Renourishment policy proposal worries Hilton Head officials

A new report calls for changes in South Carolina's beach management policy that could make it more difficult for the Town of Hilton Head Island to manage its shoreline, a town official says.

The report recommends developing long-term alternatives to what has been a mainstay of the town's beach management policy: beach renourishment.

Called "Adapting to Shoreline Change," it recommends developing alternatives to renourishment statewide because it says the process could become unsustainable as the costs of renourishment rise and sand becomes harder to find.

But Scott Liggett, the town's director of public projects, worries that such a recommendation could lead to a lengthier approval process for Hilton Head's renourishment projects. Delays could make renourishment more costly and result in some areas deteriorating into an emergency erosion situation.

About once every seven years the town dredges sand from offshore to replace sand lost to erosion on its beaches. The last renourishment on Hilton Head took place in 2006 and cost $17 million.

Hilton Head is unique in South Carolina in that it relies mainly on a local accommodations tax to fundbeach renourishment. Other coastal areas in the state rely mainly on increasingly limited state and federal funds.

Those limited state funds and accelerated erosion due to sea-level rise will makerenourishment as a statewide beach management strategy unsustainable over the long term, said Braxton Davis, director of policy and planning for the state Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.

But Liggett said he didn't see that as a major problem for Hilton Head. The ocean has risen historically about a foot per century, he said, which wouldn't have an impact on the island in the foreseeable future.

The report also questions the practice of near-shore dredging to obtain sand to renourish beaches, a practice that Hilton Head uses.

"What you're doing when you get sand from so close to the shore is you're robbing Peter to pay Paul," Davis said. "You're moving sand within an active system; what you're not doing is bringing new sand into the system."

Davis says near-shore dredging increases the likelihood of altering the coast's sand system, which could lead to more erosion downstream. The report recommends closer monitoring of dredging projects to determine their long-term effects.

Liggett said the town monitors the impact of its dredging projects, and there have been no negative effects on the island's sand system.

He said he feared an extra layer of bureaucracy would be added, making renourishment projects more costly for the town if sand has to be dredged from farther away and take longerto accommodate the recommended review.

"The proposed changes could alter where we get sand and where it is placed," he said. "Ultimately, it might mean more time and money added with little additional value."

Another concern, according to Liggett, is that as projects take longer to complete, , erosion could damage beach areas to the point where it places natural resources, such as dunes and vegetation, at risk.

OCRM's Davis wouldn't rule out the possibility of a lengthened approval process, but said he hoped that renourishment permits would be filed long before an emergency erosion problem occurred.

Overall, the report commended Hilton Head for taking an active role in managing its shoreline, something it hopes can be duplicated up and down the coast.

One of the policy changes the report recommends mirrors a recently approved town ordinance to prevent development from moving closer to the ocean.

The recommendation to hold the line on development would reverse a state's decision to allow its baseline, the point closest to the ocean where construction can occur, to move forward when beach conditions improve. The town approved rules this year to keep the baseline where it is islandwide. The town also prohibits any development closer to the ocean than already exists.

The report also recommends expanding the area where stricter development standards are required, from 20 feet behind the baseline to 50 feet.

Town officials say the report's recommendations mostly fall in line with what the town had hoped would be the state's policy all along.

"We've drawn the line, and we are trying to manage the existing development," Liggett said.

Want to comment?

The Shoreline Change Advisory Committee produced the report "Adapting to Shoreline Change: A Foundation for Improved Management and Planning in South Carolina" over two years. The 23 committee members included scientists, coastal managers, legal professionals and local government officials.

The report is open to public comment until Dec. 4.

Written comments can be send to davisbc@dhec.sc.gov or mailed to:

Braxton Davis, SCDHEC-OCRM, 1362 McMillan Ave., Suite 400, Charleston, SC 29405