[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastai Zone COASTal zZon K Infltrmatioi-, Cente~~~~~IfrMTO CNTErk ~.,...~:.,......:State,.. -Of.,,..South....Carolina..,.. L ., ';:C Catloasal: Manag�'::arement' M: . !RtSW h~~~~~~~~~t''I' 3: U.S:. DEPARTT� O COMMERCn' Natioial Oceanic and ,Atmospheric Administrtion Office' '0fCoastl Zone:Management 4:! Ii � i% -~U~ j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ l ''~~~~~~~~~~~~ r I II'' 'II' ... c ,,,:~ ,:, iiili ;....I: ,r 1 r~ i�"' ,; ,� i ' i i i: ?~ ii ''~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i;�i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. . . . ..... :: 'h.':;4;" ',~ tr] 7' :m;~ f i ' . ,' : r 11 .. ' 1 -~/ t'~L~3 ' ' ~'" ' u ILI$ ..... Ir' '''L''l;' i;,.' I~ :�, ' :-;... ~, ~, .. .,,~. ,:.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~",,: , - ', ' " ', , ,,:, :� ~~~~~�i.~~:, , r� ; : ,7',~' ~).,~.~L*,' 't l ~ i ' , [iL ,-- , i '; .J II + , t'' i' I' ,L 't , t J; I r : I I i BJl ' ', ���/ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~':"r'~':i:''I ii ~~~~~;r,?,:! ' : '",:':,~ Thi..:: i:':'' ,' , ,' ,' .... The Asistat Seretary for Science andehnlg " :�,,,,~, , .Washing Jton . D.C . , 20 '230 i '~~~~ In acco rdance wit th poiionsof, S ecdtIon l0 2()C) of the Na t ional yI t ., ,., 1,I . r I:W, Environmea P Act' of 1969, .aeencosing fo .your. review and.. ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' i': '" .. cons i d e r"a t~ion th edraft env ironMent impac satate mentpr aed by th e 0 t: 1, ,i~i,, r j, ,,i~ '', i' ; "' 'rn : ce M O Offite of Coastal Zon e Management, Na Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrat ion, Dpartment ofCommerceonthe P~roposed 1S~outh Carol na :: I ' " ' Coastal Managmn Program. Any write comnt s or q u est ions ~you myhvesol b umitdt t he cotc pson idniieCeo b a 1,17p Alon t.0 M e I: 'I U r m'; cpof your, comments' soul be, sen to ei Rodm 3425, ..Dprmn of ~Commerce, Washington D. C. 20230.,'I CONTAC T P ERSO South rAtl anti cRegiona~lManfager~ Ofirce of Coa stal6 ZneManagement Tele :phonei: O 7 Thankyouforyourcooper ai :I this matte I: ~~~~~ : : :: I:3 , Wh toha n r t :e Si ncerei :1�� 'r' ii ..... Ga ' ~]', I: r DD wa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~,,,, e ct"Cdn~"',, 20 23 ,, , ) '[,,, .. i:~ccr~~ie w~jh ~h-lpr~j5ip~ :d~:SeciT6,1~t)()e '495tdnl; ,,:i~", ,'':',' v ronmnenta Ol'i::'oi,,id y::cA~t9'ofi'~i 96~r:;1:al're :i'6hi�c::bsriig,n,,~i f~ori:'ya'rl/~ieie w,,anj l:~ : ::r ::'"'' ,, ,':, :cons'iderat~:ion i the'?ln'~'ft!'e i:'~:henl ~,ome~:ia'! : !impagc~trr:'stat~e'niet,~,p e pare(J by:: the ::/:~', : "!r Dty ,Ys t Sffce f or'rCr et6as r ayln:h? ,attt:::i ... . End5~ osures *This phone~~~~~~~~~~~ numberi hasrentycanged.',"Theal:iC number d:shtmnshere c is ...' : ... : :irAdmin~ist]ra~t"oj ':'" 'r~mn jb ~Pre:':: correct. The n(mboeer iaroiina "7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"' inor ndicated, on p.I i o t'e; ' e t u mta is ",; ~~~~~~~~~~sI :::I � ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,;: :' ,'r: , '~ ' :,',,',i .:r '::'! ':. ,"',: ',' ',,��I' :i.� .Anyel"co~inl!'~4 ":"l~os,i',,o~i' quer s',~ i6'hs ,,YOU,~:' ma yi!,:�ha�~:sh'o~i c~u"i~ '""" "sti'idet . ... "..'..:the ..'co ntac:f:trs.t"' :!''bey. :.'ii: 9 .'...... : ,one. Enc~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F I Fsure ;�~~~~~~~~~~~~h h h numbe~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.r' "':w eei copy ,commect. TherTit'' I r in.d:!h"c"Roo ':'i;425.::S:. :e prtmente on:' ": ''!:' ..ri I� :,~~~~~~~~r om ~:pr mt rl ! s be'!.'C .'"S'eh ': .'l~. o:.:.�' ~e ; ')':.'. ' :i i ::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.'..... '... ' , h ', '/:: ,,, ,h ,,la tj c 'e l n a �M n pr, " ' ' ' ':'i ..........nc"'o' ' J'rrec" .... : /..~.,." 1.'. : :'.'.". r Ji " . . "'~~~~~~ . wsi~soji j;'...': ': ''"'"'"'''"'':'' ': "'":':''' cONT'Ac . ...... ', ~ ~ ~~~'T',,, ',,' ,"~, ,,, ," :'; i,: � :4 :;~ O'uthr!la ,~': � �' ~~~~~~~~:, :� , ... it~n i'.c ...'g:~n~]rI.. ,",i1, ' ,'', ,, , r ' 'r,~''' ,'i "',': ,~ '" ....... 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: ~' ~,' ,', ,,,~ .. . ,,:, :��~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" 'r I" L':. �: ... ' ,' " '' !,::ut ,,.,:~ i .....,e~ ,:: ' r'~ 71::;/i: ' ~ : :~' , ' I �~~~~~"" : 0 : u �':":� '.'..'.. r ~~~~~~~ ~'i..: i.:.J�: incorrecit.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.l: :r' .. :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '" ''~~~~ , ' 'r r '. , :/ :,, :', '"/" ': " ~ r,""' !i'/ ' :' ';'" '~ ' :' "" :":' "" ' �' ��' ...� '.' ''~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' ' ' ", ' x'' " "i ''i ]r .:~~~~~ ~~~ r ;./" ... i' Ir::ir; ..' ~.:/ L:, :,' 'V"r:' "" :'"r'r,, ...' ;' ''..':'"" ~~� ��"~ '"" ~si.s~n S '~r ~ r :'~' :" ~'"'/ "' /r,~~�I ,,',�~ Property of CSC Librax-j COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER Prepared by: 2234 S00UTH HOPSON AVENUE CHARUs'' 'L 29405-2413 Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20235 and South Carolina Coastal Council Summerall Center 19 Hagood Street Charleston, South Carolina 24403 UNUITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Pk Nationall Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ~' Rockville, Maryland 20852 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 28, 1979 TO: Recipients of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared on the Proposed South Carolina Coastal Management Program FROM: Chief Y'~NEPA Compliance Unit SUBJECT: Public Hearing You are invited to attend the public hearing to be held on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared on the Proposed South Carolina Coastal Management Program. The views of interested persons and organizations will be solicited. These may be expressed orally or in written statements. Presentations will be scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis, and may be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes, or as otherwise appropriate. Priority will be given to those with written statements. Parties unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may be assured that written comments submitted to the Office of Coastal Zone Management will receive the same consideration as oral comments presented at the public hearings. The hearing schedule is: Wednesday, May 9, 1979 7:30 p.m. Jenkins Hall The Citadel Charleston, South Carolina LA TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTE TO READERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... SUMMARY* . ,o. *. t.*a*. *. *..............ii PART I: INTRODUCTION A. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act . . . . 1 B. Summary of the South Carolina Coastal Management Program. . . . . . . . . ... . 5 C. How the South Carolina Coastal Program Meets the Requirements of the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .11 PART II: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The South Carolina Coastal Management Program Note: A Table of Contents for the Program is included in the front of Part II PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 1: Description of the Environment Affected . . . . . .1 Chapter 2: Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action on the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Chapter 3: Alternatives to the Proposed Action . . . . . . . .23 Chapter 4: Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Chapter 5: Relationship Between Local, Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Chapter 6: Irrevocable or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources That Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..40 Chapter 7: Relationship of Proposed Action to Land and Water Use Plan, Policies, and Controls in the Area. ..41 Chapter 8: Consultation and Coordination with Others .....46 NOTE TO READERS The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that an environmental impact statement be prepared as part of the review and approval process of major actions by Federal agencies which signifi- cantly affect the quality of the human environment. The action contem- plated here is approval of the South Carolina Coastal Management Program under Section 306 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. Approval qualifies South Carolina for Federal matching funds for use in implementing and administering the coastal management program. In addition, the Coastal Zone Management Act stipulates that Federal activities affecting the coastal zone 'shall be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the approved coastal management program. It is the general policy of the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) to issue a combined draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and coastal management program document. Part I of this DEIS was prepared by OCZM and includes a summary of South Carolina's coastal management program. Part 1I of the DEIS is a detailed description of the state's program, and was prepared by the South Carolina Coastal Council as were the appendices and attachments. Part II also fulfills, in part, the NEPA requirement for a description of the proposed action. Part III addresses the remainder of the NEPA requirements for a DEIS and was prepared jointly by OCZM and the South Carolina Coastal Council. For purposes of reviewing the proposed action, the important Federal concerns are: - whether the South Carolina program is consistent with the objectives and policies of the national legislation, - whether the award of Federal funds under Section 306 of the CZMA will help South Carolina meet those objectives, - whether the state's management authorities are adequate to implement the South Carolina Coastal Program, and - whether there will be a net environmental benefit as a result of program approval and implementation. OCZM has made a preliminary assessment that the answers to these questions are affirmative. OCZM wants the widest possible c'irculation of this document to all interested agencies and parties in order to receive the fullest expression of opinion on these questions, and wishes to thank those participating in the review of the South Carolina program and this draft environmental impact statement. i SUMMARY (XDraft Environmental Impact Statement ()Final Environmental Impact Statement This document was prepared by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment. For additional information about the proposed acti.on or this docu- ment, contact: John Phillips Marion Cox Regional Manager Assistant Regional Manager South Atlantic Region South Atlantic Region NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Management 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. (Room 356) Washington, D.C. 20235 Phone: (202) 634-4133 Written comments should be addressed to: John Phillips at the above address. 1. TYPE OF ACTION Proposed Federal approval of the South Carolina Coastal Plan (x) Administrative ()Legislative 2. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION It is proposed that the Assistant Administrator approve the Coastal Management Program application of the State of South Carolina pur- suant to P.L. 92-583. Approval would permit implementation grants to be awarded to the State, and require that Federal actions be con- sistent with the program. 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Approval and implementation of the program will enhance governance of the state's coastal land and water areas and uses according to coastal policies and standards implemented by existing state and local authority. The effect of these policies and standards is to condition, restrict or prohibit some uses in parts of the coastal zone, while encouraging development and other uses in other parts. This program will improve decision-making processes for determining appropriate coastal land and water uses in light of resource considerations and will increase pre- dictability of public and private coastal decisions. The program will result in some short-term economic impacts on coastal users but will lead to increased long-term protection of and benefit from the state's coastal resources. ii 4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I. The Assistant Administrator could delay or deny program approval if the policies of the program are not specific enough to ensure a sufficient degree of predictability in decision-making. II. The Assistant Administrator could delay or deny program approval if the definition of Uses of Regional Benefit (URB's) is not sufficiently broad to meet the requirements and intent of the CZMA as amended. III. The Assistant Administrator could delay or deny program approval if the State has not clearly defined its �307 Federal Consistency procedures. 5. DISTRIBUTION Comments have been requested from the following Federal, State and local agencies and other parties: Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of Health, Education & Welfare Department of Housing & Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of Transporation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission General Services Administration Marine Mammal Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Coast Guard National Interest Groups A.M.E.R.I .C.A.N. AFL-CIO American Association of Port Authorities American Bar Association American Bureau of Shipping American Farm Bureau Federation American Fisheries Society American Forest Institute American Gas Association American Hotel and Motel Association American Industrial Development Council American Institute of Architects American Institute of Merchant Shipping American Institute of Planners American Littoral Society American Mining Congress American Oceanic Organization American Petroleum Institute American Shore and Beach Preservation Association American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc. American Society of Planning Officials American Water Resources Association American Waterways Operators Amoco Production Company Ashland Oil , Inc. Associated General Contractors of America Association of Oil Pipe Lines Atlantic Richfield Company Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Atomic Industrial Forum Barrier Islands Coalition Boating Industry Association Center for Law and Social Policy Center for Natural Areas Center for Urban Affairs Center for Urban & Regional Resources Chamber of Commerce of the United States Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Cities Service Company City Service Oil Company Coastal States Organization Conservation Foundation Continental Oil Company Council of State Governments TeCouniofStte Pannn Agciety TeCouncilao StaePanigAociety Earth Metabolic Design Laboratories, Inc. Edison Electric Institute El Paso Natural Gas Co. Environmental Policy Center iv Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Environmental Law Institute EXXON Company, U.S.A. Friends of the Earth Getty Oil Company Great Lakes Basin Commission Gulf Energy and Minerals, U.S. Gulf Oil Company Gulf Refining Company Gulf South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation Independent Petroleum Association of America Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America Institute for the Human Environment institute for Marine Studies. Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Izaak Walton League Lake Michigan Federation League of Conservation Voters League of Women Voters Education Fund Marathon Oil Company Marine Technology Society Mobil Oil Corporation Mobil Exploration & Producing, Inc. Murphy Oil Company National Academy of Engineering National Association of Conservation Districts National Association of Counties National Association of Dredging Contractors National Association of Electric Companies National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers National Association of Home Builders National Association of Realtors National Association of Regional Councils National Association of State Boating Law Admi ni strators National Association of State Park Directors National Audubon Society National Boating Federation National Canners Association National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc. National Comimission on Marine Policy National Conference of State Legislatures National Environmental Development Association National Fanners Union National Federation of Fisherman National Fisheries Institute National Forest Products Association National Governors Association National League of Cities National Ocean Industries Associ ation National Parks and Conservation Association V National Petroleum Council National Petroleum Refiners Association National Realty Committee National Recreation and Park Association National Research Council National Science Foundation National Science Teachers Association National Shrimp Congress National Society of Professional Engineers National Wildlife Federation National Waterways Conference Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America Natural Resources Defense Council The Nature Conservancy Nautilus Press New England River Basin Commission North Atlantic Ports Association outboard Marine Corporation Resources for the Future Rice University Center for Community Design and Development Shell Oil Company Shellfish Institute of North America Shipbuilders Council of America Sierra Club Skelly Oil Company Society of Industrial Realtors Society of Real Estate Appraisers Soil Conservation Society of America Southern California Gas Company Sport Fishing Institute Standard Oil Company of Ohio Sun Company, Inc. Tenneco Oil Company Texaco, Inc. Texas A & M University United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America Union Oil Company of California Urban Research and Development Association, Inc. U.S. Conference of Mayors U.S. Power Squadrons Virginia Marine Resources Commission Water Pollution Control Federation Water Transport Association Western Oil and Gas Association Wii'dlife Management Institute The Wildlife Society World Dredging Association vi State Distribution Governor Attorney General Archeology Institute Patriots Point Development Authority South Carolina Department of Archives and History South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism South Carolina Forestry Commission South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission South Carolina Public Railwtays.Commission South Carolina Public Service Authority South Carolina Public Service Commission South Carolina State Budget & Contra] Board South Carolina State Development Board South Carolina State Ports Authority South Carolina Water Resources Commission South Carolina' Wildlife & Marine Resources Department Local Distribution Beaufort County Beaufort County Development Commission Beaufort County Joint Planning Commission County Administrator Mayor, Port Royal Berkeley County County Administrator, Hanahan County Supervisor Development Board, Moncks Corner Mayor, Goose Creek Charleston County Charleston County Mosquito Abatement program Charleston County Parks, Recreation & Tourism Charleston County Planning Board Charleston County Public Works Department City Administrator, Folly Beach City Administrator, Isle of Palms City Hall, Isle of Palms City Manager, Mt. Pleasant Clerk, Ravenel Clerk, Sullivans Island Manager, Charleston County . Mayor, Charleston Mayor, McClellanville Mayor, North Charleston vi i Col I eton County Supervisory Mayor, Edisto Beach Walterboro-Colleton Recreation Commission Dorchester County Administrator Mayor, St. George Mayor, Summerville Georgetown Administrative Assistant, Georgetown Georgetown County Health Department Horry Administrative Assistant, North Myrtle Beach Horry County Planning Commission Mayor, Myrtle Beach Mayor, Surfside Beach Planner, City of Myrtle Beach Planning and Zoning Commission, Surfside Beach Jasper Ja se County Council Jasper County Joint Planning Commission Mayor, Hardeeville Town Administrator, Ridgeland Regional Councils of Government B-C-D Regional Planning Commission Lowcounty Council of Governments Waccamaw Regional Planning Council South Carolina Special Interest Groups Cooper River Water Users Association Historic Charleston Association The Jean-Michel Cousteau Institute Junior League of Charleston Junior League of Women Voters League of Women Voters, Local Chapters Myrtle Beach Board of Realtors Myrtle Beach Environmental Association, Inc. National Audubon Society, Local Chapters North Myrtle Beach Citizens Association, Inc. Osceola South Carolina Bankers Association * South Carolina Chamber of Commerce South Carolina 1nvironmental Coalition South Carolina Petroleum Council South Carolina Wildlife Federation Save the Wando Association, Inc. Savings and Loan Association of South Carolina viii 6. COMMENT PERIOD This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was transmitted to the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Notice of Availability to the public was published in the Federal Register on A-nril 6-17 7. NOTE TO REVIEWERS The Appendices will not be reprinted in the Final EIS unless they are changed as a result of this review. The Final EIS will be sent to all parties who comment on the DEIS, and to all other parties who request it. ix IW ~ ~ ~ PR I INTRODUCTION" C>~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -4, A. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act In response to intense pressure and because of the importance of coastal areas of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583)(CZMA) which was signed into law on October 27, 1972. The Act authorized a Federal grant-in-aid program to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn, delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management, who heads the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was substantially amended on July 26, 1976, (P.L. 94-370). The Act and its 1976 amendments affirm a national interest in the effective protection and careful development of the coastal zone, by providing assistance and encouragement to coastal States to develop and implement rational programs for managing their coastal areas. Broad guidlines and the basic requirements of the CZMA provide the necessary direction to States for developing coastal management programs. These guidelines and requirements for program development and approval are contained in 15 CFR Part 923, as raised and published March 1, 1978, in in the Federal Register. In summary, the requirements for program approval are that a State develop a management program which: (1) Identifes and evaluates those coastal resources recognized in the Act that requiremanagement or protection by the State; (2) Reexamines existing policies or develops new policies to manage these resources. These policies must be specific, comprehensive and enforceable, and must provide an adequate degree of pre- dictability as to how coastal resources will be managed, (3) Determines specific uses and special geographic areas that are to be subject to the management program, based on the nature of identified coastal concerns. Uses and areas to be subject to management should be based on resource capability and suit- ability analyses, socio-economic considerations and public preferences; (4) Identifies the inland and seaward areas subject to the manage- ment program; (5) Provides for the consideration of the national interest in the planning for and siting of facilities that meet more than local requirements; and (6) Includes sufficient legal authorities and organizational arrangements to implement the program and to insure conformance to it. In arriving at these substantive aspects of the management program, States are obliged to follow an open process which involves providing information to and considering the interests of the general public, special interest groups, local governments, and regional, State, inter- state and Federal agencies. Section 305 of the CZMA authorizes a maximum of four annual grants to develop a coastal management program. After developing a manage- ment program, the State (territory) may submit it to the Secretary of Commerce (or her representative in this case, the Assistant Administrator 2 of iNOAA for Coastal Zone Management) for approval pursuant to Section 306 of the CZMA. If approved, the State is then eligible for annual grants under Section 306 to implement its management program. If a program has deficiencies which need to be remedied or has not received approval by the time Section 305 program development grants have expired, a State may be eligible for preliminary a-proval and additional funding under Section 305(d). Section 307 of the Act stipulates that Federal agency actions shall be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with approved management programs.. Section 307 further provides for mediation by the Secretary of Commerce when a serious disagreement arises between a'Federal agency and a coastal State with respect to a Federal consistency issue. Section 308 of the CZMA contains provisions for grants and loans to coastal States to enable them to plan for and respond to onshore impacts resulting from coastal energy activities. To be eligible for assistance under Section 308, coastal States must be receiving Section 305 or 306 grants, or, in the Secretary's view, be developing a management program consistent with the policies and objectives contained in Section 303 of the CZMA. Section 309 allowis the Secretary to make grants to States to coordinate, study, plan, and implement interstate coastal management programs. Section 310 allows the Secretary to conduct a program of research, study, and training to support State management programs. The Secretary 3 may also make grants to States to carry out research studies and training required to support their programs. Section 315 authorizes grants to States to acquire lands for access to reaches and other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological, or cultural value, and for the preser- vation of islands, in addition to the estuarine sanctuary program to preserve a representative series of undisturbed estuarine areas for long-term scientific and educational purposes. 4 B. SUMMARY OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The South Carolina Coastal Program is based, in large part, on the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977 (SCCMA). Basically the Act ac- complishes four things: 1) It establishes a permanent South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC). 2) It provides for the development and administration of a comprehensive Coastal Management Program.. 3) It sets up a permitting process for activities occuring in the four "critical areas" of the coastal zone (tide- lands, coastal waters, beaches and primary ocean-front sand dunes). 4) It provides a mechanism for State and local agency con- sistency with the State's app?-oved Coastal Management Program throughout the coastal zone. COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY: The South Carolina coastal zone is defined in Section 3(B) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977 as All coastal waters and submerged lands seaward to the State's jurisdictional limits and all lands and waters in the counties of the State which contain any one or. more of the critical areas. These counties are Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Horry, Jasper, and Georgetown. The critical areas are defined in Section 3(J) as: coastal waters, tide- lands, beaches and primary ocean-front sand dunes. The South Carolina Coastal Council employs a two-tier approach to manage- ment of activities having a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. The "critical areas" will receive more intensive attention through the direct permitting system, while the remainder of the coastal zone will be managed through cooperation with other State agencies amd their adherence to coastal program policies. MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES: All lands and waters of the coastal zone (the State's eight coastal counties) were considered in the development of the program. Two types of management authority were granted to the SCCC: 1) Direct permitting authority over the "critical areas"; 2) in- direct management authority, through a SCCC certification process, of coastal resources throughout the coastal zone, which includes coastal waters and submerged lands seaward to the State's jurisdictional limits, as well as the lands and waters of the eight coastal counties. A fundamental part of the coastal management program is the SCCC's ex- clusive authority to issue permits for alterations in the "critical areas" In addition, the SCCMA directs the SCCC to issue rules and re- gulations for the implementation of its permitting program. Through Section 8(B)(1l) of the SCCMA, the SCCC is required to review and certify the compliance of permit applications administered by other State agencies -with the policies of the coastal management program. 6 RESOURCE POLICIES: One of the major changes in the area of coastal resources management re- sulting from the development of a Coastal Program in South Carolina has been the creation of resource "policies". In review and certification of permit applications in the coastal zone, the SCCC will be guided by its identified coastal management program policies. In addition to these policies the State has outlined general considerations which will be used in permitting or certifying the compliance of activities occuring in the coastal zone. Certain of these "considerations" are important to note: o The possible long-range, cumulative effects of the project, when reviewed in the context of other possible development and the general character of the area. o The extent of negative impacts on identified Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCs). The determination of negative impacts will be made by the SCCC in each case with reference to the priorities of use for the particular GAPC. In critical areas of the coastal zone program policies are also guided by general considerations. Important considerations include: the extent to which activities are water-dependent and/or water-related; the extent to which the development could affect existing public access; and the extent to which the activity could cause erosion. The policies contained in the program al-ong with the general considerations outlined as a basis for decision-making represent a major step forward in 7 management of coastal resources that produces a predictable and equitable way of balancing economic and resource conservation goals. Program policies concerning Shore erosion and public access also represent significant changes for South Carolina. The SCCMA mandates the SCCC to develop a comprehensive beach erosion control policy and gives authority to the SCCC for implementation of this policy. This incl'udes authority to remove erosion control structures which adversely affect the public interest. The SCCC also has the authority to accept and expend Federal and State erosion control funds only in areas which provide full and complete access to the public. The South Carolina erosion control plan will also identify those coastline areas which are most severely eroding. Barrier Islands represents both a major economic resource and potential hazard for South Carolina. The Coastal program policies provide specific guidance for the further orderly development of this resource. In ad- dition the State has developed a new policy which does not allow for the expenditure of State of Federal funds for new bridge or causeway access to any previously undeveloped barrier islands. NATIONAL INTEREST AND USES OF REGIONAL BENEFIT: In addition to the legislative mandate contained in the Federal CZMA of 1972 for consideration as the national interest, the SCCMA(Section 3(3)(6) also requires that the State provide for adequate consideration of the National interest in developing and implementing its coastal program. The following concerns are identified to be in the national interest: 1) National Defense 2) Energy Production and Transmission 3) Coastal Resources significant fish species and habitats threatened wildlife habitats, public recreational areas, drinking water supply, historic, cultural, and archeological sites barrier islands When national interest considerations for facilities and for resource con- servation conflict, the Coastal Management Program resolves the conflict by examining resource policies for activities subject to management as well as the permitting rules and regulations which are applicable to the specific facility or associated activity. Consultation with relevant Federal agencies occurs on a continuing basis. Uses of regional benefit as identified by the SCCC include transportation facilities and parks. Through the use of South Carolina's Public Works Eminent Domain Law, which allows any Federal agency, State public body or authorized corporation to acquire real property necessary, a system exists which ensures that adequate sites are, or can be set aside, for different uses of regional benefit In conclusion, the most significant changes 9 which will occur as a result of the development and approval of South Carolina's Coastal Management Program are: 1) The articulation of State-level policies regarding management of the State's coastal resources. 2) State and Federal agencies must be consistent with the State's coastal resource policies. 3) The State has developed a Shore Erosion Management Plan. 4) All State and Federal funds (i.e., public investments) for Shore erosion protection will be tied to the pro- vision and/or maintenance of shorefront access. 5) The State has developed specific rules and regulations for permitting of alterations in coastal "critical areas" 6) The State has committed itself to making certain permit- ting decisions based, in part, on water dependency and water relatedness, 7) The State has defined "no feasible alternative" to mean feasible site location, as wellas, no design or con- struction (technical) alternative. (Further feasibility considerations are discussed in Part 11 of the DEIS.) 3) The State has determined to limit vehicular access to all undeveloped barrier islands through its public investment policies for transportation and other public services. 10 C. How the South Carolina Coastal Program Meets the Requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act: Requirements Sections of Approval Location in Regulations Pro. Document (Chapter) Sec. 306(a) which includes the requirements of Sec. 305: 305(b)(1): Boundaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.31, 923.32 III(A) 923.33, 923.34 III(C)(3) 305(b)(2): Uses subject to management. . . . ... 923.11, 923.12 305(b)(3): Areas of particular concern . . . . . . 923.21, 923.23 IV(A) 305(b)(4): Means of control. . . . . . . . . . . . 923.41 V(A) 305(b)(5): Guidelines on priorities of uses. .. . 923.22 IV(A) 305(b)(6): Organizational structure. . . . . . . . 923.45 V(A) 305(b)(7): Shorefront planning process . . . . . . 923.25 IV(D) 305(b)(8): Energy facility planning process. . . . 923.14 IV(B) 305(b)(9): Erosion planning process. . . . . . . . 923.26 IV(C) Sec. 306(c) which includes: 306(c)(1): Notice: full participation; consistent with Sec. 303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.58, 923.51 V(F)&(G) 923.55, 923.3 306(c)(2)(A): Plan coordination. . . . . . . . . . 923.56 V(F) 306(c)(2)(B): Continuing consultation mechanisms. 923.57 V(F)&(D) 306(c)(3): Public hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.58 V(F) 306(c)(4): Gubernatorial review and approval . . . 923.47 Gov. Letter* 306(c)(5): Designation of recipient agency . . . . 923.46, 923.47 Gov. Letter* 306(c)(6): Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.45, 923.47 V(A) and II 306(c)(7): Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.41, 923.47 V(A) 306(c)(8): Adequate consideration of national interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.52 III(C)(l) 306(c)(9): Areas for preservation/restoration. . . 923.24 IV(A) Sec. 306(d) which includes: 306(d)(1): Administer regulations, control development; resolve conflicts. . . . . 923.41 V(A)(B)& (C) 306(d)(2): Powers of acquisition, if necessary . 923.41 V(A) Sec. 306(e) which includes: 306(e)(1): Technique of control . ........ 923.41, 923.42 V(A)& III(C)(3) 306(e)(2): Uses of regional benefit. . . . .... 923.13, 923.41 III(C)(2) 923.43 Sec. 307 which includes: 307(b): Adequate consideration of Federal agency views. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.51 V(F) 307(f): Incorporation of air and watter quality requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.44 V(E) *Will appear in Final EIS 11 . , ,~ ,r -~~~~~~~~ , - r ~~~~' :' - PART II ail DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION (PROGRAM DOCUMENT) , J I , -i I SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL PROGRAM South Carolina Coastal Council I SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL Senator James M. Waddell, Jr. - Chairman Senator T. Dewey Wise Mrs. Ann Jennings - Vice Chairman (2nd District) Representative Jean B. Meyers Representative William Campbell Ms. Patricia Bowie - 1st District Dr. Jack Scurry - 3rd District Mr. Hubert E. Yarborough, III - 4th District Mrs. Katherine Gilbert - 5th District Mr. C. C. Huffman - 6th District Mr. Joab M. Dowling - Beaufort County Mr. Carl Walsh - Berkeley County Ms. Sallie J. Scott - Charleston County Mr. C. G. Padgett - Colleton County Dr. Thomas Messervy - Dorchester County Mr. Claymon Grimes - Georgetown County Mr. William J. Sigmon - Horry County Mr. Walter Baxter - Jasper County SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL STAFF Summerall Center 19 Hagood Avenue, Suite 802 Charleston, South Carolina 29403 792-5808 H. Wayne Beam Heyward Robinson Jim Ellis Executive Director Biologist Permitting Technician Duncan C. Newkirk Fritz Aichele Debbie Stalvey Deputy Director/Permit Administrator Cartographer Permitting Secretary Harriet Knight Ken Klyce Elizabeth Green Planning Coordinator Local Government Liaison Assistant Permitting Secretary Ann Townsend Adkins Louis Hem Joyce Leseman Planner, Interagency Coordinator Public Information Secretary/Receptionist Ann C. Baker Linda Brechko Sammie Arnold Planner, Energy Impact Coordinator Administrative Assistant Secretary-Part-Time Ben Gregg Janie Fields Donna Smith Staff Attorney Planning Secretary Secretary-Part-Time Richard H. Dawson Bryan Stone Biologist Cartographic Assistant 1116 Bankers Trust Tower P.O. Box 1026 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Beaufort, South Carolina 29902 758-8442 524-0755 H. Wayne Beam N. Jack Smith Gail McTeer Executive Director Legal Intern Secretary to the Council Ben Campbell DeAnne Raven Administrative Assistant Accounting Clerk Patricia J. Lesslie Angie Funderburk Planning Intern Secretary Julie Wright Secretary/Receptionist TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I THE COAST OF SOUTH CAROLINA A. INTRODUCTION....................................I1-i B. LOWCOUNTRY HISTORY ................................1-2 C. THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ............................1-13 D, COASTAL ECONOMY..................................1-30 E. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ...........................1-41 F. COASTAL LAND USE..................................1-47 Chapter II COASTAL PLANNING PROCESS A. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT ...................11-1 B. FEDERAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ....................11-4 Chapter III MANAGEMENT OF COASTAL RESOURCES A. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................111-1 B. COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY ...............................111-3 C. USES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN I1. CONSIDERATION OF NATIONAL INTEREST.....................111-5 2. ACTIVITIES OF REGIONAL BENEFIT .......................111-8 3. RESOURCE POLICIES.............................. IIl-II GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF ALL PROJECTS ...............111-14 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT..........................111-16 TRANSPORTATION ...............................111-19 Ports.....................................111-19 Roads and Highways..............................111-2 1 Airports ...................................111-23 Railways...................................111-25 Parking facilities ................................111-27 COASTAL INDUSTRIES..............................111-29 Agriculture..................................111-29 Forestry ...................................111-31 Mineral extraction...............................111-3 2 Manufacturing .................................111-33 Fish and seafood processing...........................111-3 6 Aquaculture .................................111-3 7 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT..........................111-40 RECREATION AND TOURISM ..........................111-42 Parks ......................................I42 Commercial recreation.............................111-44 MARINE RELATED FACILITIES .........................111-46 Marinas ...................................111-46 Boat ramps .................................111-48 Docks and piers................................111-49 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT....................111-51 Wildlife and fisheries management........................111-51 Artificial reefs ..................................I-51 Impoundments ................................111-52 DREDGING ...................................111-55 Dredging...................................111-55 Dredged material disposal............................111-57 Underwater salvage ..............................111-58 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES .......................111-60 Sewage treatment ...............................111-60 Solid waste disposal ..............................111-62 Public/Quasi-public buildings..........................111-63' Dams and reservoirs ..............................111-65 Water supply .................................111-66 EROSION CONTROL ...............................111-68 ENERGY AND ENERGY-RELATED FACILITIES ..................111-68 ACTIVITIES IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE ........1-69 Barrier islands.................................111-69 Dune Areas (outside critical areas) ........................111-71 Navigation channels ..............................111-72 Public open spaces...............................111-73 Wetlands (outside critical areas) .........................111-73 Chapter IV SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS A. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN...................IV-1 B. ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS .......................IV-30 Policies ...................................IV-45 C. EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM ............................IV-50 Policies....................................IV-55 D. BEACH AND SHORELINE ACCESS...........................IV-60 Policies....................................IV-63 E. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES.............................IV-77 Chapter V MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES AND GOVERNMENTAL/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A. LEGAL AUTHORITIES & NETWORKING..........................V-I B. PROJECT EVALUATION PROCEDURE ..........................V-3 C. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS ..............................V-8 D. EVALUATION AND ANEMDMENT PROCEDURE .....................V-8 E. WATER AND AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ........................V-I1 F. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 1. FEDERAL COORDINATION ............................V-12 2. FEDERALLY EXCLUDED LANDS..........................V-14 3. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY .............................V-14 4. STATE COORDINATION..............................V-35 5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION ......................V-37 G. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION................................V-40 GLOSSARY ..........................................V-45 chapter I the coast-of- - *,-,,,',, , south carolina A. INTRODUCTION Because South Carolina has been slow to develop the large industrial base common to many other coastal states, it is blessed with vast unspoiled natural areas. However, increasing, and often conflicting, demands upon coastal resources have made it necessary to balance the needs created by burgeoning populations and concomitant development against those for preservation of the environment. South Carolina's General Assembly clearly recognized the need for such a balance when it passed an act designed "to protect the quality of the coastal environment and to promote the economic and social improvement of the coastal zone and of all the people of the State." (S.C. Coastal Management Act of 1977, Act 123) One reason for the multitude of conflicting interests within the coastal zone is the fact that it is attractive - as a place to live and a place to play, as an industrial site and as the only possible location for occupations such as shipping and fishing. The coastal zone has played an important part in the State's cultural and historical development, and consequently contains a number of irreplaceable sites. The aesthetic and ecological resources found in the coastal zone are unique and equally irreplaceable. South Carolina's coastal zone can be divided into three segments, based on both physical and sociological distinctions. The morphology of the coast represents a transition zone between the North Carolina and Georgia shorelines. From the North Carolina border to Winyah Bay, the coast forms a gentle crescent, called an arcuate strand. The coast in this section is characterized by broad sandy beaches, few tidal inlets, a well- developed dune system and generally sparse salt marshes. In contrast, the southern section of the coast from Bulls Bay to the Georgia border is fronted by a series of barrier islands separated from the mainland by a wide zone of salt marsh. Tidal inlets are more numerous, and in some areas there is little or no dune development. Extending thirty kilometers along the shore between the northern and southern coastal segments lies the Santee River Delta, the largest deltaic complex on the east coast. Unfortunately, this delta is eroding at a rapid rate due to damming and diversion projects which have cut down on the flow of fresh water and sediments. The physical characteristics of each section of the coast have been important in determining the economic and social character which developed over time. The sandy beaches of the arcuate strand in Georgetown and Horry Counties have nurtured a thriving tourist economy centered around Myrtle Beach. Georgetown, the other principal center of population in the northern segment of the coastal zone, has an industrial economy. This is due in part to the abundant forests of the region, which supply the City's most significant industry - the pulp mills - with raw materials. The central portion of the coast, dominated by the greater Charleston area, is the major permanent population center as well as industrial center in the coastal zone. Due to its natural harbor, Charleston has become a port of major importance and has attracted a number of industrial and manufacturing concerns. In addition to its importance as a center of commerce, Charleston possesses a number of cultural and historical attributes unequalled in the State or the nation. The Spoleto Festival celebrating the arts has become an annual event in the port city. During the colonial era, Charleston is said to have eclipsed even Boston as a city of con- sequence, and it remained an important center for social and intellectal life even after the devastation of the War Between the States. The natural history of the lower part of the coast - Jasper, Beaufort and Colleton counties - has had a great influence on the economic and social development of the area. Because of the extensive tracts of marsh, estuary and forest, population and industrial growth have been constrained to some degree. The numerous sea islands, often isolated, have given rise to a culture all their own. Beaufort and Port Royal are the principal population centers, although the development of exclusive resort property on Hilton Head Island has led to in- creased growth in nearby Bluffton. Fishing and leisure-related activities are the primary form of industry in the tri-county region. The fact that much of South Carolina's coastal zone remains unspoiled may be attributed in large part to the plantation system and to the aftermath of civil war. The plantation system served to keep large tracts of land under single ownership and in non-commercial use at least until the time of the War Between the States. Dur- ing Reconstruction, many old plantations were sold to hunt clubs or to large corporations whose owners allow- ed the fields and rice impoundments to revert to their natural state. This situation has served to protect much of the South Carolina coast from rapid development. Wise management and equitable resource allocation decisions will be necessary to provide for needed economic expansion while preserving a rich and unique heritage for future generations. I-' B. LOW COUNTRY HISTORY The Indians Any history of South Carolina's low country must necessarily begin with its first settlers, the Red Caro- linians. Ethnologists have divided the American Indians living north of Mexico into some sixty stocks based on language. The stocks represented among the Indians who inhabited the South Carolina low country are the Muskhogean, the Siouan and the Tuchi.' Low country Indian tribes were numerous and small, and the earliest Indian inhabitants of this area con- sisted of wandering groups who lived in an area only as long as the game they depended on lasted. In time these tribes began to settle down and develop an agrarian lifestyle.2 All of the Indians in the low country and in South Carolina as a whole had certain things in common - "....even the most primitive among them had attained a fairly diversified agriculture; they all built permanent or semi-permanent houses; they were all village dwellers. Their culture, although subject to wide tribal varia- tions, was based primarily upon the production of food crops and secondarily upon hunting."3 It is tragic that the growth of western civilization resulted in the demise of so many of the American Indian tribes. A few Catawba families living in York County (in the northcentral portion of the State) are the only remnant left of all the many tribes that once inhabited South Carolina. The first white South Carolinians were indebted to many of the low country Indians for their friendship and generosity through the sharing of their food and their assistance against enemy attack. We shall always be indebted to them for the legacy they left us, part of which is evident today in the lovely names of many of our low country islands and rivers - names such as Waccamaw, Ashepoo, Bohicket, Edisto, Wadmalaw, Kiawah, Wando, Santee and Combahee. Spanish and French Attempts at Settlement The first recorded visit of Europeans to South Carolina's coast was made by Spaniards from the Spanish colony of San Domingo (then called Hispaniola). Two ships met at sea - one dispatched by Judge Lucas Vas- quez de Ayllon and which was returning from a voyage of exploration, the other headed out on a mission tocapture Indians for slaves. The captains of the two vessels joined forces and headed for the continent where they made port on June 24, 1521, probably at Winyah Bay.4 After enticing, under the pretext of friendship, some 150 Indians to come aboard the two vessels, they suddenly put to sea with their hapless "guests." One of the ships sank, and many of the enslaved Indians aboard the other vessel starved themselves to death after reaching San Domingo.s In 1525, two ships were dispatched by de Ayllon to explore the coast of the continent and return those few Indians who had survived captivity.' In 1526, de Ayllon himself set out with a fleet of seven vessels and some 500 men and women. In August, 1526, they founded the settlement of San Miguel de Gualdape on what is thought to have been the shores of Winyah Bay. The settlement (the first European settlement in South Carolina), plagued by mutiny, fire, uncommonly cold weather and discouraged by the death of de Ayllon, was soon abandoned. The next attempt at settlement was to be made by the French thirty-six years later. 