent park facility.
Hilton Head Island
This island is 28,000 acres in size and contains more than thirteen (13) miles of beachfront area. Much of the island is private and accessible only by security gate. Sections of the beachfront are very erosional. The island attracts thousands of visitors each year as well as a growing resident population.
Assessment. While large sections of Hilton Head Island are restricted by security gates and cannot be reached by the public there have been many improvements made to provide day-use facilities, and there are many more improvements on the drawing board. Access points and public parking are problems. The development of the mid-island parks and creation of new access points will greatly increase access. However, this island is heavily used and concentrating all day-use visitors in one section of the island will create problems. It is recommended that new public access sites be developed and spread out as much as possible over the entire island.
Daufuskie Island
Daufuskie Island is a 5000 acre island separated from the mainland and Hilton Head by the Intracoastal Waterway and Calibogue Sound. Large scale resort development has recently begun on the island by several large development companies. Public access to the beachfront existed through access ways and easements to the beach and have been retained by the new development.
Assessment. As this island increases in population there will be a greater need to provide public access to the beachfront. Development projects located along the beachfront should be required to set aside land for public access purposes. There will be a need for additional access points, small parking areas, and restroom facilities in future years. Beaufort County or Parks, Recreation and Tourism should investigate the feasibility of building a park on part of the beachfront.
Turtle Island
Turtle Island is almost entirely marsh or spoil area. It is managed by the Wildlife and Marine Resources Department.
Assessment. Because of the location and nature of the island (marsh), this island does not offer any potential for increased public access opportunities.
Recommendations
The inventory of access sites identified several potential sites which, if the money to acquire and develop them were available, could be added to the coast's access areas. The S. C. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism has reviewed the list and has approved it as a good starting point. During the next year, 1991-1992, the Council and Parks, Recreation and Tourism will prioritize the list and try to develop an action plan for coastal public access improvements. This plan will examine each proposal more closely to determine cost estimates for the projects which might be undertaken during the next five-year period. Proposed funding methods will also be investigated.
State/Regional Parks
The following regional impact potential park site recommendations were identified:
Development of a park on Waites Island.
Improve access to North Island by a ferry system.
Improve access and facilities to Murphy Island.
Provide better day-use beach access to the Cape Romain area.
Provide access and improvements to Bulls and Capers Island.
Acquire public access sites on Dewees Island.
Acquire and develop access improvements on Morris Island.
Acquire and develop a park on the abandoned Coast Guard Base on Folly Island.
Acquire and develop a regional beach park on Bay Point Island.
Local Parks
The following are sites where smaller community-serving beach access facilities might be developed or existing facilities significantly improved:
North Myrtle Beach.
Myrtle Beach.
Surfside Beach.
Garden City Beach (new facilities needed).
Pawleys Island.
Litchfield Beach (new facilities needed).
Isle of Palms.
Sullivans Island.
Folly Beach.
Edisto Beach.
North Beaufort County (new facilities needed).
Hilton Head Island (new facilities needed).
Daufuskie Island (new facilities needed).
Federal Beach Access Programs
306-A Funds
Section 306-A of the Coastal Zone Management Act has been used in past years to improve public access opportunities throughout the coastal zone. While in past years all types of access projects have been funded, it would be possible to give priority to beach access projects. Types of facilities that are eligible are land acquisition costs, walkovers, parking lot improvements, development of restrooms, and so forth.
Under Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) can purchase previously damaged property to reduce loss of life and property in high flood risk areas. Under this program FEMA provides the money to buy the property and use the land for open space or nondevelopment purposes. The property owners can either agree to sell the land and buildings to FEMA for demolition and removal or they can transfer title to the property and retain ownership in the buildings to move them to another non-flooding property.
In administering the program, FEMA assigns an appraiser to determine a fair market value for the property and establishes a price that FEMA is willing to pay. If the property owner accepts, a real estate purchase agreement is executed. There are provisions in the law to provide additional appraisals to negotiate a fair sales price, and as much as possible, to satisfy the property owner. Participation in the process is completely voluntary. Benefits to the property owner are a fair compensation for his property and relief from land that is subject to flooding. Local governments are relieved of the costs of providing emergency services and are able to use the acquired property to provide land for public recreation. This program seems especially well-suited to acquiring oceanfront property that is located seaward of the baseline.
South Carolina Parks, Recreation and Tourism (Three Programs)
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
This is a 50/50 matching grant program to acquire and develop outdoor recreation areas. It is available to state, local and special purpose districts.
This fund has provided over $88 million for development of facilities. The demand in recent years has far exceeded the amount of available money. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism uses a ranking system to prioritize grant requests using a point system to compare applications. In 1990, South Carolina had available approximately $300,000 in Land and Water Conservation fund money. Under the current regulations, no project can take more than 10% of the total available amount. All Grants are awarded annually.
This fund was created in 1976 to assist in acquiring state level recreational sites. Funds for local governments are limited to the costs of actually acquiring the property and cannot include incidental costs such as appraisals, surveys and legal fees. A maximum of $25,000 per project is available unless the project is of regional or statewide significance. Then the project is eligible for up to 50% of the total site acquisition costs.
This program is a noncompetitive grant program providing funds to local governments for the planning and development of new parks and recreation facilities or for the renovation and improvement of existing facilities. Grant awards are made on a case-by-case basis at a rate of up to eighty percent of the total project costs. Each application must have the endorsement of a majority of the legislative delegation members of the county. All local match shares (20% non-funded share) must be in the form of cash, force account labor or equipment used in the construction of the park. Costs for administration, acquisition of real property, or interest on borrowed funds are not eligible to be used for matching PARD funds.
The following activities are eligible for PARD Funds.
A local government can always utilize property tax revenues to finance renourishment projects, acquire property or improve public access sites.
Another method of financing a project is to establish special purpose districts along the beachfront to fund ongoing renourishment projects or to acquire and develop public access sites. Several areas along the coast presently have special purpose districts that have been used to fund and administer renourishment projects and erosion control projects. These special purpose districts have the authority to assess all property located within the district at the same rate to fund beach erosion prevention projects. However, under the present legislation, these districts do not have the authority to assess individual property at a rate in proportion to the benefits received from renourishment projects. For this purpose, a new special purpose district chartered through the general assembly can be used to issue and retain bonds, assign cost shares, and design and implement beach nourishment or improvement projects.
