 |
|
South Carolina Ratings
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Indicator Type |
 |
Info |
 |
Status |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Beach Access |
 |
8
|
 |
8
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Water Quality |
 |
5 |
 |
5 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Beach Erosion |
 |
8
|
 |
- |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Erosion Response |
 |
- |
 |
7
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Beach Fill |
 |
6
|
 |
- |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Shoreline Structures |
 |
7 |
 |
5 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Beach Ecology |
 |
5 |
 |
- |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Surfing Areas |
 |
2 |
 |
5 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Website |
 |
7 |
 |
- |
 |
 |
 |
 |


|
South Carolina Beach Fill
PoliciesDetailed information on South Carolina's beach fill policies was not readily
available. However, according to the SCOCRMP Beach Monitoring Program website
the state now promotes soft solutions, such as re-fill, as an alternative
to shoreline armoring along erosional beaches.
Inventory
As of early 2009, South Carolina had completed 21 beach fill projects in the previous 18 years; 96 miles of beach filled at a total cost of about $194 million.
According to the various South Carolina State of the Beaches Reports, beach
fill projects completed during 1999 included a 250,000 cubic yard sand
scraping project at Pawleys Island. A renourishment project in Sea Pines Plantation
on the southern end of Hilton Head Island placed 2.5 million cubic yards
of sand on the Hilton Head shoreline between May and November 1997. A renourishment
project was constructed at Daufuskie Island in December 1998, adding 1.4
million cubic yards of sand.
There were no major renourishment projects during the years 2000 through 2004.
The following dicussion is from South Carolina's 2008 State of the Beaches Report.
Several beach renourishment projects have been conducted in South Carolina in recent years. In response to the extensive erosion of the 2004 hurricane season a major beach renourishment project was sponsored by the Army Corps of Engineers at Folly Beach during the summer and fall of 2005, using a combination of federal and municipal funding. In addition, $4.75 million dollars in state renourishment funding was allocated to Edisto Beach State Park and the Town of Edisto Beach for a beach renourishment project in 2006. Other renourishment projects during 2006 include a privately funded project at DeBordieu Beach, a state-funded renourishment project at Hunting Island State Park, and a locally funded project at the Town of Hilton Head Island that started in September 2006 and ended in March 2007. Finally, a smaller renourishment project designed to replace sand lost during the 2005 hurricane season was constructed at portions of Folly Beach during 2007.
The 2009 State of the Beaches Report contained the following discussion:
Two renourishment projects were conducted in South Carolina in 2008. The Isle
of Palms project placed 885,000 cubic yards of sand dredged from an offshore sand
source along 2.6 miles of beach, while the Grand Strand project, constructed in three
phases, placed 2.9 million cubic yards of sand dredged from an offshore source along 26
miles of shoreline in North Myrtle Beach, Myrtle Beach, Surfside Beach, and Garden
City.
The Edisto Island and Hunting Island beach fill projects were completed just prior to summer 2006 at a combined cost of $16.3 millon. Following completion of the project at Hunting Island, the beach width was over 100 feet at high tide, as opposed to essentially no beach at high tide a year earlier. An interesting aspect of this project was the Coastal Research Amphibious Buggy (CRAB) that was being used to survey depths and gradients offshore as sand was being pumped onto the beach.
The following represents a ranking of beach renourishment and beach restoration
needs based upon DHEC-OCRM Regulation 30-18, which sets forth criteria for evaluating
beach renourishment projects. Proposed projects are ranked based upon the environmental
impact of the project, the public recreational benefits, the storm damage
mitigation benefits to adjacent buildings and structures, the expected useful
life of the project, and the extent of support for the project. Beaches which are highly eroded but already scheduled for renourishment during 2006 are not included in this list.
First Priority: The Grand Strand
The 26-mile stretch of beach from the Cherry Grove section of North Myrtle Beach to southern Garden City Beach near Murrells Inlet was all included in a massive beach nourishment project sponsored by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1996-1998. At the time, the overall effort was described as a 50-year project, with follow-up renourishment expected to be performed every 8-10 years. If federal funding is available it is likely that another large-scale renourishment project will be constructed here around 2008. Based on past federal/state/local funding ratios it is expected the state's share of this next project will cost approximately $10 million. State money should begin to be allocated to this project now, and over the next few years, so that the total amount required will be available when needed.