7 In February, 1562, the Frenchman Jean Ribaut set sail with two ships and 150 persons, mostly Huguenots, to establish a Frency colony on the Carolina coast.8 The purpose of this endeavor was two-fold: to found a religious asylum for the Huguenots and to further the cause of France against Spain by establishing an outpost in the New World.9 Ribaut crossed the ocean to Florida and proceeded along the coast to a place which he named Port Royal, the same as in present-day South Carolina. 'o There, on Parris Island, he established Charlesfort and left thirty men to protect it while he returned to France for supplies and reinforcements. n Upon his arrival there, Ribaut found France in the midst of religious wars. This and other complications prevented his return to the settle- ment at Charlesfort where life presented ever-increasing hardships for those left to protect it. A lack of food (in spite of the generosity of the local Indians), monotony and the merciless discipline of their commander resulted in their killing him and setting sail for France in a makeshift ship. 12 After suffering the hardships of bad weather and starvation which forced them to cannibalism, they were rescued through their chance en- counter with an English ship. Thus ended French attempts at formal settlement in Carolina.' In 1564, the French established Fort Caroline on the St. John's River in the present State of Florida. 14 This settlement led to the Spanish massacre of the Frenchmen at Fort Carolina, bloody reprisal by the French and 1-2 the decision by Spain to build a series of forts along the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida to discourage further French activity.'Is In 1566, Menendez established Fort San Felipe on Parris Island about two miles from the remains of Charlesfort. The settlement survived until 1576 when an Indian uprising forced the Spanish to abandon the fort and withdraw to St. Augustine. The following year, 1577, they rebuilt the ashes of San Felipe which had -been burned by the Indians. The new fort, San Marcos, lasted for ten years. In 1587, the Spanish withdrew after the English destruction of St. Augustine necessitated a reduction of their frontier posts. Spanish friars, however, continued their mission work for nearly one hundred years afterward in small outposts located in what is today North and South Carolina.6 The British In 1692, Charles I of England granted to Sir Robert Heath a charter to all America from ocean to ocean between north latitudes 36 and 3 1. No genuine attempts at settlement were made under this charter, and it was declared forfeited in 1663 when Charles II granted to eight of his most faithful supporters the ownership of the same territory. A second charter was granted, in 1665, to these eight Lords Proprietors, as they were called, because the Heath Charter had not been properly annulled. The chief difference between the 1663 and 1665 charters was an extension of the boundaries of the granted land to 36 degrees 30 minutes on the north and 29 degrees on the south, that is, from Virginia to a point 65 miles south of St. Augustine." The eight men chosen by King Charles to receive the enormous land grant were: the Earl of Clarendon, the Duke of Albemarle, Lord Craven, Lord Berkeley, Lord Ashley, Sir George Carteret, Sir William Berkeley and Sir John Colleton - with Lord Ashley (Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury) taking far more interest in the venture than any of the others.'"I For the -territory, the King was to receive certain returns on whatever profits were made from its development. The charter empowered the Proprietors to make laws, to establish (with popular consent) the Anglican Church as the official State Church, and to grant freedom of worship to all who would settle in whatever colony might be founded. The laws made by the Proprietors were to be ap- proved by the people of the colony, thus a certain degree of self-government was to be allowed. 19 In 1669, Lord Ashley assumed a leadership position among the group of Proprietors and began to make firm plans for a colony at Port Royal, South Carolina. Joseph West was appointed governor and commander- in-chief until an appointed fleet of three vessels should land in Barbados on the way to their final destination. "I Thus, in August, 1669, three ships, the Carolina, the Albemarle and the Port Royal, under West's command, left England and headed for Barbados .21 Arriving there in October, the ships encountered a storm which wrecked the Albemarle and necessitated its replacement by the Three Brothers."2 In mid-November the fleet set sail from Barbados, and after touching at the island of Nevis, the ships became separated by a storm. The Port Royal was wrecked in the Bahamas after six weeks of wandering, and many passengers died on shore before they were able to hire a ship to take them to Bermuda where the Carolina had already taken refuge. Months passed before news was received from the Three Brothers."3 In Bermuda Col. William Sayle was appointed governor (West's leadership having expired in Barbados), and, under his command, the Carolina and a new Bermuda vessel set sail for Port Royal. On their arrival in March, 1670, an Indian chief, the cacique of Kiawah, urged the newcomers not to settle at Port Royal but rather in his home territory of Kiawah which was on the banks of the Ashley River. The colonists took the chief's advice, and in early April they landed and chose a nine acre site on the western bank of the Ashley, a location invisible from the ocean and the topography of which allowed for easy defense from both the river side as well as landward. The colonists named their settlement Albemarle Point in honor of the eldest Pro- prietor, but the Proprietors later changed the name to Charles Town in honor of the king.24 The Carolina and its companion ship had entered Charleston harbor from Port Royal in April, 1670; on May 23 the Three Brothers finally made her arrival after surviving a storm which had driven her as far north as Virginia. Is Establishing the Colony The settlement at charles Town began with about 148 persons, the majority of whom were English. There were, however, a few persons of Scotch and Irish background and, according to some accounts, three Negro slaves.,26 On completion of a protective palisade and temporary housing, the settlers began to clear ground and 1-3 to plant crops such as wheat, corn, peas, indigo, tobacco and cotton. The need for protection from the Spanish as well as from hostile Indians (particularly the fierce Westos, said to have been cannibalistic) was of paramount concern during the early days of the colony, and with good cause, for in August, 1670, Spanish from St. Augustine; along with their Indian allies, came to destroy the set- tlement. Fortunately for the Charles Town settlers, the would-be attackers were caught in an hurricane and forced to retreat. 27 It was during these early times that Dr. Henry Woodward became of invaluable service to the colony. Dr. Woodward had joined the passengers of the Carolina at Nevis and had accompanied them to help establish their settlement in the New World. Earlier, he had lived with the Indians at Port Royal, had learned their language and customs and had gained their friendship and confidence.28 Through his assistance the Charles Town settlers were able to establish a flourishing trade with many of these people, a trade that was the key to the colony's early success and ultimate permanence. In February, 1671, 106 settlers arrived from Barbados, and in time Barbadians came to compose about half the population. Because many of them were experienced with colonial life, they dominated the affairs of the colony for some time.29 With the increase in population, the threat of attack from the Indians and Spanish was lessened, and some people began to move out from their fortified village site onto farms and plantations.30 Others established satellite towns such as James Town on James Island (1672-1674) and New London or Wiltown (near Edisto Island) which died out around 1800.3 Indian trade, lumbering and naval stores soon brought considerable wealth into the young colony. Although good relations had been established with many of the Indians, the settlers had their share of pro- blems with some others. As early as 1671 a small expedition was sent out to chastise the Coosas who had been stealing hogs and provisions and had finally murdered some of the colonists. The expedition was a success, and a number of Indians were taken prisoner and made into slaves although Indian slavery had been forbidden by the Proprietors. 32 The Move to Oyster Point Almost from the beginning of the settlement, plans had been made to eventually move the town from the west bank of the Ashley to the peninsular between the Ashley and Cooper Rivers, a place called Oyster Point.33 At the end of 1679, the Lords Proprietors gave instructions that the official port town be moved to Oyster Point, and in 1690, the move to the new location was begun.-4 The colony grew quite rapidly during the decade between 1680-1690. Many Dissenters from England and a large number of French Huguenots, all seeking religion freedom, found their way to Charles Town during this period.35 By 1700 the colony contained even more of a mixture of peoples with the arrival of Dutchmen, Irish, Baptists, Sephardic Jews, Quakers, and a few privateers turned planters.36 Indian trade and naval stores continued to bring wealth into the colony. Development of the Plantation System No longer feeling the need for living close together in one place, some people moved out of town and took up land along the rivers. The resulting system of large plantations soon became an established way of life, and Charles Town's well-being was dependent upon and virtually inseparable from their propserity. Although plantations were begun with the founding of the colony, it was the successful planting of rice that was responsible for the rapid spread of the plantation system37 and its attendant institution of slavery. The plantations thus flourished at the expense of the Negro as well as the Indian, whose land was continuously encroached upon. Three great crops - rice, indigo and cotton - were responsible for the accumulation of tremendous fortunes by Carolina low country planters. The first of these staple crops was rice, planted as early as 1672. A new strain, brought in from Madagascar in the early 1690's, increased the quantity and quality of the crop which virtually became the money of the Province.38 "....for over two hundred years its characteristics and re- quirements molded Low Country life as did nothing else."39 The second staple crop, indigo, although grown as early as 1670, became of importance after its successful culture and processing by a precocious young girl, Eliza Lucas. Her father, Governor of Antigua, brought his family to the Carolina low country and placed Eliza in charge of his plantations while he returned to his duties I-4 in Antigua.40 When she was only eighteen years old, Eliza began experimenting with various types of indigo seed sent to her by her father. After a successful growing season, an assistant was hired to help her learn the difficult and complicated technique of processing the plant. Miss Lucas, despite her assistant's deceiving her and sabataging the process, mastered the art of producing the valuable dye and shared her knowledge with her neighbors. By the late 1740's, indigo was bringing great wealth into the South Carolina low country.41 The planting of indigo ceased during the Revolution, and with the loss of the subsidy from the British government following the Revolution, the revival of the crop, as one of commercial importance, never occurred.42 Grown all during the Colonial era, the third great crop, cotton, became "king" in parts of the low country after 1793, the year in which Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin.43 "In the Low Country itself cotton built new regions of plantations and made over old ones left derelict by indigo, doing for sections like Upper St. John's, Berkeley, and the Sea Islands what rice had done for the Santee and the Combahee.""44 So integral a part of low country history were the plantations that some space must be allowed here to discuss the type of life they supported. Charles Town's primacy over other colonial towns was insured by the business of the Indian trade but "was further developed by the steady interchange of life as well as business between it and the plantations."45 South Carolina became a sort of City-State, and the name of Charles Town became interchangable with its surrounding territory. Many prosperous Charles Town merchants were also prominent planters, and an aristocracy was formed among families of prominence and wealth. 46 Fortunes made by the planting of rice enabled the building of fine new plantation houses or the addition of fine wings and porticoes to older structures. For some time, colonial era plantation families stayed in the coun- try during the summer and spent much of the winter social season in Charleston.47 About the time of the Revolution and sometime after, the rise of malaria caused plantation families to move during the warm months (May - October) from their mosquito infested plantations to little villages set in the pinelands along the coast. "Sea-Island people chose the beaches for themselves, inlanders the pine lands, and lightly built, airy little houses with many piazzas were spotted along the sand dunes or scattered among the pines, where the breezes of the ocean or the terebinthine odors of the pines would protect the plantation peo- ple from the night miasmas." I Thus came into being villages or towns such as Summerville, Pineville, Mc- Clellanville, Plantersville, Pinopolis, Mt. Pleasant, Walterboro, Jacksonboro, and Rockville. Some of those families of greatest wealth went into the Piedmont and mountain area of South- Carolina as well as into North Carolina, Virginia, New York and New England. "Newport was made fashionable largely by South Caro- inians who summered in the neighborhood,...."49 The Yemassee War, 1715 - 1717 From 1715 - 1717 the low country experienced the Yemassee War, spearheaded by the Yemassee Indians and including most of the tribes over which the settlers had exercised sway. "The conspiracy involved so many Indian nations ... extending from the coast to the middle of the present State of Alabama, that only lack of Indian cooperation saved the whites."50 This war, caused by "Indian resentment of long-standing abuses by traders, followed by settlers' taking up Yemassee lands," resulted in the death of some 400 colonists and left South Carolina impoverished. 51 Stoney relates that the Indians "destroyed or looted some two hundred houses throughout the Low Country, driving even the prosperous Goose Creek people away from their plantations."52 The salvation of the colony was due to the decision of the Cherokees to ally themselves with the South Carolinians. In November, 1717, the war was formally brought to a close, but its aftermath was felt for years to come. 53 Royal Rule, the Revloution and After One good outcome of the Yemassee War was the change, in 1719, from proprietary rule to that of the Crown.54 "Proprietary government had numerous faults, often magnified by lengthy and uncertain com- munications which delayed vital decisions for months and permitted minor irritations to accrue into major problems.""5 One unforgiveable insult to the colonists came during the Yemassee War when the proprietors "not only neglected to send aid to the colony . .., but even refused to ask assistance from the King..."56 In 1719, through a bloodless revolution, the majority of the colonists deposed their proprietary governor, formed a I-5 new Assembly and waited for the royal government to take charge. Finally, in 1721, a provisional royal gover- nor arrived to take charge, and the colony began its period of royal rule which lasted until 1776.57 Although Charles Town was the cultural and political center of colonial South Carolina, two other low country towns, Beaufort and Georgetown, became of importance in colonial times. Beaufort (located approx- imately midway between Charleston and the South Carolina-Georgia border) and Georgetown (located mid- way between Charleston and the South Carolina-North Carolina border) are the second and third oldest cities in South Carolina, and are the only colonial towns other than Charles Town which survived. Founded in 1710, Beaufort was wiped out five years later in the Yemassee War. 58 Almost immediately the town was rebuilt and "in time it became a small metropolis for great indigo and sea island cotton plantations surrounding it. By the 1850's it was one of the most fortunate and delightful communities of the state, the center of an affluent and cultivated society." 59 By 1723 the people living in the Winyah area had petitioned the colonial government to establish a port of entry in their vicinity to avoid freight charges to Charleston and so that local produce could be shipped directly to foreign destinations. 60 Thus, the port of Georgetown, third town in the province, was eventually establish- ed. There is some difference of opinion as to the time of its beginning; McCrady states that the town was laid out shortly before 1734. 61 In time, Georgetown became a busy shipping point for rice, the cultivation of which dominated life in that area for some two hundred years. The French and Indian War (1754-1763), the culmination of a long struggle between England and France for dominance in the New World, ended with victory for England. It was during and after this war that an- tagonism arose between the thirteen colonies and their mother country. Before the war there had been no cen- tralized body with authority to make and enforce colonial policy. However, after 1763, England began to reform and tighten the machinery for administration and enforcement of the Acts of Trade and Navigation, and the colonies stoutly resisted. 6 The low country saw the arrival of the Revolution in 1776 with the British attack on Fort Moultrie, and in 1780 Charles Town and the surrounding area were taken by the British. The end of the war left the low country devastated. "Great areas of land were so fought over that not even wild animals survived in them..."63 The low country was further hurt by the loss of living men as well as those who died, for many prominent Loyalists left the area and never returned. In addition to all the other losses was that of the British market for indigo, and plantation communities were abandoned, and many plantation houses simply fell to pieces.64 Soon after the Revolution the name of Charles Town was changed to Charleston, and the seat of govern- ment was transferred to Columbia; county seats became established, and South Carolina ceased to be a City- State. Gradually economic growth began again in the low country. Once again rice brought great wealth to this area - this time through the new method of tidal culture which set water to work cultivating rice on the richest type of soil. 65 Before the tidal culture method was used, rice was grown as an upland crop, without irrigation. Then as the advantages of flooding became known, early in the 18th century, cultivation was moved into cleared swamp lands fed by freshwater streams66 so that water could be impounded and applied to the fields. Rain water was also impounded in "reserves" and used for flooding the crops. Flooding the rice greatly improved its growth and killed the weeds and grass which formerly had to be cleared by hoeing. Soon after the Revolution the tidal culture of rice was developed and was so effective that enough rice was produced to be shipped from South Carolina to England and the West Indies and all over Northern Europe and the Mediterranean, Consisting of a system of banks, ditches, floodgates and trunks, tidal culture privided a method whereby the rice fields could be kept as dry or as wet as the crop required. The following is a simple explanation of what was involved. Great acreages of land beyond the salt water reach of high tide were cleared along the coastal rivers, and with enormous labor, thousands of acres were diked by digging canals or ditches along the edges of the rivers and creeks and using the excavated mud to make an enclosing bank. Within this enclosed or impounded area, a network of smaller ditches was cut and cross banks were formed to divide the area into a number of fields and provide a means of drainage and irrigation.67 To control the systematic, precise flooding and subsequent draining of the fields for the maximum yield of rice, floodgates and trunks were installed perpendicular to the rivers and creeks and the adjacent canals. A trunk was essentially a rectangular wood box with a floodgate at either end. As the flood tide flowed in from I-6 the ocean and pushed the fresh water back up the distant reaches of the coastal rivers and creeks, the outside floodgate on the trunk was manually opened, allowing fresh water to flow in through the trunk and force the inside gate to swing open for the flooding of the fields. As the tide began to ebb, the lower water level in the creeks caused the water in the fields to begin flowing out and in so doing automatically forced the inner floodgate to swing shut, holding the water in the fields until such time as the rice was ready for a drying period. At this point, the inner gate was manually opened, on an ebb tibe, to allow for drainage. The zenith of rice planting in South Carolina was reached between 1850 and 1860, and its demise occurred during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Several factors contributed to the death of this great industry: 1) several devastating hurricanes which severely damaged the rice field dikes, 2) a lack of capital required for the expensive recovery from these storms, 3) a loss of much of the labor force which turned to other industries and 4) most especially, the introduction of rice into Louisiana and other states which had land capable of sup- porting heavy machinery and thus were able to produce rice much more cheaply than South Carolina.68 The Rise of Cotton In 1793, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, and the raising of cotton then became a profitable venture. Its effect on the South Carolina low country was almost immediate, and the planting of cotton spread the plantation system well into the Middle Country. The Sea Islands were especially blessed by this crop, and wealthy island planters became famous for their particular strains of the famous black-seed cotton of tropic origin.6' Natural Disasters More than once the South Carolina low country has bowed before the relentless hand of nature which has dealt the area powerful blows in the form of hurricanes as well as a terrifying earthquake. According to early writers the most severe hurricane in colonial times was the Great Hurricane of 1752 which apparently caused the greatest amount of devastation in the area of Charleston. Another memorable storm, that of 1822, struck the coast between Charleston and Georgetown. Its amazing energy caused a tremendous tide in that area and resulted in a high death toll on the plantations around Georgetown. 7" A third devastating hurricane occurred in 1893, resulting in great destruction and many deaths on the islands southwest of Charleston and near Beaufort. '1 Perhaps the most terrifying natural disaster to befall the low country was the earthquake which struck on Tuesday, August 31, 1886, and was felt throughout the State. Great destruction and a number of deaths occur- red in Charleston. The following description was .written by Cart McKinley, an eyewitness, and was-published in the City's Year Book of 1886. The rising sun on Wednesday morning looked on empty and broken homes and on streets encum- bered with continuous lines or heaped masses of ruins, amidst which the wearied and shelterless citi- zens gathered together in little groups, or picked their way from place to place wondering at the ex- tent of the damage inflicted everywhere and with renewed thankfulness in view of the perils escaped. 72 The ruins lay piled in the streets, yards and gardens, and the houses from which thay had fallen seemed ready to crumble of their own weight. Travel was confined to the middle of the streets and was impeded there. It is impossible to estimate, even approximately, the amount of masonry that was thrown into the streets.... 73 Thousands of blacks and whites alike - no difference was recognized and no discrimination shown - were the recipients of the bounty of their fortunate fellow-citizens, who proved to be neighbors indeed in the hour of misfortune.74 Growth of Transportation In the later part of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century, the low country and other areas of South Carolina turned their efforts towards increasing their means of transportation. In 1786 a company was formed to build a canal and locks to connect the Santee and Cooper Rivers, thus improving transportation and commerce between the coastal areas and the upland. Work was begun in 1793, using slave labor, and after six years the twenty-two mile ling Santee Canal was completed and opened for general commerce. The canal 1-7 helped to encourage the commercial growth of South Carolina for nearly half a century.75 In 1828 a railroad from Charleston to Hamburg (on the Savannah River) was laid out, and another rail line was established from Charleston to Moncks Corner, St. Stephen and Florence. In 1860 the Charleston- Savannah Railroad was built. The coming of railroads brought about a decrease in the dependence on roads and introduced a greater vitality to the economy of the low country area. 76 Civil War and Its Aftermath The War Between the States marked the end of the great plantation era, and the period following the war was one of tremendous change for the low country. Many of the plantation houses, which had escaped the ravages of war, were abandoned, and farmnning continued largely under the share-crop system."77 The war brought an end to the repressive laws of slavery, and for the first time Blacks were legally citizens. Many of them were sold land by their former owners. Others were given property by the Federal government. 78 Both Blacks and Whites, however, suffered greatly after the war, for "Grim poverty and wholesale demoralization"7' held the area in a vice grip for some time. In time rice and cotton again made money for the low country but never to the extent shown before the war. Gradually the crops had to be abandoned, the final blow to rice being several devastating hurricanes, and to cotton, the boll weevil. 80 The pesky boll weevil was a blessing in disguise, however, for low country planters were forced to diversify. Truck farming and tobacco cultivation subsequently brought prosperity to many areas that had depended on either rice or cotton. The late 19th century and early 20th centuries have seen the slow recovery of the low country from the disastrous effects of the War Between the States as well as the hardships of the great depression of the 1930's. In the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester area, phosphate mining and the building of fertilizer plants just to the north of Charleston helped the economic picture of the area as did lumbering before the beginning of the First World War. With the establishment of the Navy Yard, in 1901, Charleston and surrounding areas began a dependency on the military-related industry.8l Since the 1930's, the port of Charleston has grown in impor- tance both to the low country and the entire State as well. Historic Charleston has become a mecca for many tourists interested in seeing a city of living history, and today tourism is Charleston's second most important industry. The Waccamaw region of the low country, with its tall stands of sturdy pine forests, has enjoyed the economic benefits of the pulpwood and logging industries. 82 The City of Georgetown has become an impor- tant port, and its lovely historic district is attracting a growing number of tourists. The fishing industry of the region continues to grow, and that area of-the Waccamaw known as the Grand Strand has-in recent years felt the prosperity of a rich and flourishing tourist trade. The area of Colleton, Beaufort and Jasper counties has probably experienced the most difficult times of any area within the low country following the War Between the States and the great depression. Phosphate mining around Beaufort helped the economic picture prior to 1900, and during the first half of this century, truck farming, the fishing industry and the military bases have been the area's mainstay. Today the future of this area looks promising with the gradual influx of new industries and the increasing numbers of tourists who are attracted to the great beauty and charm of historic Beaufort and the lovely, modern-day resorts of Hilton Head and Fripp Islands. The South Carolina low country is proud of its rich historic heritage which, along with a great natural beauty, makes the area a unique and desirable place in which to live. The low country today is an exciting place of growth and change. With proper respect for their rich cultural and natural heritage, low country citizens of present and future generations can enjoy the benefits of economic growth while protecting the precious and ir- replaceable amenities that make this area so very special. 1-8 FOOTNOTES 1. David Duncan Wallace, South Carolina: A Short History, 1520-1948, Columbia, 1961, p. 5. Hereinafter cited as Wallace, Short History. 2. Historic Preservation Plan, Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council, June, 1972, p. 1. Hereinafter cited as Preservation Plan, B-C-D. 3. Chapman J. Milling, Red Carolinians, Columbia, 1969, p. 4. Hereinafter cited as Milling, Carolinians. 4. Charles Town: Birth of a City, Published by the News & Courier/Charleston Evening Post, 1970, p. 1. Hereinafter cited as Birth of a City. 5. Wallace, Short History, p. 16. 6. Joseph I. Waring, M.D., The First Voyage and Settlement at Charles Town, 1670-1680, Columbia, 1970, p. 3. Hereinafter cited as Waring, Voyage and Settlement. 7. Birth of a City, p. 1. 8. Waring, op. cit., p. 5. 9. Birth of a City, p. 1. 10. Waring, op. cit., p. 5. 11. Birth of a City, p. 1. 12. Wallace, Short History, pp. 19-20. 13. Waring, Voyage and Settlement, p. 6 14. Ibid., p. 6. 15. Wallace, Short History, pp. 20-21. - 16. Birth of a City, p. 2. 17. Wallace, op. cit., pp. 23-24. 18. Ibid., pp. 24 & 26. 19. Ibid., p. 24. 20. Ibid., p. 26. 21. Waring, Voyage and Settlement, p. 22. 22. Wallace, op. cit., p. 27. 23. Ibid., p. 27. 24. Ibid., pp. 28-29. 25. Ibid., p. 28. 26. Ibid., pp. 27 & 31. 27. Samuel Gaillard Stoney, Plantations of the Carolina Low Country, Charleston, 1964, pp. 15-16. Hereinafter cited as Stoney, Plantations. 28. Wallace, op. cit., p. 29. 29. Ibid., p. 30. 30. Birth of a City, pp. 15 & 20. 31. Preservation Plan, B-C-D, p. 1. 32. Waring, Voyage and Settlement, p. 38. I-9 33. Birth of a City, p. 20. 34. Waring, op. cit., p. 50. 35. Wallace, Short History, pp. 37-38. 36. Stoney, Plantations, pp. 18-19. 37. Ibid., p. 21. 38. Ibid., p. 22. 39. Ibid., p. 22. 40. Ibid., p. 28. 41. Birth of a City, p. 35. 42. Ibid., p. 35. 43. Stoney, Plantations, p. 38. 44. Ibid., p. 39. 45. Ibid., p. 24. 46. Ibid., p. 25. 47. Ibid., p. 34. 48. Ibid., pp. 34-35. 49. Ibid., p. 36. 50. Wallace, Short History, p. 87-88. 51. Ibid., pp. 86 & 90. 52. Stoney, Plantations, p. 24. 53. Wallace, op. cit., p. 90. 54. Stoney, op. cit., p. 24. 55. Birth of a City, p. 48. 56. Ibid., p. 48. 57. Wallace, Short History, pp. 101-102. 58. Herbert Ravenel Sass, The Story of the South Carolina Lowcountry, West Columbia, p. 269. 59. Ibid., pp. 269-270. 60. George C. Rogers, Jr., The History of Georgetown County, Columbia, 1970, P. 139. 61. Ibid., p. 139. 62. The Encyclopedia Americana, International Edition, Vol. I, 1974, American Corporation, New York, p. 715. 63. Stoney, Plantations, p. 30. 64. Ibid., pp. 30-31. 65. Ibid., pp. 31-32. 66. Converse D. Clowse, Economic Beginnings in Colonial South Carolina, 1670-1730,- Columbia, pp. 125-126. 67. David Doar, Rice and Rice Planting in the South Carolina Low Country, Charleston, 1936, pp. 8-9. 1-10 68. Ibid., pp. 4142. 69. Stoney, Plantations, pp. 38-40. 70. David M. Ludlum, Early American Hurricanes, Boston, 1963, p. 45. 71. Our Charleston, 1670-1970, Compiled and Published by The Junior League of Charleston, Inc., Updated and Rewritten by Jack and Isabella Leland, p. 37. 72. Carl McKinley, "A Descriptive Narrative of the Earthquake of August 31, 1886, "Year Book - 1886, Ci- ty of Charleston, S.C., pp. 356-357. 73. Ibid., p. 358. 74. Ibid., p. 361. 75. "The Santee-Cooper: A Pioneer Effort in South Carolina Canaling," South Carolina Magazine, August,. 1971, pp. 7-9 and p. 16. 76. Preservation Plan, B-C-D, p. 4. 77. Ibid., p. 5. 78. Ibid., p. 5. 79. Stoney, Plantations, p. 42. 80. Ibid., p. 42. 81. Preservation Plan, B-C-D, p. 5. 82. Survey of Historic Places, Waccamaw Regional Planning & Development Commission, September, 1971. 82.~~~~~~~~~~~~~Il BIBLIOGRAPHY Charles Town: Birth of a City, Published by the News & Courier/Charleston Evening Post, Charleston, S.C., 1970. Clowse, Converse D., Economic Beginnings in Colonial South Carolina, 1670-1730, Columbia, S.C., University of South Carolina Press, 1971. Doer, David, Rice and Rice Planting in the South Carolina Low Country, Charleston, S.C., published by The Charleston Museum, 1936. The Encyclopedia Americana, International Edition, Vol. I, American Corporation, New York, 1974. Historic Preservation Plan, Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council, June, 1972. Ludlum, David M., Early American Hurricanes, Boston, American Meterological Society, 1963. McKinley, Carl, "A Descriptive Narrative of the Earthquake of August 31, 1886," Year Book - 1886, City of Charleston, S.C. Milling, Chapman J., Red Carolinians, Columbia, S.C., University of South Carolina Press, 1969. Our Charleston, 1670-1970, Compiled and Published by The Junior League of Charleston, Inc., Updated and Rewritten by Jack and Isabella Leland. Rogers, George C., Jr., The History of Georgetown County, Columbia, S.C. University of South Carolina Press, 1970. "The Santee-Cooper: A Pioneer Effort in South Carolina Canaling," South Carolina Magazine, August, 1971. Sass, Herbert Ravenel, The Story of the South Carolina Lowcountry, West Columbia, S.C., J.F. Hyer Publishing Company. Stoney, Samuel Gaillard, Plantations of the Carolina Low Country, Charleston, S.C., Carolina Art Associa- tion, 1964. Survey of Historic Places, Waccamaw Regional Planning & Development Commission, September, 1971. Wallace, David Duncan, South Carolina: A Short History, 1520-1948, Columbia, S.C., University of South Carolina Press, 1961. Waring, Joseph I., M.D., The First Voyage and Settlement at Charles Town, 1670-1680, Columbia, S.C., University of South Carolina Press, 1970. 1-12 C. THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1) Marshes and Wetlands a) The Salt Marsh Ecosystem South Carolina has been greatly blessed by possessing one of the richest and most nearly unique habitats on earth, that of the salt marsh and tidal estuaries of the low country. So familiar is the salt marsh to most of us who life in the low country, that we tend to take it for granted. Many of us, whether we come from the up country of South Carolina or whether our homes are on or near the coast, have failed to educate ourselves to the importance of this tremendous natural resource. The coastal zone of South Carolina is an area where land and sea meet, the place where fresh waters from inland lakes and streams join with inflowing salt water from the ocean. Estuaries, inlets or arms of the oceans, are formed at this meeting place, and alongside the intricate maze of estuaries and creeks flourish thousands of acres of salt marsh. South Carolina contains some 504,445 acres of coastal marshes, more than any other Atlantic coast state. Of this amount, 334,501 acres are classified as salt marsh. The prominent species of salt marsh vegetation, Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass), grows abundant- ly along our coast. This species is one of the most remarkable plants on earth because of its ability to live and thrive in salt water. So productive is the natural salt marsh that it manufactures as much or perhaps even more organic material than the richest, most productive wheat field. As strange as it may seem, a crop of salt marsh plants, especially smooth cordgrass, is extremely valuable even when dead and decaying. Each fall the grass dies and is decomposed by bacteria. The mixture of dead grass and bacteria is called detritus and has been referred to as a "rich soup" because it serves as a major source of food for many of the higher organisms in the salt marsh ecosystem. "Bacterial decomposition is a slow process, and although aided by mechanical wave action, it may take a year for bacteria to break down completely each season's crop of Spartina. Consequent- ly, detritus is available as a food source year-round." ("Salt Marsh: A Question of Survival," Pete Laurie, South Carolina Wildlife, March-April, 1975, p. 27.) Detritus provides nourishment not only for the microscopic zooplankton - including the larval stages of shell fish and fish - but for adult clams, mussels, oysters, crabs, shrimp and certain fish. (Plankton is the term for the small plants and animals that drift and float in the oceans and estuaries. Zooplankton refers to the tiny animal forms that are a part of plankton.) All these creatures serve in turn as food for various types of fish as well as countless shore birds such as gulls, terns, skimmers and oystercatchers. Thus, it can be seen that all creatures living in the salt marsh ecosystem depend either directly or indirectly on the marsh grasses for their food supply. In addition to providing food, the salt marsh serves as a shelter and nursery grounds for many species, in- cluding shrimp. Without the shelter provided by the exposed root systems of the marsh, the larval stages of shrimp, crabs, oysters, clams, etc. would not be able to survive long enough to reach adulthood. In addition to the creatures already mentioned, many animals, as well, find shelter and food in the salt marsh and estuaries. One of these is the familiar raccoon which satisfies its appetite on fish, shell fish and crabs. The bottlenose dolphin, a marine mammal commonly referred to as the porpoise by South Carolina citizens, enters the estuaries, salt water rivers, and creeks from the ocean to feed on fish which are thought to be its main source of food. The salt marsh, while serving as a tremendous source of food and shelter for many thousands of living creatures also provides a nesting place for birds such as the marsh wren, red-winged blackbird and clapper rail or marsh hen. Other creatures found within this complicated ecosystem are the diamondback terrapin, log- gerhead sea turtle and, at times, even the alligator. For many years the marshlands have made possible a vigorous sports fishery and a viable commercial fishery that have offered recreation and employment for many of South Carolina's citizens. As if all the above mentioned things were not enough, the salt marsh serves as a buffer area betweem the ocean and the inland. While the sand dunes of the beaches absorb the pounding of the ocean, the marshlands slow down and absorb the daily inrush of the ocean's flow thus preventing erosion of the coastline. Still another service performed by the salt marshes is that of a filter. It is here that pesticides and other pollutants are broken down from dangerous compositions into forms which are less harmful to the environ- ment. Thus it can be seen that without the salt marsh the shrimping and other fishery industries, and many of 1-13 the beauties and wonders of the marsh life would be drastically depleted. b) Brackish-Water and Tidal Fresh-Water Marshes In addition to the large acreage of salt marsh, coastal South Carolina contains 34,962 acres of brackish- water and 64,531 acres of fresh-water marsh. Situated between the salt and tidal fresh water marshes, the brackish marsh represents a transition zone between those two wetland types and contains plant species characteristic of both. Those brackish marshes, which are closer to the ocean than other brackish marsh areas, look very much like the high zone of the salt marsh and contain vast stands of black needlerush (Juncus romerianus), which in some areas extend down the edge of the creeks. Generally, however, smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) will be found along the water's edge. Among the other plants found in more seaward brackish marshes are the salt marsh bulrush, marsh elder, sea myrtle, marsh-hay cordgrass, and sea ox-eye. Proceeding further up the tidal rivers and creeks away from the ocean, the black needlerush is replaced by giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), but other plants common to the high zone of salt marshes may still be found. In addition to these plants are found those which are typical of fresh-water marshes - cattails, sedges, wild rice, smartweeds, giant cutgrass, pickerel-weed, water parsnip, sawgrass, alligator-weed, etc. Tidal fresh-water marshes are found along coastal rivers beyond the salt water reach of high tide where the water is fresh or relatively low in salinity. Here the diversity of plant species is greater than in either the salt or brackish marshes, and the predominant force governing plant distribution is the fresh-water river. There is no clearly defined boundary between the fresh and brackish-water marshes. The change is a subtle one whereby marsh plants found in the upper brackish marsh. region gradually become more prominent in the fresh-water marsh. Both areas play an important role in their contribution of nutrients into the overall estuarine system and in the habitat they provide for numerous land and aquatic species. c) Coastal Impoundments Unique to South Carolina and several other South Atlantic coastal states are rice field impoundments dating back to times when rice culture was a source of great fortunes to low country planters. At first rice was grown as an upland crop, without irrigation. Then as the advantages of flooding became known, early in the 18th century, cultivation was moved into cleared swamp lands next to freshwater streams so that water could be impounded and applied to the fields. Flooding the rice greatly promoted its growth and killed the weeds and grass which formerly had to be cleared by hoeing. Soon after the Revolution the tidal culture of rice was developed. Consisting of a system of banks, ditches, floodgates and trunks, tidal culture provided a method whereby the rice fields could be kept as dry or as wet as the crop required. Great acreages of land beyond the salt water reach of high tide were cleared along the coastal rivers, and with enormous labor, thousands of acres were diked by digging canals or ditches along the edges of the rivers and creeks and using the excavated mud to make an enclosed bank. Within this enclosed or impounded area, a network of smaller ditches was cut and cross banks were formed to divide the area into a number of fields and provide a means of drainage and irrigation. To control the systematic, precise flooding and subsequent draining of the fields for the maximum yield of rice, floodgates and trunks were installed perpendicular to the rivers and creeks and the adjacent canals. A trunk was essentially a rectangular wood box with a floodgate at either end. As the flood tide flowed in from the ocean and pushed the fresh water back up the distant reaches of the coastal rivers and creeks, the outside floodgate on the trunk was manually opened, allowing fresh water to flow in through the trunk and force the inside gate to swing open for the flooding of the fields. As the tide began to ebb, the lower water level in the creeks caused the water in the fields to begin flowing out and in so doing automatically forced the inner floodgate to swing shut, holding the water in the fields until such time as the rice was ready for a drying period. At this point, the inner gate was manually opened, on an ebb tide, to allow for drainage. The zenith of rice planting in South Carolina was reached between 1850 and 1860, and its demise occurred during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The introduction of rice into Louisiana and other states which had land capable of supporting heavy machinery and thus was able to produce rice much more cheaply than South Carolina was the most important factor contributing to the death of this great industry. 