The newly-passed local option sales tax provides another option for new funds which could be used for beach renourishment or access improvement projects. While a sizeable portion of these funds is required by law to be used to roll back property taxes, additional remaining revenues could be used to fund beach projects.
Local governments in counties collecting more than $50,000 annually are required to spend a portion of the accommodations taxes collected on tourism-related expenditures. These expenditures include advertising and promotion of tourism, the arts, and cultural events; civic and cultural related construction activities; basic services when required to serve tourists (based on estimated percentage of cost directly related to tourists); public facilities; tourist transportation; beach renourishment; and visitor information centers.
Parking fees and fees to use beach access facilities could be used for underwriting operating expenses, improvements to existing facilities or the development of new facilities.
In order to develop access opportunities funding will always be needed. Beachfront property has for many years been one of the most expensive types of land to purchase. Governments at all levels face financial constraints which require other priorities such as landfills, jails, maintenance of police and fire services to be addressed before some of the less immediately demanding community needs. However, as history has indicated, unless beachfront access problems are addressed when opportunities present themselves, the land and access opportunities are frequently lost. Funding measures must be constantly pursued, and many times combined funding sources will be the only means available to provide the money needed to acquire and develop access sites. Several possibilities exist:
It should be noted that the programs presently in existence are not keeping up with the demand for access sites. Clearly there is a need to provide additional money to make these improvements.
Priorities are difficult to establish because of financial considerations and opportunities to acquire land present themselves at different times. The Council has, through its policies for improving public access, committed to identifying problem areas, working with state and local governments to improve public access, and linking its funding programs for beach renourishment to insuring that the public has the means to reach any renourished beach. The Council is committed to working for new sources of money to acquire new access sites and funds that can be passed through to local governments which will allow them to acquire and improve new access sites. The Council is also committed to working with the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism to develop programs for acquiring and improving new access facilities along the coast as opportunities present themselves.
The most likely disaster to affect the South Carolina Coastal Council will be the landfall of a hurricane, such as occurred with Hurricane Hugo on September 21, 1989. Damage and destruction to buildings, pools, seawalls and roads located within the coastal setback can be extensive. At the same time, the Council's office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications can be seriously degraded. Emergency orders that cancel or modify some normal procedures will probably be issued by various officials. Many questions will be asked by citizens concerning what they can do to protect and restore their property.
The South Carolina Coastal Council will have to maintain open offices, available to the public, where the business of carrying out the State's Coastal Zone Management laws are accomplished. Staff members may be temporarily reassigned by the Executive Director to accomplish this.
A key provision of the State's beach management plan is the retreat policy. This is based on erosion and on destruction of various types of oceanfront structures. Obviously, a hurricane will be the cause of erosion and damage to structures and will therefore trigger the retreat provisions of the plan. With this in mind, the South Carolina Coastal Council will be faced with determining the amount of damage to seawalls, revetments, swimming pools, buildings and other structures. It will also be necessary to determine what work can or cannot be done either without a permit or under a general permit, a regular permit or an emergency permit. These determinations will have to be made rapidly, under adverse conditions, be accurate, well documented and reported to federal, state and local officials, as well as the owners.
The South Carolina Coastal Council will operate under four levels of hurricane readiness: Pre-Hurricane Season Activities, Condition Yellow, Condition Red and Post-Hurricane Activities. Each condition will be established by the Deputy Director or the Executive Director.
Within two weeks prior to the official commencement of hurricane season each year, the Deputy Director will oversee the following activities:
If necessary a meeting will be held with firms under contract to discuss procedures and coordination.
Condition Yellow will be established by the Executive Director or Deputy Director any time a hurricane or potential hurricane is within five days' striking distance of any portion of the South Carolina coast and shall remain in effect until a higher condition is set or the threat passes.
The following activities will take place under Condition Yellow:
Condition Red will be set at the discretion of the Executive Director, preferably at least 48 hours or more before a hurricane has reasonable probability of striking South Carolina's coast.
Post-Hurricane Recovery activities will begin as soon as possible after landfall of a hurricane. The Executive Director will notify the members of the Disaster Management Team that the post-hurricane recovery period has begun. It is inevitable that certain staff members will have personal responsibilities which they must deal with prior to reporting to their assigned work station. In these cases, the Executive Director or Deputy Director will make substitutions as necessary to fill gaps in staffing.
The short-term recovery period is expected to last from two to four weeks depending upon the extent of the damage caused by the storm.
The long-term recovery period will begin after the tasks described in the Post-hurricane Recovery Activities have been completed. It is likely that the phase-in period from the post-storm period to the long-term recovery period will be gradual and be conducted by reassigning individual staff members as their duties are completed. Some will be reassigned before others. It is likely that the long-term recovery will last from three to six months.
The Executive Director and Deputy Director of the South Carolina Coastal Council will assign personnel and equipment to best handle the disaster situation. Figure 33 serves as a model disaster management organization based on the experiences gained from Hurricane Hugo and evaluations of the management structure. Following is a description of the personnel positions and responsibilities, to be modified as necessary by the Executive Director.
Develops strategies and establishes priorities for addressing the emergency situation. Provides external coordination with major disaster-management related agencies (State Disaster Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Governor's Office, U.S. Corps of Engineers, S.C Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, and others as appropriate). The Disaster Management Team consists of the Executive Director, Deputy Director, Public Information Director, a member of the legal staff, the Senior Staff Coordinator, and other staff as appointed. The team assembles in and operates out of the Columbia office unless otherwise directed.
Implements the decisions of the Executive Director and the Disaster Management Team and serves as a member of the team. Coordinates the operations of the individual Field Office Coordinators and the On-site Coordinator in addressing the disaster. Directs support functions and staff to where they are most needed. Addresses specific problems that come up during the emergency period as needed.
Provides support to the On-site Coordinator as directed by the Senior Staff Coordinator. Oversees all staff and operations assigned to the field office. Maintains day-to-day operations of the field offices.
