Difference between revisions of "State of the Beach/State Reports/SC/Beach Fill"

From Beachapedia

m (Added HasBadLinks Category)
Line 253: Line 253:
  
 
{{SOB_BottomNav}}
 
{{SOB_BottomNav}}
 +
[[Category:HasBadLinks]]

Revision as of 15:17, 10 April 2011

Home Beach Indicators Methodology Findings Beach Manifesto State Reports Chapters Perspectives Model Programs Bad and Rad Conclusion


South Carolina Ratings
Indicator Type Information Status
Beach Access98
Water Quality54
Beach Erosion8-
Erosion Response-6
Beach Fill6-
Shoreline Structures7 5
Beach Ecology4-
Surfing Areas25
Website7-
Coastal Development{{{19}}}{{{20}}}
Sea Level Rise{{{21}}}{{{22}}}

Policies

State, Territory, and Commonwealth Beach Nourishment Programs, A National Overview (NOAA, March 2000) provides the following information:

"The state has some beach nourishment policies.

Policy Citation and Description

Coastal Management Act. S.C. Code Regs. §48-39-10 to 48-39-360. This statute implements a direct permit program for beachfront development including any land disturbing activities within a narrow band of four "critical areas" including "the beach/dune system." Also it covers erosion control devices and all beach nourishment projects. Rule making authority for permitting in beach and dune critical areas includes definitions, erosion control policies and sand dune management policies.

Beachfront Management Act. S.C. Code Regs. §48-39-320B. In 1992, South Carolina adopted a state beachfront management plan which includes:

1) required studies of sand sources, sand transport
2) guidelines on beach nourishment
3) requirements on placement of beach quality sand on down drift beaches
4) Post Disaster Redevelopment Plans also required: 15 of 18 coastal communities

have state approved plans.

Beachfront Management Act. S.C. Code Regs. §48-39-320B. Local Beachfront Management Plans are required to be adopted by July 1, 1992 based on State guidelines and approval/certification in order to be eligible to participate in state bonding programs for beach nourishment or other beach funding programs.

Coastal Management Regulations. S.C. Reg. 30-13(N)(2). Sand bags, sand scraping, and minor beach nourishment are allowable under "emergency orders" and within established guidelines.

Coastal Management Regulations. S.C. Reg. 30-11(B)(6) and 30-13(L)(3)(b). Places restrictions on beach nourishment during turtle nesting season.

Related Policies

Dredge and Fill Regulations

S.C. Code Regs. §48-39-130. Critical areas permits are required for dredge and fill activities that take place in critical areas (tidelands, coastal waters, and the beach/dune system). Coastal Management Regulations. S.C. Reg. 30-12G. Contains specific project regulatory standards for dredging and filling.

Sand Scraping/Dune Reshaping Regulations

Coastal Management Regulations. S.C. Reg. 30-13. Emergency order with guidelines allows sand scraping and placement of sand bags in front of threatened structures. No formal permit is required.

Dune Creation/Restoration Regulations

Coastal Management Regulations. S.C. Reg. 30-13(L). Allowed with permit.

Public Access Regulations

Local beachfront management plans are required to develop guidelines that accomplish a beach access program to ensure full and complete access to the beach.

Beach Nourishment Funding Program

While the state provides funding for beach nourishment projects, there is no dedicated state funding program.

Beachfront Management Act. S.C. Code Regs. §48-39-320B. The state passed a $10 million Beach Restoration Fund in 1988. Subsequently, funds have been allocated as needed to provide state match required for beach nourishment projects.

Amount of State Funding

South Carolina spends and average of $3 million annually on nourishment.

Cost Share Requirements

There is no set policy. The local match requirement varies."


According to the SCDHEC-OCRM website the state promotes soft solutions, such as re-fill, as an alternative to shoreline armoring along erosional beaches.

NOAA's 2008 evaluation of South Carolina's Coastal Management Program noted:

Tourists as well as residents generate significant monies and are a major factor in the state’s economy because of the state’s beaches. Thus, maintenance of healthy beaches is a critical issue. One of the most significant concerns facing the state and local governments as they deal with emergency beach renourishment following storms and long-term, cyclical, planned beach maintenance is the high cost involved and the need for state funding to provide cost sharing for federal beach renourishment funding. The South Carolina General Assembly recognized this need and established the State Beach Renourishment Trust Fund in 2000. However, the General Assembly has never appropriated funds to capitalize the Trust Fund. Meanwhile, based on annual beach monitoring conducted by the SCCMP, the number of beach areas characterized as being healthy based upon sand volume and width has declined. The Council on Coastal Futures recognized this as a serious issue and recommended that the state capitalize and adequately fund the State Beach Renourishment Trust Fund. The SCCMP is in agreement with this recommendation, but it is not in a position to address it alone. The NOAA OCRM encourages the SCCMP to play a leadership role in working with the South Carolina Governor’s Office, the General Assembly, and coastal local governments to capitalize and fund the state’s Beach Renourishment Trust Fund. There could be a leadership role for a Shoreline Change Initiative ‘blue ribbon’ panel or the existing advisory committee to assume on this issue as well.