1-14 The coastal impoundments in existence today cover some 70,451 acres of land. The majority of these im- poundments represent former rice fields which are being managed to attract waterfowl for hunting. Other uses made of impoundments include cattle pasturage, water reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and mariculture. When used to attract waterfowl, impoundments are managed to encourage growth of desired vegetation for duck food by manipulation of water levels, marsh burning or a combination of these two practices. Depen- ding on their location along the coastal creeks and rivers, impoundments may be flooded with either brackish or fresh water. Thus, the flooding of different impoundments results in an obvious difference in their plant communities. Impoundments can be very rich in nutrients, and when properly managed and allowed to periodically drain into the open system, they can contribute to the nutrient supply. There are facts which some persons feel sup- port the theory that properly managed impoundments may be more productive than an open, natural system. However, it is universally accepted that "proper management" is a subject about which there is a tremendous lack of knowledge. Great expenditures of money and many years of exacting, scientific research would be re- quired to find out if this theory is correct. Because creation of impoundments destroys acreages of productive, natural marsh and converts the impounded areas into artificially managed environments, it is a questionable practice which must be approached with great care. d) Mud and Sand Flats Within the salt water rivers and creeks are found numerous mud and sand flats - long, essentially flat stret- ches of soft, dark silt (mud) and similar areas composed of sand. These areas are covered during high tide and become exposed when the tide is low. The presence of either sand flats or mud flats along the shore of a river or creek is chiefly dependent on the shape or surface of the bottom and the speed of the water currents which carry suspended sediments. As cur- rents slow down, the heavier sand particles drop to the bottom helping to form sand flats, leaving the clay and silt sediments in suspension. Only when the currents become very slow do the clay and silt settle out to form mud flats. Although they may appear barren to the uninformed passer-by, the mud and sand flats are teeming with a rich variety of life. The animals which make up mud and sand flat communities may be divided into two main groups - permanent dwellers, which spend- their entire adult-lives-on -the- flats,- and temporary-dwellers, which-- move on and off the flats in search of food during high and low tides. Permanent dwellers such as worms, crustaceans and certain types of clams obtain their food by ingesting sediment and utilizing the organic matter and bacteria which it contains. Most types-of clams feed at -high tide by extending their siphons up through the sediment, in which they remain burrowed, into the water column where they are able to filter out phytoplankton (microscopic plants) and detritus (decaying plant and animal matter). A variety of snails obtain their nourishment by scavenging for detritus along the surface of the sand and mud. As the tide comes in and covers the flats, animals such as blue crabs and various species of fish arrive to feed on the worms, clams, snails and crustaceans. With the rhythmic change of the tide, the flats become ex- posed once more, and a new group of predators arrive - creatures such as shore birds, ducks, otters and rac- coons. Perhaps the most important members of the mud and sand flat community are the bacteria which feed on dead plant and animal matter and recycle nutrients back into the water so that they can be used by the phytoplankton. Other small but important members of this community are the diatoms and blue-gren algae. microscopic plants found in the surface sediments. These plants serve as a source of food for animals such as snails, certain clams and ploychaete worms. Because mud and sand flats provide essential habitat and food for a wide variety of animals as well as play an important role in the cycling of nutrients, they are an important resource of our coastal zone. Being close to man's activities (both those activities on the shore as well as those in the waters), they are vulnerable to shoreline development and different forms of pollution. Care must be taken to protect these areas so that they may continue to play their vital ecological role in the coastal environment. e) Oyster Reefs In many sections of coastal rivers and creeks are found clusters of oysters called reefs, bars or oyster beds. 1-15 Oyster reefs are formed over a period of time as oyster larvae, carried by tidal currents, find and attach themselves to solid material of other suitable substrate. After attaching themselves to a substrate, the animals become sessile or immobile and mature to adults. Other oyster larvae continue to attach to the substrate as well as to the sessile adults, and a cluster of oysters or a reef evolves and increases in height, width and length. Other organisms such as algae, sponges, bryozoans, barnacles, mussels and worms live on the reef sur- faces, and still other animals find shelter in crevices formed by the reef growth. In time an entire balanced community of plants and animals evolves. Oyster reefs are an important natural resource of South Carolina's coastal zone, and, like the mud and sand flats, they are very susceptible to man's activities, particularly the activities of overfishing, dumping of pollutants and dredging. Because oyster reefs are a unique habitat and are important from both an en- vironmental and economic point of view, care must be taken to properly utilize them as renewable resources and to protect them from damage or destruction. f) Swamps and Bottomlands The meaning and connotation of the word "swamp" varies greatly from one region of the country to another. The terms swamp, river bottom, bottomland, hardwood bottom, and floodplain forest are often used synonymously. Strictly speaking, however, swamps are permanently flooded areas whereas floodplain forests become flooded periodically when the rivers along which they lie swell from heavy rainfall and overflow their banks. There are two main types of swamps in South Carolina's coastal zone - the river or alluvial swamp such as those occupying the floodplains of the Waccamaw, Pee Dee and Santee Rivers and the non-alluvial or inland swamp such as Four Holes located approximately thirty-five miles northwest of Charleston. A river swamp depends on the river for its existence. Occurring in bottomlands (floodplain forests), a river swamp either borders the river or is found between the floodplain forest and adjacent uplands. A non-alluvial or inland swamp does not occupy the floodplain of a river or stream that runs in a clear-cut bed. Non-alluvial swamps are fed by and owe their existence to springs and slowly meandering streams. Only recently have the importance and vital ecological role of swamps been understood. Today we know that swamps are immensely important in the controlling of both floods and water pollution. When a flooding river spreads its waters into a bordering floodplain or bottomland forest and swamp, surrounding upland is buffered from the river's excess water, and people in the river's lower reaches experience considerably less danger from flooding. The excess water is absorbed by the forest and later released into aquifers, underground layers of porous, water-containing rock. In addition to helping control floods, swamps act as nutrient traps, assimilating and using the nutrients deposited in them from the flooding of rivers and streams. Swamps also help control water pollution by serv- ing as natural sewage treatment plants; the deposits of forest debris which accumulate on the swamp floor pro- vide an effective form of filtration. Swamps play a tremendously important role as preserves of animal life (their remoteness probably being the salvation of some species) and serve as marvelous tools for teaching, learning and research. Dr. Charles H. Wharton, biologist at Georgia State University, has made the following statement about river swamps. "The river swamps are ideal examples of what we mean by 'open space', 'green belts', and 'natural corridors'. They may function in many ways: sponges for regulation of the vital water cycle, giant kidneys for waste purifica- tion, convalescent wards for the esthetically ill, outdoor classrooms for school children and oxygen machines for air quality." The river swamps and bottomlands of South Carolina's coastal zone contain a diverse representation of hardwoods including trees such as bald cypress,. tupelo gum, sweetgum, blackgum, sycamore, southern hackberry, oaks, elms, ashes, hickories, red maple, American holly, red mulberries and others. Small trees and shrubs such as pawpaw, spicebush, blue beech, planer tree, blue-stem palmetto and strawberry bush are also found as well as numbers of woody vines. The non-alluvial, black-water swamps, of which Four Holes is the most outstanding, are dominated by bald cypress, tupelo and black gum. The black water of the cypress swamps, feared by many people who think of it as dirty, disease-carrying and mosquito-infested, is, on the contrary, clear, potable, pure and free of fever-causing mosquitos. (Although clear, the water appears black due to the effect of tannic acid contained in 1-16 the bark and leaf litter of the swamp floor.) It is only those swamps which are altered or virtually destroyed by man which tend to fit the former description. Of concern to many citizens is the fact that a considerable part of South Carolina's swamps have been destroyed or irrevocably damaged due to improper lumbering practices, dredging and the construction of im- poundments behind hydroelectric dams. Our coastal zone is fortunate to contain a part of Four Holes swamp, bought by the Nature Conservacy and the National Audubon Society in 1971. This 3,415 acre black-water swamp contains 1,800 acres of virgin cypress and tupelo gum, thought to be the world's only remaining tract of virgin tupelo-cypress swamp. Today the swamp is a National Audubon Society sanctuary featuring an inter- pretive/visitors center and a 6,500 foot boardwalk through the forest. g) Savannahs Located within South Carolina's coastal zone are wetland areas known as savannahs. Savannahs are seasonally-flooded grasslands located in poorly-drained interstream flats or depressions within pine flatwoods. A savannah originates after low pine woods are cut and the cut-over area is burned. If the area is not burned yearly or at least once every two years, the grasslands give way to other vegetation, and communities such as evergreen shrub bogs come into being. Thus, fire is vital to the existance of the savannah type ecosystem. Soil of savannahs is nutrient-poor and highly acid, thus the plants found in these areas are those which can tolerate harsh soil conditions - grasses, sedges, orchids and the fascinating "insect-eating" plants such as the sundews, pitcher plants and the famous Venus fly-trap. Many savannahs have been protected from fire, and as a result they have disappeared along with their specialized flora. In order to protect these unique areas which provide habitat for both statewide and national- ly endangered species such as the Venus fly-trap and white-fringed orchid, savannahs must be properly manag- ed to provide for the annual or semi-annual burning necessary for their existence. h) Pocosins Scattered throughout South Carolina's coastal zone are wetlands known as pocosins. A pocosin is a low, flat, swampy area located in a savannah type environment-such as those-found in-the.Santee Delta area-and in the pine savannahs of the Francis Marion National Forest. Pocosins consist of water-logged, peaty soil and, in wetter sections, contain a ground cover of sphagnum moss. Generally characterized by dense broad-leaved shrubs, small evergreens and thorny vines, pocosins form nearly impenetrable thickets. The water table pf pocosins fluctuates considerably- and enables--them- to maintain their -special sort of ecosystem. Invading marsh plants-are eliminated-during-dry- periods;- and-manytypes-ofbacteria-arrnd frngi are . destroyed in the surface soil layer during high water levels. The destruction of bacteria results in an absence of decay. Thus, leaves and other debris are preserved and become peat. Common shrubs found in pocosins and adapted to long periods of waterlogging and drought are: fetter- bush, ti-ti, honeycup, gallberry, shining inkberry, sweet pepperbush, Virginia willow, chokeberry, blueberry, and huckleberry. A number of endangered and threatened plants including the Venus fly-trap, green-fringed orchid and spring-flowered goldenrod occur in the pocosins of South Carolina's coastal zone. i) Carolina Bays Similar in many ways to pocosins, Carolina Bays are curious, elliptically-shaped depressions all of which are aligned in the same northwest-southeast direction. There is much speculation as to the geological origin of the bays which are found scattered throughout the coastal plains region of the Carolinas and northern Georgia. One theory, popular for many years, attributes their original formation to a shower of meteorites which hit the earth's surface thousands of years ago. Another theory has it that the bays were spawning beds for schooling fish at a time when the ocean covered much of the present-day coastal plain. Still another theory, which takes more factors into consideration than any of the others, is that Carolina Bays were formed by vast underground movements of water which resulted in sump action. In spite of much research and study, however, the geological phenomenon of the Carolina Bay remains a tantalizing mystery. Biologically similar to pocosins, Carolina Bays differ mainly in their water depth, being generally deeper than pocosin communities. Whereas pocosins are relatively uniform and are usually covered by one particular community, Carolina Bays may have several different biological communities within a few yards of each 1-17 other, and thus exhibit a remarkable range of habitats, for example - marsh, swamp, savannah and sand hills. 2) Barrier Islands and Beaches Parallel to South Carolina's shoreline lies a very important and dynamic coastal zone resource, the barrier islands and beaches. Called barrier islands because they form a barrier or protection for the mainland against the relentless action of the ocean, these islands are part of an immense chain which stretches from Maine, down the Atlantic coast and around the Gulf of Mexico to Texas. Barrier islands are formed by various geologic processes - in most cases, through the transportation and deposition of sand by wind, tide, wave action and ocean flooding. Because they lie parallel to the shoreline and bear the brunt of the ocean waves, storms and flooding, barrier islands are constantly being shaped and reshaped, eroding (wearing away) and accreting (building up) in a dynamic, never-ending evolution, A typical South Carolina barrier island is thin and elongated in shape, fringed with extensive salt marsh on the landward side and having a beach and sand dune system on the front side bordering the ocean. Most of the larger, forested islands contain interior waterways and wetlands. Barrier islands are dominated by energy stresses, that is to say, by wave force, wind and tidal energies and ocean flooding which determine their constantly changing shape. Hurricanes as well as seasonal winter storms have a great impact on barrier islands and play an equally important role in shaping them. An initial view of the barrier island system may result in the conclusion that barrier islands are very unstable. This is true in terms of human development which is not compatible with erosion and the devastating effect of hurricanes. However, in terms of ecology, the natural stresses brought to bear on barrier islands, by winds, tides, waves and flooding, are the very things which allow them to survive. It is the dynamic nature of the barrier island system that makes it stable. The island beaches offer little resistance to storm waves, and effectively absorb and dissipate the tremendous forces which confront them. In the natural system, storm waves frequently breach the island dunes and flood the island. As waves wash over the dunes during storms, they carry sand and shells onto the island and distribute them across the grasslands, marshes, and even into the estuary behind. Storm overwash, therefore, actually contributes new sediments to the islands. In this fashion, overwash serves to maintain the island by supplying sand from the beach and offshore areas for new dune growth, adding to the island's elevation, and extending the island laterally into the estuary. (Barrier Islands and Beaches, Technical Proceedings of the 1976 Barrier Islands Workshop, Annapolis, Maryland, May 17-18, 1976, p. 2) Larger barrier islands contain shrubs and forested woodlands, whereas smaller frequently flooded islands are devoid of trees and are dominated by hardy grasses such as sea oats (Uniola paniculata) and salt meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens). Barrier islands usually lack a complete representation of the fauna found on the mainland. This situation is the result of the distances between the islands and the mainland along with the in- ability of some species to cross salt water barriers. Characteristic of some barrier islands are special popula- tions or subspecies of animals, especially mammals, which through their isloated situation develop characteristics which distinguish them from their relatives on the mainland. Of absolute necessity to a barrier island's existence is its beach, dune and offshore sand bar system. The beaches protect and insure the existence of the highland area of the islands by absorbing and dissipating the tremendous forces exerted on them by waves and tidal currents. Just as the highlands depend on the beaches for stability, the beaches depend on the dunes for the replenishment of sand which is washed away from them by the stresses of waves, tidal currents and periodic storms and hurricanes. Offshore sand bars play a very significant role in the "sand-sharing" system by providing sand for the replenishment of existing dunes as well as for the forming of new ones. As sand from the bars is washed ashore, it is blown inland where it builds up and strengthens existing dunes and thus lends more protection against hurricanes and storm tides. In areas where no dunes exist, they may begin to form where flotsam and 1-18 jetsam, grasses or other obstructions on the beach block the wind and cause it to drop its load of sand. In a short time grasses such as sea oats take root and anchor the sand in place with their extensive root systems. Without the anchoring assistance provided by the grasses, dunes would not be able to build up or stay intact. One of the most important benefits provided by barrier islands is their creation of the proper conditions necessary for the development and continuing existence of salt water wetlands and estuaries. By breaking the force of the ocean waves and creating behind them semi-enclosed, protected areas of low energy stresses, bar- rier islands permit the mixing of ocean and fresh waters necessary to the development and maintenance of the extensive network of estuaries and wetlands. South Carolina has a total of some forty barrier islands along its coast. A few of these are protected, State and Federally-owned lands set aside for conservation and preservation purposes. Some of the islands contain no development or very sparse development; others are heavily developed or are being heavily developed as ex- clusive, second-home/resort areas. On islands where development has taken place without consideration or understanding of the natural forces constantly at work, tremendous problems have arisen with erosion and accretion. Slowly we are coming to understand that the forces governing barrier islands are uncontrollable. They may be predicted, but they cannot be subdued, nor should they be. Man must learn to respect and to live in a design with them. 3) Forested Areas Since the beginning of the first permanent European settlement in South Carolina our coastal zone forests have been of tremendous importance. In the early days of the colony, forest products such as lumber, masts for ships, turpentine, pitch and tar were manufactured for export, and considerable fortunes were made from the forest products industry. The coastal zone's forests remain commercially important. With 19.2 percent of the forest lands of the State, the coastal zone produced 17.0 percent of the physical volume (cords) of pulpwood and 30.1 percent of the physical volume (board feet) of other forest products produced in South Carolina in 1975. The delivered value of these forest products (at rail yard, truck yard or mill site) was $52.1 million or, 26.7 percent of the ($195.1 million) value for the whole State. In addition to their economic value, which can be established in dollars and cents, is their inestimable value as wildlife habitat, waste treatment plants, producers. of-oxygen, flood and erosion controllers, and havens where man can retreat from civilization to renew his senses and perhaps find his proper place in the scheme of living things. The eight coastal zone counties contain a total land area of some 4,399,000 acres. -The1968 U..S. -Forest Service statistics show that of this total land area, 3,994,000 acres are forested land, and of this total, 2,970,000 acres are commercial forest lands. The coastal zone is endowed with a wide variety and abundance of trees. Below is a list of some of the more important commercial species as well as others which are familiar to residents of the coastal zone. 1. Baldcypress (Taxodium distichum): Most often associated with very watery sites such as swamps. Trunk flares out at base into a swollen, deeply-lobed buttress-like structure. Roots send up woody growths call- ed "knees" which protrude above water; exact function of knees is not known. Fibrous bark ranges in color from light gray to brownish red; its light green leaves are alternate, two-ranked and decidious. Im- portant commercially. Heartwood is very resistant to decay and is used for things such as docks, bridges, greenhouses, cooling towers, vats, boats and river pilings. 2. Lobloily Pine (Pinus taeda): Has pale green needles 6-9 inches long. Bark is thick and bright reddish- brown in color. Bark is divided by shallow fissures into broad, flat-topped plates covered with thin scales. Tree often reaches 100 feet in height. Has tall, straight trunk. Important commercially. Wood is used mainly for building materials such as framing, sheathing, subflooring, joists and interior finish. Also used for pilings, crossties and mine timbers. 3. Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii): Has dark green, lustrous needles. Bark is gray to reddish-brown, rough, separating on the surface into large, thin scales. Commonly grows to 100 feet in height. Tall, straight, tapering trunk. Important commercially. Wood is heavy, hard, durable. Wood used for production of naval stores. 1-19 4. Sweetgum (Liquidanbar styraciflua): Has star-shaped leaves made up of 5 deeply separated, pointed lobes; round, bur-like, hard, woody fruit. Grows best on rich bottomlands reaching height of 120 feet. Its wood is used for veneer, plywood, boxes, baskets, crates, pulpwood, etc. 5. Water Oak (Quercus nigra): Has variably shaped leaves 2-4 inches long which are broader at apex than at base. Is a bottomland species but also grows on upland soils. Has slender, straight trunk. Important com- mercially. Wood is used for rough construction lumber. 6. Red Maple (Acer rubrum): Leaves 3-5 lobed and have coarsely-toothed margins. Leaves 2-6 inches long; turn brilliant scarlet, orange or bright yellow in autumn. Bark thick, dark gray on trunks and is separated by vertical ridges into large plate-like scales. Tree may reach 120 feet in height. Often planted as an ornamental. 7. Live Oak (Quercus virginiana): Has widespread crown and gnarled branches. Is one of the most characteristic trees of the coastal region of the Deep South. Seldom grows to more than 50 feet in height but may have crown-span of 150 feet or more. Wood is very difficult to saw and dry. Was prized for blocks on sailing ships. 8. Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora): An evergreen tree often planted as a ornamental. Leaves shiny bright green on upper surfaces, leathery, and covered on the lower surfaces with rusty-colored fuzz. Leaves oblong, 5-8 inches long, 2-3 inches wide. Tree has beautiful white, fragrant flowers 7-8 inches across. Tree often pyramidal with tall, straight trunk and is sometimes 100 feet or more in height. Bark varies from gray to brown. Wood is hard and heavy; used for crates, boxes, rough flooring. 9. Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida): Is admired for the white drifts of flowers it adds to woodlands in spring; small tree, occasionally up to 40 feet in height. Dogwood berries provide a favorite food for deer, wild turkey, squirrels and songbirds. 10. Palmetto (Sabal- palmetto):-Is-the-official-State-tree.- Commonly-known-as-the-Cabbage Palmetto.- Long- - - associated with history of South Carolina. Is represented on State Flag as well as on the State Seal where it is symbolical of the defeat of the British-fleet by thecolonists stationed in a Palmetto forton Sullivan's Island. Tree is-an attractive feature-of-coastal-SC- Has- long-oolumn-like-stems-with broad-crown-of- leaves first growing upright, later spreading nearly at right angles with the stem, finally hanging downward before shedding. "Wood" made up of strands of heavy fiber cells with the strands scattered in ... a softer, pith-like tissuesl-sed for fencesan dndermaterpilings._Leavesusedsforthatch, matsbrooms,_ .. brushes. 4) Wildlife The coastal zone contains a great variety and abundance of wildlife. Aside from hundreds of species of in- conspicuous invertebrates, the fauna of the coastal zone is rich in fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mam- mals. South Carolina and especially the low country has produced and has been visited by eminent naturalists who have contributed much to the overall knowledge of the native fauna. In 1664 William Hilton, in his historic trek up the South Carolina coast, wrote the following: "The Country Abounds in Turkey, Quails, Curlews, Plovers, Teile, Heron; and as the Indians say, in Winter, with Swans, Geese, Craines, Duck and Mallard, and innumerable of other waterfowl, whose name we know not, which lie in the Rivers, Marshes, and on the Sands." The first true ornithologist to study the fauna of South Carolina was Mark Catesby who in 1731 published The Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands. William Bartram, another famous naturalist, traveled extensively through the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida from 1773 to 1778 making a study of the native fauna. Born in 1785 in Saint-Domingue, John James Audubon, the great naturalist-artist, spent much time in the South Carolina low country studying its bird life, collecting specimens, sketching and painting. His friend, the Reverend John Bachman, an eminent Lutheran minister as well as a renowned scientist, supported Audubin by offering his home in Charleston as an ornithological research headquarters and by accumulating and writing descriptive material for Audubon's Birds of America as well as his later work, Quadrupeds of North 1-20 America. The rare Bachman's Warbler is named after this unusual minister/scientist. Other well-known naturalists native to South Carolina low country include E. Burnham Chamberlain (ornithologist), Alexander Sprunt, Jr. (ornithologist), E. Milby Burton (ornithologist, ichtheologist, historian), Arthur T. Wayne (or- nithologist), Robert Hemphill Coleman (mammalogist, mathematician), and Dr. G. Robert Lunz (marine biologist). Botanists who have pioneered in describing the flora of South Carolina include Thomas Walter, Flora Caroliniana, 1740; Andre Micheaux, Flora boreali Americana, 1803; Stephen Elliott, M.D., Sketch of the Botany of South Carolina and Georgia, 1821; Henry William Ravenel, Fungi of Carolina, 1852; and Alvin W. Chapman, A FLora of the Southern States, 1860. The following is a brief overview of wildlife resources, excluding fishes, found in South Carolina's coastal zone. 1. Amphibians A total of five families of frogs and toads are found in the coastal zone of South Carolina - Spadefoot toads, "true toads", tree frogs, "true frogs" and narrow-mouthed toads. These five family groups are represented by a total of twenty-two species. Being among the more inconspicuous members of the fauna, these animals, including the green frog, the bullfrog, the spring peeper and the southern toad, are perhaps most familiar to the layman through their loud reproductive chorusing. In addition to frogs and toads, the coastal zone amphibians include salamanders, more fishlike and less specialized than frogs and toads and having primitive segmentation on their bodies and tails. A total of nine- teen species, including mole salamanders, the red-spotted newt and the Congo eel, are found in the coastal zone. 2. Reptiles The reptiles are represented in South Carolina's low country by turtles, lizards, snakes and one member of the crocodilian family, the American alligator. a) Turtles: Turtles belong to one of the most ancient groups of animals in existence today. They are uni- que in that their bodies are encased-in- a-bony, -scale-covered-shell-to-which -their-vertebra- column-and-ribs are- - fused. Turtles have no teeth, but a horny beak with a strong cutting edge helps them obtain their food. Turtles found in the coastal zone of South Carolina include amphibiousand terrestrial species._Some-of the- more familiar species in theareaarethe-snappingu trtle theellow-belied-turtle4he-mud tur-tlef-the eastern box turtle, the diamondback terrapin, and the loggerhead sea turtle. The Atlantic loggerhead, a Federal threatened species, is the only sea turtle which nests on the South Carolina coast. (The Atlantic ridley, the Green sea turtle, the Hawksbillturtl e atudth-eLeatherbackturtl' a ln cfound in theStategs offshore -- waters.) Mating occurs during April and May, and the females begin nesting on the beaches above the mean high tide line in late May or early June. Nesting usually continues until mid-August. During the past century there has been a decline in the numbers of loggerheads, mainly due to the high mortality rate among the young and to nest predation by animals such as sand crabs, feral hogs and raccoons as well as by humans. The Atlantic Loggerhead is protected by both Federal and State law. The capture or molesting of these animals and the predation of their nests is strictly forbidden. b) Lizards: Closely related to snakes, the majority of lizards are easily distinguished from their relatives by their limbs, their visible external ear openings, and their movable eyelids. Fewer species of these animals are found in temperate areas of the world than in the tropics. Most familiar to coastal zone residents are the Green Anole (often misnamed Chameleon) which can change color, the various skinks and the glass lizard (sometimes called glass snake) which lacks legs and is often mistaken for a snake. c) Snakes: The snake is a reptile characterized by the lack of external and internal ears, an absence of limbs, fixed eyelids, a left lung which is either reduced or absent and a forked tongue which is used in combina- tion with its olfactory organs in the roof of the mouth and which enables the animal to smell its environment. There are a total of ten families of snakes in the world. Three of these families are represented in South Carolina and the coastal zone. All of the harmless snakes in the coastal zone belong to Family Colubridae which contains the majority of the world's species. Perhaps the most familiar of these snakes to coastal zone residents are the kingsnake, the watersnake, the garter snake, the grass snake, the yellow rat snake (chicken snake), the red rat snake (corn snake) and the hog nose snake, often called the spreading adder. The poisonous snakes found in the coastal zone belong to two families, Family Elapidae and Family Viper- idae. The former group is represented by the coral snake, probably the most brilliantly colored snake in North 1-21 America as well as the most deadly. These snakes are fossorial or burrowing and are not readily observed. They are docile animals and are the least dangerous to man because of this trait as well as the method of injec- ting their poison. In order to inject a lethal dosage into a human, this small snake must get a good grip and ac- tually chew into the flesh. The coral snake, along with the other members of its family, produces a neuro-toxic poison which affects the nervous system. All other poisonous snakes in South Carolina and the coastal zone beling to Family Viperidae. Those species found in the coastal zone are: the copperhead, the canebrake rattler, the pigmy rattler, the diamond- back rattler and the cottonmouth moccasin. All of these snakes are known as Pit Vipers because of a heat- sensitive pit located between the nostrils and the eye. This pit enables the animal to locate its warmblooded prey without depending on its eyesight. Pit Vipers have long, hollow fangs on either side of the upper jaw. When not in use these fangs fold back in the snake's mouth. When striking, the snake opens its mouth, allowing the fangs to become erect. As it strikes its victim, haemotoxic poison, which destroys the red blood cells, is forced from the animal's poison sacs through the hypodermic-like fangs into the victim. Because of their highly specialized fangs, the Pit Vipers are much more dangerous to humans than the docile coral snake. It is unfortunate that human beings seem to have an ingrained fear and hatred for snakes, Like all other creatures, snakes play an important role in the balance of nature. Non-poisonous snakes should never be kill- ed. Unless a poisonous snake is found in an area inhabited or frequently used by humans, it also should be allowed to live and play its role in the natural scheme of things. d) Crocodiians: Crocodiles and alligators are the only remaining members of the great subclass, Ar- chosaura, which includes dinosaurs, pterosaurs and others which became extinct more than 70 million years ago. The Family Crocodylidae is represented in South Carolina and the coastal zone by the American alligator. In the past this animal has been on the official United States list of endangered species. By receiving this protected status, the alligator has made a comeback in various parts of the country, including areas within South Carolina, and in.those particul-ar-areas--its status has-been changed-from-endangered--tothrearened: This - change in status does not take away the animal's protection, however; it is still strictly forbidden to capture, molest or disturb these animals. 3. Birds Arthur T. Wane, one of South Carolina's most eminent ornithologists, stated that South Carolina "stands easily first among the States of the Union in ornithological history." South-Carolina truly-does have-an-im- - pressive ornithological record with seventy-seven birds having been made known to science for the first time from this state. Approximately 300 species of birds have been recorded in South Carolina, and the majority of these can be seen in the State's coastal zone during the course of a year. Because of the conspicuousness of birds, more is known generally about them than most other animals. Birds are unique among living creatures in thay they are the only animals with feathers, and of all living creatures only birds and mammals are warmblooded, that is to say, capable of retaining a constant body temperature. Some of the other characteristics of birds are: 1) lack of teeth, 2) an elongated mandible, 3) large, well-developed eyes, 4) hollow, air-filled bones for lightness, and 5) various other physiological adaptations which allow for and aid in flight. Birds can be classified ecologically according to their season of appearance as follows: 1. Permanent resident - Can be seen at a location in any month of the year. Normally breeds in this locality. 2. Winter resident - Migratory. Present at locality only in winter. (Winter residents of the coastal zone arrive from the north in the early to late fall and leave the area in late winter or early spring.) 3. Summer resident - Migratory. (Coming from points farther south, summer residents arrive in the coastal zone in spring, breed in the area and leave in late summer or early fall.) 4. Transient - Migratory. Passes through a locality in fall and again in spring on its annual migration. 1-22 The coastal zone of South Carolina has an abundance of bird life, for a wide variety of habitats attracting a wide variety of species is found in this area, for example: beaches, mudflats, salt marshes, brackish and fresh- water marshes and ponds, swamps, woodlands and open spaces. Some of the best known species and the type habitat in which they are found are listed below. Habitat Species 1. Beaches Laughing Gull, Herring Gull, Royal Tern, Eastern Brown Pelican, Common Tern, Willet, Western Sandpiper, Wilson's Plover 2. Mudflats Black Skimmer, Willet, American Oystercatcher, Laughing Gull, Western Sandpiper, Ruddy Turnstone 3. Salt Marsh Great Blue Heron, Green Heron, Little Blue Heron, Louisiana Heron, Snowy Egret, Clapper Rail, Redwinged Blackbird 4. Brackish and Fresh-Water Anhinga, Pied-billed Grebe, Horned Grebe, Wood Duck, Ring-necked Marshes and Ponds Duck, Canvas-back, Ruddy Duck, White Ibis, Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, Greater Yellowlegs 5. Swamps Anhinga, Prothonotary Warbler, Swamp Sparrow, Red-eyed Vireo, Carolina Wren, Screech Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, Barred Owl 6. Woodlands Turkey Vulture, Red-tailed Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, Bob-white, Woodcock, Screech Owl, Chuck-Will's-Widow, Downy Woodpecker, Parula Warbler, Cardinal, Painted Bunting, Crow 7. Open Areas Boat-tailed Grackle, Common Grackle, Rufous-sided Towhee, Starling, Cedar Waxwing, Robin, Catbird, Brown Thrasher, Mockingbird, Ground Dove, Eastern Bluebird The Francis Marion National Forest contains several colonies of the endangered Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Other endangered bird species found in the coastal zone are the Southern Bald Eagle, the Brown Pelican, and Bachman's Warbler. Several species of birds-onceabundant in the-South Carolina-coastal.zone but-extinct to--..... day are the Carolina parrakeet, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and the Passenger Pigeon. 4. Mammals Mammals are divided into three main groups: egg laying mammals, which are the most primitive group and are restricted to the Australian Region of the world; marsupials (the pouched mammals), found principally in Australia but also occurring in South America and represented in North America by the opossum; and the placental mammals to which most living mammals belong. The following characteristics distinguish mammals from all other animals: 1. Mammary glands - milk producing glands for feeding of the young. 2. Hair. 3. Endothermy - the ability to keep a constant body temperature. (This characteristic is also true of birds.) The first reference to South Carolina's mammals was given by the young English naturalist, Mark Catesby (1743); however, very little material was published before 1830. In the period 1830-1860 the Reverend John Bachman, a Lutheran minister and distinguished scientist residing in Charleston, published several studies on South Carolina mammals. Bachman, who achieved worldwide acclain as a mammalogist, collaborated with John James Audubon in the collection of specimens and the preparation of the text of their study, Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America, still referred to by present-day zoologists. Relatively little study was undertaken in South Carolina from Bachman's time until the middle of the Twentieth Century. The most comprehensive, in-depth study on mammals in South Carolina was done by R. H. Coleman (1919-1954). Coleman studied all species but concentrated on the smaller animals. F. W. Sherman and E. B. Chamberlain have also contributed to the knowledge of South Carolina's mammal fauna. South Carolina, including the coastal zone, contains mammals representing eleven groups called Orders which are distinguished mainly on the basis of differences in limb structure, form of the digits, and the teeth. 1-23 Order Marsupialia (Pouched Mammals) - This Order is represented by a single species, the opossum, one of the most interesting mammals in the State and related to the kangaroo, wallaby and other marsupials found in Australia and South America. Opossum young are born after a gestation period of about 12-13 days and, like all marsupials, are very poorly developed at birth. The new-born opossums are so small that 17-20 of them will fit in a teaspoon. In order to survive, the tiny babies must crawl into their mother's pouch where they at- tach themselves to her nipples and remain for three months. Order Insectivora - This Order includes the moles and shrews whose main diet consists of insects. Moles are adapted to an underground existence by having a torpedo-shaped body, minute eyes and ears, broad forefeet for digging and scraping and an almost naked tail. The species which are found in the coastal zone are the Eastern Mole and the Star-nosed Mole. Shrews are tiny, secretive animals found in damp, shady habitats with a thick cover of leaves and vegeta- tion. They are aggressive little animals with a voracious appetite and a very high metabolic rate. A shrew lives for about one year, literally burning itself out in a never-ceasing search for food. Those species found in the coastal zone are the Southeastern Shrew, the Short-tailed Shrew and the Least Shrew. Order Chiroptera - This Order is composed of the bats. Bats are known to have existed 50 to 60 million years ago and are the only mammals which can fly. Those found in South Carolina are insectivorous, but in other areas of the world, bats may eat fruit, nectar, fish or blood. Bats which feed on insects locate their prey by means of a highly sophisticated echo-location system. Bats have drastically declined in South Carolina and other parts of the United States due to the widespread use of insecticides. Some of the bats found in the South Carolina coastal zone are: the Silver-haired Bat, the Big Brown Bat, the Red Bat, the Big-eared Bat and the Free-tailed Bat. Order Endentata - This Order, which contains anteaters, sloths and armadillos, is represented in South Carolina's coastal zone by the Nine-banded Armadillo. This animal has been extending its range northward and eastward from Texas for several decades and has possibly reached South Carolina naturally; however, some records of its occurrence here-have no doubt involved-escaped--or--released pets. - ---- Order Lagomorpha - Rabbits. Rabbits are one of the most plentiful animals in South Carolina and the coastal zone. Over 1.5 million were estimated to have beenntillecdin-the'State by huinters in 1964. The two species occurring in the coastal zone are the Eastern Cottontail and the Marsh Rabbit. Order Rodentia - Rodents. Rodents are the most abundant of the mammals. The characteristic shared by all members of this group is a single pair of chisel-like upper incisors which are used for gnawing. Some of the rodents found in South Carolina's coastal zone are the Gray Squirrel, the Fox Squirrel, the Flying Squirrel, Rice Rat, Eastern Harvest Mouse, Cotton Mouse, Golden Mouse, Cotton Rat, Pine Vole, Black Rat and House Mouse. Order Cetacea - Whales. This group of mammals contains the largest living animal on earth, the Blue Whale, larger than any dinosaur known to have existed. The cetaceans or whales are included in this discussion because they may be observed swimming in the coastal waters and are occasionally found stranded on our beaches. Most of the whales which have been observed off the South Carolina beaches are toothed whales. The following species are recorded from our state: I. Atlantic Beaked Whale 2. True's Beaked Whale 3. Goose-beaked Whale 4. Pigmy Sperm Whale 5. Dwarf Sperm Whale 6. Sperm Whale 7. Common Dolphin 8. Short-finned Pilot Whale 9. Grampus or Risso's Dolphin 10. Killer Whale 11. False Killer Whale 12. Striped Dolphin 13. Long-beaked Dolphin 1-24 14. Spotted Dolphin 15. Bottle-nosed Dolphin - This is the common inshore dolphin of South Carolina's coastal waters. Most South Carolina residents refer to it as the porpoise. 16. Minke or Little Piked Whale 17. Sei Whale 18. Fin-backed Whale 19. Humpback Whale 20. Atlantic Right Whale Order Carnivora - Carnivores. The name carnivore means meat eater. However, this term is not an entirely accurate description of the eating habits of all species in this order, for many carnivores are omnivorus, eating both plant and animal food. The following carnivores are found in South Carolina's coastal zone. 1. Red Fox - This animal is probably not an original resident but was introduced into the State. It is om- niverous, consuming such food as rabbits, mice, rats, birds and berries. 2. Gray Fox - This animal occurs statewide. It eats a variety of plant and animal food. 3. Black Bear - The Black Bear, which may be black or brown in color, is found in coastal zone swamps as well as in other parts of the State. Bears are omnivorous, eating almost any type of food which is available to them. 4. Raccoon - This species occurs abundantly in the coastal zone and throughout the State. Raccoons are noted for their dexterity and curiosity. They are omniverous animals and, in the coastal zone, find much of their food in the salt marshes. 5. Long-tailed Weasel - This secretive animal occurs statewide, but there are few records of its occurrence. Weasels feed on small animals such as rats, shrews, mice and rabbits, killing their prey by a well-placed bite at the base of the neck or skull. 6. Mink - This semi-aquatic mammal occurs statewide. In the coastal zone, it is found along the rivers and in the salt marshes. Its diet consists of rats, mice, fish, 'frogs, snakes, birds and aquatic insects. 7. Striped Skunk - This animal,rarein-thecoasta.aea,-obably occurs t-hroughout- the-State. It -frequents - open farm land and feeds on such items as small mammals, insects, carrion and fruit. 8. River Otter - This graceful swimmer occurs statewide, frequenting rivers, ponds, lakes and salt marshes. Its diet consists of fish, crustacea, clams,-insects-and-birds .-- - 9. Cougar, Panther, Puma, Mountain Lion - The outstanding characteristics of this mammal are its size, long tail and short head. A full-grown puma may reach 7 feet in length and may weigh 200 pounds. Although this beautiful cat is considered to be extinct in South Carolina, infrequent reports of sightings of this animal continue to be made. The Puma is on the official U.S. list of endangered species. 