Responsible for all on-site disaster field operations to implement the Beachfront Management Act and recovery process. Recommends priorities and procedures to Senior Staff Coordinator. Coordinates with local government officials. May or may not be the Field Office Coordinator.
Coordinates field survey of the beachfront area including seawalls and structures to determine which structures are damaged beyond repair in accordance with the Beachfront Management Act. Coordinates all field damage assessment staff. Ensures consistency in damage assessment procedures. Works with local building officials during damage appraisals and reports to the On- Site Coordinator.
More than one legislator called the Beachfront Management Act of 1988 "one of the most complicated pieces of legislation to come before the General Assembly in more than a decade." To ensure compliance and support, a massive communications effort was launched. The following steps were taken.
The most effective way to get a message heard is through the media. Getting heard, however, is only half the story. A more difficult task is to be understood.
The Coastal Council began the educational process early. In the spring of 1986, the Coastal Council held a media day called "The Beaches of South Carolina." Media representatives from throughout the state participated. Staff from the Coastal Council gave participants a look at then current beach policies and conditions and forecasted future problems.
Afterwards Council Chairman James M. Waddell, Jr., formed a Blue Ribbon Committee for Beachfront Management. The committee was to learn about erosion, current beach management policies, and the policies of other states. Their final recommendation was to become the framework from which new beach management policies were created.
Through press releases and personal invitations, the media became very involved with the Blue Ribbon Committee. As the committee struggled with ideas and proposals, so did the media and the public.
Interest continued as the legislation made its way through the General Assembly and continues as the Act is implemented. The Coastal Council employs a public information officer to keep the public informed through personal contact, newspapers, radio stations, wire services, magazines and television stations. The agency keeps a weekly record of all print stories related to coastal issues. The "Weekly News Summary" averages 30 articles per week. This material may be reviewed in the agency's library.
Several materials are available to help the public to understand coastal processes and coastal zone management. Agency brochures include "Understanding Our Coastal Environment," "The South Carolina Coastal Council," "Public Access Guide to the South Carolina Coast," and "How To Build A Dune." In addition, a brochure that explains the Beachfront Management Act in simple terms was produced. Over 7000 copies of "The New Coastal Zone Management Act" were distributed during 1988 and 1989.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, the Beachfront Management Act of 1988, administrative interpretations, and other implementing materials are also available. The agency's newsletter, "Carolina Currents," contains numerous articles related to beaches and coastal management.
South Carolina's Educational Television produced a comprehensive documentary about coastal processes and the Beachfront Management Act. Copies of the one-hour show are available in the Coastal Council's Charleston office.
Coastal Council staff average two speeches per week. These presentations are usually accompanied by slides and address coastal processes, the functions of the agency, and the Beachfront Management Act. Audiences range from one dozen people to more than 400; groups represented include civic clubs, professional organizations, schools, conference attendees, and homeowners associations.
Staff also invited officials from each coastal community to two Coastal Council sponsored seminars. The seminars defined the role of local government and the state in administering the Beachfront Management Act. Staff also went to each coastal community to meet with appropriate officials.
The public information office will continue to utilize the media, video tapes, written materials, and personal contact to communicate the goals of the agency and the Beachfront Management Act to the public. This communication works both ways; the public information officer and staff will continue to relay the concerns of the public to the Board.
While it is impossible to predict the future, at this point it appears as if beach nourishment, the need for coastal setbacks, and the need to take greater responsibility for the condition of the coast will be the issues of the next five years. The Coastal Council will use every means at its disposal to get the facts behind these issues to the public.
The Act is very specific in that the management of the beachfront area will be both a local and state responsibility. Local governments are encouraged to develop Beachfront Management Plans that are designed to complement and assist in implementing the policies of the Beachfront Management Act. The law states that in order for a local government to be eligible for beach renourishment bond funds, it must develop and implement a local beachfront management plan.
The Act specifically lists ten elements that each local plan must address:
During 1989 and 1990, many meetings were held with local government officials and planning staffs to coordinate the development of the State Plan. The guidelines required to be developed as a part of the State Plan were all prepared to meet requirements of the local beachfront management plans and the State Beachfront Management Plan. All guidelines were developed through the public notice provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act which seek comments from the general public and allow public comment during the meetings. These guidelines have been made available to all local governments as they were adopted.
Orthophotographic maps at a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet were purchased and mylar copies given to each local government. These photographic maps show the location of all baselines, setback lines and monitoring stations and are as accurate as any planning maps presently in use. The maps will be the basic unit for mapping and analyzing the elements required for complying with the planning sections of the Act.
A guide booklet for development of the local comprehensive plan was prepared by the Council staff in January 1989, and distributed to all local governments. Additionally, a set of model maps based upon a representative orthophotographic map was prepared. This map was used as a sample inventory of structures, erosion control devices, access points, parking, drainage, zoning and endangered species which illustrates the techniques that could be used to inventory and map the different items that the Beachfront Management Act requires to be addressed during the planning processes. A number of follow up meetings have been held with local government planning staffs to coordinate the preparation of these plans.
The plans will be prepared by the local governments. Some governments have planning staffs and are capable of producing the plans in-house. Others are in the process of hiring consultants or are working on plans through their regional planning agencies. Once the plans have been prepared and are adopted by their jurisdictional body, they will be submitted to the South Carolina Coastal Council for review and approval. Council staff will review each plan to determine if each of the items specified in the legislation have been addressed and prepare a report summarizing the actions the local government is proposing to take. This report along with the plan will be presented to the Council's Management Committee who will make the final decision as to whether or not the plan meets all of the requirements of the Beachfront Management Act. Approved plans will then be placed upon a 30-day public comment period and follow all procedures specified under R.30-14(A)(Administrative Procedures for Local Beach Management Plan Approval and Amendments.) All plans must be approved and implementation begun before July 1, 1992.
If a local government fails to develop and implement a local Beachfront Management Plan as required under Section 48-39-350, the procedures of R.30-4(B)will be followed.
The following is excerpted from the South Carolina Coastal Council's Regulations for Permitting in Critical Areas of the State's Coastal Zone:
(R.30-14 Administrative Procedures.