UPDATE: A 3-million cubic yard, 25-mile-long renourishment was scheduled to start on the Grand Strand in November 2007. About 70 percent of the $30 million cost will be paid by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The renourished stretch will go from Little River Inlet to Georgetown County and should take about 14 months to complete. The contractor completed the stretch of beach in Garden City Beach and then left town to do emergency work elsewhere. North Myrtle Beach is now scheduled for beach fill in July 2008, with Myrtle Beach to follow starting in late August to early September 2008. This schedule is not supported by many hotel owners, who fear a loss of business and would prefer a fall start to the work.
FURTHER UPDATE (July 2008): The Myrtle Beach phase of the three-part project was supposed to have started in February 2008, then the work was bumped back to July. The work has now been pushed back to September 2008, according the Army Corps of Engineers. Garden City Beach and Surfside Beach have already received 750,000 cubic yards of sand over about eight miles of beach. Their portion of the project finished in March 2008. Myrtle Beach will get 1.5 million cubic yards of sand over nine miles of beach. North Myrtle Beach will get 750,000 cubic yards over almost nine miles of shoreline. North Myrtle Beach, Myrtle Beach and Horry County are paying for $9.6 million of the $29.5 million project, and state and federal funds make up the rest. More info.
Second Priority: Pawleys Island, Georgetown County
The southern end of Pawley's Island is low-lying, with little or no sand dunes. A 1999 beach nourishment project using sand borrowed from the sand spit at the southern end of the island provided temporary relief but did not add any new sand to the littoral system. The dune that protects the public parking area has been chronically eroded for the past few years and has been rebuilt several times by emergency sand-scraping. This large public parking area, one of the few areas providing good public beach access in Georgetown County, is in jeopardy. The developed southern end of Pawleys Island also lacks a sand dune, and the ocean water comes up under several houses at high tide. The Corps of Engineers is currently studying the beach erosion problem at Pawleys Island. Any federal renourishment project here will most likely include a requirement for both state and local funding.
NOTE: Sullivan's Island, Charleston County
While most of Sullivan's Island is stable to accretional, the section closest to Breach Inlet from Station 29 to Station 32 has a long-term erosion rate of -2 ft per year and has been chronically sand-starved for at least 10 years. This 3-block section of Sullivans Island, about 2,000 ft long, is one of the most critically eroded beaches in Charleston County. The beach is steep and narrow with little or no sand dune and no high-tide beach. Local match for state money may be problematic.
The town of Hilton Head Island is planning a beach fill project sometime in the 2006-2007 timeframe than could incorporate some construction work on privately-owned groins that the city is interested in acquiring.
In August 2006, volunteers finished planting 20,000 sea oats on three sites at Hunting Island State Park. The plants are part of an ongoing beach conservation project to protect beach sites which were nourished in May and June 2006 with 750,000 cubic yards of new sand. North Beach, South Beach and the beach in front of the campgrounds are being protected from erosion, which occurs at a rate of between 14 and 15 feet a year. It has been estimated that number could be reduced to between 8 and 9 feet a year with a combination of several projects at the sites, including the sea oats. The plant's 9-foot root system helps reduce erosion by stabilizing sand. And the plant, which stands about 6 feet tall when fully grown, also creates dunes by catching sand that is picked up by the wind.
An article by Ben Pillow in the Beaufort Gazette on January 22, 2008 discussed a continuing dispute over a plan to add 400,000 cubic yards of sand to the coast at Hunting Island State Park over five years. State officials have characterized the work as a short-term stabilization effort that would focus first on the area near Cabin Road on Hunting Island's far south end, which has suffered heavy erosion despite (or perhaps because of) an $8.3 million renourishment and groin-installation project completed in March 2007. The main issue for the current project is where to get the sand. Initially, the sand was to come from Hunting Island's north spit adjacent to Johnson Creek Inlet and the south spit near Fripp Inlet. Concerns about a piping plover roosting habitat and many comments from Harbor Island residents against taking sand from the north spit, however, prompted park officials to remove the northern borrow site from the project. But there is also concern about taking all the sand from the south spit, since that may impact beaches, wetlands and habitat along the Fripp Inlet shoreline and disrupt sand transport to Fripp Island. Taking the sand from an inland source would avoid these problems but would greatly increase the cost of the project. UPDATE: Wind and waves produced by Tropical Storm Fay in August 2008 forced a road closure and damaged at least three structures, but parks officials said money was not available to add sand to the beach to prevent further damage. South Carolina's 2009 State of the Beaches Report provides a more detailed description of conditions on Hunting Island in 2008.