10. Bobcat, Wildcat - This cat probably occurs throughout the State but is found in greater numbers in the low country of South Carolina. It frequents swamps, bottomlands and densely wooded areas, feeding on rats, rabbits, grass and small birds. The Red Wolf, once a part of the coastal zone's fauna, became extinct here by 1850. Found today only in the coastal areas of Louisiana and Texas, it is considered by some to be America's most rare mammal. In 1976 a pair of Red Wolves were brought to Bulls Island, South Carolina. Placed there by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in an experiment aimed at saving this rare species, it is hoped that these animals will reproduce and provide offspring to be placed in other areas originally a part of their natural habitat. Order Pinnipedia - Seals, Sea-Lions, Walruses. The term Pinniped means having finlike feet or flippers. Two pinnipeds have been recorded in South Carolina's coastal waters - the Harbor Seal and the California Sea Lion. The Harbor Seal in an uncommon visitor to South Carolina's coastal waters. It has occasionally been seen on buoys in and near Charleston Harbor and has been recorded from Hilton Head Island and the mouth of the Santee River. The only other pinniped recorded from South Carolina's coast is the California Sea Lion. Three individuals appeared in the vicinity of Charleston, one being found in 1972 and the others in 1973. The animals had probably escaped or were released from captivity somewhere on the east coast. Order Sirenia - Manatees. The Florida Manatee, an essentially fresh-water animal, occassionally appears I-25 in South Carolina's coastal waters. The manatee is a large aquatic mammal with small eyes and an absence of external ears. There is no visible separation of the head and body. Its fore flippers are paddle-shaped, and its tail is flattened laterally. Adults may weigh more than 1500 pounds and may exceed a length of 12 feet. This animal, which feeds on aquatic vegetation, moves north along the coast from Florida in the warmer months. The Florida Manatee appears on the official U. S. list of endangered species. Order Artiodactyla - Even-toed Hoofed Animals. Today Feral Swine and the White-tailed Deer are the only two artiodactyls of South Carolina and the coastal zone. Feral Swine are not native mammals like the White-tailed Deer, but they have been established in the coastal zone since the time of the first settlements. Frequenting bottomland swamps, they range into open country to feed at night. The graceful and very beautiful White-tailed Deer is probably the best known mammal in the coastal zone. Officially designated in 1972 as The State Animal, the White-tailed Deer inhabits a variety of habitats from bottomland swamps to relatively open land. It is believed that this animal is more abundant today than when the State was first settled by Europeans. Two other artiodactyls, now extinct in South Carolina, were a part of the coastal zone fauna during the colonial era - the Elk and the American Bison. Unfortunately, these magnificent animals were extirpated by hunting and the onward push of civilization. 5) Marine Resources: (See "Living Marine Resources," Chapter IV.) 6) Soils Knowledge of underlying soil types is essential for wise land-use planning. It is widely recognized that not all soil types are suited to all land uses; at the same time, certain soil types are highly desirable for some ac- tivities, such as farming and forest production, and prudent resource management practices dictate that these soil types should be reserved for their most appropriate use. Soils are produced by the interaction of natural processes such-as-wind and water-action, temperature, and bioturbation (caused by plant and animal activity) with the underlying rock material. Except for a very small area in Berkeley County, soils in-South Carolina's coastalzonefall within the Atlantic-CoastFlatwoods land- resource area. Soils in this vicinity are a mixture of sand and loam, and are moderately well to poorly drained. Drainage is an important factor to consider when development is undertaken, particularly if septic tanks are to be used. In the areas closest to the shore, soils tend to be poorly drained as a result of clay subsoils. Elevations range from sea level to only 100 feet above, meaning that much of the soil of the coastal zone lies in broad flats or shallow depressions. These depressions, known as Carolina Bays, contain very fertile deposits and are often used by farmers who "find the high organic content-of the 'bay'- floors highly desirable for farming and report yields to be fifty percent higher than in adjacent areas." (Kaczorowski, Raymond T., "Origin of the Carolina Bays" in Terrigenous Clastic Depositional Environments, Miles O. Hayes and Timothy W. Kana, Eds., Technical Report No. 11-CRD, Coastal Research Division, Department of Geology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 1976, pp. 11-19.) The fertility of the soil in the rest of the coastal zone ranges from low to medium, making it less than ideally suited for agriculture. Like the inland soils, the sands of South Carolina's beaches vary depending upon the interaction of physical processes with various source materials. The arcuate strand area, stretching from the North Carolina border to Cape Romain, has the most stable structure at the moment, although erosion has been severe in the geologic past. The source of sand is ancient beach ridge, deposited by the oceans of the Pleistocene. The Cape Romain-Bull's Bay area sands are more coarse than most along the South Carolina coast since they are close to the Santee River system from which they are derived, and consequently have not been exposed to as much wave action. On the other hand, the sand of the barrier islands to the south of Cape Romain is relatively fine. These sands are further removed from their river sources and have undergone a great deal of reworking by wind and wave action. Unfortunately, because the barrier islands are receiving very little new sand, erosion is a problem along the southern portion of the coast. 7) Geology South Carolina lies in three geographic provinces: 1) the mountainous Blue Ridge province of the nor- thwestern edge of the State; 2) the Piedmont (foothills) province, which stretches from the Blue Ridge to the 1-26 Fall Line; and 3) the Coastal Plain, reaching from the Fall Line to the seacoast. This Coastal Plain varied in width from 120-150 miles and covers an area of more than 20,000 square miles or nearly two-thirds of the State. For millions of years this area was probably a part of the ancient continent of Appalachia whose eastern shore may have lain along the outer edge of the present Continental Shelf. It appears that during the Triassic (185 million years ago) the land was shattered by faults, and at the end of the Lower Cretaceous (125 million years ago) a continental warping formed the Appalachian Mountains and tilted down the land lying east, south and southwest of that area. With this downward tilting of land, the sea level rose in the present area of our Coastal Plain and possibly reached as far as the present Fall Line. A study of the geologic history of South Carolina's Coastal Plain reveals numerous advances and retreats of the sea during which sediments were deposited and planed off over and over again. The entire Coastal Plain area consists of sedimentary deposits, ranging in age from Upper Cretaceous (65 million years ago) to Recent (2 million years ago), laid on top of ancient rocks such as granites, schists and other crystalline rocks. The numerous changes in sea level were partly due to tiltings of the land and partly to variation of world climate. During a series of "ice ages" when world climate was much colder than at present, the polar ice caps tied up much of the ocean's water, thus causing a drop in sea level. When the climate gradually became warmer, much of the ice melted and returned to the ocean, causing substantial rises in sea level and inundating tremendous land areas. Most of South Carolina's Coastal Plain deposits are unconsolidated and are soft or soluble. Therefore, they are more easily eroded than the hard crystalline rocks of the Piedmont region. As streams tumble off the more resistant rocks at the edge of the Piedmont into the softer sediments of the Coastal Plain, a series of rapids or falls are formed, thus the term, "Fall Line." The Coastal Plain is divided into five geopraphic divisions as follows: 1) the marine coastal terraces or "low country," 2) the Aiken Plateau, 3) the High Hills of Santee, 4) the Richland red hills, and . .. 5) the Congaree sand hills. Because the coastal zone, as defined in South Carolina's Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, roughly composes the same area as the marine coastal terraces, the remainder of this discussion will be limited to an overview of the geology of that area. The marine coastal terraces occupy more than two-thirds of the present Coastal Plain. For thousands of years the area of the terraces was a level plain.-With-the recurrent- rising-and falling-of sea level; deposits-were -- - laid down; and during temporary stands of the sea, sand bars were built across mouths of bays. As the sea withdrew, the bars remained to mark the abandoned shoreline. The area between two successive shore lines is treated as a separate terrace, and seven of these terraces have been identified and named in South Carolina's Coastal Plain. They are, from the oldest to the most recent, the Pamlico, Talbot, Penholoway, Wicomico, Sunderland, Coharie and Brandywine. The present shoreline, which forms the seaward boundary of the most recent terrace, has a total length of 1,241 miles, including 281 miles of mainland and 960 miles around islands. From Cape Fear, North Carolina, to South Carolina's Winyah Bay, the coast forms a great arc and is distinguished by miles of fine sand beaches broken by several inlets including Little River Inlet, Murrells Inlet and North Inlet. From Winyah Bay to the Savannah River, the coast line trends to the southwest and is broken by numerous barrier islands, sea islands, bays, inlets and rivers. 8) Climate The climate of South Carolina's coastal zone is referred to as a marine subtropical climate in which the winters are short and mild and the summers long, warm and humid. Proximity to the warm Gulf Stream waters which flow northward along the northeast coast of the United States hepls to produce this type of climate and moderates temperature extremes of both summer and winter. The coastal zone's summer season begins in May and lasts until the end of September. In the summer months, the -land heats up more rapidly in the morning than the adjacent ocean water, and warm air masses 4-27 begin to rise. By afternoon this rising, warm air begins to be replaced by the cooler, more dense ocean air, thus creating a sea breeze. In the evening, the reverse process occurs, creating a land breeze which blows out to sea. Further inland, summer temperatures are higher than those along the shore because the sea breeze's influence lessens with distance from the ocean. Rainfall is relatively heavy during the summer season, most of it coming as showers and thunderstorms. Occasional tornadoes, tropical storms and hurricanes add to the amount of rain received during the summer. The average air temperature along the coast in summer is around 80 degrees F. to 82 degrees F. The months of October and November ae known as "Indian Summer" and are characterized by warm, dry, sunny days and cool nights. Many persons find these months to be the most pleasant time of the year. The winter months are characteristically mild with an average winter morning temperature of about 40 degrees F. and an afternoon maximum around 60 degrees F. About 18% of the annual precipitation falls in winter, and although frozen precipitation is fairly rare, it does occur occasionally. March and April are a transition period during which rapid warming takes place. This period is marked by windy and occasionally cold weather in March to generally warm, pleasant weather in April. The ocean temperature during these months rises from about 56 degrees F. to around 70 degrees F. The coastal zone occasionally experiences tropical storms and hurricanes during a hurricane season which lasts from May to November. The most damaging and memorable hurricanes to hit the South Carolina coast since its European settlement are those of 1893, 1911, 1940 and 1959. Most hurricanes approach the coast from the southwest after losing some of their force along the Gulf coast. Others arrive directly from the Atlan- tic and are the most damaging, especially if arriving at flood tide. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alden, R. V. Bellis, C. Carraway, E. Chester, B. Copeland, G. Dunn, R. Fiore, V. Klump, W. Laney, E. Pendleton, R. Pratt, E. Proffitt, M. Pugh, J. Smith, N. Tomkovick, and J. Williams, 1976. Ecological Determinants of Coastal Area Management, Vol. II - Appendices, Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-76-05, Sea Grant Program, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N. C., Grant No. 04-6-158-44054, 392 p. Anon., 1972. "Familiar Trees of South Carolina." S.C. State Forestry Comm., Bull. 117, 23 p. "Barrier Islands and Beaches," Technical Proceedings of the 1976 Barrier Island Workshop, Annapolis, Maryland, May 17-18, 1976, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. Campbell, Bob, 1976. "A Carolina Bay Is Saved," South Carolina Wildlife, Vol. 19, No. 5, (Sept.-Oct.), pp. 19-23. Carr, Archie, 1971. "Black Water, Green Light," Audubon, (November), pp. 50-71. Clark, J. R. and R. Turner, 1976. "Barrier Islands: A Threatened, Fragile Resource," Conservation Foun- dation Letter, (August), pp. 1-11. Cost, N. D., 1968. "Forest Statistics for the Southern Coastal Plain of South Carolina, 1968." Uo S. Forest Service Resource Bulletin SE-12, 35 p. Environmental Research Center, Inc., 1975. Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island. Prepared for Coastal Shores, Inc. Golley, Frank B.,1966. South Carolina Mammals, Published by The Charleston Museum, Charleston, S. C. Hayes, M. O. and T. W. Kana, Eds., 1976. "Terrigenous Clastic Depositional Environments." Technical Report No. 11-CRD, Coastal Research Division, Dept. of Geology, Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C. Laurie, Pete, 1975. "Salt Marsh: A Question of Survival," South Carolina Wildlife, Vol. 22, No. 2, (March-April), pp. 21-36. Lumpkin, Julia, 1977. "Return toWoods-Bay,-'-South Carolina -Wildlife, Voli-24, No. 3,-(May-June),- - pp. 43-44. Neelands, R. W., 1968. Important Trees of Eastern Forests. Forest Service, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 111 p. Orange, Sylvia W. (Editor), 1976. South Carolina Legislative Manual, p. 406. Robbins, Peggy, 1975. "AWonderfully-Hospitablelace,''South-Carolina -Widlife Vo.--2, No-.--2,- (March- April), pp. 9-15. S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., 1977. Ecological Characterization of the Sea Islands and Coastal Plain of South Carolina and Georgia. Test Characterization Report: Vol. III, "Biological/Ecological Features of Santee Test Characterization Area." Submitted to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bay. St. Louis, Mississippi, Contract No. 14-16-009-77-016, 610 p. Soucie, Gary, 1975. "Congaree: Great Trees or Coffee Tables," Audubon, (July), pp. 60-80. Stepp, James M., 1978. "The Coastal Economy of South Carolina." Sponsored by the S.C. Coastal Council under Grant No. 048M01-46-(1), 33 p. Stone, D. Bryan, 1978. "Inventory of South Carolina Barrier Islands, Sea Islands and Coastal Estuarine Systems," S. C. Coastal Council, Charleston, S. C., 25 p. Tiner, Ralph W., Jr., 1977. "An Inventory of South Carolina's Coastal Marshes," Technical Report No. 23, Sponsored by the S. C. Coastal Zone Management Office under Grant No. 04615844075, 33 p. Turner, R. S., R. Collier, Jr., T. D. Van Epp, and H. S. Pope, 1977. St. Phillips Island: a center for coastal resources education and recreation on the South Carolina Shore. M. S . Thesis, 173 p. Welch, R. L., 1968. "Forest Statistics for the Northern Coastal Plain of South Carolina, 1968." U.S. Forest Service Resource Bulletin SE-10, 35 p. Zingmark, R. G., (Editor), 1978. An Anotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, S. C., 364 p. 1-29 D. COASTAL ECONOMY 1. Introduction The eight counties designated by the General Assembly as the coastal zone of South Carolina have a land area of 6,864 square miles, which is 22.7 percent of the total land area of the State. In 1975 this area was estimated to have 20.9 percent of the State's population, 18.5 percent of the civilian labor force, 18.6 percent of the civilian employment, and 16.8 percent of the State's unemployment. These data reveal that the coastal zone of South Carolina does not differ very much from the State as a whole with respect to population density, labor force participation, and percent of the labor force unemployed. These data also suggest that the coastal zone has sufficient unused human resources to provide a basis for substantial economic growth. Principal economic activities within the coastal zone are agriculture, silviculture, fisheries, recreation and tourism, government and industry. In spite of a significent recession in 1974-75, the economy of the State and its coastal zone has grown fairly steadily over the past decade, and indications are that it will continue to do so for at least the next several years. 2. Economic Characteristics South Carolina's coastal zone is characterized by a very uneven distribution of population and employ- ment opportunities. In 1975 Charleston County alone had 45.0 percent of the area's total population. The oceanfront counties (Jasper, Beaufort, Charleston, Georgetown and Horry) had 73.0 percent of the coastal zone population in 1976. The population is even more unevenly distributed during the week when there is a net flow of commuters from the remaining counties of the coastal zone. For simplicity's sake, much of the discussion which follows will deal with South Carolina's coastal zone in terms of three broad regions: the Low Country (Jasper, Beaufort and Colleton Counties) the Greater Charleston Area (Berkeley, Charleston and Dorchester Counties) andthe Waccamaw region-(Georgetown and Horry Counties). See Figure D-l. 3. Transportation and Utilities South Carolina's coastal zone has 443.66 miles of main track railroad and is serviced by Amtrack, Seaboard Coastline and Southern Railways. Major commercial air traffic in the coastal zone is handled by the Myrtle beach AFB/Jetport and the Charleston AFB/International Airport. In 1976 the Myrtle Beach facility recorded 72,043 total passenger emplanements, while there were approximately 400,000 emplanements-at Charleston. Total commercial vehi- cle operations at the Charleston Airport in 1977 numbered 22,121, and of these, 2,017 were air taxi operations used to carry passengers over short distances. The Charleston Airport is serviced by Eastern, National, Delta, Southern and Piedmont Airlines. The only major seaport in the coastal zone is the Port of Charleston which ranks twelfth in the nation in dollar value of general cargo handled (after ranking thirty-fifth in the 1930's). Much smaller port facilities are also operated by the South Carolina Ports Authority at Georgetown (Waccamaw Region) and Port Royal (Low Country Region). In the 1976-77 fiscal year, a total of 1,392,750 tons of cargo were received at South Carolina's ports. Cargoes ranged from waste materials to fresh fruit. During the same period, 2,259,445 tons were exported through South Carolina's ports.2 Charleston is the southeastern terminus of an interstate highway (1-26) which connects with a number of other interstate systems serving major population and industrial centers in the eastern half of the United States. Interstate 95, a major north-south route, passes west of Horry and Georgetown counties in the Wac- camaw region and connects with a four-lane highway leading to Myrtle Beach. After passing through Dor- chester county near St. George, it continues through central Colleton and Jasper counties and on into Savan- nah, Georgia. The South Carolina coastal zone is served by two investor-owned electric utility companies and by six elec- tric cooperatives. The South Carolina Electric & Gas Company of Columbia serves all of the coastal zone counties except the northernmost - Horry - which is served by the Carolina Power and Light Company of Raleigh, North Carolina. 1-30 FIGURE D-1 cc~~~~~ c */ AN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DILLON ( ZuU~~t CREW= WACCAMAW REGION 0 GREATER CHARLESTON RCGION LWCOUNTRY REGION 1-31 4. Economic Activities a) Agriculture A 1967 land-use survey identified 11.9 percent of the land in the coastal zone as cropland and 2.5 percent as pasture. Corresponding figures for the State as a whole were 20.0 and 5.4 percent respectively, indicating that agriculture is of relatively less importance in the coastal zone than in the State as a whole. However, in 1975 agriculture provided 3.3 percent of the total labor and proprietors' income in the coastal zone (see Table D- 1), while Wam income for the State as a whole was 3.2 percent of the total. The high coastal zone figure was due primarily to the Waccamaw area which derived 11.3 percent of its income from farm sources. The Low Coun- try area obtained 3.2 percent of its income from agriculture, while the figure for the Greater Charleston region was only .9 percent. These percentages are likely to increase in the future. In the December 15, 1977 report to the State Budget and Control Board, the South Carolina Division of Research and Statistical Services noted that "with or without a farmers' strike, the long term trend of the decline in prices will keep pace with increases in the prices of other consumer goods and services." 3 The Low Country coastal zone accounted for 22.5 percent of the cash receipts from marketing crops by South Carolina farmers in 1975, a share which is almost exactly the same as the caostal zone's 22.7 percent share of the total land area of the State. The State's most valuable crop, tobacco, was also the coastal zone's most valuable crop, with Horry county ranking first among all the counties of the State in tobacco sales. The farmers of the coastal zone marketed only 11.2 percent of the State's second most valuable crop, soybeans, and 20.7 percent of the corn crop, which ranked third in both the coastal zone and the State. In terms of cash value, vegetable crops (produced mostly in Charleston and Beaufort counties) were second only to the tobacco profits of the northern coastal zone region. The farmers of the coastal zone marketed 25.0 percent of the hogs and 10.2 percent of the cattle sold by South Carolinians in 1975. In all, the coastal zone's share of crops and livestock was 18.3 percent of the State towa., b) Forestry (Silviculture) As of 1967, 62.8 percent of the coastal zone was forested land. (See Table D-2). The Waccamaw region had by far the most forested land, with 72.0 percent of its total area falling into this category. The Greater Charleston region had only 55.3 percent forest land, while the Low Country fell in between with 63.4 percent forest land. Presumably, the amount of forest land is lower now due to pressure from industrial and residen- tial development. It is, however, important to bear in mind that much of the federally owned land in South Carolina is forest land, making the actual totals higher than they appear to be. Although large, the quantity of forest in the coastal zone is only 19.2 percent of the total forest land of the State, based on 1975 figures. However, the income derived from coastal zone forests is 26.7 percent of the State's forest-derived income, indicating that silviculture plays a somewhat more important role in the economy of the coastal zone than it does in some other areas of the State. The coastal zone produced 17.0 percent of the physical volume (cords) or pulpwood and 30.1 percent of the physical volume (board feet) of other forest products produced in South Carolina in 1975. The delivered value of these products was 52.1 million, or 26.7 percent of the value for the whole State.5 c) Fisheries All commercial fish landings in South Carolina occur within the coastal zone. The total value of the 1976 catch was $14,069,569, which can be broken down as follows: Volume (pounds) Value (dollars) Shrimp (heads on) 8,053,006 $11,043,381 Blue Crabs, Hard 5,739,936 975,847 Clams, Hard (meats) 172,464 208,686 Oysters (meats) 1,187,077 759,063 Squid 12,454 3,311 All fin fish 5,713,661 1,079,281 1 -321 TABLE D-1 Labor and Proprietors' Income by Major Source, Three Economic Areas of South Carolina Coastal Zone, 1975a Low Country Greater Charleston Waccamaw Coastal Zone State Source Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent (--- Thousands of Dollars--------) (Millions) Farm $ 11,587 3.2 S 12,843 0.9 46,892 11.3 5 71,322 3.3 $ 325.6 3.2 Private Nonfarm 148,513 41.3 751,460 55.0 283,145 68.2 1,183,188 55.3 7,429.0 74.1 Government 199,881 55.5 601,599 44.1 85,262 20.5 886,742 41.4 2,271.1 22.7 Total 359,981 100.0 1,365,902 100.0 415,299 100.0 2,141,182 100.0 10,025.7 100.0 a Reported by place of work. SOURCE: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Special Tabulation. TABLE D-2 Land Use in-South Carolina Coastal -Zone Counties,- 1967 -- County Total land area Not inventoried Inventories by Soil Conservation Service - - Federal Other2 Cropland Pasture Forest other land Total Non-farm (Thousands of acres) Beaufort 372.0 13.8 20.8 44.4 10.0 153.0 130.0 13.0 Berkeley 704.0 201.0 32.5 50.6 13.0 386.2 20.7 4.7 Charleston 605.0 101.0 49.2 42.8 18.9 260.0 133.3 59.9 Colleton 671.0 0.0 29.9 103.3 28.0 482.3 27.5 15.0 Dorchester 364.0 0.0 6.3 56.2 8.5 278.8 14.2 3.5 Georgetown 520.0 0.0 22.6 28.7 6.2 419.5 42.9 36.9 Horry 736.0 3.6 42.4 159.8 15.5 485.3 29.4 15.1 Jasper 428.0 6.6 14.2 '36.2 12.0 297.8 61.2 3.7 Zone Total 4,400.0 326.0 217.9 522.0 112.1 2,762.9 459.2 151.8 State Total 19,338.3 1,042.7 1,141.2 3,865.4 1,037.7 11,427.1 824.3 291.4 Excludes water areas larger than 40 acres and rivers wider than 1/8 mile. 2 Urban and built-up areas, and small water areas. SOURCE: South Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory, Soil Conservation Service, USDA Columbia, South Carolina, May 1970. 1-33 It is obvious that the shrimp fishery is by far the most important one in the State. It accounts for 41.0 per- cent of the volume and 78.0 percent of the ex-vessel value of all catches over the years 1974, 1975, and 1976. In descending order of importance, shrimp is followed by the blue crab, fin fish, and oyster/clam fisheries. The majority of South Carolina-caught seafood is shipped out-of-state. In 1976 only six to eight percent of the total shrimp harvest was sold at dockside, while South Carolina retailers, chainstores and restaurants each received less than five percent of the harvest.6 The numerous recreational fishery resources of the coastal zone, including the nationally famous freshwater striped bass fishery of the Santee-Cooper Lakes, are of high quality and are used fairly heavily. In 1977 they included thirteen ocean fishing piers, sixty boat ramps, thirty-three marinas, four boat rental businesses, nine artificial fishing reefs, forty-nine charter boats (which usually carry four to six people) and nineteen "head boats" (which can carry up to 118 anglers). Recreational crabbing and shrimping are popular as is the recreational harvesting of oysters and clams.7 d) Recreation and Tourism The most accessible beaches in South Carolina (and adjacent states, in fact) are located in Horry and Georgetown counties. It is not necessary to cross extensive ranges of marsh lands and islands to reach these beaches, as is the case for beaches in southern South Carolina and Georgia. Furthermore, these beaches are closer than others to the thickly populated and industrialized Piedmont region of North and South Carolina. As a result,, there has been, and continues to be, substantial development of tourist and recreational facilities along most, of the coast of Horry County and the northern half of Georgetown County. When one considers the numerous attractions in South Carolina's coastal zone, it is not surprising that recreation and tourism-related activities make a significant contribution to the region's economy. Since much of the income derived from tourism comes from out-of-state, it may represent a more significant input into South Carolina's economy than at first appears to be the case. However, this is difficult to assess without detailed knowledge of how much is spent by South Carolinians in other-States._In 197, 36.1-percent-of all .. travelers entering South Carolina were "visitors" whose primary destination was a location within the State. Of the 14,290,619 visitors to -the -State-in l 1977, ---562-percent haddestinations-withinfthiecoastalzone.- This- figure may be low, however, as 12.2 percent of the destinations listed were in the undefined "Other" category. It is likely that at least some of the destinations listed in this category fell within the coastal zone. Geographical breakdown reveals that 33.2 percent of the visitors to the coastal zone headed to the "Grand Strand" in Horry County, and 18.3 percent went to the Charleston Area, while only 4.7 percent listed destina- tions in the Low Country region. Expenditures by visitors to South -Carolina in-1977 totaled $1,085,332,894. The importance of tourism to ... - the economy of the coastal zone is indicated by the fact that 77.6 percent of all visitor expenditures in the State were made within the coastal area. Again, geographical breakdown reveals that a disproportionate share of ex- penditures in the coastal zone (45.3 percent) were made in the Grand Strand area followed by 22.5 percent in the Charleston area and 9.8 percent in the Low Country region. Of this last category, 8.6 percent was spent at Hilton Head alone. As might be expected, the largest expenditures are made for dolging (31.9 percent) followed closely by those for food (28.7 percent). Gifts and miscellaneous items account for 15.3 percent of the tourist dollar, while 13.6 percent is spent on auto-related needs, and only 0.5 percent is spent on entertainment. Since these figures apply to the entire State, the percentages may vary within the coastal zone, but the ranking of expen- ditures undoubtedly remains constant." Recreation and tourism depend to a large degree on a number of factors unrelated to the coastal zone per se, factors such as the weather, national economy, and the season. Seasonality in the coastal zone is fairly easy to predict: tourism peaks in the summer quarter and is at its lowest point in the winter quarter. The effect of seasonal changes on related industries should be kept in mind, although in 1976 tourism and recreation showed such an upsurge that growth in lodging and recreational services continued after the close of the season. e) Industry and Government Employment in the six major industry groups plus government is reported in Table D-3. Total employment in the industries listed was 178,570 for the coastal zone. This figure is 18.3 percent of the total for the State. 1-34 TABLE D-3 Average Annual Nonfarm Wage and Salary Employment," South Carolina Coastal Zone, by Economic Area and Industry Group, 1975 Low Country Greater Charleston Waccamaw Coastal Zone State Industry Group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Manufacturing 3,920 16.4 14,300 12.5 10,320 25.7 28,540 16.0 336,300 34.0 Contract Construction 1,730 7.3 9,000 7.9 2,220 5.5 12,950 7.3 61,800 6.0 Transp., com., & pub. ut. 810 3.4 6,700 5.8 1,100 2.7 8,610 4.8 40,300 4.0 Wholesale & ret. trade 4,290 18.0 24,400 21.3 9,030 22.4 37,720 21.1 175,600 18.0 Fin., ins. & real estate 1,890 7.9 4,900 4.3 1,470 3.7 8,260 4.6 39,100 4.0 Miscellaneous 4,200 17.6 16,100 14.1 9,290 23.1 29,590 16.6 124,600 12.0 Government 7,010 29.4 39,100 34.1 6,790 16.9 52,900 29.6 200,100 20.0 Total 23,850 100.0 114,500 100.0 40,220 100.0 178,570 100.0 977,800 100.0 a Employment reported by place of work. SOURCE: South Carolina Statistical Abstract, 1976. S.C. Division of Research and Statistical Services, Col- umbia, S.C., p. 68. TABLE D-4 Number of Establishments, Employment and Payrolls South Carolina Coastal Zone, 1974" Employees week of March 12, 1974 Annual Payroll, 1974 Total Per Worker Economic Area Number of Estab. Number Per Estab. ($1000's) (Dollars) Low Country 1,568 17,172 11.0 107,775 6,276 Greater Charleston 5,966 76,207 12.8 533,528 7,001 Waccamaw 2,746 28,887 10.5 197,925 6,852 Coastal Zone 10,280 122,266 11.9 839,228 6,864 State 48,743 799,046 16.5 5,863,565 7,338 a Does not incoude: Self-employed persons, agriculture and domestic service, government and railroads. SOURCE: U. S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, 1974: South Carolina. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1976, p. 63. 1-35 (The coastal zone has 20.9 percent of the State's population.) Worthy of special notice among the industry employment figures in the various regions is the relatively low level of manufacturing employment in all but the Waccamaw region. Georgetown, with 41.4 percent employed in manufacturing, was the only coastal coun- ty which exceeded the State percentage of manufacturing employees. It was also the only coastal county for which the average annual wage ($7,975 in 1974) was above the State's average. Also noteworthy are the large percentages employed by government in the Low Country and Greater Charleston regions. This is especially significant because the figures include only the civilian employees of military facilities. Large public sector employment may be both an advantage and a liability to the economy of the coastal zone. The coastal zone withstood the rather severe 1975 recession better than other areas of the State, yet remains highly vulnerable to economic shocks from political decisions regarding the nature, level, and location of government expenditures - especially military expenditures. Data on 1974 employment, payrolls and numbers of establishments in the coastal zone and the State as a whole are summarized in Table D-4. The coastal zone had 21.2 percent of the establishments, 15.3 percent of the employees (in the week of March 12) and 14.3 percent of the payrolls of those industries covered by the survey. The average number of employees per establishment was considerably lower in the coastal zone than in the State as a whole, and only one county (Georgetown, with an average of 15.2 employees/establishment) was even close to the State average of 16.5. The coastal zone, therefore, is characterized by a number of small business establishments rather than by larger industrial centers. 5. Income and Employment Trends At the outset, it is important to note that any discussion of the economy of the coastal zone must include an awareness of the economy of the State as a whole as well as the national economy. South Carolina was iden- tified as one of six states most sensitive to national economic developments by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Department of Commerce. This means that swings of the business cycle are larger in the State and the coastal zone than elsewhere. Data on population, labor force, employment and unemployment in the coastal zone and its three major subdivisions are given in-Table D:5. It-shoultl btoted'that these data,' unllke the erf//loyment data in Tables D-3 and D-4, are based on county orresidence ratherdihanplace-ofwork.andthat-agricult-ure,-self-employed;..-- unpaid family, and domestic workers are included. The data in Table D-5, therefore, are not strictly com- parable with the data in Tables D-3 and D-4. Also, in 1975 (the year covered by Table D-5) there was a signifi- cant economic recession as compared with the previous year (covered by Table D*4)..... -. -- South Carolina's economy has maintained a steady recovery rate since the 1974-75 recession, and a growth rate above that of the South Atlantic Region and the rest of the nation is predicted. According to the 1977 Economic Report prepared by the South Carolina State Budget and Control Board, "this trend is expected to continue for the next four years as South Carolina narrows the gap between the region and the nation in jobs and especially in incomes." 10 Unemployment The rate of unemployment for the State in 1975 was 8.7 percent as compared with 4.1 percent in 1973 and 5.9 percent in 1974. Thirteen of the forty-six counties had over 11 percent of their labor force unemployed, and in three, the rate of unemployment in 1976 was above 15 percent. In contrast, only two of the eight coastal counties had above 10 percent unemployment in 1975, and for the coastal zone as a whole, the rate was only 7.9 percent. It is clear from these figures that the relative impact of the recession was less in the coastal zone than in the rest of the State. Recent data from the Division of Research and Statistical Services indicate that the State unemployment rate in December of 1977, 4.7 percent, was the lowest since December of 1973. A downward trend in unemployment in South Carolina (which presumably would affect the coastal zone) may be underway, since the adjusted rate for 1977 was 5.4 percent, down from 6.9 percent in 1976. Labor Force Participation Labor force participation is defined as the percentage of the total population sixteen years of age or older in the labor force at a given point in time. Georgetown and Horry Counties had labor force participation rates more like those in the rest of South Carolina than the other coastal counties, both having over 40.0 percent 1-36 TABLE D-5 Estimated Average Annual Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment in South Carolina Coastal Zone Counties, 1975a Civilian labor force Number Unemployed County Population Number % of pop. employed Number Percent Beaufort 53,100 18,050 34.0 16,640 1,410 7.8 Berkeley 64,400 21,700 33.7 19,700 2,000 9.2 Charleston 262,900 91,000 34.6 84,500 6,500 7.1 Colleton 28,700 11,100 38.7 10,080 1,020 9.2 Dorchester 44,300 14,600 33.0 13,500 1,100 7.5 Georgetown 37,800 15,180 40.2 13,540 1,640 10.8 Horry 85,100 41,300 48.5 38,200 3,100 7.5 Jasper 12,900 4,970 38.5 4,450 520 10.5 Zone total 589,200 217,900 37.0 200,610 17,290 7.9 State total 2,818,000 1,180,000 41.9 1,077,000 103,000 8.7 a Reported by place of residence. Total employment includes agricultural workers and non-agricultural self- employed, unpaid family and domestic workers. SOURCE: South Carolina Statistical Abstract, 1976, S. C. Division of Research and Statistical Services, Co- lumbia, S. C., p. 63. Labor and Proprietors' Income by Industry Group, Three Economic Areas of South Carolina Coastal Zone, 1975" Industry Low Country Greater Charleston Waccamaw Coastal Zone State Group ..- Amount Percent- Amount- Perear Afli-rat P~Eeeuf Almount Percent Amount Percent (- Thousands of Dollars--- -) (Millions) Farm $ 11,587 3.2S 12,843 0.9 S 46,892 11.3$ 71,322 3.3 325.6 3.2 Manufact. 29,024 8.1 167,214 12.2 95,767 23.1 292,005 13.6 3,193.8 31.9 Construction 15,950 4.4 90,655 6.6 19,877b 4.8 126,482b 5.9 634.4 6.3 Mining - - - - - - 20.1 0.2 Trade 31,826 8.8 193,576 14.2 65,757 15.8 291,159 13.6 1,424.0 14.2 Fin., Ins. & Real Estate 21,600 6.0 46,913c 3.4 12,707 3.1 78,220e 3.7 401.2 4.0 Transportation & Pub. Utl. 9,406 2.6 76,995 5.6 12,058 2.9 98,459 4.6 510.7 5.1 Services 36,688 10.2 168,739 12.4 66,280 16.0 271,707 12.7 1,211.5 12.1 Other Ind. -- - -- - 7,749 1.9 -- - 33.2 0.3 Government 199,881 55.5 601,599 44.0 85,262 20.5 886,742 41.4 2,271.1 22.6 Fed. Civil. 23,656 6.6 241,537 17.7 11,195 2.7 276,388 12.9 461.7 4.6 Fed. Milit. 49,480 41.5 204,378 15.0 36,359 8.7 390,217 18.2 696.1 6.9 St. & Local 26,745 7.4 155,684 11.4 37,708 9.1 220,137 10.3 1,113.3 11.1 Total $359,981 $1,365,902 $415,299 $2,141,182 $10,025.7 Fed % 48.1 32.7 11.4 31.1 11.5 a Reported by place of work. b Includes $2.4 million allocated to Georgetown. Includes $2.0 million allocated to Berkeley and Dorchester counties. SOURCE: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Com- merce, Special Tabulation. 1-37 labor force participation. Horry County, with a labor force participation rate of 41.9 percent, exceeded the South Carolina rate by 40.5 percent. None of the other six coastal counties had as much as 39.0 percent of the population in the civilian labor force. Income Income produced in South Carolina's coastal zone in 1975 was $2.14 billion, which was 21.4 percent of the total produced in the State. The percentage increase from 1970 to 1975 (not adjusted for inflation) was somewhat higher for the coastal zone (61.7) than for the State (56.2) or the nation (55.0). Although these figures are in part a reflection of the relatively low levels of development in the coastal zone prior to 1970, they do demonstrate that the coastal zone economy is healthy. The amounts and relative importance of income from farms, private non-farm enterprise and activities, and from government are summarized in Table D-1 for the State as well as the coastal zone and its three major regions. A comparison of the income data in Table D-1 with the employment data in Table D-3 reveals that in the coastal zone, incomes per worker are much higher in government work that in the private sector of the economy. The relative importance of government as a source of income is probably due to the large proportion of federal, as opposed to State or local, employers. (See Table D-6.) It also is a reflection of the seasonal and/or irregular nature of many recreation and tourism-related jobs. A third factor contributing to the relative impor- tance of government employment is the low wage rate of many jobs in the private sector of the coastal zone. A more detailed breakdown of the sources of income in the State, the coastal zone and its three major regions is presented in Table D-6. Except for the government-related distortion discussed above, industry groups in the coastal zone are similar in importance as employment and income sources. One major exception is wholesale and retail trade, which is less important as a source of income than as a source of employment. Presumably, this reflects the low wage structure of retail trade and the seasonality of some coastal zone enter- prises. The employment and income data presented in Tables D-1, D-3, and D-6 are based on the worker's place of employment, rather than-place -of-rsidence.-Suchtdata-may bea poor indication of the incomnne and welfare of the residents of a particular county or area. This is true because workers commute across county lines to work, and because personal income includes income from capital and land (dividends, interest and rent) and "transfer payments" such as pensions, annuities (including Social Security) and welfare payments. All of these adjustments were made to produce the personal income data of Table D-7. The State average per capita income was 84.3 percent of the national average of $5,460 reported by the Department of Commerce -in the-Statistical Abstract-of-the United States,- and the-ratio -for-the- coastal zone was approximately the same. For the various counties, the per capita incomes in 1976 were the following percentages of the U.S. average: Low Country: Beaufort 118.7%0 Colleton 66.3%o Jasper 58.4% Greater Charleston: Berkeley 68.0*% Charleston 90.1 So Dorchester 76.7/0% Waccamaw: Georgetown 75.1%0 Horry 85.0% When a large proportion of the total income goes to a relatively small percentage of the total population, the average income per person or per family is a poor indication of the welfare of most of the people. A much better indicator is the median family income, the amount which is midway between the lowest and highest in- comes in the county. In 1969 (the most recent year for which such data are available) Beaufort County, with the highest average income per capita in the State, ranked only fourth among the eight coastal counties and twenty-sixth among the State's forty-six counties in median family income. For median family income of Black families, Beaufort County ranked thirty-sixth in the State and fourth in the coastal zone. Thus, it is ap- parent that Beaufort County's unusually high per capita income is concentrated within a small segment of the population and cannot be viewed as typical. 1-38 TABLE D-7 Personal Incomea of Residents of South Carolina Coastal Zone, by Economic Area & Major Source of Income, 1975 Low Country Greater Charleston Waccamaw Coastal Zone State Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent - Thousands of Dollars- --------------) (Millions) Labor & Proprietors 361,108 73.8 1,299,387 75.6 391,568 71.2 2,052,063 74.4 $ 9,622.4 74.0 Div., Int. & Rent 63,350 13.0 182,560 10.6 75,788 13.8 321,698 11.7 1,502.5 11.5 Transfer Payments 64,657 13.2 236,385 13.8 82,693 15.0 383,735 13.9 1,881.4 14.5 Total 489,115 100.0 1,718,332 100.0 550,049 100.0 2,757,496 100.0 13,006.3 100.0 Population 94,700 371,600 122,900 589,200 2,818,200 Income Per Capita $ 5,165 $ 4,624 S 4,476 S 4,680 S 4,615 Percent of U.S. 94.6 84.7 82.0 85.7 84.5 a Reported by county of residence. SOURCE: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Special Tabulation. 1-39 FOOTNOTES 1. From the Charleston Air Force Base International Airport Yearly Report, 1976, compiled by the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission. 2. From the 1977 South Carolina Statistical Abstract, South Carolina Budget and Control Board. Prepared by the Division of Research and Statistical Services. 3. South Carolina Division of Research and Statistical Services, Report to the State Budget and Control Board, December 15, 1977, p. 4. 4. These data were obtained from the S. C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service in cooperation with the Department of Argicultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University. 5. These data were compiled by the Forestry Department of Clemson University. 6. Theiling, Dale, Catch and Effort Data for Commercial Fisheries in South Carolina, prepared for the Na- tional Marine Fisheries Service, January 4, 1978. 7. Data obtained from a 1977 report by Da-vid M. Cupka, Marine Resources Division, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, S. C. 8. From data compiled by the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. 9. Ibid. 10. Economic Report of the State of South Carolina, prepared by the State Budget and Control Board, August, 1977, p. 23. 11. Division of Research and Statistical Services, Report to the State Budget and Control Board, February 16, 1978, p. 2. 1-40 E. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS The coastal zone contains approximately one-fifth of the population of South Carolina. Table E-lI sum- marizes population data for the eight coastal counties, the coastal zone, and the State for census years 1960 and 1970, with provisional data for 1976. In 1960 the population of the coastal zone was 19.6 percent of the total population of the State, but by 1976, the coastal zone's share of the State population had risen to 21.2 percent. -Fully 75 percent of this increase took place within the Charleston Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. In 1975 the Charleston SMSA (comprised of Berkeley, Dorchester, and Charleston Counties) had a slightly larger population than the mid-state Columbia SMSA, but a substantially smaller population than the Greenville-Spartanburg SMSA, located in the northwestern part of the State. The Charleston SMSA ranked 97th among the nation's 159 "large" Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (populations, of 200,000 or more) listed in the 1977 Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1) Trends As is evident from Table Ed1, the population of Charleston County itself increased very little relative to that of Berkeley and Dorchester counties, which showed increases of 44.9 percent and 25.2 percent respective- ly for the six year period. Horry County also showed a relatively large percentage of growth during this period (23.5 percent). In fact, only Charleston and Colleton counties were below the State as a whole in their percen- tage of population increase between 1970 and 1976. Figure E-1 illustrates the changes in coastal county population relative to that of other areas of the State. 2) Age Structure Table E-2 summarizes the age structure of the coastal counties based on the most recent (1970) census data available. Since the Census of Population counts people where they are living at the time of the census rather than where they make their per-manerit--residence,- the.-presence of -large- groups- -of -military- -personnel -and/or college students can noticeably distort the age distribution of the population. Thus, Beaufort County's unusually high percentage of eighteen to -twenty- year olds (I15.9 %) can beF explained by the basic training facilities at Parris Island, which process large numbers of young adults.- The-Ship Yard-and other -U.S.. Navy-~ facilities in Charleston, on the other hand, include a larger percentage of mature adults. Like Beaufort Coun- ty, Charleston County has a relatively high percentage of young adults (eighteen to twenty year olds). This is probably explained by the presence of the Medical University, the College of Charleston, Baptist College and the Citadel, all of which are located in Charleston County. 3) Sex-Race Distribution Sex and racial distributions are presented in Table E-3. In 1970 the total State population of 2,590,516 in- cluded only 7,045 individuals who were not classified as either White or Black. Therefore, the term "Blacks" may appropriately be used to refer to the non-white population of the coastal zone and of South Carolina. The male/female distribution within the coastal zone is, by and large, typical of the State as a whole. The only exception is the unusually high percentage of White males in Beaufort County, which is probably a result of Marine and Navy training facilities located there. 