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 discussion 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.

Coastal Carolina University's Beach Erosion Research and Monitoring (BERM) program website has papers and presentations, including:

  • 2008 Grand Strand Beach Nourishment Study, Year 1 Report
  • Assessment of beach erosion and impacts to borrow sites associated with a beach nourishment project in South Carolina, USA.


The Edisto Island and Hunting Island beach fill projects were completed just prior to summer 2006 at a combined cost of $16.3 million. 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 indented paragraphs are from the 2006 State of the Beaches Report:

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. The project was finally completed in 2009. 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.

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.

An article by Bo Petersen in the Charleston Post and Courier on December 19, 2010 Renourishment hasn't held up discusses increased erosion rates and therefore the need to do more frequent beach fill projects at Folly Beach, Wild Dunes Resort on Isle of Palms, and at Edisto Beach.

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 State Beach 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.[1]

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 website of the Charleston District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This website 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 large beach fill project began in September 2006. The town budgeted $16 million for the project. The previous 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.

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.

On December 21, 2010 The Island Packet reported on the status of 1 million cubic yard project planned for a mile-long stretch of beach at Port Royal Plantation. The project also includes construction of a groin to attempt to retain the sand along the "heel" of the island. The project, which has received $1 million in funding from the state, was originally set to begin in January 2011 but the start has now been pushed back to March or April 2011 due to permitting delays.

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 marsh 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 threatened 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."

The Department of Natural Resources Marine Resources Research Institute (MRRI) has conducted several beach nourishment and ocean disposal area studies. MRRI staff have monitored a number of beach nourishment projects since 1990 and are currently monitoring the progress of projects on Folly Beach, Hilton Head and Kiawah Island. As an example, the "Study to Evaluate the Effects of Beach Nourishment at Folly Beach" began in May 2005 and is nearing completion.

Figures cited in an article in USA Today (November 10, 2003) on beach fill indicated that the federal government had spent $91 million over the last 75 years on beach fill projects in South Carolina.

Information on beach fill in South Carolina is also available through Western Carolina University's Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines. State-by-state information is available from the pull-down menu or by clicking on a state on the map on this page.

In 2017 the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA) announced a new online National Beach Nourishment Database – featuring data on projects comprised of nearly 1.5 billion cubic yards of sand placed in nearly 400 projects covering the continental U.S. coastline. In addition to the total volume and the number of projects, the database includes the number of nourishment events, the oldest project, the newest project, the known total cost, the total volume and the known length. The information is broken into both state statistics and those of local or regional projects. Every coastal continental state is included (so Alaska and Hawaii are still being compiled), and projects along the Great Lakes are similarly waiting to be added.

A report National Assessment of Beach Nourishment Requirements Associated with Accelerated Sea Level Rise (Leatherman, 1989) on EPA's Climate Change Impacts and Adapting to Climate Change websites notes that the cumulative cost of sand replenishment to protect South Carolina's coast from a 50 to 200 cm rise in sea level by 2100 is estimated at $1.158 billion to $4.348 billion. However, sand replenishment may not be cost-effective for all coastal areas in the state, and therefore some savings could be possible..

The Fiscal Year 2017 Civil Works Budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides $4.62 billion in gross discretionary funding for the Civil Works program. This budget lists proposed projects and the associated budget justification by state.

State, Territory, and Commonwealth Beach Nourishment Programs: A National Overview (2000) is a report NOAA/OCRM that provides an overview of the problem of beach erosion, various means of addressing this problem, and discusses issues regarding the use of beach nourishment. Section 2 of the report provides an overview of state, territorial, and commonwealth coastal management policies regarding beach nourishment and attendant funding programs. Appendix B provides individual summaries of 33 beach nourishment programs and policies.


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

Footnotes

  1. OCRM's March 2003 State of the Beaches Report. http://www.scdhec.gov/ocrm/html/sob_03.htm



State of the Beach Report: South Carolina
South Carolina Home Beach Description Beach Access Water Quality Beach Erosion Erosion Response Beach Fill Shoreline Structures Beach Ecology Surfing Areas Website
2011 7 SOTB Banner Small.jpg