Along with regulations adopted by the legislature, a number of guidelines will be used by the Coastal Council to implement the various provisions of the Beachfront Management Act. The Act, as passed by the legislature, directs both the Council and the eighteen beachfront local government units to consider many issues related to beachfront development and management. These include beach access, protection of sand dunes, beach renourishment, protection of endangered species, and post-disaster planning. Seven specific guidelines were developed by Coastal Council staff, distributed for public comment and adopted by the Council's Management Committee. These guidelines provide many of the procedures and administrative actions that the Council and local governments must act upon to implement a beachfront management strategy. Some of the guidelines provide specific standards for acceptability (such as minimum number of parking spaces for a beach access point); others direct local governments to adopt ordinances controlling one thing or another (such as vehicles on the beach, leash laws, lighting ordinance); still others are strategies which must be followed (such as the mitigation guidelines). All of these guidelines appear in the following sections.
The 1988 Bond Bill, Act 63B of the 1988 South Carolina General Assembly, includes authorization for $10,000,000 for a Beach Restoration Fund, to be administered by the South Carolina Coastal Council. The Act states that "no state capitol improvement bonds may be issued for beach renourishment projects in the absence of any provisions of law that establishes specific criteria for the distribution of bond proceeds for the projects."
The minimum regulatory requirements are:
Section 48-39-320(2)(b) of the Beachfront Management Act requires the Council to develop guidelines for the "development of a beach access program to preserve existing public access and enhance public access to assure full enjoyment of the beach by all residents of the State." Section 48-39-350(2) of the Act further states that local beachfront management plans must contain "an inventory of public beach access and attendant parking along with a plan for enhancing public access and parking." This plan is to include a "detailed strategy for achieving the goals of preservation of existing public access..." [Section 48-39-350(10) ].
The South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program provides additional guidance in pursuing the development of a public access plan. The Coastal Zone Management Program states that: "Public funds can only be expended for beach or shore erosion control in areas, communities, or on barrier islands to which the public has full and complete access." (P. IV-64) This policy is further strengthened in the 1988 Bond Bill which requires communities to provide "reasonable public access" in order to qualify for state funding for beach nourishment.
The Council has determined (Coastal Zone Management Program, p. IV-62) that a stretch of beach is accessible to the public if:
The Coastal Zone Management Program further states that: "A 'stretch of beach' may be delineated by such factors as physical or geographical boundaries (an inlet or marsh, for example) as well as by jurisdictional borders (municipal limits, for instance). What constitutes "reasonable" for purposes of the preceding definition will be determined in part by the size and population of the surrounding area, the size of the stretch of beach itself, and the availability and nature of upland or marine rights-of-way to the general area of the beach." (P. IV-62)
The goals of the South Carolina beach access program are:
Table 1. TYPES OF BEACH PUBLIC ACCESS FACILITIES
| TYPE OF FACILITY | DISTANCE ON EITHER SIDE OF ACCESS POINTS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AS FULL AND COMPLETE ACCESS | MINIMUM FACILITIES |
| Public Access Point | 1/8 mile | Trash receptical, walkover/improved surface access, signage, on-street parking for 6 vehicles |
| Local Public Access Park | 1/4 mile | As above, parking for 10 vehicles |
| Neighborhood Public Access Park | 1/2 mile | As above, parking for 25 vehicles |
| Community Public Access Park | 3/4 mile | As above, showers, restrooms, handicapped access and parking for 75 vehicles |
| Regional Public Access Park | 1 mile | As above, parking for 150 vehicles and greater |
Section 48-39-320(2)(c) of the Beachfront Management Act requires the S. C. Coastal Council to develop guidelines which provide for the "maintenance of a dry-sand and ecologically stable beach." A combination of measures is required to achieve this objective, to include land use controls, mitigation programs, and beach nourishment. Efforts must be made to prevent, limit and/or discourage the encroachment of development into the beachfront zone, to be combined with an active program to maintain a healthy beach profile through beach maintenance and management. These efforts require a joint state and local commitment.
Beachfront communities shall develop a policy of limiting the size of buildings and encouraging building siting away from the beach front (consistent with 48-39-360 Section 1(11), and Section 48-39-360(2), Section 48-39-280(A) of the Beachfront Management Act).
Land use plans, subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances submitted by local governments under Section 48-39-350(5) must identify means to reduce the front yard setback requirements and increase the rear yard (oceanfront) setback requirement.
Land Use Plans, subdivision regulation and zoning ordinances submitted by local governments under Section 48-39-350(5) must identify means to limit the size of structures in the setback zone. (Local regulations should be consistent with the Beachfront Management Act and limit the size of buildings to smaller than 5000 square feet in area.)
Land use plans, subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances submitted by local governments under Section 48-39-350(5) must identify means to reduce the lot area of impact (percentage of the lot covered by buildings) and provide measures to limit the size of a building footprint on the lot.
Land use plans, subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances submitted by local governments under Section 48-39-350(5) must identify means to restrict the use of impermeable surfaces covering the lot. The use of concrete, asphalt or other hard surfaces for parking areas, sidewalks, decks, patios, etc. is specifically to be discouraged and permitted only when other options are not feasible.
Several sections of the Beachfront Management Act require mitigation for unavoidable or allowable impacts to the setback zone. Mitigation may take several forms as defined by the Coastal Council's "Mitigation Policy for Construction Occurring Within the Setback Zone" (approved December 15, 1988). Local governments will examine the potential to use mitigation at the local level, to include:
Mitigation required for replacement of a habitable structure destroyed beyond repair. The Act requires that the owner of the property being replaced renourishes the beach on an annual basis of not less than one and one-half times the annual erosion rate (structures in an on-going state, local or federal renourishment area exempt). Section 48-39-290(B)(7).
Mitigation required for construction activity taking place within the Beachfront Setback Zone (Guidelines required to be developed by the Council under Section 48-39-320(g).
Mitigation required for dune destruction. Section 48-39-310 requires that any destruction of beach or dune vegetation seaward of the setback line is prohibited as a part of permit conditions. This mitigation can require new dune construction at a size larger than that which existed prior to development of the property. This type of mitigation can be used to replenish beach sand and provide new dune fields thus assisting in the maintenance of a dry and sandy beach.
Another measure identified in the mitigation policy involves the establishment of a local mitigation program or mitigation bank whereby a monetary value would be established for the impact and the funds would be directed toward a public entity which would utilize such funds for beachfront management and access.