4) Geographical Distribution Details of the geographical distribution of South Carolina's population are presented in Table E-4. In 1970 only Charleston and Beaufort Counties had an urban population greater than the State average of 47.6 per- cent, although Berkeley County was close, with 45.8 percent of its population classified as urban. Since Table E-4 is based on 1970 data, it does not take into account the recent population growth in Berkeley and Dor- chester Counties; the present urban/rural ratios would undoubtedly be quite different from the 1970 data. This holds true for the population figures in Table E-4. The populations of Berkeley, Dorchester and Horry Counties, in particular, have increased dramatically since 1970, causing concomitant increases in the popula- tion per square mile. 1-41 5) Housing The housing characteristics presented in Table E-5 reveal that in all but Charleston and I-orry Counties, the population per occupied dwelling unit exceeds the State's mean. With the exception of Georgetown, Jasper and Colleton Counties, the median value for owner-occupied dwelling units exceeded the State average. As is to be expected, the values for Jasper and Colleton counties are considerably lower than for the rest of the coastal zone, due to their rural character and relatively low per capita incomes. 6) Education A final aspect of interest is the quantity and quality of education available to residents of the coastal zone. Table E-6 presents data on the number of schools in each county, total enrollment (excluding kindergarten), and the median school years completed by persons twenty-five years of age or older. Unfortunately, the last category is based on 1970 census data and, as a result, is not strictly comparable with the rest of Table E-6., However, it does call attention to a serious disparity between the levels of education attained by blacks and whites in the coastal zone. While the gap between the two groups may have narrowed since 1970, it has not disappeared and is deserving of attention. [-42 TABLE E-1 Coastal County Population 1960, 1970 and 1976- ( l g 7 6 - -)1976- 1960 1970 Percent of Percent of Percent change County Number Number Number Coastal Zone State in population population population 1970-1976 Jasper 12,237 11,885 13,800 2.3 0.5 16.3 Beaufort 44,187 51,136 58,400 9.7 2.1 14.3 Colleton 27,816 27,622 29,200 4.8 1.0 5.3 Dorchester 24,383 32,276 46,800 7.8 1.6 44.9 Berkeley 38,196 56,199 70,400 11.7 2.5 25.2 Charleston 216,382 247,650 260,200 43.1 9.1 5.1 Georgetown 34,798 33,500 38,000 6.3 1.3 13.3 Horry 68,247 69,992 86,400 14.3 3.0 23.5 Coastal Zone 466,246 530,260 603,200 100.0 21.2 13.8 South Carolina 2,382,594 2,590,516 2,848,000 -- 100.0 9.9 a Provisional data. SOURCE: South Carolina Statistical Abstract (1977), pages 10, 12. TABLE E-2 ' Coastal County Population by Age April 1, 1970 County Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Number under 5 yrs. 5-13 yrs. 14-17 yrs. 18-20 yrs. 21-44 yrs. 45-64 yrs. over 65 Jasper 11,885 9.6 21.7 10.3 5.0 24.8 20.1 8.5 Beaufort 51,136 9.4 17.8 9.3 15.9 31.3 11.9 4.5 Colleton 27,622 9.4 20.5 9.6 5.0 25.9 20.2 ' 9.3 Dorchester 32,276 9.9 22.3 9.3 4.5 30.4 17.5 6.1 Berkeley 56,199 11.8 24.8 9.1 4.8 31.6 13.8 4.1 Charleston 247,650 9.3 19.5 8.2 6.8 34.0 16.7 5.5 Georgetown 33,500 9.8 22.2 10.9 5.4 25.9 18.9 6.9 Horry 69,992 9.1 19.8 9.2 5.7 30.2 18.9 7.1 South Carolina 2,590,516 9.1 19.1 8.7 37.0 37.0 16.3 6.3 SOURCE: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census of Population, 1970. TABLE E-3 Coastal County Population by Race and Sex April 1, 1978 County All Racesa White Black Total # Male % Female % Total o Male 07 Female No Total %70 Male % Female 70 Jasper 11,885 48.6 51.4 42.9 21.2 21.7 57.1 27.4 29.7 Beaufort 51,136 57.7 42.3 66.2 40.2 26.1 32.9 77.1 15.8 Colleton 27,622 48.3 51.7 52.8 25.6 27.3 46.8 22.5 24.3 Dorchester 32,276 48.9 51.1 64.4 31.8 32.5 35.1 16.8 18.3 Berkeley 56,199 49.2 50.8 69.5 34.5 35.0 29.7 14.5 15.5 Charleston 247,650 51.2 48.8 68.0 36.0 32.0 31.4 15.0 16.5 Georgetown 33,500 48.4 51.6 51.5 25.4 26.1 48.4 22.9 25.4 Horry 69,992 49.2 50.8 75.0 37.0 38.0 24.9 12.1 12.8 South Carolina 2,590,516 49.1 50.9 69.3 34.4 34.9 30.5 14.5 15.9 a "All races" includes 7,045 persons not classified as White or Black. SOURCE: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census of Population. 1-43 TABLE E-4 Coastal County Resident Population Rural and Urban, April, 1978 Total Population URBAN RURAL County Population per sq. mi. Number Percenta Number Percenta Jasper 11,885 18.2 -- - 11,885 100.0 Beaufort 51,136 88.3 25,657 50.1 25,479 49.8 Colleton 27,662 26.3 6,257 22.7 21,365 77.4 Dorchester 32,267 56.7 3,839 11.9 28,437 88.1 Berkeley 56,199 50.6 25,745 45.8 30,454 54.2 Charleston 247,650 263.7 202,654 81.8 44,996 18.2 Georgetown 33,500 41.3 13,280 39.6 20,220 60.4 Horry 69,992 60.7 20,551 29.4 49,441 70.6 South Carolina 2,590,516 85.7 1,232,195 47.6 1,358,321 52.4 a Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. SOURCE: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census of Population, 1970. TABLE E-5 Coastal County Housing Characteristics 1970 (- Occupied Housing Units- ) Total ( -Owner Occupied -) (-Renter Occupied -) County _ Year Round Noof_.Units._ MediaenValue_ N. o ofUnits_ ..Median . _opp. per -. Vacant Housing (Dollars) Contract Rent occupied year round Units (Dollars) unit housing Jasper 3,660 2,229 7,600 1,053 30 3.6 378 Beaufort 13,854 7,077 14,100 4,896 91 3.5 1,881 Colleton 8,537 5,547 9,300 2,229 30 3.5 761 Dorchester 9,718 6,657 13,600 2,116 59 3.6 945 Bereley 16,165 10,362 4,400 4,178 90 3.8 1,625 Charleston 75,882 39,330 16,400 28,773 71 3.4 7,779 Georgetown 10,306 6,265 11,100 2,497 38 3.8 1,544 Horry 24,259 12,336 14,300 7,675 59 3.4 4,218 South Carolina 17,495a 10,553a 13,000 5,412a 50 3.4 1,530a a Average for all 46 South Carolina Counties. SOURCE: U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population and Housing. 1-44 TABLE E-6 Coastal County Education County Public Schoolsa Private Schools" Median School Years Completedb Number Enrollment Number Enrollment All Races White Black Jasper 4 3,080 2 474 8.5 10.6 6.2 Beaufort 19 9,562 6 1,104 12.0 12.5 7.5 Colleton 17 6,445 3 900 9.3 10.6 6.8 Dorchester 16 11,435 4 810 11.1 12.2 6.9 Berkeley 28 20,515 5 708 10.7 11.9 6.8 Charleston 84 52,265 28 7,577 12.0 12.3 8.2 Georgetown 20 9,127 6 918 9.2 10.8 6.3 Horry 38 18,819 4 702 10.4 11.1 7.3 South Carolina 1,168 620,003 197c 44,111 10.5 11.4 7.6 0 1975 - 1976 scheduled year. b by persons 25 years or older, based on 1970 census data. Those private schools from which reports were not received are not included. SOURCES: S. C. Department of Education, Annual Report of the State Superintendant of Education, 1976; U. S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census of Population, 1970. 1-45 FIGURE E-1 PERCENT CHANGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY POPULATION APRIL 1, 1970 TO JULY 1, 1976 (PROVISIONAL) ON LANCA CHEST7Lo- MALRL- a~ '~,:~- ' ":_ � 20%o and more K 10o through 19.9%o .: 5 70 through 9.907o ' ' 0 % through 4.9%0 ' A- _- Negative or none Source: South Carolina Statistical Abstract, 1977. 1-46 - F. COASTAL LAND USE All of the Coastal counties are beginning to develop comprehensive land-use plans. However, at the pre- sent time, existing land uses are of far greater importance than projected land uses, for in many cases they define the limits within which planning must occur. Land use in the coastal zone will be discussed in terms of the three regional planning districts - Lowcountry, Waccamaw and Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester. Unfor- tunately, land-use categories are not strictly comparable for the three regions; therefore, care must be exer- cised in interpreting the land-use tables in this section. Low Country Region Land use in the Lowcountry (Beaufort, Colleton and Jasper counties), perhaps more than in any other region, has been shaped by the natural setting. Because much of the region's land is covered by marsh or dense forest, development of any kind is precluded. Added to this constraint is the fact that the region is criss- crossed by waterways, making transportation difficult. Thus, only agricultural enterprises (particularly timber farming) have been possible until very recently, when improved accessibility made economic development possible. Agriculture Approximately three-fourths of the land in the Lowcountry region of the coastal zone is devoted to agricultural uses. Over 70% of the land in Colleton and Jasper counties is timberland, and even Beaufort County, the most developed of the three, has over 40% forested land. Because of the extensive development of forestry, a number of related businesses have located in the vicinity. Agricultural development depends to a large degree on factors such as soil conditions, topography and drainage, as well as transportation. Unfor- tunately, some areas which are suitable for agricultural development are also prime sites for urbanization, leading to potential conflicts between interest groups. Residential The Lowcountry region is characterized. by a large number of municipalities with very small populations. In fact, with the exception of three, all of the region's municipalities had populations under 2,500 in 1970. Port Royal's 1970 population was 2,865, while Walterboro and Beaufort are considerably larger, with 1970 populations of 6,257 and 9,434 respectively. The Beaufort-Port Royal area is the largest industrial-population center in the region and has the greatest potential for future growth. Walterboro is also a potential center for rapid growth, as is Bluffton. Bluffton's potential, however, is dependent upon the ultimate development of the Victoria Bluff area as a deep water port. (The Victoria Bluff site has been called "the last natural deep water port on the east coast," but because of its extraordinary beauty it is also a prime site for preservation.) The completion of 1-95 had opened the way for tourist-related development in the towns of Ridgeland, Hardeeville and Yemassee, although whether this actually occurs remains to be seen. Commercial and Industrial Because of the importance of agricultural and forestry-related ventures, commercial and industrial development is limited. What little there is occurs primarily on the outskirts of the urban centers of Beaufort- Port Royal and Walterboro. Urban development related to the tourist industry has grown rapidly on several of the sea islands in recent years. Hilton Head and, to a lesser degree, Fripp Island are becoming prominent resort areas. The Port Royal Sound area had been designated as the Growth Center for the Lowcountry region, mean- ing that it will be the focal point for economic stimulus in the area. Thus, the Port Royal Sound area should provide new jobs and better services - commercial, industrial, educational and public. The city of Beaufort is at the hub of this activity, having the necessary population and services required by business. In the past four years, nine firms have located within the Growth Center, creating 500 new jobs. (The source of this informa- tion is The Lowcountry Overall Economic Development Program Update: 1976-1980, prepared by the Low- Country Council of Governments.) 1-47 Public and Semi-Public The Lowcountry region has a great deal of public and semi-public land in three major categories: military, water and wetlands, and recreation, open-space and historic areas. All three of the area's military installations are in Beaufort County. They are the Parris Island Marine Base, the U.S. Marine Air Station and the U.S. Naval Hospital in the City of Beaufort. Although the Hospital has a negligible effect on land use patterns, the remaining two installations are significant land users. While only 8.5% of Colleton and 8.8% of Jasper county consist of wetlands, Beaufort county's wetlands cover 36.1 70 of the total land area. Obviously then, wetlands are a significant factor in development, especial- ly in Beaufort County. Because they are extremely sensitive to disruption from development and attendant pollution, wetlands require special planning and preservation efforts so that their ecological, aesthetic and recreational values remain unimpaired. The final category of public lands is a large and diverse one, encompassing recreation, open space, and historic sites. Many of the latter are centered around the Beaufort and Port Royal areas since that is where some of the earliest colonization took place. Beaufort boasts a specific district, Historic Beaufort, designed to protect sites of special historic significance within the city. Open spaces within the region are extensive, due to the vast expanses of wetlands, timberland and land in agricultural production. Many large private land holdings have been designated as wildlife refuges or game management areas, adding to the quality as well as quantity of open space. There are two state parks in the region: Hunting Island State Park in Beaufort County and the Colleton Wayside State Park in Colleton County. In addition, the James Webb Wildlife Refuge and the Savannah River Wildlife Refuge in Jasper County are publicly owned. Nearly thirty public boat landings and a number of privately owned concerns augment the recreation potential of the area. TABLE F-1 1977 Existing Land Use Inventory by County Low Country Region (In acres) Percent Percent Percent Beaufort of Total Colleton of Total Jasper of Total Residential 20,160 5.4 07 9,734 1.4 07o 5,326 12.7 70 Commercial 602 .16%o 1,670 19555 .37%7 Industrial 798 .21 %70 576 .09%0 403 .10%0 Forestry 139,787 37.2 % 466,757 69.5 �70 311,544 74.7 7o Agriculture 54,993 14.6 070 125,150 18.6 70 48,599 11.6 %70 Public 21,160 5.6 70 8,128 1.2 �7 9,535 2.3 �7o Wetlands 135,816 36.1 % 56,893 8.5 %o 36,673 8.8 �7% Water 2,260 .60%o 3,029 .457o 3,645 .87� TOTAL 375,576 100 T70 671,937 100 0o 417,280 100 70 SOURCE: Lowcountry Council of Governments, 1977. 1-48 Waccamaw Region The Waccamaw region, consisting of Horry and Georgetown Counties, is somewhat more developed than the Lowcountry region, with most development centering around Myrtle Beach and Georgetown. Like the Lowcountry, the Waccamaw region is dependent to a large degree on agriculture and the tourist industry, although there is far more manufacturing activity in this region than in the Lowcountry. (See Table F-2.) Farm, Forest and Undeveloped Land By far the greatest percentage of land in the Waccamaw region is devoted to agricultural and forest uses or is left undeveloped. In Georgetown County approximately 97.6% of all land falls into this category, while in Horry County the fugure is 94%. The greatest portion of this land is devoted to forestry. Georgia Pacific, In- ternational Paper Co., and Westvaco are engaged in profitable timber-producing ventures in the rgion. This land-use category also includes wetlands, which are particularly prevalent along the Waccamaw, Pee Dee and Santee Rivers. Beaches, dunes and vacant land all contribute slightly to the total in this category. TABLE F-2 1977 Existing Land Use Inventory by County Waccamaw Region (In acres) Percent Percent Georgetown of County Horry of County Residential 9,245 2.0 13,956 1.9 Commercial 256 -- 299 -- Industrial 1,803 .35 1,632 .22 Public or Semi-Public- 1,022 .20 5,786 .78 Agricultural or Undeveloped 502,103 97.0 695,467 94.2 TOTAL 519,680 100.0 738,560 100.0 SOURCE: Waccamaw Regional Planning - Development Council, 1977. Residential There are nine incorporated areas within the Waccamaw region, although most are small. All but three have (1975 estimated) populations of less than 3,000, and even the "large" cities are relatively small. Georgetown, with a population of 11,200, is the largest, followed by Myrtle Beach (10,370) and Conway (9,845) in Horry County. Conway, termed the "gateway to the Grand Strand," benefits greatly from its loca- tion on major thoroughfares and from the beach-bound tourist traffic which stops there. Georgetown is the county seat of Georgetown County and is also important as an industrial and historical site. Myrtle Beach is the focal point of the Grand Strand and is, in addition, one of the primary tourist centers in the Southeastern United States. The majority of residential development consists of single-family units, although some condominium and apartment development has occurred. In addition, a number of mobile homes, most of which are on in- dividual lots, are found in the region. The Grand Strand area, predictably, has a great deal of seasonal hous- ing. Residential development in Georgetown and Horry counties is limited by a number of physical factors such as the large quantity of fresh and salt water present, poor drainage, and soil which is unsuited for building foundations. Because of the drainage problems, septic tank use is curtailed; sewage treatment facilities are limited in rural areas, and as a result, housing construction is slowed. 1-49 Commercial - Industrial There is very little commercial development per se in the Waccamaw region; in fact, "commercial" is the smallest category of developed land. With several exceptions'(notably Myrtle Beach) commercial activity is widely scattered so as to serve the widely scattered population of the region. Neighborhoodstores and highway related development make up the bulk of all commercial centers. Industrial development is not only more prevalent, but more concentrated. It represents the third largest land-use category in the Waccamaw region, yet is confined almost entirely to the city of Georgetown and environs. Such a situation results from the availability of adequate water and sewage facilities, public utilities, and rail and highway transportation systems. Public and Semi-Public As is the case in the rest of the coastal zone, much of the public and semi-public land in the Waccamaw region is devoted to recreation. In Georgetown County the public is served by Brookgreen Gardens and Hun- tington Beach State Park as well as by a number of public boat landings and community recreational facilities. There are also a number of wildlife preserves and state game management areas. Finally, private facilities open to the public include Brown's Ferry Park, Rocky Point Park, and various golf courses. Horry County also has a number of golf courses, most of which are in the Grand Strand area. Myrtle Beach State Park is also located in Horry County. Public and Semi-public lands also include church-owned land and educational facilities. Churches and cemetaries make up the bulk of non-recreational public land in Horry County, followed by local parks, clubs and schools. Coastal Carolina College and Horry-Georgetown TEC are significant facilities in the Waccamaw region as they generate secondary commercial and residential development in addition to providing educa- tional opportunities. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Region Of the three major divisions in the coastal zone, the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester region is the most highly developed. The-peninsularportion-of thecity-ofCharleston is almost totally developed-and is the focal point of the region for government, health, education, financial, legal, commercial and cultural activities. The tri-county area is anticipating rapid growth in the coming years, making land-use planning an essential task of local government. Agriculture and Resource Production Nearly three out of every four acres in Charleston County are devoted to resource production, mainly in the form of forests or marshland. A great deal of this land lies within the Francis Marion National Forest. Dorchester County also has a large amount of marsh (25%o of the total land area) and forestland, as well as a greater proportion of farmland than Charleston County. Most of the farms in Dorchester County are located in the northern half of the county, which is still predominantly rural. Berkeley County has less land available for development than either Charleston or Dorchester counties - nearly 45% of the total land area is covered by water, wetlands, or National Forest. 13.2/0 of the county's land area is devoted to agricultural uses, which have long been the economic mainstay of the area. Primary products include tobacco, cotton, corn, soybeans, timber, livestock and dairy products. As is the case in the rest of the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester region, farms are becoming larger and fewer in number while the value of both investments and products sold is in- creasing. Residential As in the rest of the coastal zone, construction in the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester area is limited by soil type and drainage. Residential development accounts for approximately 35%7 of all developed land in Charleston County, 30.2%70 in Dorchester and 25.0%7 in Berkeley County. Berkeley County residential development is centered around the Goose Creek and Hanahan areas, with some growth in and around Mon- cks Corner. Resort areas at Lakes Marion and Moultrie have attracted a large number of mobile home parks. Residential development in Dorchester County centers around Summerville, is largely suburban in character and generally blends into the Greater Charleston area. Greater Charleston, of course, is the major population 1-50 center in the region. In addition to the cities of Charleston and North Charleston, significant population centers are located in resort developments on some of the neighboring sea islands. Commercial and Industrial The center of industrial development in the region is located along the deep water channels of the Cooper River on the Charleston peninsula. North Charleston is the largest employment source in the industrial area. In all, industrial/manufacturing, transportation, communication and utilities, and trade and services make up 4.6% of Charleston County's total land area. The corresponding figure for Dorchester County is 2.8%, while in Berkeley it is only 1.9%. Commercial uses in Berkeley County are concentrated in the Goose Creek, Hanahan and Moncks Corner vicinities, while industry is more scattered. Industrial usage in Dorchester Coun- ty, on the other hand, is concentrated in the northwest portion of Summerville; comercial and service activities are also concentrated primarily in Summerville and St. George. In all cases, commercial activity tends to follow transportation corridors. Public and Semi-Public Federal, State, municipal and county government entities own approximately 22% of all Charleston Coun- ty land. This unusually high total can be explained by the presence of the Francis Marion National Forest, the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, State-managed Capers Island and the Santee Coastal Reserve, military installations, a number of educational facilities including the College of Charleston, The Citadel, and the Medical University, and, finally, the States Ports Authority property. Both Berkeley and Dorchester counties lack a sufficient number of recreational facilities, particularly in rapidly growing urban areas. Thus, Dorchester County's .8�% and Berkeley County's .3% of public and semi- piblic properties consist largely of schools, churches, libraries and the like. Berkeley County has a great deal of federally-owned land, some of which is as yet undeveloped. TABLE F-3 1974 Existing Land Use - Berkeley County DEVELOPED LAND Percentage Percentage of Land Use Acreage of County Developed Land Area Residential 8,957.4 1.27 24.75 Commercial 694.2 0.10 1.92 Industrial 3,395.7 0.48 9.38 Public & Semi-Public 2,116.1 0.30 5.85 U.S. Government 12,250.0 1.74 33.85 Transportation 8,775.6 1.25 24.25 100.00 UNDEVELOPED LAND Percentage Percentage of Land Use Acreage of County Developed Land Area Agricultural 92,811.0 13.18 X Marshes & Swamps 107,700.0 15.30 X National Forests 143,500.0 20.38 X Water Bodies 66,300.0 9.42 X Vacant 257,500.0 36.58 X 704,000.0 100.00 SOURCE: Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council. Based upon field survey, 1974, and resulting Existing Land Use Maps. 1-51 TABLE F-4 1974 Existing Land Use - Charleston County Type of Use Acres % of County Productive Land 514,300 77.8 Vacant Land 86,200 13.0 In-Land Water 60,200 9.1 Total 660,700 100.0 Productive Land 514,300 77.8 Developed 66,700 10.0 Resource Production 447,600 67.7 Developed Land 66,700 10.1 Residential 23,800 3.6 Industrial/Manufacturing 1,800 0.3 Trans., Comm. & Utilities 14,200 2.1 Trade & Services 14,400 2.2 Social & Cultural 12,500 1.9 Resource Production 447,600 67.7 Land Area 301,700 45.6 Marsh 145,900 22.1 SOURCE: Land Use Survey and Analysis, Charleston County, S.C., BCDRPC, 1975. TABLE F-5 1974 Existing Land Use - Dorchester County Percentage Percentage of Land Use Acreage of County Developed Land Area Developed Land Residential 5,719.0 1.57 30.23 Commercial 473.0 0.14 2.50 Industrial 818.7 0.22 4.33 Public & Semi-Public 2,876.0 0.80 15.20 Transportation 9,030.0 2.48 47.74 Undeveloped Land Marshes and Swamps 91,986.4 25.26 -- Agriculture 65,050.0 17.86 -- Vacant 188,186.9 51.67 -- 364,140.0 100.0 100.0 SOURCE: Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council. Based upon field survey, 1974, and resulting Existing Land Use Maps. 1-52 chapter I I coastal planning process - A. THE SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT "An Act To Establish The South Carolina Coastal Council And Provide For Its Powers And Duties For The Protection And Improvement Of Coastal Tidelands And Wetlands Under A Coastal Zone Management Plan; Provide For Enforcement Of Policies Of The Council And Penalties For Violations; And Authorize Legal Proceedings For The Determination Of Tidelands Properties." (Act 123 of the 1977 South Carolina General Assembly.) Introduction This is the title to South Carolina's coastal management law. The Coastal Management Act recognizes the value, variety and richness of South Carolina's coastal resources and, at the same time, the diversity of uses and demands that may threaten these resources. The need for a State effort to manage the wise conservation and use of these valuable resources of the coastal zone is the major finding of the General Assembly and sets the stage for the management program outlined in the Act. Specific policies and directives to guide implementation of the management program are based on one general policy, that being "to protect the quality of the coastal environment and to promote the economic and social improvement of the coastal zone and of all the people of the State. " (� 2(A)) In general, the policies call for the development of coastal resources in a planned and environmentally-sensitive manner through im- plementation of a comprehensive tidelands protection program and through coordination of comprehensive programs of other levels of government (municipalities, counties, regional agencies, other State agencies, and Federal agencies). In the following discussion, the basic provisions of the S.C. Coastal Management Act are explained. S.C. Coastal Council The S.C. legislature created the South Carolina Coastal Council to implement the Coastal Management Act and to initiate the coastal management effort for the people of the State. The Council is composed of eigh- teen members. Eight are chosen by the goerning bodies of the eight counties which comprise the coastal zone, each county having one representative. Six members are chosen from the six congressional districts of the State by the members of the General Assembly who represent those districts, each district having one chosen by the Senate Fish, Game and Forestry Committee and one appointed by the President of the Senate, and two members of the House of Representative, appointed by the Speaker of the House, are the ex-officio members. Council members serve four-year terms, except for the ex-officio or legislative members, whose terms are coterminous with their terms as members of the General Assembly. The Coastal Council is granted a variety of powers and duties to enable formulation and implementation of a comprehensive coastal management program. The employment of a staff, including professionals in ad- ministration, biology, planning, civil and hydrological engineering, environmental law and environmental engineering, is the first basic power. The Council may apply for, accept and spend money from public and private sources to support activities undertaken to implement the Coastal Management Act and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Rules and regulations may be promulgated by the Council to carry out the provisions of the State Act. The Council has the duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of the Act and its own rules and regulations through orders or by seeking enforcement through the courts. Other duties include serving as the coordinating State agency for any program of tidal surveying conducted by the federal government and coordinating the efforts of all public and private agencies engaged in making tidal surveys of the coastal zone. The Council also is directed to encourage and promote the cooperation and assistance of State agencies, regional councils of government, local governments, Federal agencies and other interested persons. Additional specific powers and duties are granted to the Council to carry out the manage- ment program and permit program. The Coastal Management Program The Coastal Management Act outlines the essential elements of a coastal management program based on comprehensive planning and coordination of existing resource management and regulatory programs. The TII- State legislation requires that the Council hold public hearings or community forums and afford participation in the development of the management program to all interested citizens, local governments and relevant State and Federal agencies. The cooperation of State and local agencies in the administration and enforcement of the Act is also mandated. The scope of the coastal management program and of the Coastal Council's authority is based on defini- tions of the geopgraphic areas and specific resources which must be considered in development of this pro- gram. Two types of management authority are granted in two specific areas of the State. The Council has direct control through a permit program over critical areas, which are defined as coastal waters, tidelands, beaches and primary ocean-front sand dunes. Direct permitting authority is specfically limited to these critical areas. Indirect management authority of coastal resources is granted to the Council in counties containing one or more of the critical areas. This area is called the coastal zone and consists of the following counties along the South Carolina coast: Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Collecton, Dorchester, Georgetown, Horry and Jasper. The coastal zone includes coastal waters and submerged bottoms seaward to the State's jurisdictional limits, as well as the lands and waters of the eight coastal counties. Upon approval by the General Assembly and the Governor, the management program which is developed as outlined by the Act becomes the final management program for the State. The policies, rules and regula- tions, and other tools of the management program thus become official State policies which will manage the use of the State's coastal resources. Section 7 (A) of the Act requires State and local agencies to exercise their authority in accordance with these policies. The mandate to the Coastal Council includes several specific elements which should be considered in pro- gram development. An inventory and designation of areas of critical State concern, including significant natural and environmental, industrial, port and recreational areas is mentioned. An identification of coastal resources and uses of land in the coastal zone and an evaluation of the quantity, quality and capability for use now and in the future is another element outlined in the Act. The Coastal Council must also consider the use of critical areas for nature-related activities such as aquaculture, mariculture, game and non-game habitat pro- tection projects, endangered flora and fauna protection projects and waterfowl and wading bird management. All of the lands and waters of the coastal zone are to be considered in developing this comprehensive management program. The Council is directed to gather necessary expertise and knowledge of the State's coastal resources, their use, and the effects of their use. The Council must then establish broad guidelines on priority of uses in critical areas and determine present and potential conflicts in the use of coastal resources. The Council must guide resolution of such conflicts through the development of coastal resource policies and criteria. The management program as developed by the Council must provide for the-consideration of the local, regional, State and national interest in the siting of energy, transportation and other public facilities. A review process of the management program that involves local, regional, State and federal agencies and interested citizens must be developed, as well. Specific management authority concerning several resources and activities is granted to the Council by the Coastal Management Act. The Council is directed to manage those estuarine and marine sanctuaries designated by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The Act mandates the establishment, control and administra- tion of pipeline corridors by the Council, and control over the location in critical areas of such piplines used for transporting fuel is also the responsibility of the Council. In coordination with the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, the Coastal Council must monitor the waters of the State for oil spills and report spills to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, the United States Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Council must direct the State clean-up operations of oil spilled in the State's territorial waters in coordination with the Department of Health and Environmental Con- trol. The Department of Health and Environmental Control and the Coastal Council must also work together in the planning and review of existing water quality standards and stream classifications in the coastal zone. An important feature of the management program which is specifically outlined is the development of comprehensive beach erosion control policies. The Act mandates research on the effects of erosion control methods and the dynamic drift systems of sand and sand dunes and identification of critical erosion areas. The Council is granted permit authority for erosion control structures it deems adverse to the public interest. The Act makes the Coastal Council responsible for the management of the State's beach resources and the II1-2 activities which affect those resources. The South Carolina States Ports Authority is directed to develop a management plan for port and harbor facilities and navagation channels. Upon approval of the plan by the Coastal Council, the management plan for the ports of the State will become part of the coastal management program. The plan must include a designation of areas appropriate for use by public and private port and harbor facilities as well as military and naval facilities. In addition to the mandate for State and local agencies to cooperate in the development, administration and enforcement of the Coastal Management Act, the legislation provides a means for local governments to submit local plans and regulations for the critical areas for Council consideration of whether they are consis- tent with the management porgram. The Council may also offer technical assistance and support to local and regional governments in developing local plans and regulations which better manage coastal resources. The Permit Program A fundamental aspect of the coastal management program is the authority granted to the Coastal Council to issue or deny applications for permits for alterations of critical areas. This authority is exclusive to the Coastal Council which is directed to issue rules and regulations to administer the permit process and is man- dated to seek public involvement in the development of these rules and regulations. The general policies declared in the Coastal Management Act serve to guide development of this permit program, and specific con- siderations serve to guide the Council's evaluation of each permit application. The Act requires Council consideration of the effects of proposed alterations to the critical area of the pro- duction of fish, shrimp, oysters, crabs or any marine life or wildlife or other natural resources. The effects on endangered or rare species habitats must also be'considered. The Council must weigh the extent of the effects of proposed alterations on public access to tidal and submerged lands, navigable waters, beaches and ar- cheological sites in the coastal zone. The effects of proposed alterations on the flow of navigable waters and the extent to which erosion, shoaling of channels or areas of stagnant water would occur must be considered by the Council in decisions on permit applications. The extent to which the activity requires a waterfront loca- tion and the extent of the econonicbenefits.asxompared.witlibenefits froem- preservationin a natural state'are other factors to be weighed by the Council. Adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided through reasonable safeguards must be considered in deciding whether or not an alteration will be permitted in the critical areas. The legislation provides applicants or affected parties with a permit appeal process. Direct appeals are made to the Coastal Council. Appeal to the circuit court of the county where the project would be developed is provided as a last resort. The Council is granted authority to issue orders to seek -court action to enforse the rules and regulations and any condition made part of a permit approval. The legislation has authorized the Council or any person adversely affected by any violation of the Act to bring suit in the circuit court of the county where the violation occurs. For such violations that destroy critical areas, the Council may complete restoration of the area and then sue in the appropriate circuit court. Violations of the Act are deemed misdemeanors and are punishable upon conviction of the violation, by imprisonment of not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or both, for the first offense. Imprisonment for one year or a fine of ten thousand dollars, or both, are applicable to each subsequent offense. Determination of Ownership The Coastal Management Act provides persons claiming an ownership interest in tidelands with a process to determine the validity of such claims. A person may institute a court action against the State of South Carolina for the purpose of determining such claims, and ajury trial may be demanded if desired. Nothing contained in the Act shall be construed as changing any rights or interests in any tidelands. The only respon- sibility of the Coastal Council under this provision is to publish the outcome of such suits in the State Register. 11-3 B. THE FEDERAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583) was signed into law in October, 1972, in response to a growing recognition of the importance of and the growth pressure on the coastal zone of the United States. The results of a series of studies on coastal areas and their environment and resources alerted Congress to the need for legislation to promote a comprehensive approach to wise management of these resources. Amendments to the Act in 1976 (P.L. 94-370) substantially expanded and refined the coastal pro- gram. The Congressional findings of this Act begin by stating that, "There is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone." (Section 302(a)) The diversity of coastal zone resources and the increasing pressure from competing demands for their use are also empha- sized. To achieve the national policy of preserving, protecting, developing, and where possible, resotring or enhancing coastal resources (� 303), Congress selected the following approach: The key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states, in cooperation with Federal and local governments and other vitally affected interests, in developing land and water use programs for the coastal zone, including unified policies, criteria, standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land use decisions of more than local significance. (Section 302(h)) The Act authorizes Federal grants-in-aid, administered through the Secretary of Commerce. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) has been delegated the responsibility to guide this program of grants to the coastal states. The Governor of each eligible state (30 states bordering the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes, and four U.S. territories) designates a state agency to take the lead role in developing a coastal ---.porgram. Brmadsdgenera guidedinest thrSfn tinf315 of-the.. Act. Further guidance in development of a coastal program is offered in regulations from OCZM, dated March 1, 1978, (15 CFR Part 923, Federal Register 43 (41), 8378-8432) which explain the procedure for a state to qualify, the policies which must be followed in drafting the state program, and the requirements for a state program to receive approval. During its planning process each state must address certain general items, specified in � 305 of the Act. 1. Identification of coastal zone-boundaries. - 2. Inventory and designation of areas of particular concern. 3. Guidelines on priority of uses in particular areas. 4. Permissible land and water uses that could have direct and significant impact on coastal waters. 5. Management proposals to control these uses. 6. Organizational structure to implement the program. Cooperation and consultation with Federal, state and local units of government, and opportunity for public input are also required. It is significant to note, that while guidelines and certain minimum requirements are provided, OCZM allows flexibility and encourages each state to develop its own approach to meet the needs and coastal resource problems of that particular state. Also, there are no regulatory powers or sanctions associated with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act - it is a voluntary program providing financial assistance to states which choose to participate. Once a state program is completed, it is submitted to OCZM for approval. Upon approval, the state becomes eligible for funding, authorized in Section 306 of the Act, to implement or administer the state coastal program. The requirements which state programs-must meet in order to receive program approval (in other words, the guidelines by which each state effort is reviewed by OCZM) have been revised and issued in final form in March, 1978 (15 CFR 923, Federal Register 43 (41): 8378-8432). In addition to program approval require- 11-4 ments, they include the procedures for submission of the state program, qualification to receive 306 ad- ministrative grants, and policy guidance for administration of the approved program. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act stipulates that Federal activities affecting the coastal zone shall be, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with an approved stateocoastal management program. This provision of Section 307, is referred to as the "Federal consistency" requirement. Sectstate coastal manage- ment program. This provision of Section 307, is referred to as the "Federal consistence" requirement. Section 307 further provides for voluntary mediation guided by the Secretary of Commerce in the event of disagreements between a Federal agency and a state with respect to administration of the state's program. Section 308 of the Act provides for a Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) to provide funding for states, and local governments to deal with the impacts resulting from development of energy resources in the coastal zone. There are several types of Federal funding available under this program: - Formula grants based on specific impacts of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy activity. - Planning grants to study and plan for economic, social and environmental impacts associated with energy facilities. - Loans and bond guarantees to States and local governments to improve public facilities and services needed as a result of energy activity (plus provision for grants if they are unable to meet the loan or bond obligations because the energy activity does not generate sufficient tax revenues). - Grants for mitigating unavoidable loss of environmental or recreational resources. Section 309- enables states to -,obt'ain- granfts,-Wt~ Toriae-td d-molniriutrueusal - management programs. Section 3 10 deals with Federal research programs and grants to states for studies and training that will support coastal management. Finally, Section 315 of the Act authorizes grants for acquisi- tion of lands for access to beaches and other public recreational, environmental or cultural resources; for preservation of islands; and for the estuarine sanctuary program. chapter III i ~ management- of -- coastal resources A. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The policy of the State of South Carolina in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977 is to- protect the quality of the coastal environment and to promote the economic and social im- provement of the coastal zone and of all the people of the state. In an effort to guide the State's coastal management program in keeping with this policy, the following goals and objectives have been developed by the South Carolina Coastal Council: Goal: Development of a management program that will achieve a rational balance between economic develop- ment and environmental conservation of natural resources in the coastal zone of South Carolina. Objectives: 1. To protect and conserve coastal land and water areas of a significant resource value, including those of scientific, geologic, hydrologic and biologic importance. 2. To encourage and assist in research pertaining to coastal natural resource systems and economic and social impacts in order to develop a comprehensive data base to aid in making rational decisions. 3. To protect and sustain the 'unique character of life on the coast that is reflected in its cultural, historical, archeological, and aesthetic values. 4. To promote increased recreational opportunities in coastal areas and increased public access to tidal waters in a manner which protects the quality of coastal resources and public health and safety. 5. To develop and institute a comprehensive beach erosion policy that identifies critical erosion areas, evaluates the long-term costs and benefits of erosion control techniques, seeks to minimize the effects on natural systems (both biological and physical), and avoids damage to life and property. 6. To encourage new coastal development to locate in existing developed areas, capable of accommodating additional growth, and in areas determined to-be more environmentally and economically suitable for develop- ment. 7. To resolve existing use conflicts and minimize potential conflicts among activities through improved coastal management reflecting the public's desires, natural resource capacity, and expected costs and benefits. 8. To encourage new water-dependent activities to locate in shoreline areas where adverse social, economic and environmental impacts can be minimized and to encourage the inland siting of facilities which are not water-dependent. 9. To promote employment of thorough assessments of probable energy benefits, positive and negative economic effects and probable social and environmental impacts as the basis for decisions on development of energy resources; and to ensure that affected local governments obtain sufficient financial and technical assistance to adequately cope with these impacts. 10. To support the wise commercial development of harbors, rivers and waterways for trade and commerce in locations and using methods which maintain the natural environmental integrity of the coastal region. 11. To protect and, where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the State's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations. 