The following table provides a list of re-fill projects completed during
the period 1991 through 2000, with the State's share of the total project cost, as
well as State money that had been allocated for a future project at Hunting
Island.
| Area |
Year |
State's Cost |
Completed |
| Hunting Island State Park |
1991 |
$2,900,000 |
Y |
| Folly Beach |
1993 |
$3,500,000 |
Y |
| Edisto Beach |
1995 |
$1,000,000 |
Y |
| Hilton Head Island |
1997 |
$ 0 |
Y |
| Daufuskie Island |
1998 |
$ 0 |
Y |
| Folly Beach County Park |
1998 |
$100,000 |
Y |
| Sullivans Island |
1998 |
$230,000 |
Y |
| Grand Strand |
1998 |
$10,000,000 |
Y |
| Debidue Beach |
1998 |
$0 |
Y |
| Pawleys Island |
1999 |
$1,300,000 |
Y |
| Edisto Beach State Park |
1999 |
$250,000 |
Y |
| Sea Pines - Hilton Head Island |
1999 |
$0 |
Y |
| Hunting Island |
1999 |
$2,500,000 |
N |
| Hunting Island |
2000 |
$1,700,000 |
N |
| Shore Drive, Horry County |
2000 |
$1,000,000 |
Y |
| South Garden City |
2000 |
$1,000,000 |
N |
Total state expenditures for 1991-2000 were $25,480,000, an average of $2,548,000
per year spent on beach re-fill. No state money was allocated for beach re-fill
during the 2001-2002 fiscal year, or during the 2002-2003 fiscal year.15
As indicated in the above table, a large-scale beach fill project was conducted at Folly Beach in 1993 at a cost of $11.8 million ($3.5 million local share). The project included placement of over 2.8 million cubic yards of sand over 28,200 linear feet (5.34 miles) of beach and rehabilitation of nine groins. Based on historic erosion rates, periodic re-fill was estimated to occur every eight years. Since this project performed better than estimated (despite an extraordinary 2004 hurricane season), the next re-fill was not necessary until June 2005. This project consists of about two million cubic yards of sand dredged from about two miles offshore and placed on Folly Beach at a cost of $12.5 million. Since a study in 1988 showed that the Charleston Harbor Jetties contributed 57% of the historical erosion at Folly Beach, the normal 65%/35% cost share split between the federal government and the local sponsor was adjusted to 85%/15%. The beach fill project was estimated to be completed in November 2005. It was the only beach fill project in South Carolina in 2005.
Since the beach fill project was conducted during turtle nesting season, the project included turtle patrols conducted by the volunteer Folly Beach Turtle Watch. At least 35 nests were relocated during the project and there were no reports of injured turtles. This project also includes a contract for installation of fencing and the planting of dune grass, scheduled to be completed in Spring 2006. More information on this and other beach fill projects in South Carolina is available at the Web site of the Charleston District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This Web site also contains a good general discussion of beach fill, including an animation of the typical beach fill process.
Back in the 1950s, reports the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium in its
Coastal Heritage newsletter, the town of Edisto Beach (pop. 641) completed
an extensive program of beach fill and groin construction to hold the shoreline
in place. Dozens of homes built there mushroomed in value during the boom
times.
Now, though, sections of this shoreline have eroded as much as 40 feet in
a single year. One cottage underwent severe damage during a recent northeaster.
Pilings supporting houses along an 8-block stretch are regularly flooded
at high tide. Consequently, residents and local officials are backing a new
fill effort that would cost $6 million. $4 million of this would come not
from local sources, but from the state. Proponents seek to protect
real estate values and note that beach tourism and coastal growth have done
much to fuel the state's economy. Skeptics warn that such efforts are often
futile and that the best way to preserve beaches is to let them migrate naturally.
The Edisto Beach scenario applies as well to many volatile stretches of the
Carolinas coastline. At Charleston, NOAA reports, the sea level continues
its rise—10 inches in the last 80 years. With land subsiding in some
places as well, the situation promises only to get worse. And while state
funds for fill are becoming harder to get, the federal government is also
increasingly unwilling to help local communities maintain previously replenished
beaches. South Carolina's projects of this type have received virtually no federal funding in recent federal budgets.
Hilton Head Island's latest beach fill project began in September 2006. The town has budgeted $16 million
for the project. The last two fill projects, in 1990 and 1997, cost about
$9 million each.
The project is part of the town's regular renourishment of about six miles of beach. It originally was scheduled to take place somewhere between September 2005 and April 2006, but the busy 2004 hurricane season increased the demand for beach-fill services, which would have caused a dramatic increase in costs to Hilton Head, according to town officials. The $16 million project is paid for almost exclusively by tourists. The money comes from a 2 percent tax charged to overnight lodging, known as the beach preservation fee.