Each beachfront community shall identify the potential and means for establishing such a program locally as a beach resource impact fee, to include authority, administration and management.
The Guidelines for Protection of Endangered Species approved by the Council will be used to insure that an ecologically stable beach is maintained. These guidelines will be used by both state and local governments in the review and approval of permitting and certification decisions on the beach front.
Healthy sand dunes provide a buffer between wave attack and beachfront development. It is in the property owner's advantage to maintain healthy dunes, restore eroded or damaged dunes to their natural state and to build new sand dunes where feasible. Protection of this important buffer system is the responsibility of everyone who manages, visits, or owns property at the beach. Section 48-39-320(2)(d) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, directs the Coastal Council to develop guidelines for the "protection of all sand dunes seaward of the setback line."
Any activity that will disturb the beach or dune vegetation within the critical area requires a Coastal Council permit. However, under certain conditions permits may be obtained which may allow disturbance of the dunes within the setback zone (between the setback line and no construction line) provided the disturbance is mitigated. The following guidelines are established for dune protection.
Section 48-39-320(2)(e) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, required the Council to develop guidelines to accomplish "the protection of endangered species, threatened species and important habitats, such as nesting grounds." The guidelines must be coordinated with other state agencies which share a responsibility in the management of endangered species and with the local governments which bear a responsibility for managing many development activities along the beach. As the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department and United States Fish and Wildlife Service have overall responsibility for the management of natural predators, relocating nests, artificial hatchery construction, turtle strandings and similar tasks, these management activities will not be addressed in these guidelines. Rather the focus of these guidelines will be on management actions which can be undertaken by the Coastal Council through its permitting and certification authority and actions which the local government can undertake through its local zoning and subdivision authority to protect these animal and plant species from development-related actions.
The Council has identified a number of plant and animal species which have been placed on either federal or state lists as being either endangered or threatened. Both lists use similar definitions to describe each classification. However the listing processes are separate and distinct regulatory processes. Some species listed on the State list might not be listed on the Federal list and vice versa. Under both systems the term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The term "threatened species" means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. In addition, several other species have been identified as being of special concern to the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department because of diminished population, or loss of habitat, food sources or ranging area. Each of the species covered under these guidelines uses the beachfront for either nesting, feeding or habitat purposes. Many other marine species, some of which are classified as being endangered or threatened, also inhabit the offshore section of the coastal zone which extends to the three-mile limit. Because these species do not use the beachfront or come ashore to lay eggs or feed, they have not been listed in these guidelines. The following species have been listed:
| Endangered, Threatened & Species of Special Concern Using Beachfront | ||
| Name | Status | Habitat/Activity |
| Loggerhead turtle | threatened, FS | Beaches (nesting) |
| Eastern brown pelican | species of special concern, S | beaches |
| Ipswich sparrow (or Savannah Sparrow) | endangered, S | beaches, dunes (wintering) |
| Least tern | threatened, S | beaches, dunes (nesting) |
| Wilson's plover | endangered, FS | beaches, dunes (nesting) |
| Piping plover | endangered, FS | beaches, dunes (wintering) |
| Island glass lizard | species of special concern, S | dunes |
| Seabeach Amaranth | species of special | dunes (plant) |
| concern, S | ||
| F - Federally Protected Species | ||
| S - South Carolina Protected Species | ||
Many of these plants and animals occupy different areas of the coast. Some populate the beaches on the southern part of the coast, others occupy the northern range of the coast. Periods of use also vary by species, some using the beach only during the summer months, others only in winter. Sill others occupy the beach all year long. These guidelines have tried to consider the ranges of occupation and periods of use and the recommendations have been shaped accordingly.
This animal is probably the most visibly threatened animal using the coast, the one with which the public is most familiar. It frequents our coast from spring through fall months, with the females coming ashore to lay their eggs along the front beach just above the high tide line. These large turtles, most averaging 200 pounds or more, are found along the entire east coast of Florida, however, areas of South Carolina are also used regularly and frequently.
A number of factors have contributed to the decline of the turtle population resulting in its listing on the threatened species list-the development along the coast, armoring of beaches with rock revetments, disorientation caused by lighting from shorefront urban development, shrimping and fishing trawling and natural predation by raccoons, oppossums and other small mammals. The United States' population is presently estimated to be 14,500 nesting females.
The frequency of beach use by turtles varies from beach to beach along the state's ocean shoreline. Generally, the undeveloped islands in the central portion of the state, contained within the Cape Romain/Santee Delta System have the most heavily used beaches in the state and contain the highest number of turtle nests. Other islands with heavily used beaches that are located outside of the Camp Romain Refuge are Otter, Pritchards and Bay Point Island in Beaufort County, north of Hilton Head, and South Island, Sand Island and Cedar Island near Georgetown.
The Management Policies and Guidelines for loggerhead turtles are proposed for developed or developing beaches only. Many undeveloped beaches have not been impacted by development activity and are held in either federal, state or private foundation holdings. The management of these beaches can and should continue being done by either federal or state wildlife agencies. Beach areas that have not yet been developed but which will be developed in the future are subject to these management guidelines.
Nesting activity in the Grand Strand along the beaches north of Murrells Inlet has been so infrequent that nesting figures have not been recorded and management actions for the protection of loggerhead turtles are not needed. The following communities are exempted from the management guidelines required for protecting loggerhead turtles due to the low probability of nesting: Horry County, North Myrtle Beach, Briarcliff Acres, Myrtle Beach, Atlantic Beach and Surfside Beach.
The following guidelines are to be enforced for all beaches south of Murrells Inlet:
Site Identification
These guidelines are to be implemented along all beachfront areas of the coastal zone by both Council and local governments.
This bird is found along the eastern coast of the United States from North Carolina to Texas, throughout Mexico and the Caribbean. It is now designated as a species of special concern and in past years has been on the endangered list of both federal and state governments. The reduced population of the birds is due primarily to the ingestion of pesticides and chemicals, most particularly DDT and PCBs. Sand spits and offshore bars are used extensively by pelicans for daily loafing and nocturnal roosting. The preferred sites are isolated sand bars and sand islands which are protected from predatory small mammals. Brown pelicans nest mostly in colonies and during early spring or summer. There are approximately 8,100 breeding pairs in South Carolina.