12. To develop a coastal program with flexibility for revision and improvement with the evolution of in- created knowledge and experience in managing coastal resources. Goal: To develop a permitting system for activities in critical areas of the coastal zone (beaches, primary sand dunes, tidelands, and coastal waters) that will serve to implement the goals and objectives of the management program and promote the best interests of all citizens of South Carolina. Objectives: 1. To develop and implement a streamlined and simplified permitting system for activities in critical areas which maintains the integrity and purpose of the management program. III-I 2. To include conditions and stipulations in permits for activities approved for critical areas in order to minimize negative impacts on water quality, marine productivity, beach and shoreline stability, and other en- vironmental aspects. 3. To give full consideration to the Rules and Regulations for Permitting, as promulgated by the Coastal Council, in thorough and comprehensive reviews of all permit applications. 4. To specify environmentally suitable methods of design, construction and development in critical areas and assist permit applicants to incorporate these environmentally suitable alternatives in their proposals. Goal: To promote intergovernmental coordination and public participation in the development and implementa- tion of the coastal management program for South Carolina. Objectives: 1. To provide full opportunity for participation by relevant Federal, State, and local government agencies, concerned organizations, and the general public in the development, implementation, and updating of the Coastal Management Program. 2. To increase public awareness and encourage public participation in the development of the Coastal Coun- cil's management program and decisions made pursuant to that program. 3. To strengthen the planning and decision-making capabilities of cities and counties in the coastal zone through provision of financial, technical and other assistance, and provide for coordination of local com- prehensive plans and ordinances with the policies and rules and regulations of the coastal management pro- gram. 4. To promote coordination and use of existing State programs to minimize duplication of efforts, con- flicting actions and permit processing delays, and to achieve coastal management objectives and policies. 5. To provide adequate representation of the interests of the State of South Carolina in Federal agency deci- sions and actions affecting the coastal zone. 111-2 B. COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and the guidelines promulgated thereunder require 4 elements to a state's coastal zone boundary: 1) inland boundary 2) seaward boundary 3) areas excluded from the boundary 4) interstate boundaries (Sections 923.30-923.34, Federal Register, Volume 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978) The South Carolina Coastal Council employs a two-tier approach to management of activities having a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. The "critical areas" will receive more intensive attention through a direct permitting system while the remainder of the coastal zone will be managed through coopera- tion with other State and local agencies. The South Carolina coastal zone is defined in Section 3(B) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977 as. (A)ll coastal waters and submerged lands seaward to the State's jurisdictional limits and all lands and waters in the counties of the State which contain any one or more of the critical areas. These counties are Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Horry, Jasper and Georgetown. The critical areas are defined in Section 3(J) as coastal waters, tidelands, beaches and primary oceanfront sand dunes. The meaning of each of these four terms is detailed in Section 3 of the Act as shown in Appendix With biological field surveys and aerial photography, the Council has found the point on the upper reaches of the estuarine systems where tideland vegetation changes from predominately brackish to predominately fresh and has established a coastal water and tideland boundary using the nearest recognizable physical features within the area. This boundary is graphically depicted on the maps in the Appendices and verbally depicted in Appendix K(30-10) with a further discussion of the basis for its determination in Appendix L. For beaches and sand dune critical areas, the Council employs the definition found in the Act in making a case-by-case determination of the critical area boundary. The seaward boundary of the coastal zone is the State's jurisdictional limits, the three mile outer limit of the United States' territorial sea. The inland boundary is the inland boundary of each of the eight counties having critical areas. These lines are described in-Title- 4, Chapter 3 of -the Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976). Within the South Carolina coastal counties there is considerable Federally controlled land excluded from the coastal zone boundary under Section 304(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The Appendices contain a site-specific map indicating, under current OCZM interpretation, those lands which are "by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal government, its officers or agents and are, as such, to be excluded from the coastal zone." Chapter V, addressing Federal government coordination, provides more specific discussion of Federally excluded lands. The interstate boundaries separating South Carolina from Georgia, on the south, and North Carolina, on the north, a-re described in Section 1-1-10 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976). The State of North Carolina also utilizes the two-tier approach to management, as described in the Final Draft, The North Carolina Coastal Plan (November. 1977). The first tier Areas of Environmental Concern include Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters, Public Trust Areas, Estuarine Shorelines, Ocean Beaches, Frontal Dunes, Ocean Erosion Areas, Inlet Lands, Small Surface Water Supply Watersheds, Public Water Supply Well-Fields and certain Fragile Natural Resource Areas. T.hese areas closely coincide, in scope, with the critical areas. In addi- tion the North Carolina coastal area includes Brunswick County, the'coastal county adjacent to the South Carolina-North Carolina line. Therefore, similar regulatory programs will be employed on either side of the border, and it appears that the North Carolina coastal zone boundary is compatible with that of South Carolina. In Georgia the Coastal Resources Division of the Department of Natural Resources (the Department) is 111-3 charged with developing a statewide coastal management program. At present the Department administers the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act of 1970, an Act which requires permits for alterations in marshlands. Marshlands are statutorily defined by tidal fluctuation as areas below the ordinary high tide line and func- tionally as that point below which ordinary cultivation cannot take place. The jurisdictional scope of the Department for permitting in marshlands is similar in scope to the tidelands and coastal waters critical areas of Council jurisdiction. The State of Georgia has not completed a draft management program. The Department is charged with developing the program, and at present the Department is defining the inland boundary of the coastal zone by rail rights-of-way, highway rights-of-way and county lines. Adjacent to the South Carolina- Georgia line, the Chatham County-Effingham County line is the inland boundary. Chatham County appears to include all areas of direct salt water influence. Although the geographical extent of the Georgia Coastal Zone is less than that of the South Carolina Coastal Zone along the state border, the Council considers the two boundaries to be compatible in coordinating interstate activities. 111-4 C. USES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN 1. CONSIDERATION OF NATIONAL INTEREST Section 306(C) (8) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and Section 923.52 of the coastal zone management development and approval regulations (Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978) require that the national interest receive adequate consideration in planning for and siting of facilities which are necessary to meet requirements more than local in nature. This requirement calls for an identification of the national interest associated with facilities that may be required in the South Carolina coastal zone to meet re- quirements more than local in nature, for an identification of the national interest in the conservation of coastal resources potentially affected by such facilities, and for a description of the process which allows con- sideration of the national interest in the implementation of the coastal management program. In addition, Sec- tion 8 (B) (6) of the South Carolina Management Act requires the Coastal Council to provide for adequate consideration of the national interest in developing and implementing the coastal management program. Section 302 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act states that: (a) There is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone. (b) The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, recreational, ecological, in- dustrial, and esthetic resources of immediate and potential value to the present and future well-being of the Nation. Thus, the primary focus for the consideration of national interest is the balancing between the provision of facilities which are in the national interest and the protection of coastal resources which are also in the national interest. Where the national interest in the consideration of facilities and in resource conservation conflict, the coastal management program resolves the conflict through the policies contained in the Resource Policies (Chapter III, C, 3) and the rules and regulations applicable to the specific facility or associated activity These potential conflicts were considered in the development of the Coastal Council's .policies and-regulations.-. -... - The regulations and policies for-activities in --the -coastal-zone-embody-considerations-of the relative values of resources and their uses in particular ways. With -energy- facilities and other facilities or activities in which there is a national interest, the value of the facility is evaluated in relation to the value of the coastal resources affected by such facilities or activities. The regulations and policies balance these values within the framework of the purpose of the management -program. -C-onsideratior-kof-the-national- interest-for-particular-types-of- -.... facilities and resources is thus reflected in the applicable policies and regulations governing activities associated with such facilities or resources. The identification of facilities and coastal resources which are in the national interest was guided by Federal laws and regulations; executive policy statements; Federal agency studies and reports; interaction be- tween the Coastal Council and staff; interstate agency information and plans; and response to a National Interest-Federal Consistency Questionnaire. The following concerns are considered by South Carolina to be of such long-range, comprehensive impor- tance as to be in the national interest: 1. National Defense 2. Energy Production and Transmission 3. Coastal Resources: a) Significant fish species and habitats b) Threatened wildlife habitats c) Public recreation areas (for example, shoreline access and undisturbed natural areas) d) Drinking water supply e) Historical, cultural and archeological sites f) Barrier islands The process for considering the national interest in program implementation is the direct permitting authority and the review and certification process of the Coastal Council. Applications for facilities or ac- tivities in critical areas are placed on public notice, which Federal agencies also receive. Coastal Council review III-5 of these applications will consider the national interest as reflected in the regulations and policies, and will also consider the comments from the public and from Federal agencies concerning national interests involved in making a decision on the permit application. National interest consideration may also be raised for Coastal Council deliberation by Federal agencies at any time. Such deliberation may result in changes or additions to Coastal Council regulations or policies. Applications for permits from other agencies in the coastal zone are reviewed by the Coastal Council for certification of compliance with the coastal management program. The national interest is considered during this review, and the policies embodying national interest considerations must be complied with by the proposed facility or activity to receive certification. MANAGEMENT FOR FACILITIES AND RESOURCES IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST National Defense All of the Resource Policies (Chapter III, C, 3) of the management program apply to national defense facilities if such facilities are not on federal lands, which are excluded from the program. The Resource Policies of particular interest for national defense are: Transportation a) Ports b) Roads and Highways c) Airports d) Railways -Dredging a) Dredging b) Dredge Material Disposal Energy Production and Transmission The energy facilities and activities which are considered to be in the national interest are all those defined in Section 923.14 (d) of the coastal zone-management-development- and-approval regulations -Federal-Register, -. - - Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978) and include, for example, electric generating plants, petroleum refineries and associated facilities, gasification plants, facilities associated with liquified natural gas, uranium enrichment or nuclear -fuel processing facilities, and oil and gas facilities. The Energy Planning Process (Chapter IV, B) fully discusses the regulatory-authority,--policies-and planning -process-for-facilities and-activities associated with energy production and transmission. Significant Fish Species and Habitats The Resource Policies for Recreation and Tourism, Marine-Related Facilities, Wildlife and Fisheries Management and the Living Marine Resources section (Chapter IV, E) of the management program describe significant fish species and their habitats for coastal South Carolina. Resource Policies affecting significant fish species and their habitats include all policies affecting wetlands and waters, especially: Residential Development Marine-Related Facilities Wildlife and Fisheries Management Dredging a) Dredging b) Dredge Material Disposal Erosion Control Threatened Wildlife Habitats Resource Policies, in conjunction with the priorities for use of Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCs), govern the activities that affect threatened wildlife and their habitats. Of particular interest are Resource Policies for: Residential Development; Transportation; Recreation and Tourism; Wildlife and Fisheries Management; and Public Services and Facilities. As specific policies under these and other areas III-6 indicate, activities that disturb threatened or endangered wildlife and vegetation, including their habitats, are discouraged in the coastal zone. Public Recreation Areas (such as beaches, undisturbed natural areas) In addition to the special management given GAPCs that contain Public Recreation Areas, several Resource Policies governing activities associated with recreational resources are also applicable. Of particular interest are Resource Policies for: Recreation and Tourism; Marine-Related Facilities, Erosion Control; Transportation; Coastal Industry; Dredging; and Public Services and Facilities. Drinking Water Supply Drinking water supply is affected by several factors, including adequacy of recharge areas, amount of ex- traction from supply, and purity of supply. The Resource Policies in general seek to direct activities in the coastal zone in such a way as to protect this invaluable resource. Of particular interest are Resource Policies for: Coastal Industries; Commercial Development; Public Services and Facilities; and Residential Develop- ment. In addition, designated groundwater recharge areas (identified by the S.C. Water Resources Commis- sion) will be GAPCs and will be managed according to the priorities of use specified in the GAPC section. Historical, Cultural, and Archeological Sites Historical, cultural, and archeological sites will be included as GAPCs if designated to the National Register. Priorities of use for those areas will govern proposed activities that might affect these resources. The Resource Policies generally discourage activities that would disturb such resources. Of particular interest are Resource Policies for: Transportation; Coastal Industries; Residential Development; and Recreation and Tourism. These policies will aid in preserving those resources in which there is a national interest. The provision of improved, and protection of existing, public access to these valuable recreational areas is addressed in the Beach and Shoreline Access segment (Chapter IV (D)). Barrier Islands The national interest in barrier islands is reflected in several Resource Policies andiJspecifically_reflected in Chapter IV (C), Erosion Control Program. -Barrier-islands are also-included as.Areas. of Special Resource ... Significance in part XII of the Resource Policies. In managing activities affecting these valuable natural resources, the Resource Policies must balance sensitive ecological needs with the increasing pressures for their development. The following Resource Policies are of additional concern for protecting the national interest in these resources: Residential Development; Transportation; Commercial Development; Recreation and Tourism; Marine-Related Facilities; Dredging; and Public Services and Facilities. In addition, where GAPC designations are on part or all of a barrier island, the areas will be managed according to the priorities of use for the GAPC. III-7 2. ACTIVITIES OF REGIONAL BENEFIT INTRODUCTION Section 306(e)(2) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, requires that South Carolina make provision within its coastal zone management program to assure that local government regula- tions do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit. The initial step of this re- quirement is. identification of those activities which are determined to be of regional benefit. Once selected, each state coastal management program must demonstrate the state legal authority which will assure that these activities are not unreasonably excluded from locating in the coastal zone by local government actions. DEFINITIONS Tracking the language of the Federal regulations for achieving program approval (15 CFR 923.13), ac- tivities are considered to be of regional benefit in the South Carolina coastal zone if they: 1) have been identified as Activities Subject to Management, that is, those determined to have direct and significant impact on coastal waters, AND 2) result in a multi-county environmental, economic, social or cultural benefit. Unreasonable local restriction of an activity is that which is arbitrary or capricious. It involves a local deci- sion not based on rational or legal factors and implies an exclusion which works to the detriment of the region. FINDINGS Because of the rural character of much of South Carolina's coastal zone, ample suitable site locations re- main available for most proposed uses now and in the foreseeable future. This limited urbanization also presents less need and demand for regional-type facilities. Most public services are provided on a county-wide basis. Local and county governments in the coastal zone have not exhibited any trend toward excluding par- ticular types of activities, particularly those which offer benefits to an area of greater than local concern. Therefore, at this time a limited number of activities have been identified to be of regional benefit. The focus is on those coastal land and water-uses which, by their nature, might require extension through more than one county or which meet a clearly recognized need, not only for-the coastal region but for -the State as a whole. THE ACTIVITIES Activities of Regional Benefit in the South Carolina coastal zone are: 1) Transportation facilities - including highways, airports, railroads, ports and transit; 2) Parks *- recreational areas of State or regional significance. MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Section 8(B) (6) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act states that the Council, in developing the management program, shall (P)rovide for adequate consideration of the local, regional, state and national interest in the siting of facilities for... .public services necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. Section 10(B) of the Act states: Any city or county that is currently enforcing a zoning ordinance, subdivision regulation or building code, a part of which applies to critical areas, shall submit the elements of such or- dinances and regulations applying to critical areas to the Council for review. The Council shall evaluate such ordinances and plans to determine that they meet the provisions of this act and rules and regulations promulgated hereunder. Upon determination and approval by the Coun- cil, such ordinances and regulations shall be adopted by the Council, followed by the Council in meeting its permit responsibilities under this act and integrated into the Council's Coastal Management Program. Any change or modification in the elements of approved zoning 111-8 ordinances, subdivision regulations or building codes applying to critical areas shall be disap- proved by the Council if it is not in compliance with the provisions of this act and rules and regulations promulgated hereunder. The Council will determine if uses of regional benefit could be arbitrarily excluded under local ordinances or plans. Any ordinance or plan which could arbitrarily exclude uses of regional benefit will not be adopted. Consistent with the general networking scheme for South Carolina's coastal program, the present authori- ty of other State agencies will be utilized to comply with requirements for Activities of Regional Benefit in ad- dition to Section 10 of the Act. Assurances that these State agencies are cognizant of their authority and are willing to employ it to implement the program will be provided through memoranda of agreement. Section 7(A) of the Act requires the cooperation of other State agencies and compels the respective agencies to ad- minister their authority in accord with the Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Section 923.43 of the Federal Register, March 1, 1978, paragraph (C) provides illustrations of techniques which may be utilized in assuring that uses of regional benefit are not restricted. The Coastal Council through means of its system of "networking" with other State agencies, the State's Public Works Eminent Domain Law as well as through specific acquisition powers of other State agencies will assure that adequate sites are or can be set aside for different uses of regional benefit. The legal basis for this system is already in place through the present powers vested in State agencies to acquire sites as the need arises for particular uses of regional benefit. The State of South Carolina has a Public Works Eminent Domain Law. Section 28-5-30, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976) allows any federal agency, State public body or authorized corporation to acquire real property necessary for any public works project. Section 28-5-20 (1976 Code) defines public works project as "any work or undertaking which is financed in whole or in part by a federal agency or a State public body." This all-encompassing power of public domain is supplemented by specific acquisition powers of various State agencies. The Development Board is authorized in Section 13-3-100 (1976 Code) to: Acquire by purchase, -gift, condemnation or- in- -any- other-manner-any lands, waters; water.. rights, riparian rights, flowage rights, rights of way, easements, licenses, franchises, engineer- ing data, maps, construction plans or estimates or any other property of any kind, real, per- . - . sonal or mixed, necessary or useful in carryingouits.pow-ers.-----..- This Board may also employ the eminent domain power pursuant to laws for railroads, telegraph and telephone companies, power companies and highways. At present, the primary function of the Development Board is to encouragedand assist industrial and- corm- -- mercial development within the State. The Development Board, under Section 13-3-100 (1976 Code) is also empowered to acquire, build and maintain among other items, railroads, highways, pipelines, dams, tunnels and bridges. The Board may also construct and establish parks and playgrounds for the use of the State's citizens as well as take proper steps to prevent and control soil erosion and floods. These powers may be exer- cised through its own efforts and resources or may be accomplished jointly with the United States, other states, private corporations or private individuals. In addition to the Development Board's ability to acquire recreational areas, the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Commission through Section 51-1-60 (1976 Code) is responsible for managing, developing and ex- panding recreational areas and for developing a coordinated plan to utilize the state's natural resources as tourist attractions. Upon approval of the State Budget and Control Board, this Commission is able to acquire land by gift or purchase in carrying out its mandate. The State Budget and Control Board is also vested with broad authority. It is the State agency responsible for management of State-owned lands and waters. It may, under Section 1-11-80 (1976 Code), grant easements and rights of way for construction and maintenance of power lines, pipelines, water and sewer lines and railroad facilities over or under vacant lands and marshlands owned by the State, upon payment of reasonable value. This Board has the authority under Section 1-11-110 (1976 Code) to acquire real property for the State by gift, purchase, or condemnation. Finally, the Board has been granted authority to lease any State lands for the purpose of drilling for and producing oil and gas and other minerals, subject to the approval of the At- torney General (Sections 10-9-10 and 48-43-390, 1976 Code). The State Ports Authority is charged with the promotion, development and maintenance of harbors and III-9 seaports and related facilities and is provided condemnation powers in Section 54-3-150 (1976 Code). In addi- tion, the Department of Highways and Public Transportation may implement its broad powers of planning, construction and maintenance of the State highway system through eminent domain proceedings under Sec- tions 57-3-610, 57-5-32 and 57-5-1340 (1976 Code). Section 6-7-830(a) of the Code of Laws for South Carolina (1976), as amended, states that: All agencies, departments and subdivisions of this State that use real property as owner or tenant, in any county or municipality in this State shall be subject to the zoning or- dinances thereof. Apparently, this statute is addressed to state use of real property for offices, warehouses, maintenance facilities and other support facilities since Article 8, Section 14 of the South Carolina Constitution prohibits a local government from taking action which would eliminate "the structure and administration of any govern- mental service or function, responsibility for which rests with the State government or which requires statewide uniformity." The uses of regional benefit, as defined, relate to services and functions vested in state agencies and presumably are not subject to Section 6-7-830(a) of the Code. 3. RESOURCE POLICIES INTRODUCTION In addition to controlling activities in the critical areas of the coastal zone and preserving and protecting the priority use(s) of Special Management Areas (including Geographic Areas of Particular Concern), a com- prehensive coastal management program must also include policies for management of the full range of ac- tivities which have a "direct and significant impact" on coastal waters. The need for this form of resource management was recognized in the Congressional findings of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which describe the value of our coastal resources and the pressures for development from often competing uses. To achieve the National goals of this Act, Section 305 (D)(2) requires that to prepare an acceptable management program each state must include the following requirement: A definition of what shall constitute permissable land and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters. The South Carolina Coastal Council also is mandated by State legislation to consider various land and water activities. Section 8 (B) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977 lists the following items to be considered in devising the State's comprehensive coastal management program: ( 1 ) Identify present land uses and coastal resources. ( 2 ) Evaluate these resources in terms of their quantity, qualtity and capability for use both now and in the future. ( 3 ) Determine the present and potential uses and the present and potential conflicts in uses of each coastal resource. A variety of opportunities are available for benefits to all South Carolinians through wise use and preserva- tion of coastal resources. Man's activities in the coastal zone involve economic, social and environmental im- pacts which may have positive and/or negative effects. It is the resolution of possible conflicts and the guidelines and policies which must be considered in decision-making in order to reduce possibile negative im- pacts which constitute the need for- sound,-logical planning- and -management of- coastal resources. - - Performance Standard Approach . .. As part of the Uses Subject to Management Segment, "States must develop policies -and--procedures-by which uses, determined to be subject to the management program, will be allowed, conditioned, modified, en- couraged or prohibited." (S 923.12, Federal Register, March 1, 1978) This refers to the Federal requirement that each State first identify the coastal activities which are considered significant enoughto _warrant manage- ..-..-.- ment, and then identify the policies and the legal authority or review process which will govern each of these activities. The South Carolina coastal program has selected an approach that might be called "performance stan- dards" which deals with the impacts of an activity on coastal resources rather than with the activity itself. It is an indirect method of managing activities in the coastal zone by assessing the impacts of a proposed action on coastal resources. With this approach, policies need not be developed for all aspects of a type of activity but only for those which would have direct and significant coastal impacts. Review and discussion on projects or proposals will be determined on the individual merits of each applica- tion with consideration for the effects on the marine and estuarine environments, based on the following policies. This process will be implemented through the Council's direct authority for critical area permit ap- plications and review and certification of the permits of other State and Federal agencies; (The procedural as well as legal aspects of both levels of management authority are addressed in full in Chapter V.) The alternative approach of designating which activities are permissible in different geographic areas of the coast is seen in the context of the South Carolina coastal program as an option for local governments to regulate land development and use. This type of approach by local governments is fully encouraged and sup- ported by the Coastal Council. However, in terms of the details involved in its implementation, this approach would be inappropriate for State management of the coastal zone as a whole. This type of plan would not allow sufficient flexibility for future decision-making at the State level, with changing technology and ad- vancements in development alternatives which might offer ways to reduce environmental or other impacts. Therefore, the performance standard approach seems best suited to the needs for management of coastal III-11 resources in South Carolina. It meets the overall intent of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act - "to protect the quality of the coastal environment and to promote the economic and social improvement of the coastal zone..." DEFINITION: ACTIVITIES WITH A "DIRECT AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" The South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977 recognizes that there are specific parts of the coastal environment which are more vulnerable to the effects of man's activities than others. Experience and scientific research have demonstrated these ecosystems to be more fragile and, therefore, these "critical areas" are defined by the Act as coastal waters, tidal wetlands, beaches and primary sand dunes. To adequately manage these resources, the Act gives direct authority to the Coastal Council for issuance of permits for any alteration in these areas. Ninety days after the effective date of this Act no person shall fill, remove, dredge, drain or erect any structure on or in any way alter any critical area without first obtaining a permit from the Council. (Section 13 (C)) The Council evaluates these permits based on the general considerations of Section 15 of the Act and the specific project standards as presented in the Rules and Regulations for Permitting. The South Carolina coastal program recognizes that in other parts of the coastal zone, some large-scale ac- tivities or particular aspects of man-made developments also can significantly impact coastal resources. In development of the comprehensive coastal management program, Section 8 (B) of the 1977 State legislation directs the Council to consider "all lands and waters in the coastal zone for planning purposes." While the Council has no direct regulatory authority outside the critical areas of the coastal zone (Section 20, S.C. Coastal Management Act, Act 123 of the 1977 General Assembly) adequate management is provided through the Council's review and certification of permits of other State agencies. (Section 8 (B)(11), S.C. Coastal Management Act) (The legal basis for this management approach is explained in detail in the section "Legal Authorities.") The Federal consistency provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, afford another mechanism for management throughout the coastal zone. Identification of the activities which might have significant impacts has been based on the resource inven- tory and planning efforts of the coastal program staff-since-1974; input from other participating local, State and Federal agencies; citizen working groups in the eight coastal counties; and the policy direction of the eighteen-member Coastal Council. An activity is considered to have direct and significant impact on coastal waters and therefore is subject to management in the coastal zone if it entails one or more of the following criteria: 1) located in a critical area; 2) detrimental environmental impact upon a critical area (for example, water pollution upstream from an inland source which would then reach and result in degradation of the estuarine system); 3) adverse effects on the quality or quantity of coastal resources - natural, economic, social or historical; 4) disruption of access to a public coastal resource. Activities Subject To Management Below is a list of activities and areas of special resource significance which the Coastal Council has deter- mined to meet the definition for having a potential for "direct and significant impact" on coastal waters. The policies of the South Carolina Coastal Council for each activity or area follow, beginning on p. 111-16. III-12 I. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT II. TRANSPORTATION A. Ports B. Roads and highways C. Airports D. Railways E. Parking Facilities III. COASTAL INDUSTRIES A. Agriculture B. Forestry (Silviculture) C. Mining D. Manufacturing E. Fish and seafood processing F. Aquaculture (Mariculture) IV. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (For example: location of retail businesses, shopping centers, service activities, restaurants and hotels, etc.) V. RECREATION AND TOURISM A. Parks B. Commercial recreation VI. MARINE-RELATED FACILITIES A. Marinas B. Boat ramps C. Docks and piers VII. WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT A. Wildlife and fisheries management B. Artificial reefs C. Impoundments VIII. DREDGING A. Dredging B. Dredged material disposal C. Underwater salvage IX. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES A. Sewage treatment - plants and their associated transmission systems, lagoons, impoundments, and outfalls; septic tanks B. Solid waste disposal C. Public/Quasi-public buildings and structures D. Dams and reservoirs E. Water supply X. EROSION CONTROL XI. ENERGY AND ENERGY-RELATED FACILITIES XIII. ACTIVITIES IN AREAS OF SPECIAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE A. Barrier islands B. Dune areas C. Navigation channels D. Public recreation areas E. Wetlands (other than critical areas) 111-13 GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF ALL PROJECTS -i in review and certification of permit applications in the coastal zone, the Coastal Council will be guided by the following general considerations (apply to erosion control and energy facility projects, as well as activities covered under Resource Policies): 1) The extent to which the project will further the policies of the South Carolina General Assembly which are mandated for the Coastal Council in implementation of its management program, these being: a ) "To promote the economic and social improvement of the citizens of this State and to en- courage development of coastal resources in order to achieve such improvement with due consideration for the environment and within the framework of a coastal planning pro- gram that is designed to protect the sensitive and fragile areas from inappropriate development and provide adequate environmental safeguards with respect to the con- struction of facilities in the critical areas of the coastal zone; b ) To protect and, where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the State's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations." (Sections 2(B)(1) and (2), S.C. Coastal Management Act of 1977). 2) The extent to which the project will have adverse impacts on the "critical areas" (beaches, primary ocean-front sand dunes, coastal waters, tidelands). 3) The extent to which the project will protect, maintain or improve water quality, particularly in coastal aquatic areas of special resource value, for example, spawning areas or productive oyster beds. 4) The extent to which the project will meet existing State and Federal requirements for waste discharges, specifically point sources of air and water discharge, and for protection of inland wetlands. 5 ) The extent to which the project includes consideration for the maintenance or improvement of the economic stability of coastal communities. 6 ) The extent to which-the-projectis-in-compliance with-local zoning and/or-eomprehensive-plans-;- 7) The possible long-range, cumulative effects of the project, when reviewed in the context of other possible development and the general character of the area. 8 ) The extent and significance of negative impacts on Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCs). The determination of negative impacts will be made by the Coastal Council in each case with reference to the priorities of use for the particular GAPC. Applications which would significantly impact a GAPC will not be approved or certified unless there are no -feasible alter- natives or an overriding public interest can be demonstrated, and any substantial environmen- tal impact is minimal. 9) The extent and significance of impact on the following aspects of quality or quantity of these valuable coastal resources: i ) unique natural areas - destruction of endangered wildlife or vegetation or of significant marine species (as identified in the Living Marine Resources segment), degradation of ex- isting water quality standards; i i ) public recreational lands - conversion of these lands to other uses without adequate replacement or compensation, interruption of existing public access, or degradation of environmental quality in these areas; i i i )historic or archeological resources - irretrievable loss of sites identified as significant by the S.C. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology or the S.C. Department of Archives and History without reasonable opportunity for professional examination and/or excava- tion, or preservation. I 0 )The extent to which the project is in the national interest. 111-14 I 1. "In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that, in determining whether a permit ap- plication is approved or denied, the Council shall base its determination on the individual merits of each application, the policies specified in Sections I and 2 (of the Act), and be guided by the follow- ing general considerations: I1) The extent to which the activity requires a waterfront location or is economically enhanced by its proximity to the water. 2 ) The extent to which the activity would harmfully obstruct the natural flow of navigable water. If the proposed project is in one or more of the State's harbors or in a waterway used for com- mercial navigation and shipping or in an area set aside for port development in an approved management plan, then a certificate from the South Carolina State Ports Authority declaring the proposed project or activity would not unreasonably interfere with commercial navigation and shipping must be obtained by the Council prior to issuing a permit. 3 ) The extent to which the applicant's completed project would affect the production of fish, shrimp, oysters, crabs or clams or any marine life or wildlife or other natural resources in a particular area including but not limited to water and oxygen supply. 4 ) The extent to which the activity could cause erosion, shoaling of channels or creation of stag- nant water. 5 ) The extent to which the development could affect existing public access to tidal and submerged lands, navigable waters and beaches or other recreational coastal resources. 6 ) The extent to which the development could affect the habitats for rare and endangered species of wildlife or irreplaceable historic and archeological sites of South Carolina's coastal zone. 7 ) The extent of the economic benefits'as compared with the benefits from preservation of an area in its unaltered state. 8 ) The extent of any adverse environmental impact which cannot be avoided by reasonable safeguards. 9 ) The extent to which all feasible safeguards are taken to avoid adverse environmental impact resulting from a project. I 0 ) The extent -to which -the-proposed -use-could -affect-the, value and enjoyment of adjacent owners." (Section 15(A), S.C. Coastal Management Act of 1977) RESOURCE POLICIES- On the following pages are the Resource Policies for each of the identified Activities Subject to Manage- ment. A brief statement of findings- describes why each activity-is of -coastal management -concern. These policies are organized in three separate sections: I1) Policies for the coastal zone, including that portion outside the critical area in which the Coastal Council has indirect authority (review and certification). 2 ) Policies for the critical areas, where the Coastal Council has direct permit authority. These policies are the Rules and Regulations for Permitting (R. 30-1 through 30-1 1, S.C. Code of Laws of 1976). Each policy or group of policies appears with a citation ("R. 30-....") for the corresponding regulation. 3 ) Recommended or enhancement policies which are endorsed by the Coastal Council. Policies 1) and 2) are those which the Coastal Council is authorized to enforce through the authority of the coastal program and the S.C. Coastal Management Act of 1977. These policies are highlighted in the text with a bold outline along the margins. Following the policies for each activity is a brief discussion of the management authority which will imple- ment these policies. A matrix at the end of this section illustrates the network of implementation authorities. Chapter V(A) further documents the existing legal authorities. 111-15 I. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Findings Paralleling the national.pattern, more than 20 percent of the State's residents live in the coastal zone of South Carolina. Recently there has been a substantial increase in the building of both permanent and second- homes or seasonal housing in coastal counties by residents and non-residents of South Carolina who have pur- chased coastal land for residential development. 'With expanding industry and commerce and related employment opportunities, plus the increasing attrac- tiveness of the southeastern "sun belt" states as a place to work and play, this residential growth can be ex- pected to continue. Adequate, sound housing is a basic need for residents of the coastal zone. There are still many suitable locations for this type of development; however, there can be negative environmental impacts from residential growth if it is not properly managed. Housing projects can have adverse effects on coastal water resources and ecosystems. Of primary concern is adequate treatment and disposal of domestic sewage from the residences, which if not properly handled can degrade water quality and impact marine and aquatic species. Uncontrolled development patterns can also have effects of increased soil erosion, sedimentation and contamination of coastal waters and possible flooding problems from rapid stormwater runoff. Another potential impact of residential growth is associated with loss of vital wetland areas if dredging and/or filling of these areas are allowed in site preparation or con- struction. An almost infinite number of potential resource conflicts exists, and one development may have several ef- fects. For example, in one instance a residential development may provide badly needed housing but in so do- ing disrupt commercial fishing by degrading water quality due to improperly controlled sewage effluent and increased storm water run-off. This same housing development if located on beach front property might con- flict with recreation by restricting access to a public beach. These potential conflicts are addressed in the following policies for residential growth, which provide guidance on reaching and maintaining a balance between development and conservation of coastal resources. Policies I ) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of State and Federal permits and comments or residential projects will be based on the following policies: a ) Adequate sewage disposal service (septic tanks or treatment systems) which -meet the En- vironmental Protection Agency, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and local health department-standards must be provided in residential development plans. Septic tanks should be permitted, where feasible, in low density residential developments when they are designed properly and soils are adequate to insure against pollutants leaching into surface or groundwater resources. Septic tanks should be situated a safe distance from the shoreline to ensure proper drainage and filtering of tank effluents before they reach the water's edge with special attention given in identified erosion areas. Policies for sewage treatment plants and associated facilities appear in IX (A) of this section. b ) Residential development which would require filling or other permanent alteration of salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands will be prohibited, unless no feasible alternatives exist or an overriding public interest can be demonstrated, and any substantial environmental damage can be minimized. These marshes are valuable habitat for wildlife and plant species and serve as hydrologic buffers, providing for absorption of stormwater runoff and aquifer recharge, and therefore, their destruction for residential purposes must be avoided whenever possible. c ) Location of new residential development in flood-prone river or other hazard areas is discouraged. When development does occur in flood hazard areas, the inclusion of natural, vegetated buffers between developed areas and the shoreline should be incorporated wherever possible to help absorb flood water surges. Within designated flood zone areas of participating communities residential development must meet existing Federal Flood Insurance Administra- tion (Department of Housing and Urban development) national building standards and III-16 insurance requirements. Local governments in the coastal zone are urged to actively participate in the National Flood Insurance program. d) Where appropriate, particularly adjacent to a critical area, drainage plans and construction measures for residential development shall be designed so as to control erosion and sedimenta- tion, water quality degradation, and other negative impacts on adjacent water and wetlands. Example techniques include buffering and filtering run-off water; use of permeable surfacing materials for roads, parking and other paved areas within a subdivision; and grass ditching, surface drainage contours, or catchment ponds rather than direct stormwater discharge. Best management practices (and any resultant regulations) designed to control nonpoint source runoff that are developed and implemented as part of the 208 Water Quality Planning process also apply to new housing projects. Developers proposing residential development activities are encouraged to contact and work closely with local 208 planning agencies and local Soil and Water Conservation Districts. e) Other activities associated with a residential development or subdivision will be subject to the policies for that activity, for example, dredging, docks and piers, marinas, commercial buildings, parking facilities or transportation access. f) When local ordinances and plans applying to the critical areas are submitted to the Council for review, pursuant to Section 10(B) of the Act, such ordinances, plans or subdivision regulations must include provisions for insuring: i) adequate non-critical area vehicular access to each subdivision lot, ii) adequacy of septic tank or sewage treatment system disposal for each lot. 2) In the critical areas the Coastal Council has direct permitting authority and shall apply the following rules and regulations: a) "The creation of ................... residential lots strictly for private gain is not a legitimate justification for the filling of wetlands. Permit applications for the filling of wetlands and .. - submerged lands for these purposes shall be denied." (R-30-12, (G)(2)(a) b) "Nonwater-dependent structures-such as-apartment;,-.