The main part of the work was scheduled to stretch from the Westin Resort to Alder Lane in South Forest Beach, with work also being done in portions near Fish Haul Creek and in South Forest Beach. The project was completed in early February 2007.
The Town of Hiton Head Island Municipal Government Web Site has a substantial amount of information about the above-referenced project. They are even considering broadcasting the progress of the project via a 24-hour-a-day Web cam. Their Web site is:
http://www.hiltonheadislandsc.gov/Depts/ppfac/BeachRenourishment/Permitdocs.htm
Beaches along the Atlantic shorefront, Port Royal Sound and the South Beach
area are being targeted for the next project. Meanwhile, the town still is
considering adding a separate section of beach to the project. Residents
of The Spa at Port Royal, a north-island condominium complex on Port Royal
Sound, want the beachfront in front of their property nourished. But widening
the 4,000-foot stretch of beach during the off-season could disturb the piping
plover, an endangered water bird that winters in the area. At the request
of state environmental regulators, the town is taking an environmental habitat
inventory of the area.
An interesting controversy arose in early 2006 regarding a plan by the town of Kiawah Island to rebuild dunes used to protect the Ocean Golf Course's 18th hole. Piping plovers forage along a sand spit that would be the source of sand for the dune-rebuilding project. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a "cease and desist" order for the golf course to stop piling sand on the beach. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service then began preparing a "biological opinion" on the project in preparation for considering whether to allow permits.
A compromise was announced in March 2006 which allowed dune rebuilding to protect the 18th and 16th holes of the golf course and the driving range but reduced by half the amount of sand taken from the sand spit which is the piping plover's habitat.
Additional information regarding beach fill plans in this area were mentioned in an article by Jill Coley in the Charleston Post and Courier on February 8, 2007. Following are edited excerpts from that article:
Property owners in the area proposed a plan to harvest 180,000 cubic yards of sand from the Cedar Creek spit, also known as the Morgan Creek spit, and truck it along the shore to the affected beach. Owners from Ocean Club, Seascape, Port O'Call, Tidewater, Summer House and Shipwatch villas, and two homes on Summer Dunes Lane, joined to create Isle of Palms North Beach Owners, a limited liability company, to seek a permit for a nourishment project. Property owners will pay for the project, which could cost more than $1 million, depending on dredging market prices.
While the Wild Dunes Resort has not joined the property owners' company because of its corporate structure, a representative of Wild Dunes has stated that they would pay its share to protect the 18th green of The Links golf course. The Ocean Point neighborhood of Wild Dunes stands behind the 18th green, which buffers homes from the ocean. Ocean Point stretches between the spit, where the sand will be harvested, and the heavily eroded area, where the sand will be transported. Accretion often follows periods of erosion on the northern tip of the island. The project described in the permit is a stop-gap measure. Long-term solutions are required, both sides agree. Comments from the public will be considered before DHEC issues a permit on the project. A water quality certification, which should take a few months, also must be issued before the permit is granted.
The situation in this area got more complicated in May 2007 when hundreds of 5-gallon sandbags, installed three years prior as an "emergency stopgap effort" at the Wild Dunes Resort, drifted into the ocean and into adjacent estuaries. Sections of the resort are now primarily protected by walls of much larger sandbags. OCRM cited property owners with violating an enforcement order to remove the bags. Meanwhile, concern was expressed about the proposed borrow area for the beach fill project. Rob Young of Western Carolina University pointed to vegetation growing on the sand dunes and predicted increased erosion of the salt march behind the dunes.
By October 2007, the Wild Dunes property owners were under a state order to remove the wall of thousands of sandbags in front of their homes by November 30. The state issued a permit that allows renourishment but restricts it to the sand from an "upland source," not from Cedar Creek Spit in Dewees Inlet. The permit requires that the sandbags be removed as renourishment sand is laid, but the property owners want to keep the bags until enough sand accumulates on the beach to hold the renourishment in place. Legal action has been threatened by another property owner if the permit did not require the bags to be removed. In the last week before the deadline, city of Isle of Palms applied for a permit for a large-scale renourishment project that would include Wild Dunes. Here is a map showing the threatned areas of the Wild Dunes resort (in blue) and the adjacent 18th hole of the golf course (temporarily shortened to a 3-par).
In January 2008, an article by Prentiss Findlay in The Charleston Post and Courier stated that Isle of Palms had asked Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and the Army Corps of Engineers to approve a 2.6-mile beach nourishment project (from 47th Avenue to Dewees Inlet), which could begin as early as spring 2008. Up to 885,000 cubic yards of sand would be pumped onto the beach. The city would pay an estimated 20 percent share of the $9.7 million project and Wild Dunes (affected property owners, Wild Dunes Community Association and Wild Dunes Resort) would pay $6.8 million. Still unresolved was the fate of the sandbag wall in front of the resort and whether it would be allowed to remain until the beach nourishment project was initiated.