This small bird uses the beachfront and sand dunes each winter from early November to May. It tends to frequent undeveloped beaches and dune fields. It is also known as the Savannah Sparrow and has been listed as an endangered species by the State Wildlife Department.
Terns and gulls are closely related groups of birds, sharing many similar body features and behavioral characteristics. Terns tend to be lighter, faster and more active than gulls. Least terns, a species on the State threatened species list, prefer to nest along beaches covered with shell during the late spring and early summer periods. Competition for nesting space with people, vehicles and predatory animals resulted in their placement on the threatened list. During recent years least terns have begun to nest on gravel covered flat roof tops of large buildings to avoid conflict with competing beach users.
This small bird inhabits the beaches along most of the Carolina coast from March through October. The Wilson's Plover nests along sparsely vegetated beaches and along islands along the coast. The Wilson's Plover is on the State's threatened species list.
The Piping Plover is a winter inhabitant of the coastal zone from early August to late May. These birds tend to inhabit the dryer portions of the beach and mudflats. The birds nest in late April and continue into the early summer months usually in the high beach area adjacent to the primary dunes. Human activity can disrupt their nesting.
Island Glass Lizard-Ophisaurus compressus
This is a legless lizard that inhabits coastal pine and maritime forests adjacent to beaches. The lizards are found occasionally under wrack and washed up debris along the shoreline. The lizard is currently listed as a species of special concern by the State of South Carolina.
Seabeach Amaranth-Amaranthus pumilus
This plant is found only on barrier island beaches and sand dunes and is listed as a species of special concern by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. It is found along the east coast in eight states from Massachusetts to South Carolina. Fifty-one (51) recorded sites have been identified, 25 are considered extirpated (destroyed), 7 are of undetermined status and only 19 are still present. It occurs on beaches, primary dunes, overwash flats and generally grows in the wrack zone below the spring tide line.
Beach Lighting Ordinance
An Ordinance Relating to the Protection of Sea Turtles Creating a New Section of the Code of Ordinances for (name of beach community); Restricting Outdoor Lighting in Beach Areas Named Herein; Providing for Enforcement, Penalty and Providing an Effective Date.
Whereas, the (name of beach community) beaches serve as nesting habitat for sea turtles; and
Whereas, coastal development threatens the survival of turtle hatchlings because the artificial light causes disorientation in young hatchlings; and
Whereas, the sea turtle is an essential member of the food chain and has been identified as a threatened and endangered species; and
Whereas, the protection of sea turtle hatchlings is of significant public interest; and
Whereas, this Ordinance is necessary to protect the natural reproductive cycle of the sea turtle during the nesting and hatching season which runs from May 1 through October 31 of each year.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the (governing body) of (name of beach community), that:
Attest: | (governing body) OF (name of beach community) |
_________________ | ________________________ |
Section 48-39-320(2)(f) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, requires the State to develop guidelines to accomplish the "regulation of vehicular traffic upon the beaches and the beach/dune system which includes the prohibition of vehicles upon public beaches for nonessential uses." The guidelines must be coordinated with appropriate agencies and local governments. The following basic guidelines are established:
Section 310 of the legislation states that "the destruction of any beach or dune vegetation seaward of the setback line is prohibited, unless there is no feasible alternative. Where there is destruction of vegetation permitted seaward of the setback line, mitigation for the destruction is required as part of the permit conditions." In addition, Section 48-39-320(g) of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, requires the Coastal Council to develop "a mitigation policy for construction allowed seaward of the setback line, which must include dedication of public access ways, nourishment, vegetation, and other appropriate means."
The Beachfront Management Act requires mitigation for destruction of vegetation and for construction taking place seaward of the setback line. The types of construction that require mitigation include the following:
The mitigation will, unless otherwise agreed to by the Coastal Council, take one of the following forms. The applicant may chose the form of mitigation provided the design is acceptable to the Council under the given conditions: Dedication of new public accessways or expanding and improving existing accessways; Additional beach nourishment; Dune enhancement or revegetation; Reservation of parking spaces for use by the general public; Participation in a state or Coastal Council approved local beach mitigation program; Participation in a state or local program to protect or enhance management of endangered or threatened species of plants and animals found along the beachfront.
The destruction of any beach or dune vegetation seaward of the setback line is prohibited unless there is no feasible alternative. When there is destruction of vegetation permitted seaward of the setback line, mitigation for the destruction is required as a part of the permit conditions.
Mitigation may take the form of creating new areas of beach or dune vegetation on-site or at a different oceanfront location in the general vicinity of the project. These areas approved for revegetation must be determined to be appropriate sites for the proposed revegetation and a plan must be submitted and approved by Council staff. A minimum mitigation ratio of 2 to 1 must be achieved by each project. Vegetated areas destroyed by construction within the setback line must be replaced by a vegetated area at least twice as large as the impacted area. Revegetation may only be used to mitigate dune or beach vegetation losses associated with unavoidable construction. Additional mitigation measures may be required for other forms of encroachment within the setback zone by the Council. Each application will be individually reviewed and evaluated.
Section 48-39-320 requires that the Beach Management Plan include:
The Coastal Council will undertake the following steps in applying the mitigation policy:
If no negative impact is determined, mitigation will not be required.
A 10-foot wide beach access easement or right of way running from a public right-of-way to the mean high water line may be dedicated for public use. Beach accessways must be drawn on plats and recorded in the county land records office. All accessways must be posted with a sign or marker approved by the S. C. Coastal Council indicating the presence of a public access way. The individual property owner or local government will be responsible for maintaining the accessway and signage or marker. Maintenance responsibility will be determined and agreed to by all parties prior to acceptance of the accessway.
The Coastal Council's staff or permitting committee will evaluate the number of access points necessary as mitigation for each construction project negatively impacting the beach or its use seaward of the setback line. Larger scale projects with more extensive alterations seaward of the setback line may be required to designate more than one accessway.