In February 2008, the owners of six condominium complexes and two other properties agreed to a consent order with S.C. Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, ending a two-month standoff with the agency. Property owners agreed to pay at least $1 million toward beach renournishment and a modest fine. But they can keep large sandbags in place until the beach is renourished, a project which began in late May 2008 and was expected to be completed by the end of July.
The $10 million project was completed ahead of schedule in July 2008. The city now must monitor the beach, repair "scarping" erosion hot spots and set fences to begin shaping dunes. A long-term beach management plan put together by Isle of Palms, enabling its officials to apply for state and federal renourishment money, says continued beach nourishment is part of a long-term management strategy.
In June 2009 it was reported that the 18th hole at Wild Dunes had been returned to a Par 5 after the renourishment of the beach at the end of the Isle of Palms. The course's closing hole is now a wide, Scottish links-style expanse behind mounds of dunes above a supple beach. The beach renourishment in 2008 handled its first blast of winter storms well, and the sand fences appear to be building more dunes. The $10 million project dredged sand from offshore for a two-and-a-half-mile stretch. It saved the inlet beach, the golf course and at least six condominium complexes, and put to rest nearly a decade of wrangling among property owners and residents that led to a test of wills between property owners and state regulators. Wild Dunes paid $7 million; the public paid the rest. The fight — whether public money should be used to shore up private property in a gated resort to protect potential tax revenue — is over, for now.
The Isle of Palms put $100,000 in reserve in 2008 from tourism tax money to pay for ongoing work on the project beach and its eventual renourishment; another $50,000 was set aside for work on other stretches of the city's seven miles of beach. That was supposed to be an annual payment. But after revenue shortfalls, there's no money set aside for it in the 2009-10 budget.
A large beach fill project was slated to come to Horry County beaches beginning in November 2007. The project will cover most beaches in the county in three stages and could cost between $40 million and $50 million. The federal government will pay 65 percent, and the state and local governments will split the rest.
South Carolina's 2006 Coastal Assessment states:
"To date, no synthesis of beach nourishment impacts (beach and borrow areas) longevity, spatial distribution, etc. have been undertaken, and the OCRM-required monitoring conditions have varied from permit to permit."
Information on beach fill in South Carolina is also available through Western Carolina University's
Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines. A summary documents 40 projects
dating from 1954 through 2003, with a total cost of approximately $118 million.
Background information and a database with details on individual projects by state can be found at http://psds.wcu.edu/1038.asp
Figures cited in an article in USA Today (November 10, 2003) on beach fill
indicated that the federal government has spent $91 million over the last
75 years on beach fill projects in South Carolina.
According to a website operated by Marlowe & Company, Public Affairs Consultants,
the Federal government did not appropriate money for beach fill projects
in South Carolina for FY 2005.
The Fiscal Year 2010 Civil Works Budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides $5.125 billion for water resources projects in the areas of commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. A new budget activity this year is Response to Climate Change at Corps Projects, to assess broadly how and where climate change may affect the management of Civil Works projects and to identify options such as changes in operation or other modifications in response to climate change. This budget lists proposed projects by state.
The EPA's global warming impacts Web site reports that the cumulative cost
of sand replenishment to protect the coast of South Carolina from a 20-inch
sea level rise by 2100 is estimated at $1.2 billion to $9.4 billion. However,
sand replenishment may not be cost-effective for all coastal areas in the
state, and therefore some savings could be possible. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/us-southcarolina.html
NOAA's Coastal Services Center has developed a Web site that offers information on all aspects of beach fill. The new Web resource, Beach Nourishment: A Guide for Local Governments, was developed to guide state and local organizations to make informed decisions about fill. The Web site includes descriptions of coastal geological and ecological processes, discussions of legal and regulatory requirements, information on federal project cost sharing, and a professional dialogue about the pros and cons of fill.
Contact
Bill Eiser
Staff Oceanographer
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
1362 McMillan Ave, Suite 400
Charleston, SC 29405
(843) 744-5838 x120
Email: eiserwc@dhec.sc.gov
US Army Corps of Engineers
Programs & Projects Division
69A Hagood Ave.
Charleston, South Carolina 29403-5107
(843)329-8044
(843)329-2332 (Fax)
Email: CESAC-PM@sac.usace.army.mil
|