Mitigation may take the form of renourishing the beach or placing sand on the beachface in larger amounts than that which would be required by other provisions of the Beachfront Management Act. In these cases a minimum of two (2) cubic yards of sand per oceanfront foot of property may be accepted for mitigation. The Council's geologist and permitting committee will make the decisions on the appropriateness of each application. This type of mitigation will only be accepted on eroding beaches, and any renourishment material must be of a compatible sand material. Off-site mitigation may be considered by the Council if appropriate; however, mitigation will be accepted only in areas where it will be determined to be beneficial to the beach/dune system and will have a lasting effectiveness on protecting the beach. The beach profile must be maintained for a period of five (5) years.
The dedication of land for off-street public parking may be an acceptable form of mitigation for coastal construction within the setback zone. In all cases, parking areas must be within 1000 feet of the beachfront and be located in close proximity to existing or proposed beachfront accessways and must not negatively impact dunes or beach vegetation. The land to be dedicated for public parking areas must either be donated fee simple to a local government (or state agency such as Parks, Recreation and Tourism) or an easement providing for a certain number of parking spaces must be recorded in the county records office. Signs or other markings must be used to indicate that public parking is available. The local government must approve that additional parking is needed and appropriate for the area. The amount of land required to be set aside to serve as mitigation will be ruled on individually by Coastal Council. Specific proposals will be made for each application.
Mitigation may take the form of creating new dune fields in areas where a positive benefit may be achieved. These areas proposed for new dune field construction must be accompanied by a plan for constructing and revegetating and submitted to Council staff for approval. All created dunes must be of a height and width adequate for mitigation and typical for the area as determined by Council staff.
The applicant may participate in a state or local mitigation program, if such a program is available; whereas, a one-time fee would be assessed in lieu of mitigation on the property.
Table 6. Beachfront Community Management Plans
| Community | Plans Developed |
| HORRY COUNTY | Yes |
| CHARLESTON COUNTY | No |
| PAWLEYS ISLAND | Yes |
| MYRTLE BEACH | Yes |
| SULLIVANS ISLAND | Yes |
| GEORGETOWN COUNTY | Yes |
| NORTH MYRTLE BEACH | Yes |
| ISLE OF PALMS | Yes |
| COLLETON COUNTY | No |
| SURFSIDE BEACH | Yes |
| EDISTO BEACH | Yes |
| BEAUFORT COUNTY | Yes |
| HILTON HEAD ISLAND | Yes |
| ATLANTIC BEACH | Yes |
| FOLLY BEACH | Yes |
| SEABROOK ISLAND | Yes |
| BRIARCLIFFE ACRES | No |
| KIAWAH ISLAND | Yes |
Table 7
S. C. Coastal Council Adopted Erosion Rates/By Station/
Used to Establish Line Locations.
| DAUFUSKIE ISLAND | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| 1380 | -0.7 |
| 1360 | -5.2 |
| 1340 | -9.0 |
| 1320 | -11.1 |
| 1300 | -10.1 |
| 1165 | -5.0 |
| 1167 | -4.2 |
| 1170 | -4.2 |
| 1172 | -3.7 |
| 1175 | -3.8 |
| 1177 | -4.0 |
| 1180 | -4.2 |
| 1182 | -4.8 |
| 1185 | -5.8 |
| 1186 | -6.2 |
| 1187 | -7.1 |
| 1188 | -7.6 |
| 1189 | -8.4 |
| 1190 | -7.8 |
| 1191 | -6.6 |
| 1192 | -6.2 |
| 1193 | -5.7 |
| 1194 | -5.0 |
| 1195 | -4.3 |
| 1196 | -3.1 |
| 1197 | -1.4 |
| HILTON HEAD ISLAND | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| 1400 | S/A |
| 1403 | S/A |
| 1406 | S/A |
| 1409 | S/A |
| 1412 | S/A |
| 1415 | S/A |
| 1418 | S/A |
| 1421 | S/A |
| 1424 | +1.7 |
| 1427 | +4.3 |
| 1430 | +0.6 |
| 1433 | +0.7 |
| 1436 | -0.6 |
| 1439 | -1.6 |
| 1442 | -2.7 |
| 1445 | -4.1 |
| 1448 | -4.3 |
| 1451 | -5.3 |
| 1454 | -5.4 |
| 1457 | -5.9 |
| 1460 | -6.0 |
| 1463 | -5.8 |
| 1466 | -5.5 |
| 1469 | -1.3 |
| 1472 | S/A |
| 1475 | +2.2 |
| 1478 | +2.6 |
| 1481 | S/A |
| 1484 | S/A |
| 1487 | S/A |
| 1490 | -5.75 |
| 1493 | -5.75 |
| 1496 | -5.75 |
BAY POINT ISLAND
The downcoast portion of the island is accretional. Along the upcoast portion
of the island, the erosion rate varies from -18 to -25 ft/yr. Refer to
orthophotograph sheet 199 for exact rates on Bay Point Island.
ST. PHILLIPS ISLAND
The erosion rate for St. Phillips Island is -4 ft/yr.
LITTLE CAPERS ISLAND
The erosion rate on Little Capers Island is -25 ft/yr.
FRIPP ISLAND
All of Fripp Island has been classified as stable or accretional.
PRITCHARDS ISLAND
The inlet zone at the southwest end of the island has an erosion rate of -11.54
ft/yr. Along the central portion of the island, the erosion rate ranges form
-8.69 to -11.54 ft/yr. The inlet zone at the northeast end has an erosion
rate ranging from -7.65 ft/yr. to accretional. Refer to orthophotograph
sheets 167, 168, and 185 for exact rates on Prichards Island.
| HUNTING ISLAND | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| 1800 | -7 |
| 1810 | -7 |
| 1820 | -12.3 |
| 1830 | -15.5 |
| 1840 | -14.5 |
| 1850 | -13 |
| 1860 | -12 |
| 1870 | -10 |
| 1880 | -6 |
| 1890 | 0.0 |
| 1895 | +2.0 |
HARBOR ISLAND
All of Harbor Island is classified as stable or accretional.
| EDISTO BEACH | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| 2110 | +3.0 |
| 2115 | +3.0 |
| 2130 | +3.0 |
| 2140 | +3.0 |
| 2150 | +3.0 |
| 2160 | +3.0 |
| 2170 | +0.4 |
| 2180 | +0.4 |
| 2190 | +0.4 |
| 2195 | +0.4 |
| 2200 | +0.4 |
| 2210 | +0.4 |
| 2230 | +0.4 |
| 2250 | +0.4 |
EDDINGSVILLE BEACH
The erosion rate for Eddingsville Beach varies from -.13 to -9 ft/yr. Refer to orthophotograph sheet 95 for specific rates.
| SEABROOK ISLAND | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| CSE 1 | 0 |
| CSE 2505 | -0.9 |
| CSE 2A | -1.8 |
| CSE 2510 | -2.6 |
| CSE 3 | -2.6 |
| CSE 4 | -2.6 |
| 2520 | -2.6 |
| CSE 2523 | -2.6 |
| 2525 | -2.6 |
| CSE 4A | -2.6 |
| 2527 | -2.6 |
| 2530 | -2.6 |
| CSE 2532 | -2.6 |
| CSE 5A | -2.6 |
| 2545 | 0 |
| 2555 | 0 |
| 2565 | 0 |
| 2575 | 0 |
| KIAWAH ISLAND | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| 2625 | +2.5 |
| 2630 | +0.04 |
| 2635 | -0.06 |
| 2640 | -0.28 |
| 2645 | -0.53 |
| 2660 | -0.68 |
| 2662 | -0.91 |
| 2665 | -1.25 |
| 2675 | -1.45 |
| 2680 | -1.32 |
| 2682 | -0.98 |
| 2685 | -0.50 |
| 2687 | -0.50 |
| 2690 | -0.50 |
| 2692 | -0.50 |
| 2695 | -0.50 |
| 2700 | -0.50 |
| 2705 | -0.50 |
| 2715 | -0.50 |
| 2720 | -0.50 |
| 2722 | -0.50 |
| 2725 | -0.50 |
| 2730 | -0.50 |
| 2735 | -0.50 |
| 2740 | -0.50 |
| 2745 | -0.50 |
| 2750 | -0.50 |
| 2760 | -0.50 |
| 2765 | -0.50 |
| 2770 | -0.50 |
| 2775 | -0.50 |
| 2777 | -0.50 |
| 2780 | -0.50 |
| 2785 | -0.50 |
| 2790 | -0.50 |
| 2792 | -1.64 |
| 2793 | -5.36 |
| 2795 | -12.63 |
MORRIS ISLAND
The erosion rate on Morris Island varies from -6 to -19.5 ft/yr. Refer to the map of Morris Island for specific rates.
| SULLIVANS ISLAND | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| 3010 | S/A |
| 3020 | S/A |
| 3035 | S/A |
| 3050 | S/A |
| 3065 | S/A |
| 3080 | S/A |
| 3090 | -2.6 |
| 3095 | -2.6 |
ISLE OF PALMS
All of the Isle of Palms is classified as stable or accretional.
DEWEES ISLAND
The erosion rate along the central portion of Dewees Island is -10.3 ft/yr., tapering to -5.2 ft/yr. at each end. Refer to orthophotographs 502-504 for specific rates.
| DEBIDUE BEACH | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| 4105 | -11.5 |
| 4110 | -11.0 |
| 4115 | -10.8 |
| 4120 | -10.0 |
| 4125 | -8.8 |
| 4130 | -6.6 |
| 4140 | -2.0 |
| 4150 | +0.4 |
| 4160 | +1.7 |
| 4170 | +1.7 |
| 4180 | +3.8 |
| PAWLEYS ISLAND | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| 4200 | +0.7 |
| 4203 | +0.7 |
| 4205 | +0.7 |
| 4210 | +0.7 |
| 4215 | +1.2 |
| 4220 | +1.2 |
| 4230 | +1.2 |
| 4240 | +1.2 |
| 4245 | +1.2 |
| 4260 | +1.2 |
| 4270 | +1.2 |
| 4275 | +1.2 |
| 4280 | +1.0 |
| 4290 | +1.0 |
| 4295 | +1.0 |
LITCHFIELD BEACH AND HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE PARK
At Inlet Point South, at the southern end of Litchfield Beach, the erosion rate
is -1.7 ft/yr. From monument 4320 to 4330, the erosion rate changes from -1.7
ft/yr. to stable. The area north of monument 4330, which includes all of
North Litchfield and Huntington Beach State Park, is classified as stable.
| GARDEN CITY | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| 4800 | 0 |
| 4900 | 0 |
| 4905 | -1.5 |
| 4910 | -1.5 |
| 4915 | -1.5 |
| 4920 | -1.5 |
| 4925 | -1.5 |
| 4030 | -1.5 |
| 4935 | -1.5 |
| 4940 | -1.5 |
| 4950 | -1.5 |
| 4955 | -1.5 |
| 4965 | -1.5 |
| 4970 | -1.5 |
| 4975 | -1.5 |
| 4980 | -1.5 |
| 4999 | -1.5 |
| 5000 | -1.5 |
| 5005 | -1.5 |
| 5010 | -1.5 |
| 5015 | -1.5 |
| 5020 | -1.5 |
| 5025 | -1.5 |
| 5030 | -1.5 |
| 5035 | -1.25 |
SURFSIDE BEACH
All of Surfside Beach, from monuments 5100 through 5195, has an erosion rate of
-0.9 ft/yr.
OCEAN LAKES
All of unincorporated Horry County, form monuments 5200 through 5280, has an
erosion rate of -0.9 ft/yr.
MYRTLE BEACH
All of Myrtle Beach, form monuments 5300 through 5480, has an erosion rate of
-0.68 ft/yr.
DUNES/BRIARCLIFF
The region between monuments 5500 and 5590 has a uniform erosion rate of -0.6
ft/yr.
NORTH MYRTLE BEACH
All of North Myrtle Beach has an erosion rate of -0.4 ft/yr.
| WAITES ISLAND | |
| MONUMENT | SHORELINE CHANGE RATE |
| 5900 | S/A |
| 5905 | -3.2 |
| 5915 | -7.0 |
| 5930 | -9.5 |
| 5945 | -9.4 |
| 5960 | S/A |
The reviews can be done to take advantage of changes in the plan caused by:
S.C. Code Regs. § 30-21
Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Section 48-39-320(B)