-.;;-.;...(and other residences)-have- been constructed in the past on pilings over wetland areas. Such construction presents unnecessary encroachment on the aquatic ecosystem by shading out the underlying vegetation. Nonwater- dependent structures shall-be-discouraged- from being -sited--over -water -and-/or-wetland--areas. Only when public need is demonstrated and no feasible alternative sites are available should consideration be given towards approval of the proposed structure." (R. 30-12 (M)) c) "Nonwater-dependent structures such as residential buildings have been constructed on primary sand dunes or beach areas in the past. Such construction may seriously disrupt the dune/beach system and its vegetation, hampering their effectiveness as a storm and erosion buffer. The siting of nonwater-dependent structures on the primary dunes or the beaches will be discouraged where other feasible alternatives exist. Design and construction options which minimize destruction of the dunes and dune vegetation will be encouraged." (R. 30-13(D)) 3) The Council recommends that the following policies be considered in planning residential develop- ment in the coastal zone: a ) Local governments are encouraged to develop local plans and procedures which promote clustering of residential development where growth is most compatible with coastal resources and where necessary public services can be most easily provided with least adverse impacts on these resources. Criteria to judge those areas most capable of accommodating new growth with minimal impact on coastal resources would be included in local plans. b) Developers are encouraged to incorporate common-use recreational areas in proposals for large-scale residential developments. With regard to water and boat access, "developers of subdivisions, motels, and multiple family dwellings will be encouraged to develop single, joint- III-17 use moorage facilities while their plans are in the development stage" (R. 30-12 (A)(2)(f)), com- bined with building covenants to limit the proliferation of individual docks and piers. Management Authority. If located in the critical areas, as defined by the S.C. Coastal Management Act, proposed new residential uses would require a permit from the Coastal Council before beginning construction. Outside the critical areas, the Coastal Council will review a number of State agency permits required for certain residential developments to determine that issuance of these permits is consistent with the preceding coastal management policies. This review and certification process is mandated in Section 7(A) and 8(B)(I 1) of the Coastal Management Act. A S.C. Budget and Control Board permit is required for the filling of waters or wetlands below mean high water (MHW) in that part of the State outside Coastal Council permitting jurisdiction. S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) permits are required for the construction of subdivision water supply and waste disposal systems. Because of the rural and suburban character of much of the coastal zone, there are large areas not served by public water or sewer systems. This DHEC authority will bring a majority of new residential developments under the Council certification process. DHEC is the State agency responsible for administration of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. This permit is required not only for effluent discharges, such as from a sewage treatment facility, but in some instances for such point-source discharges as storm drainage pipes. DHEC is also the S.C. agency responsible for "401" water quality certifications (Section 48-1-50 (15), 1976 S.C. Code of Laws), which are determinations of allowable water pollution levels required for any activity in- volving another Federal permit. (A detailed legal analysis of the authority of each agency and of the Council certification procedure is con- tained in the Legal Authorities chapter.) In addition to State management authority, major residential developments receiving some form of Federal financial assistance will be subject to the A-95 review process for which the Coastal Council is a com- menting agency. Some projects will also require the submittal of Environmental Impact Statements, thereby having further Council review. Federal permitswilbe-required for any-proposed housing-construction in the wetland or water areas under jurisdiction of Section 404(33 CFR �323) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended in 1976. 111-18 II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES The construction and maintenance of all forms of transportation service are a vital part of the economic and social character and viability of the coastal zone. Almost always involving the expenditure of large sums of public money, investment in these facilities meets a definite need in the coastal zone, serving both coastal and State residents. Because of their role in national defense, as well as provision of access to coastal recrea- tion areas and other resources, and contribution to general economic growth, transportation facilities are often in the national interest (p. 111-5). Transportation systems are an important element in an overall coastal management program because they provide access to a variety of public resources - economic, as well as historic, social and recreational. There can be, however, potential environmental impacts from construction, maintenance, and operation of transportation in order to achieve the goals and objectives of South Carolina's coastal program. A. PORTS Findings The ports and commercial waterways of South Carolina represent major economic enterprises that meet the needs of waterborne commerce for both the coastal zone and the entire State of South Carolina. These ports and commercial waterways also have a major national impact by providing a means of access to interna- tional and domestic markets. The economic impact of port development is substantial. Statistics for 1973 (Pender, D.R. and R. P. Wilder. Impact of the State Ports Authority Upon the Economy of South Carolina. Division of Research, Bur. Bus. and Econ. Research, College of Bus. Administration, Univ. of S.C., 1974. Occasional Study No. 6) indicate that direct port employment was 15,000 jobs, and direct income to the ports equalled $253 million. Secondary economic impacts almost double the above factors for each year. Some 1500 firms in the State regularly use the ports. In the last decade, the Port of Charleston--has-emerged as-one-of-the south's majorcommercial-cargo ports: In 1976 it surpassed all other ports in the South Atlantic region in the value of general cargo handled in world commerce. One of the-nations mostxapidl elvping cnainer-oots,--Charleston,.is-now.the ninth ranked . container port in the United States. Smaller State Port facilities are located- at Port Royal and Beaufort. Port development and associated activities can have major direct and secondary environmental impacts, particularly in relatively undisturbed areas. The main impacts on the water side are associated with dredging required to create and maintain navigationchannels._Thikconsiderable-dredging-can-modify�-thehIydrology of-. a harbor, result in salinity changes, and degrade water quality, thereby having a detrimental effect on aquatic resources. Initial and maintenance dredging can also create dredge material disposal problems. In addition, ports which handle oil products or toxic substance cargoes will involve risks of spills resulting water quality degradation. The secondary effects of port development primarily affect land resources and land use. Ports generate a large volume of rail and truck traffic and oftentimes are a spur to intensive industrial and urban development. The South Carolina Ports Authority is currently preparing a comprehensive ports management plan for submittal to the Council, as mandated by Section II of the Coastal Management Act of 1977. This plan, which will have public review, will be incorporated into the coastal program upon its approval by the Council. It will delineate present and potential commercially navigable waterways in the coastal zone and relate these to rele- vant land development and environmental policies. Policies In the coastal zone, Coastal Council evaluation of critical area permits or review and certification of permit applications for port development will be based on the approved ports plan and the following policies: 1) New port development should take place in existing industrialized areas where sufficient support II1-19 facilities are available including public utilities, rail and highway transportation access, and naviga- tional dhannels which are already maintained, unless there are no feasible alternatives or an over- riding public interest can be demonstrated, and any substantial environment damage can be minimiz- ed. 2) Port development should occur in areas that have adequate high ground (non-wetland) acreage for proposed current development and near-term expansion plans, and related facilities. Port develop- ment should be located in areas where the filling of productive salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands will not be required or can be minimized. If site preparation does not require filling in these wetlands, it must be clearly demonstrated that no other feasible alternatives exist or an overriding public interest can be demonstrated, and any substantial environment damage can be minimized. 3) To the extent feasible, port development and expansion should locate on existing channels so that the need for initial and maintenance dredging can be minimized. 4) New port development that will require maintenance dredging must identify adequate upland (non-wetland) spoil areas, ocean disposal, or other environmentally-acceptable alternative disposal techniques to meet the long-term demands for soil disposal. 5) Port areas should provide for the handling of dangerous and volatile cargoes and materials in relatively isolated or restricted areas, so that in the event of accident, measures can be implemented to contain any spills or other contamination with minimal environmental damage and limited threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public. 6) Wharves, piers, mooring dolphins and other port-related structures should not restirct or block navigation or alter the natural pattern of water currents. 7) Proposed port development or expansion and operation must meet existing air and water quality standards, as regulated by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 8) Port facilities developed by the State Ports Authority (SPA), as well as by private developers, should be sited, constructed and operated in a manner that is consistent with local and State develop- ment objectives as set forth in public documents such as comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and performance standards. 9) Potential negative impacts on navigation which might restrict port and harbor activities in the area will be considered in evaluation of permits for marinas, docks and piers, transportation facilities (especially bridges), cables and pipelines and other relevant activities. 10) -- Port development or-expansion-plans-must-inel-ide-provision-for-necessary breakwater-or-other----- .. wake protection measures along major navigable ship channels where appropriate in order to reduce erosion damage. These structures must be in compliance with other applicable policies and Rules and Regulations. 11) All bulkheads associated with a port area must meet the policies as stated in the Erosion Con- trol Program (Chapter IV (C)). 12) All dredging and dredge spoil disposal policies, as stated in VIII (A) and (B) of the Resource Policies will be applied to port activities. 13) All piers and dockage must meet the policy requirements as stated in VI (C) of the Resource Policies. 14) Transportation projects associated with port development must follow the transportation policies stated in II (B)-(E) of the Resource Policies. 15) The policies for manufacturing will apply to port development and related industrial develop- ment (III (D) of the Resource Policies). Recommended Policies The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered for port and harbor development projects in the coastal zone: l)Encouraging comprehensive study of potential secondary impacts of port and harbor development pro- jects. III-20 2)Maximizing the use of existing developed port areas, when feasible, before establishing new facilities in relatively undeveloped areas. 3) Encouraging the State Ports Authority (SPA) to diversify their activities and areas of concern to include the promotion of sports and commercial fisheries and other marine activities. Management Authority In the critical areas, all new port facilities are under the direct permitting authority of the Coastal Council and subject to the Rules and Regulations thereunder. Both within and outside of the critical area, in instances where the permit of another State agency is required, the review and certification process of the Council will apply. While not a permit agency, the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SPA) has the responsibility for the planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of the State's port system. Cooperative efforts between the Coastal Council and the Ports Authority, not only on project proposals, but also on long-range planning and policy development, are the best means to implement sound coastal management policies. The Legislature recognized the need for this cooperation when it mandated in Section II of the Coastal Management Act of 1977 (the Act) that the Ports Authority prepare and submit to the Council a management plan for port and harbor facilities and navigation channels. The port plan, upon approval by the Council, will become a part of the comprehensive management program. Section 15 (A) of the Coastal Management Act states that: If the proposed project is in one or more of the State's harbors or in a waterway used for commer- cial navigation and shipping or in an area set aside for port development in an approved manage- ment plan, then a certificate from the South Carolina State Ports Authority declaring the proposed project or activity would not unreasonably interfere with commercial navigation and shipping must be obtained by the Council prior to issuing a permit. In addition, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the two agencies is written so as to provide for cooperative efforts. Port projects andp1ans are subj-ect-to-review and-commnent;-ard-direct-Coastal, Coun;-- cil permitting in the critical areas, where applicable, based on the preceding policies. A further legal mandate for cooperative and consistent inplementation of the two agencies? programs is -found in the-Act -in Section 7(A) and is further explained in-theLegal Authorities-and-Networ-king--section,-f-Chapter V(A). .-- A majority of port and navigation projects also require Federal permits, and these permit reviews are sub- ject to the Federal consistency provisions of the coastal program. Those projects involving Federal funding are -subject to the Federal Office of-Management an-d B3udget-O-M-.Circular A--q review.and. h'quenily-lo�IS-... review, under the National Environmental Policy Act. B. ROADS AND HIGHWAYS (including bridges and transit facilities) Findings Roads and highways play a major role in shaping the growth patterns of the coastal area, as they do in other parts of the state. The motor vehicle is still the primary mover of people and goods, and access to and from the roadway network is a key factor in the economic gain of a community. Intersections, curb cuts and highway interchanges are often the site of extensive development. In addition to these secondary effects, the construction, operation and maintenance of a roadway involve engineering and construction activities which may have direct negative environmental impacts if not properly managed. First and foremost is location of the facility itself, which may be routed along or through sensitive wetland areas or water bodies. The primary concern is destruction or significant deterioration of the ecological system mainly through dredge and fill operations. This is why bridges are favored in these areas over filling to create roadbeds or embankments which would result in loss of marsh habitat and disruption of waterflow or circulation. Also associated with road and highway construction are possible impacts of drainage and sedimentation, through land clearing, grading, and slope stabilization. Changes in the natural drainage pattern may increase flooding hazards, and stormwater runoff may become a problem. Water quality may also be affected due to heavy loads of toxic pollutants and nutrients from the road surface and adjacent embankments if care is not taken in design of roadways to handle stormwater runoff. II1-21 Navigation presents another potential conflict when roads are planned to cross water bodies. Adequate clearance under bridges, rather than causeway construction, can ameliorate this problem. Policies 11) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of relevant State and Federal permit applica- tions and comments on road or highway proposals will be based on the following policies: a) Road and highway routes should be aligned to avoid salt, brackish and freshwater wetlands as much as possible. Where they cannot be avoided, bridging of these wetlands and all navigable waterways, rather than filling to create roadbeds, will be required wherever feasible. The use of existing fill areas or embankments for widening or improvement projects will also be encouraged. Whenever feasible, median and right-of-way widths should be limited where they will impact salt, brackish, and freshwater wetlands. b) Road structures through salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands or water bodies must be designed so as not to cause substantial changes in natural waterflow and circulation. c) Bridges over navigable water bodies must provide adequate clearance for commercial or pleasure craft, where appropriate. d) Care should be taken in design of roads to minimize direct drainage of roadway runoff into adja- cent water bodies. Inclusions of techniques for filtering runoff water, such as grass ditching or vegetative buffers should be considered. During construction and in later maintenance, roadway embankments should be stabilized to minimize erosion and water quality degradation due to sedimentation problems. e) Road, highway and bridging projects in wetland or water areas are strongly encouraged to include provision for placement of other utilities, such as cables or transmission lines, in their design to reduce the need for future disruption of adjacent wetlands or waterways. f) Construction of private roadways for private access should be aligned to avoid salt, brackish and freshwater wetlands and, where applicable, must provide bridges, culverts or other means to maintain cir- culation and water flow. When practicable,- permeable surfaces such as gravel or shell should-be used rather than pavement. g) When applicable to -highway projects-that-require-spoil disposal' areas; -the po-licies for dredge material disposal (Resource Policies VIII (B)) shall apply to that portion of the project proposal. h) Road or bridge projects involving the expenditure of public funds to provide access to previously undeveloped barrier islands will not be approved unless an overwhelming public interest can be demonstrated, for example, provision of access to a public recreation area or other public facility.. _.-_-.. i) Where feasible, new roads and bridges in the coastal zone should be designed to accommodate bicycle and foot paths and fishing catwalks and platforms. j) The Coastal Council will cooperate and coordinate with the S.C. Department of Highways and Public Transportation in development and implementation of State policy and long-term planning for transportation in the coastal zone, through such mechanisms as the State Highway Action Plan. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) Major highways, expressways ...... should be located inland from coastal wetland areas to the extent feasible. inland from coastal wetland areas to the extent feasible. b) In cases where wetlands cannot be avoided, bridging should be employed, to the maximum extent possible, rather than filling and embankment to create roadbeds. c) Where wetlands will be destroyed, the productivity of these lands should be identified and weighed against public need in consideration of the project by the Council. d) Structures over water should be designed so as not to alter the natural waterflow and circulation regimes or create excessive shoaling. Adequate clearance for commercial and pleasure craft should be provided. e) Maximum care shall be taken to prevent concentrated roadway runoff from entering adjacent water bodies. f) Where appropriate, bridges and approaches should be designed to provide for the enhancement of public access by the utilization of fishermen catwalks, boat launching ramps and other structural features. g) During the planning of a multi-lane widening or road improvement project, it is usually III-22 preferable to follow the existing alignment in wetland areas. Existing causeway and fill areas should be utilized wherever possible. The widths of medians of divided highways should be reduced as much as "possible wherever they cross wetland areas. h) Roadway embankments and fill areas shall be stabilized by utilizing appropriate erosion devices and/or techniques in order to minimize erosion and water quality degradation problems. i) The Council will encourage applicants for transportation permits to design such facilities to ac- commodate other public utilities, thus avoiding unnecessary future alteration such as that caused by the laying of cables or transmission lines in wetlands adjacent to an existing roadway." (R. 30-12(F)(2)a-i) 3) The council recommends that the following policies be considered for road and highway projects in the coastal zone: a) Encouraging conprehensive study of the potential for secondary growth inducement from new road and highway construction; b) Study of mass transit alternatives to road or highway construction in urban areas. c) Encouraging project designs and route alignments which consider the impacts on locally-designated "Scenic Highways" and on other aesthetic considerations, for example, enhancement and protection of scenic vistas and preservation of unique tree canopies and other natural areas. Management Authority In the critical areas, roads and highways, both, public and private, are under the direct permitting authority of the Coastal Council and subject to the Rules and Regulations thereunder. While not a permit agency for highway construction, the authority for planning, construction, maintenance and operation of the State's highway system rests with the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Roadway projects by the Department are subject to review and com- ment by the Coastal Council based on the preceding policies, as outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement between the-two agencies. In instances where the- permit'of another State agency is required for a roadway pro- ject, the review and certification process of the Coastal Council will apply. Cooperative efforts between the CoastaLCounciLand-the-Highway department,- -not-only on project -pro- -- posals, but also on long-range-planning and--policy--development;- are- the best-means-to implement-sound. coastal management policies. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between these agencies is written so as to allow such cooperation. The legal mandate for cooperative and consistent implementation of the two agen- cies' programs isfonund-intheCoastalManagement-Af-o Sction-7-(Ai7))i-andis-further explained in-the- - . - Legal Authorities section of Chapter V. The State Development Board, with the mandate of improving trade, commerce and employment oppor- tunities in South Carolina, also has the authority to build or acquire roads and highways as part of the promo- tion of transportation systems in the State. Any projects proposed by the Development Board in the coastal zone would involve coordinated planning efforts with the Coastal Council based on the preceding policies, as mandated by the Act and outlined in the MOA. (Further legal analysis of this authority is provided in the Legal Authorities segment.) A majority of road and highway projects also require Federal permits, and these permit reviews are subject to the Federal consistency provisions of the coastal program. Those projects involving Federal funding are subject to the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-95 review, and frequently to EIS review, under the National Environmental Policy Act. C. AIRPORTS Findings Air transport is an increasingly important mode for the transportation of passengers and cargo, as has been highlighted in the discussion of coastal economy (Chapter I (D)). Airport facilities are generally of coastal zone management concern only when their construction or expansion may have significant impacts on coastal resources, for example, if extensive encroachment is proposed into productive wetland areas. In addition to potential direct loss of unique natural habitats or valuable wetlands, the construction and operation of major airport facilities might result in water quality degradation if not properly managed, due to III-23 direct stormwater discharge from paved parking or landing areas or from sedimentation and erosion. The development of adjacent land can pose a secondary concern if it may conflict with noise impact zones. The Coastal Council supports the following goals and objectives of the South Carolina Aeronautics Com- mission, as summarized from the South Carolina State Airport Systems Plan, (second revision), March, 1975: 1) Provision of improved airports; 2) Expansion of scheduled air carrier service to and within the State; 3) Cooperation among State agencies with respect to airport-related highway and road access, recrea- tion use and activity, environmental management, zoning, Federal regulation aid, and planning and plans implementation. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of airport permit applications will be based on the following policies: a) To the extent feasible, new airport facilities should not encroach into salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands. Permit applications involving dredge or fill to construct these facilities in wetland areas generally will be denied, unless no feasible alternatives exist or an overriding public interest can be demonstrated, and any substantial environmental damage can be minimized. b) The best available techniques and methods should be used during design, construction and maintenance of airports to avoid erosion or sedimentation problems and prevent concentrated runoff water from aircraft use areas, parking areas and support facilities from directly entering and degrading adjacent surface water bodies or underground resources. c) Proposals for airport facilities must demonstrate that they will meet applicable Federal and State air quality and noise control guidelines. 2) In the critical areas of the coastal zone it is Council policy that: a) "Airports should be located-intand-from coasWal-wetland areas to the-extent-easible."(R.-30-2 .- (F)(2)(a)) b) "Where wetlands will be destroyed, the productivity of these lands should be identified and weighed against public need in consideration of the project by the Council." (R. 30-12 (F)(2)(c)) ---3) The Councilalso-recommends-that-he-fowi ng-peiesb- be-onsidered-for-airport-projectsinr-.rec coastal zone: a) Consideration of the existing and planned _transportationsystem -or networkin the area, for exam- ple, relationship to other airports and access to adequate transportation service by other modes. b) Encouragement of joint-use or regional airport facilities where feasible (for example, joint military and civilian airports). c) Compatibility with character and use of the area; local governments are encouraged to develop plans and procedures which maintain appropriate, compatible use areas around existing airports. d) Alignment of approach corridors and corresponding noise zones during airport planning should consider any bird rookeries located in the area. Management Authority The South Carolina Coastal Council has direct permit authority for all activities or alterations in the critical areas of the coastal zone. This jurisdiction would include any proposed airport facilities located in the critical areas - beaches, primary sand dunes, coastal waters and tidal wetlands (salt and brackish). The Aeronautics Commission has direct regulatory authority over the design, layout, location and other aspects of landing fields and landing strips for the State. Certificates of approval are required from the Com- mission in order to operate or establish an airport. After approval of the coastal management program by the Governor and General Assembly, a system of review and certification of other State agency permits and ac- tions will be implemented. Aeronautics Commission certificates in the coastal zone will be reviewed by the Coastal Council, based on the preceding policies, as mandated in Section 7(A) and 8(B)(1 1). A Memorandum 111-24 of Agreement facilitates the cooperative efforts of the two agencies. Section 15(A) of the Coastal Management Act states that "If the proposed project is in one or more of the State's harbors or in a waterway used for commercial navigation and shipping or in an area set aside for port development in an approved management plan, then a certificate from the South Carolina State Ports Authority declaring the proposed project or activity would not unreasonably interfere with commercial navigation and shipping must be obtained by the Council prior to issuing a permit." Most airport facilities also involve Federal Aviation Admninistration (FAA) approval and/or financing, so these activities will be subject to A-95 review by the Coastal Council, and in some instances, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) review. D. RAILWAYS Findings Railroads are a principal means of transporting industrial, commercial and agricultural goods to market in coastal areas of South Carolina. They serve as an important supplement for other transportation modes, for example, linking industrial and manufacturing sites -to port facilities. While passenger travel has diminished and railroads, generally, have declined in other parts of the nation, to a large extent they retain their economic importance in South Carolina. The possible negative environmental effects associated with development of new railroads are similar to the impacts of roads and highways. These include: 1) loss of valuable wetland habitats if extensive dredge or fill is required; 2) disruption of water flow and circulation if properly designed bridges or other means to provide circula- tion are not utilized; 3) degradation of adjacent water quality if storm water runoff and sedimentation are not adequately con- trolled during construction and operation. Sound management practices and implementation of the following policies will reduce the potential for these environmental problems when new rail-road corridors are selected and developed. Policies 1) In -the coastal zone , Council review and certification of railway permit applications will be based on the following -policies: ble. In cases where these wetlands cannot be avoided, bridging rather than filling to create railway beds will be required wherever feasible. b) Rairoad structures through salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands or water bodies must be design- ed so as not to alter natural waterflow or circulation. Where bridging is not feasible, provision of ade- quate culverts or other means for water to flow through or under the structure will be required. c) Bridges over navigable water bodies must provide adequate clearance for commercial or pleasure craft, where appropriate. d) Railway projects in wetland or water areas are encouraged to include provision for placement of other utilities, such as cables or transmission lines, in their design to reduce the need for future disruption of adjacent wetlands or waterways. e) Design of railways should include techniques to prevent direct drainage of runoff water into adja- cent water bodies. Construction in wetland areas should include stabilization of embankments to minimize erosion and water quality degradation due to sedimentation. f) Conversion of abandoned railroad tracks, bridges and rights-of-way in the coastal zone for reuse as transportation or utility corridors or for recreational uses, such as fishing piers or bicycle trails, is en- couraged. g) The extension of new railway corridors should be based on comprehensive evaluation of the need to provide improved access to existing industrialized areas, or to planned or proposed developments suitable for manufacturing sites. 111-25 2) In the critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "....Railways should be located inland from coastal wetland areas to the extent feasible. b) In some cases where wetlands cannot be avoided, bridging should be employed to the extent possible, rather than filling and embankment to create roadbeds. c) Where wetlands will be destroyed, the productivity of these lands should be identified and weigh- ed against public need in consideration of the project by the Council. d) Structures over water should be designed so as not to alter the natural waterflow and circulation regimes or create excessive shoaling. Adequate clearance for commercial and pleasure craft should be provided. e) Embankments and fill areas shall be stabilized by utilizing appropriate erosion devices and/or techniques in order to minimize erosion and water quality degradation problems." (R. 30-12 (F)(2)a-d, h) 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered for railway projects in the coastal zone: a) Minimizing possible aesthetic impacts from placement of rail lines and bridges, b) Integrating railroad planning and development with other transportation facilities, in order to provide adequate transportation systems; for example, where feasible, new highway bridges might be designed to in- clude railways (especially in urban areas where land is more limited and transportation needs are greatest). c) In floodplain areas railway-alignment should parallel the path of water flow, to the extent feasible, in order to minimize disruption of the floodplain ecosystem. Management Authority Proposed new railroad construction activities located in any critical areas will require a permit directly from the Coastal Council. These projects will be reviewed according to the Rules and Regulations for Permit- ting, which are restated here as Council policies for the critical areas. Outside the critical areas, but within the eight-county coastal zone, the Council will review and certify per- mit applications -to-,other. Stateagencies in eolMveM&-i~nra-road-projects,' -basedwln ft-heprecedirgzpolicies:. The e-- .' Memoranda of Agreement with these agencies outline the review process as mandated under Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(11) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977. Section 15(A) of the Coastal Management Act states that: "If the proposed project is in one or more of the State's harbors or in a waterway used for commercial navigation and shipping or in an area set aside for port development in an approved management plan, then a certificate from the South Carolina State Ports Authority declaring the proposed projectoractdvtywouldnot- -ureasonably-interfere with -commercial- -- navigation and shipping must be obtained by the Council prior to issuing a permit." The Budget and Control Board retains permit authority in State waters below mean high water (MHW) in those portions of the coastal zone beyond the critical areas. Any dredging and/or filling or placement of facilities below MHW for railroad construction will have to receive this Budget and Control Board permit. As addressed in the MOA between these two agencies, the Coastal Council then reviews and certifies the permit for compliance with coastal policies. The Public Railways Commission is authorized to acquire land, including through condemnation, for con- struction and operation of railroads and related facilities in South Carolina. Activities of the Railways Com- mission will be subject to the terms of the future MOA between the Commission and the Coastal Council. (Private railroad companies have the same condemnation powers and authority to construct railroads and associated facilities. Railroad company projects will be subject to Coastal Council, Budget and Control Board, and other applicable permit requirements:) The State Development Board may also build or acquire railroads as part of its mandate to promote the transportation systems of the State for improved trade, commerce and employment. Development Board pro- jects are coordinated closely with the Coastal Council, as outlined in the MOA. Any State permits associated with Development Board railway projects in the coastal zone would be subject to review and certification by the Coastal Council. In some instances, railway projects may also require Federal permits, subject to review and comment and II1-26 to the Federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Council. E. PARKING FACILITIES Findings Parking lots or garages and other parking structures are of coastal management concern only if they might infringe on valuable wetland areas, degrade water quality in adjacent wetland or water areas, or negatively im- pact a Geographic Area of Particular Concern (GAPC) or other unique and significant coastal resource. While provision of adequate parking areas is an important and necessary aspect of public and private commer- cial, residential and industrial development, these facilities need proper location and design to minimize possi- ble negative impacts on coastal resources. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permit applications for parking lots, garages or other parking facilities will be based on the following policies: a) The filling or other permanent alteration of productive salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands will be prohibited for purposes of parking unless no feasible alternatives exist, the facility is directly associated with a water-dependent activity, any substantial environmental impacts can be minimized, and an overriding public interest can be demonstrated. b) Proposed parking facilities must demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal and State water quality standards, specifically those addressing drainage and discharge of stormwater run-off. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "Nonwater-dependent structures such as parking garages have been built in the past on pilings over wetland areas. Such construction presents unnecessary- encroachment- on-the-aquatic ecosystem-by shading out the underlying vegetation. Nonwater-dependent structures shall be discouraged from being sited over water and/or wetlandiareasO-tfilywhef'piublic need is'demonstrated and no feasible alternative sites are available should consideration be given towards approval of the proposed structure." (R. 30-12(M)) b) "Nonwater-dependent structures have been constructed on primary sand dunes or beach areas in the past. Such construction may seriously disrupt the dune/beach system and its vegetation, hampering....... their effectiveness as a storm and erosion buffer. The siting of nonwater-dependent structures on the primary dunes or the beaches will-be-diseouraged-where-other-feasibi-ealternatives'exist.--Desi-gnan-dcon-- - struction options which minimize destruction of the dunes and dune vegetation will be encouraged." (R. 30-13(D)) 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered in location and design of parking facilities: a) Use of permeable surface materials such as gravel or shell rather than pavement, where appropriate, with consideration to possible air quality and groundwater impacts, b) Retaining the maximum possible natural drainage and vegetative cover between parking spaces, c) Provision of buffer areas around parking areas located adjacent to the critical areas, as visual and stormwater run-off buffers. Management Authority The Coastal Council has permit jurisdiction over any activity altering a critical area of the coastal zone. Any proposal for a parking facility to alter a critical area must therefore obtain a permit from the Council. As stated in R. 30-12(M) of the Permitting Rules and Regulations, parking facilities are nonwater-dependent and are discouraged from being sited in critical areas. The Budget and Control Board regulates the use of land below mean high water outside the critical areas of the coastal zone. A permit to construct parking facilities on such land is required from the Budget and Control Board. The Department of Health and Environmental Control has permit jurisdiction over the construction III-27 and use of parking facilities if the storm water discharge from such a facility has been identified as a significant contributor to pollution. (Otherwise such facilities are exempt from the Department's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program.) The Council reviews and certifies the permits of these two agencies for compliance with the preceding coastal management policies, pursuant to Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(I 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977. 111-28 III. COASTAL INDUSTRIES The South Carolina Coastal Management Program is concerned with promoting and maintaining a healthy coastal economy, as well as safeguarding coastal natural resources. To achieve this balance of development and environmental protection, there is need for sound management of the wide variety of coastal industries. The coastal zone is unique in many of the resources necessary for particular water-dependent industrial ac- tivities, as well as its recreational and residential potential. But suitable site locations are limited, and many of the resources are finite. Competition for use of the coastal zone intensifies with growth and development. This growth and development is increasing in South Carolina, with positive economic benefits but with potential negative environmental impacts. The importance of the following policies on coastal industries lies in the need to respond to these diverse economic interests, thereby furthering the well-being of coastal residents, while still protecting and conserving the unique, often fragile natural resources. A. AGRICULTURE Findings The per acre value of farmland in the U.S. increased 9%o in the year ending February, 1978. (Land Use Planning Report, May 1, 1978) Changing global weather patterns-and -resulting food shortages, increasing world population, inflationary'pressures on food prices, the U.S. balance-of-payments and the possible offset- ting role of farm products, low farm income, and loss of prime agricultural land to other uses have made agriculture a serious concern for coastal management. Agriculture is a significant economic pursuit in South Carolina's coastal zone. In 1975, the eight county area had a 23 percent share of the State's crop. lands, and 23 percent of the cash receipts earned by South Carolina farmers from marketing crops. (Stepp, James; The Coastal Economy of South Carolina, 1978) This contribution indicates the need to accommodate this industry in the coastal zone, which boasts favorable soils and climate for a variety of crops and livestock. Much of the land area suitable for farming is also highly desirable for development; so as the coastal-zone-continres -to-growtherewill -be increasing pressure for con- version of agricultural areas. While agriculture is a positive benefit to_the economy-and provides a.sour.e-of food-and fiber for citizens- of the coastal zone, the State and the nation,-there are potential negative effects on the coastal environment unless best management practices are employed: (W)ater is also a significant output. With the exception of wind erosion and pesticide drift from aerial application, almost-all-agriculal- -pollu-t-ion -isassociated-wit-h-runoff -from {afnd ---...- - being used for agricultural purposes .....By volume, sediment is the most important agricultural non-point source pollutant. The process of erosion has been identified as.thesingle most ..---- significant reaction that directly affects the coastal environment. (Hart, Robert D., "Cropland Pollution Control" in Clark, Coastal Ecosystem Management, 1977, p. 595) The other potential water pollution sources include nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which occur naturally in soil and are added as fertilizers. Elevated nutrient levels may result in oxygen depletion and resulting eutrophication of coastal waters. In this State, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commission, and the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts have for years realized that conserving soil not only leads to more productive land, but also ensures higher water quality in our streams and reservoirs. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permits related to agriculture will be based on the following policies: a) The Council supports the utilization of coastal resources for productive agriculture in the coastal zone, particularly on prime agricultural lands (as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and III-29 South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission), as a positive element of coastal economy and to provide sources of food and fiber products to citizens of the State and nation. b) To reduce negative impacts on productive tidal salt, brackish and freshwater wetlands: i) The filling or other permanent alteration of these tidal wetlands for the raising of crops will not be approved; ii) Ditching for drainage from uplands shall avoid passing through productive wetlands to the max- imum extent practicable. c) To minimize negative impacts on water quality from sedimentation and erosion, applicants for permits relating to agricultural activities are encouraged to work closely with the local Soil and Water Conservation District to obtain assistance in reducing sedimentation and erosion problems. Modern con- servation techniques recommended by the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service should be utilized, including: i) Methods or techniques such as contouring should be used to reduce direct surface water runoff in- to adjacent wetlands or water bodies; ii) Maintenance and utilization of the natural drainage pattern of the land is encouraged as much as possible; iii) Use of buffer strips of natural vegetation along the edge between watercourses and cultivated soils is encouraged. d) Best management practices (and any resultant regulations) designed to control nonpoint source runoff that are developed as part of the 208 Water Quality Planning process should be implemented through the management of agricultural activities. Those engaged in agricultural activities are encourag- ed to contact and work closely with the local 208 planning agency and the local Soil and Water Conserva- tion Districts. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone it is Council policy that: a) The policies for dredging and filling (R. 3-0-2(G)).ancLdconstructionjaf~canals-.and-ppelines (R-.-- 30-12(D) and (1 ))-shall be applied whewtheseaetivities-are-involveitragriculturaiuseinthe1critical-areas.- 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered with regard to agricultural use and practices in the coastal zone: a) Encouraging the utilization of-detailed'soit-surveys-prepared by-th-Nationai- Cooperative Soil Survey- (which includes Clemson University Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, and S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commission); b) That local land use plans include considerations for protecting agricultural lands from premature or undesirable conversion into other development activities; c) Encouraging the full implementation of 1243-220 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976) by local governments within the coastal zone to allow property tax incentives to protect farmlands from conver- sion to other uses. d) That the soil testing facilities of Clemson University be utilized to determine the correct types and amounts of fertilizers to be applied to agricultural lands. Management Authority The Coastal Council has permit jurisdiction over any activity which in any way alters a critical area of the coastal zone. Therefore, any agricultural activity that directly alters a critical area must have a permit from the Council. Outside of the critical areas of the coastal zone there are few direct controls over agricultural activities. The Soil and Water Conservation Law (� 48-9-1210-1320), administered by the S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commission empowers local Soil and Water Conservation Districts to adopt rules and regulations, after public referenda, to control soil erosion. As mandated by Section 7(A) this authority will be administered in confor- mance with policies of the approved coastal program. State and local Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans, unser Section 208 of the Federal Water III-30 Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500) are also authorized to address agricultural best management prac- tices in terms of non-point source water pollution. Development and implementation of these planning and regulatory efforts is closely coordinated with the Coastal Council. The South Carolina Budget and Control Board retains direct regulatory authority over activities below mean high water in the coastal zone outside the critical areas. These permits are reviewed and certified by the Coastal Council, as mandated in Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(1 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act. B. FORESTRY (Silviculture) Findings Forestry is an important coastal industry, with the coastal zone producing 17 percent of the State's pulpwood production and 30 percent of the physical volume of other forest products in 1975. (Stepp, The Coastal Economy of South Carolina, 1978) Forest areas also serve numerous important natural functions, such as preventing soil erosion and stabilizing runoff, maintaining high surface-water quality, and providing significant wildlife habitat and recreational areas. If not properly managed, timber harvesting can have severe impacts on coastal ecosystems primarily from disrupting hydrologic systems, and it is these-aspects which-are of-coastal management concern. Theerosion of soil and nutrients, and the alteration of runoff cycles can degrade water quality and cause increased flooding. The processing of forest products also can cause environmental damage if proper controls are not observed for air and water effluent discharges. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permit applications related to timber pro- duction will be based on the following policies: a) The Coastal Council wil-cooperate-with-and support the State Forestry Commission and local Soil and Water Conservation Districts in encouraging good, forest management practices on private and public lands in ordero-maintain a supplinof .while-protecting -other forest values. b) The disruption of salt, brackish or freshwater marshes for timber related activities such as drainage or access ways should be avoided. Where no feasible alternatives exist to prevent disruption in these areas, -project designs nmst~include-the-mitigation-measu .es..as.identified in-hee-lplicies-for-,each related activity - for example, roads, dredging, etc. c) Erosion control methods are encouraged for all phases of timber operations in order to reduce: i)excessive erosion and sedimentation; ii)detrital, nutrient and chemical or toxic runoff; and iii)disruption of hydrologic cycles. Logging operations should be managed so that drainage characteristics through forested and swampland areas remain, to the extent feasible, at the pre-existing water quality, volume and rate of flow. d) The policies applicable to the processing of timber products are those for manufacturing ac- tivities ((III) (D) of the Resource Policies). 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: Where related activities, including drainage ditches or access road construction are proposed for critical areas, the appropriate Rules and Regulations for that activity will apply. (Drainage ditches - R. 30-12(L); Transportation projects - R. 30-12(F)) 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered in forestry activity in the coastal zone: a) Timber harvesting should be carried out in such a manner as to minimize effects on and protect soils, watersheds, aesthetics, wildlife, and recreational values. If damage does occur, restoration plans should be 111-31 developed and carried out within a reasonable time. b) Local land use plans should include preservation of forest areas for sustained timber productivity in the future. Management Authority Any alteration of a critical area requires a permit from the Coastal Council. Applicants for forestry or related activities that alter a critical area must obtain a permit from the Council. Outside of the critical areas of the coastal zone the State Forestry Commission performs forestry activities in State Forests, and offers guidance and technical assistance to private timber operations including fire prevention and control practices. The Department of Forestry's authority will be administered in conformance with the approved coastal management program and the Coastal Management Act, as mandated by Section 7(A) and through the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed between the Department and the Coastal Council. The Budget and Control Board has jurisdiction for issuance or denial of the State permit for activities below mean high water (MHW) in the rest of the coastal zone outside the critical areas. These permit applica- tions are subject to the review and certification authority of the Coastal Council, as mandated by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(l 1) of the Coastal Management Act. C. MINERAL EXTRACTION Findings Many mineral resources of great economic value may be found in the coastal zone, in tidal rivers and coastal waters and on the Continental Shelf under Atlantic Ocean waters. In addition to oil and gas, which are addressed separately under Energy and Energy-related Facilities, these minerals include sand, gravel, shell, salt and phosphates. They can be found on the surface, subsurface or in solution in the water. Disturbances from mining activities may -have -physical, chemical and biological effects on coastal resources. These potentially adverse impacts are primarily associated with the loss of wetlands by dredging ..and/or filling, degragation ~wtr~fsdmns-npsb oaia----- tion of ground-water resources. Mineral extraction- activit-ies may--have -adverse-topographic,--physical or ------ chemical effects if not properly conducted, and therefore, these activities are of concern for coastal manage- ment. Policies (Existing, active mining sites have been designated as Geographic Areas-o-fParticular-Concern.(GAP-Cs) in. the coastal zone, because of their unique mineral resource value and potential as development activities depen- dent on locating in the coastal zone.) 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of mining permit applications will be based on the following policies: a) Applicants for mining permits must submit an approved reclamation plan, as required by the Land Resources Conservation Commission under the S.C. Mining Act. b) Dredge or strip mining operations are prohibited in wetland areas, unless no feasible alternatives exist and the benefits of mining outweigh the adverse impacts. If all or part of a mining site must involve water bodies or wetland areas, policies for dredging (VIII (A) of the Resource Policies) shall apply. c) To minimize negative impacts on water quality, the prevention of direct stormwater discharge from upland sites into adjacent wetlands or water bodies is required whenever possible through inclusion of such techniques as use of vegetated buffer areas, silt curtains and other erosion or sedimentation con- trot methods. Negative effects on groundwater resources should also be avoided. 111-32 I2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: Policies for dredging activities (VIII of this section) and R.30-12(G) shall apply to mining operations. 3) The Council also recommends the following policies be considered in mining activities in the coastal zone: a) Provision of scenic buffer areas around active mining sites; b) That study of mineral resources be made before land is committed to development, and those areas found to contain significant mining resources be identified in local land use plans. Management Authority The Coastal Council has authority for a direct permit requirement for mining operations in critical areas of the coastal zone, based on Sections 5(E)-(I), and Section 13 of the S.C. Coastal Management Act of 1977. In the coastal zone, within and outside the critical areas, the S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commis- sion is responsible for implementation of the S.C. Mining Act. A permit, terms of which include a complete site reclamation plan, is required for any mining operation. The Coastal Council's review and certification of these permits, as required by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(11) of the Coastal management Act, is confirmed by the Memorandum of Agreement between these two agencies. Where mining operations extend below mean high water (MHW) outside the critical areas, the Budget and Control Board also has permit jurisdiction. These permit applications are subject to the review and certifica- tion procedure of the Coastal Council, as required by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(11) of the Coastal Management Act. The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control has authority over most mining operations for poiht-source discharge permits (NPDES) or best management practices (for non-point source runoff, under 208 Areawide Waste Treatment management planning). Where mining operations are located in designated capacity use areas and groundwater pumping is re- quired, a capacity permit is required from the Water Resources Commission. D. MANUFACTURING Findings Coastal areas are attractive to five major types of industrial manufacturing: 1) Industries that benefit from location near low-cost water transportation systems; 2) Industries that derive power from water or use water for manufacturing processes or cooling purposes; 3) Industries that benefit from location near coastal population centers, but do not have direct dependence on water use or access; 4) Marine transportation industries; 5) Industries that depend directly on the marine environment for raw materials (Clark, J., 1978, Coastal Ecosystem Management). The growth and development of manufacturing uses is increasing in the South Carolina coastal zone, with potential for positive economic benefits. Manufacturing plants are a source of both employee payrolls and property tax revenues. New and existing industries can provide a diversified economic base, complementing government employment (military) and the long-standing importance of agriculture, forestry and fishing. While potential'benefits exist, so do possible negative impacts associated with manufacturing uses if they are not properly managed. "Waste disposal, oil spills and the escape of toxic materials in aquatic ecosystems are all unfortunate by-products of industry which affect the coastal environment." (Ketchum, B., 1972, The Water's Edge, p. 107) In addition to water and air pollution discharges, the possible environmental impacts of industrial develop- ment in the coastal zone include: - possible destruction of wetlands and the associated flora and fauna, by filling, dredging and/or draining for site preparation; III-33 - impacts on soil erosion and flood control as effects of site preparation; - effects of site preparation and facility operation on the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater resources; - impacts of related secondary development, such as transportation access facilities, sewage treatment plants or port development. Not only do possible conflicts exist between industrial growth and natural systems, but between industrial activities themselves, which vary widely in the coastal zone. For example, commercial fishing depends on the same natural resource of coastal water that is also vital to some manufacturing uses for transportation, cooling water, or effluent discharge. There may be resulting negative impacts on quality from the manufacturing uses that, therefore, severely limit the viability of fishing enterprises. The coastal zone is unique in many of the resources necessary for particular water-dependent industrial ac- tivities, as well as its recreational and residential potential. But suitable site locations are limited, and many of the resources are finite. Competition for use of coastal zone resources intensifies with growth and develop- ment. At this juncture, the State's coastal zone still retains many miles of unspoiled coastline, and acres of pro- ductive marshes and forest and farmlands. Heavy manufacturing is relatively limited in the coastal zone. The importance of the following policies on coastal manufacturing lies in the need to respond to diverse industrial interests, thereby furthering the economic well-being of coastal residents, while at the same time protecting and conserving the unique, often fragile, natural resources. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permit applications for manufacturing and related activities will be based on the following policies: a) Nonwater-dependent manufacturing or industrial facilities will be prohibited from locating in shorefront areas unless there are no feasible alternatives. Nonwater-dependent industries will be en- couraged to locate in inland areas. b) The filling or other. permanent alteration of productive fresh, brackish- and-saltwater- wetland- areas for manufacturing facilities and related activities or structures will be prohibited, unless no feasible alternatives exist and any substantial environmental impact can be minimized. Heavy industry should be directed away from ecologically sensitive areas such as marshes, forested wetlands, pocosins, etc. c) Manufacturing operations. and. sites. should- be-designed- and-constructed to reduce erosion and. sedimentation, and to limit the impacts from direct stormwater discharge into adjacent water bodies and wetlands. Persons proposing to develop manufacturing activities are requested to contact and work close- ly with the local Soil and Water Conservation District in the county for assistance in developing site plans which reduce sedimentation and drainage problems. Applicants must demonstrate consideration of the following means of reducing these problems and use of these methods where appropriate: i)Provision of a buffer strip of natural vegetation between the facility and the wetland's edge. This vegetated area should be sufficient in each case to serve its intended purpose: providing a visual screen, a noise buffer, a purification system for stormwater runoff, or a protective area for more ecologically sensitive shoreline areas, especially fringing wetlands; ii)During site preparation, care should be taken to control storm runoff, soil erosion, and acciden- tal placement of sediments in wetland areas; iii)The use of permeable surfaces in parking lots and bulk storage areas to provide water recharge areas and minimize the effects of stormwater runoff; iv)Retain open space or natural (undisturbed) areas around manufacturing sites as buffer zones and recharge areas. d) Manufacturing facilities must meet the applicable water quality and effluent limitation standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Carolina Department of Health and En- vironmental Control, under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Sectons 401 and 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Public Law 92-500). In some cases, pre- treatment of industrial wastes before introduction into public waste treatment systems may be required, 111-34 based on local 201 and 208 Waste Treatment Management Plans, as developed under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Siting of industrial facilities is encouraged in areas where waste discharges present the least ecological threat - for example, in areas where disruption of wetlands can be avoided or minimized, in areas with good tidal flushing and water circulation and along watercourses with relatively low water quality classifications. e) Manifacturing facilities must meet applicable State and Federal air pollution standards and con- trols, as based on the National Clean Air Act, as amended (P.L. 91-604). f) In instances where groundwater resources will be utilized either in the processing or effluent discharge stages of the production process, the project shall: i)meet existing standards and/or management programs of the Water Resources Commission, ii)prevent saltwater intrusion and land subsidence, to the extent feasible, iii)where feasible, provide natural vegetated areas on the site where aquifer recharge can occur to mitigate the impacts of groundwater withdrawals. g) When located in flood zone areas, manufacturing sites and structures must meet applicable flood- plain management and construction requirements, as based on the Federal Flood Insurance Program. h) New water-dependent industries should locate on already maintainedchannels of rivers to reduce the need for dredging of new channels. Where no presently maintained channel exists and one becomes necessary, the policies for dredging (VIII of the Resources Policies) will apply. i) Dock or pier and berthing facilities associated with a manufacturing activity shall be designed to minimize possible negative impacts. The policies for docks and piers or other associated activities will ap- ply. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "Nonwater-dependent structures have been built in the past on pilings over wetland areas. Such construction presents unnecessary encroachment on the aquatic ecosystem by shading out the underlying vegetation. Nonwater-dependent structures shall be discouraged from being sited over water and/or wetland areas. Only when public need is demonstrated and no feasible alternative sites are available should consideration be given towards approval of the proposed structure." (R. -30-12 (M)) b) "Nonwater-dependent structures have been constructed on primary sand dunes or beach areas in the past. Such construction may seriously disrupt the dune/beach system and its vegetation, hampering their effectiveness as a storm and erosion buffer. The siting of nonwater-dependent structures on the primary dunes or the beaches will be discouraged where other feasible alternatives exist. Design and con- struction options which minimize destruction of the dunes and dune vegetation will be encouraged." (R. 30-13(D)) c) "The creation of commercial lots strictly for private gain is not a legitimate justification for the filling of wetlands. Permit applications for the filling of wetlands and submerged lands for these purposes shall be denied, except for erosion control (see R. 30-12(C)) or boat ramps (see R. 30-12(B)). All other dredge and fill activities not in the public interest will be discouraged." (R. 30-12(G)(a)). d) Where other activities are associated with manufacturing development, such as construction of navigation channels, boat docks, or transportation access, the policies for that particular activity shall apply. 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered in planning for or siting of manufacturing uses in the coastal zone: a) Siting of industrial plants where they are served with existing well-developed road and railroad links to port areas and to major arterial transportation routes; b) Development of local plans which direct manufacturing growth into areas committed to industrial use where services can be most readily provided; c) Development of local plans which encourage comprehensive-type industrial parks, to facilitate well- planned, well-managed manufacturing and industrial centers that promote the advantages of locating in South Carolina; III-35 d) Encouraging manufacturing that will provide significant new employment opportunities for coastal residents; e) Considerations for minimizing noise and aesthetic impacts of manufacturing activities; f) Consideration for allowing limited public access to the buffer zone as a recreational area. Management Authority Any manufacturing use or related activity proposed for the critical areas of the coastal zone would be re- quired to obtain a permit from the Coastal Council. The policies for any related activity, and the procedures of the Rules and Regulations for Permitting would apply. In the coastal zone outside the critical areas, the Council will review and certify the permits and projects of other State agencies to insure compliance with the Coastal Management program, as mandated in Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(l 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977. The Budget and Control Board has authority for issuance of permits for activities below mean high water. Applications for these permits are reviewed and certified by the Council for compliance with the coastal management program. Throughout the coastal zone, the Department of Health and Environmental Control is the State implemen- ting agency for water quality and air quality standards. Permit applications for water and air discharges are subject to certification and review by the Council. While not a permit agency, the State Development Board has the responsibility for planning and coordina- tion to promote improved trade, commerce and employment opportunities in the State. Included in the Board's specific authority is promotion of industrial development. When appropriate, the Coastal Council will coordinate and support programs and projects of the Board to insure continued opportunities for manufacturing growth and development while at the same time maintaining sound coastal management policies. Federal permits are required where any aspects of a manufacturing project fall under the jurisdiction of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; Sections 401, 402 and 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments; and the National Clean Air Act (P.L. 9 1-604, amend.). These permit applications are reviewed and certified by the Coastal Council, and are subject to Federal consistency provisions. E. FISH AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING Findings Commercial fisheries are a significant contributor to the South Carolina coastal economy. The 1975 data for dock-side value of commercial fish landings was over $13 million. (Stepp, The Coastal Economy of South Carolina.) Development and use of fisheries resources certainly are water-dependent activities which can only take place in coastal waters and adjacent areas. The "Living Marine Resources" segment (Chapter IV (E)) details the fin-fish and shellfish resources of the coast, the vital link to marsh and other ecosystems and the policies for their management. Seafood processing can have negative impacts on coastal resources, particularly water quality. While the dumping of waste fish or parts of fish can be viewed as a return of nutrients or energy to the ecosystem, the high concentrations of nutrients may result in euthrophication of near-shore waters if adequate water circula- tion is not present. Also, wastewater discharges must be monitored to insure that by-products of the pro- cessing operation do not degrate water quality. Because of the necessity for proximity to the shoreline, seafood processing can pose loss of wetland habitat if extensive dredging or filling are proposed for these facilities. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification or permit applications for seafood processing plant proposals will be based on the following policies: a) Drainage or discharge from any proposed seafood packing or processing operations must meet applicable State and federal water quality standards.- b) Proposed seafood processing operations must comply with policies for dock and piers, and dredging and filling, where applicable. 111-36 c) Fish and seafood processing operations should not be located where there would be significant adverse impacts on salt, brackish. or freshwater wetlands. Filling or other permanent alteration of these wetlands for such purposes will be denied unless no feasible alternatives exist and the public benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. d) Adequate facilities for proper handling of sewage, litter and other waste products must be pro- vided at the site of new docking areas associated with seafood processing. e) Care should be exercised in the discharge of water used to pump out the holds of fishing vessels so that water quality is not unnecessarily degraded and so that such discharges comply with applicable Department of Health and Environmental Control and U.S. Coast Guard regulations. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) If dredging or filling is required for construction or maintenance at a seafood processing plant, policies for dredging activities (VIII of the Resources policies; R. 30-12(G)) shall apply. b) Policies for docks and piers (VI(C) of the Resources Policies; R. 30-12(A)) shall apply to these in- dustrial/commercial facilities, where applicable. c) "The ceration of commercial lots strictly for private gain is not a legitimate justification for the filling of wetlands. Permit application for the filling of wetlands and submerged lands for these purposes shall be denied, except for erosion control or boat ramps." (R. 30-12(G)(a)) d) Where marina or dock and pier-type construction is included, project proposals shall include facilities for the proper handling of petroleum products, sewage, litter, waste and other refuse..." (R. 30-12(E)(H). 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered in fish and seafood processing operations in the coastal zone: a) Consideration should be given to the utilization of fish wastes or by-products for meal or fertilizers. Management Authority In the critical areas of the coastal zone, the Coastal Council has direct permit authority over seafood pro- cessing plants and related facilities. In the rest of the coastal zone, the Council will review and certify the permit applications of several other State agencies. The first is .the Budget and Control Board, which has jurisdiction outside the critical areas for activities below mean high water, in wetland areas and submerged bottoms. The Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) has permit authority for direct wastewater discharges, and for "401" water quality certifications for projects which require Federal permits. Through coordinated, joint efforts of both agencies, the Council will review and certify DHEC permits for their compliance with coastal policies. Federal permits may also be required for dredging or filling, construction of docking areas, and for wastewater discharged associated with seafood processing. F. AQUACULTURE Findings Continuing world population growth and the associated increasing demand for food resources recently have focused more attention on one of the least-tapped sources of protein - the oceans. Traditional fishing ac- tivities, however, are encountering problems with best use of this resource, including lack of adequate research to improve knowledge of and techniques for long-term management, and lack of capital for development of more efficient fishing methods. Also, unrestricted development of coastal areas with its associated water pollution has led to destruction of some productive habitats and fishing areas and more limited harvests. To expand the potential of fisheries resources, increase protein production and reduce the cost per pound for the product, land-based or near shore culturing of fish or shellfish - aquaculture - is receiving increased attention. At present, the technology III-37 and cost of cultured seafood products is not competitive. However, with increasing energy and labor costs, aquaculture of some species, as an important coastal industry, may be a reality in the near future. There are potential impacts associated with aquaculture activities which qualify them as having direct and significant impact on coastal resources. Since most aquaculture systems require large amounts of flowing water and surface area to be cost effective, tidal wetlands may be earmarked for diking to create impound- ments for culture activities. This diking, while essential for proper culture management, may be more detrimental to the ecosystem as a whole since the function of the wetlands as biological filters and nursery areas for a variety of species and not just a "cultured" few will be lost. Therefore, it is important to weigh carefully food supplied by intensified management against food supplied by natural processes. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of aquaculture permit applications will be bas- ed on the following policies: a) The impoundment of previously undisturbed, productive salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands for aquaculture will be prohibited where other feasible alternatives exist. b) Aquaculture proposals must demonstrate compliance with applicable State and Federal water quality standards for discharge or drainage. c) For each aquaculture proposal the value and yield which is anticipated from the project should be weighed against any environmental damage, such as loss of habitat from impounded areas. This con- sideration will be included by the Council in its decision-making, and applicants may be asked to provide relevant information towards the determination of such costs and benefits. d) Applicants for aquaculture operations must provide an acceptable management plan for the operation. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) Policies for dredging and filling and for-marsh impoundments will be applied to aquaculture pro- jects, where appropriate (R. 30-12(G) and (K)). 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered in planning and research for aquaculture projects in the coastal zone: a) Encouraging research efforts for "passive aquaculture" as opposed to use of artificial impoundments including: i)fixed structure aquacultire (for example, setting supports and lines. This should be limited to open water areas where they can be placed on the periphery and not interfere with navigation); ii)tray culture for shellfish; iii)penning areas for soft shell crabs; iv)trap culture for fish; v)bottom culture, to avoid navigational problems; vi)"agrarian" approaches, such as mechanized harvesters, seed beds, and restocking. Management Authority Any aquaculture activity that alters a critical area required a permit from the Coastal Council. The Final Rules and Regulations for Permitting apply to aquaculture activities which alter a critical area. Outside of the critical areas in the coastal zone the Budget and Control Board has permit authority for uses of land and water below mean high water. Permit applications for aquaculture activities are subject to review and certification for coastal management program compliance by the Coastal Council, under Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(I 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act. This certification authority extends to permits for impoundments or any other activity requiring a Board permit. The Department of Health and Environmental Control has regulatory authority over aquaculture since many operations requie an NPDES point-source discharge permit. The Department of Wildlife and Marine III-38 Resources Department has regulatory authority over the living marine resource management aspects of aquaculture. In addition, the Wildlife and Marine Resources Department leases coastal bottoms for shellfish production. This regulatory authority must be administered in compliance with the approved coastal manage- ment program and the Coastal Management Act. The Council is granted enforcement authority for such com- pliance under Section 7(A) of the Act. 111-39 IV. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Findings The increasing number of commercial activities in the coastal zone is an integral part of growth. As poplua- tion density increases, the commercial activities associated with residential and industrial development and coastal recreational activity will constantly expand to serve the varied needs of the people who live and visit in the coastal zone. South Carolina follows the typical pattern of higher population densities along the immediate coast than inland. In addition, the South Carolina beaches and barrier islands attract large numbers of visitors each year, and that portion of commercial activity which supports the tourist trade is a very significant aspect of coastal economy. When evaluating the impacts associated with commercial activity, both the large-scale development and the cumulative effect of many small activities must be carefully considered. Commercial development requires not only buildings but also roads, parking lots, strom drain systems, water treatment facilities, etc., all of which have potential negative impacts. For example, increased development of buildings in flood prone areas or storm hazard areas which are not constructed adequately can raise the flood height and increase the loss of life and property. Disturbance of the natural drainage system by excessive clearing of vegetation, large areas of impermeable surfacing, etc. can cause soil erosion, sedimentation, contamination of coastal waters and a lowering of the water level in freshwater aquifers. The solution to these and many other varied problems and potential negative impacts is not to stop development. Instead, the encouragement of certain types of construction, site preparation, and development standards can allow coastal resources to function naturally and regenerate themselves. In this way, commercial development which the people need and want can take place with minimum negative effects on coastal resources. Becasue much of South Carolina's coastal zone is still undeveloped, the State has a unique oppor- tunity to develop in the least disruptive manner. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification or permit applications for commercial buildings will be based on the following policies: a) For locations immediatelyr adjacent to the shoreline, water-dependent commercial activities will be given priority consideration. Water-dependent is interpreted here to include activities which func- tionally require access to shorelone, for example, ship or boat repair or commercial fishing. Second priority will be given to water-related commercial uses which are significantly enhanced economically by proximity to the shoreline, for example, motel or restaurant activities. b) Commercial proposals which require fill or other permanent alteration of salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands will be denied unless no feasible alternatives exist and the facility is water-dependent. Since these wetlands are valuable habitat for wildlife and plant species and serve as hydrologic buffers, providing for storm water runoff and aquifer recharge, commercial development is discouraged in these areas. The cumulative impacts of the commercial activity which exists or is likely to exist in the area will be considered. c) Location of new commercial development in riverine and coastal areas where flooding has been a recurring, serious problem is discouraged. Within the 100-year flood plain of coastal waters, commercial development must meet the existing Federal Insurance Administration (Department of Housing and Ur- ban Development) national building standards. Inclusion of buffer areas and protection of salt, brackish and freshwater wetlands will help absorb flood water surges and is encouraged in commercial develop- ment plans. d) Drainage plans and construction measures for commercial development should be designed to lessen or eliminate erosion, water quality degradation and other negative impacts on adjacent waters and wetlands - for example, through buffering and filtering runoff water, use of naturally vegetated and permeable surfaces rather than paving to the extent feasible, and grass-ditching and surface drainage rather than direct storm-water discharges. Best management practices developed as part of the Areawide 208 Waste Treatment Management Program should be implemented through the management of major new commercial developments. 111-40 e) Adequate sewage disposal systems (septic tanks or treatment systems), meeting Federal En- vironmental Protection Agency, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and local health department standards must be provided in new commercial development. f) Shorefront commercial development that disrupts existing public access will be prohibited. Developers of commercial property on immediate beach or river-front are strongly encouraged to provide such area for general public use in their plans. Policies in the Beach and Shoreline Access segment, Chapter IV (D), will be considered in review of commercial activities. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "Nonwater-dependent structures such as parking garages, apartments, restuarants, and shops have been built in the past on pilings over wetland areas. Such construction presents unnecessary en- croachment on the aquatic ecosystem by shading out the underlying vegetation. Nonwater-dependent structures shall be discouraged from being sited over water and/or wetland areas. Only when public need is demonstrated and no feasible alternative sites are available should consideration be given towards ap- proval of the proposed structure." [R.30-12(M)] b) "Nonwater-dependent structures such as commercial and residential buildings have been con- structed on primary sand dunes or beach areas in the past. Such construction may seriously disrupt the dune/beach system and its vegetation, hampering their effectiveness as a storm and erosion buffer. The siting of nonwater-dependent structures on the primary dunes or the beaches will be discouraged where other feasible alternatives exist. Design and construction options which minimize destruction of the dunes and dune vegetation will be encouraged." [R.30-13(D)] Management Authority Any commercial activities and associated development which alter a critical area require a permit from the Coastal Council. Commercial buildings and structures must meet the requirements of the Final Rules and Regulations for Permitting to obtain a Council permit. Outside of the critical areas in the coastal zone the Budget and Control Board has permit authority over the use of land and water below mean high water for any activity, including commercial developments. Council review and certification of these permits pursuant to Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(I 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act is based on the preceding coastal management policies. Similarly, permits required for cer- tain air pollution, sewage treatment or other associated support facilities by the Department of Health and En- vironmental Control are also subject to Council review and certification. 11141 V. RECREATION AND TOURISM Findings Recreation is physically and mentally important for people of all ages. As the leisure time of Americans continues to increase, recreation becomes an even more significant aspect of our daily lives. With expanding growth and development, the availability of open space or natural areas and of locations with adequate recrea- tional facilities or equipment becomes a larger concern. "More than half of all Americans vacation on the coasts and with current popluation trends, this use of the coasts will no doubt continue to expand." (Ketchum, The Waters Edge, 1975, pp. 12-13). Intensive studies in the early 1960's by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Commission indicated that 44% of outdoor recrea- tion participants favored water-based activities over any others. Swimming, boating and fishing were ranked the highest. (U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, Coastal Recreation Handbook, January, 1976). Recreation is most certainly a booming coastal industry in South Carolina. There are a wide variety of recreational opportunities ranging from swimming, sailing and sport fishing to observing wildlife or scenic vistas. There are intensive amusement park-type receational activities such as those of the Myrtle Beach-Grand Strand area. And there are opportunities for more passive, contemplative recreation, such as walking or sitting alone on a wide expanse of beach. There are potential conflicts between these types of recreation and, hopeful- ly, there will always be some of each type available to both citizens of South Carolina and her visitors. (Pro- blems of Beach and Shoreline Access are discussed specifically in Chapter IV). The inevitable increasing de- mand for recreation in the coastal zone makes the following policies for management of recreational resources even more vital to the future of South Carolina's coastal zone. A. PARKS (AND OPEN SPACES) The following objectives expressed in the South Carolina Overall Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1975, by the U.S. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, have been incorporated by the Coastal Council as the ob- jectives of the Coastal Program for Parks and Recreation. State Objectives 1) To recognize the importance of recreation as one of the basic needs to ensure the healthful and wholesome development of all citizens; 2) To provide adequate facilities, including public park lands developed for the benefit of our citizens; and 3) To ensure the significant, scenic, scientific and historic features of the State are preserved and enjoyed by all. Definite Objectives To relate recreation land needs to all statewide land needs and uses with special relationship to agricultural, educational, industrial, transportation and residential needs and those of significant natural, historic and cultural value. Particular consideration should be given to maintaining the ecological balance of fragile areas such as swamps, marshlands and wildlife habitats. To ensure that natural arma for recreation purposes are designed to facilitate the safeguarding of their ecological balance. To aid the development of the cultural potential of South Carolina by developing its historic heritage, arts and unique natural attractions for the enjoyment of residents and nonresidents. To ensure the development of recreation facilities in areas of rapid growth and in locations that are easily accessible to the economically deprived and handicapped in order to help reduce extended private vehicular trips to recreation sites. Policies (A number of State parks in the coastal zone have been identified as Geographic Areas of Particular Con- cern (GAPC's) because of their unique value as natural areas and as important recreational use areas. The priority of uses for these specific parks is addressed in the GAPC segment, Chapter [V [Al.) 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permits for parks and related facilities will be based on the following policies: a) Water-dependent recreational uses will be given priority consideration over other types of recrea- tional development in locations immediately adjacent to shoreline, wetlands or open water. For example, boating or swimming oriented parks would be considered water-dependent and receive priority over golf courses and tennis courts. b) Parks and open spaces are preferred uses in wetland areas, flood prone areas, beaches, and other environmentally significant or sensitive natural areas, with due consideration for types and intensity of development which reflect the "carrying capacity" of the area to accommodate influxes of large numbers of people without destruction or disruption of natural systems. c) Park plans and designs should incorporate the following design features where appropriate: i)preservation of a maximum of existing natural vegetation and open space, ii)maximum use of permeable surfaces (rather than paved surfaces), iii)provision of adequate parking (based on "carrying capacity" of the park) or alternative transportation access located in-shore or in less sensitive areas, iv)construction methods that mitigate erosion and other environmental damage, d) Park proposals which include filling or other permanent alteration of productive salt, brackish or freshwater marshes will be denied, unless no feasible alternatives exist. e) Cooperative local, State and Federal efforts to maintain or enhance existing air and water quality in and near valuable recreational resource areas. 2) In critical aeas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: Any park facilities which would require construction or alteration of a critical area would be reviewed for a Council permit on the basis of the Rules and Regulations for the particular type of project, for ex- ample, a dock and pier, or a walkway. 3) The Council also recommends the following policies be considered in the planning and design of parks and open space areas in the coastal zone: a) Provision of nature interpretation areas and nature-oriented facilities; b) Park structures and facilities which provide for elderly and handicapped visitors; c) Provision of new scenic vistas to the ocean, beaches, wetlands and other natural aeas, and protec- tion and enhancement of existing scenic areas; d) Consideration of energy use, with preference to non-motorized recreational access and activities when appropriate; e) Analysis of the recreational potential of surplus State and Federal lands; f) Maintenance of any fee charged for use of public recreational facilities at a nominal level; g) Encouraging park development along utility easements and abandoned rights-of-way, and on dredge material disposal areas - especially intensive-type or active parks since these are areas of previous- ly altered natural environment. h) Structures which are visually compatible with natural surroundings, in terms of such factors as scale, building materials and color. Management Authority The Coastal Council had direct permitting jurisdiction over any proposed park facilities located in the critical areas - waters, wetlands, beaches, primary sand dunes. This is a very important aspect of park management since recreation at the water's edge is expected to be the most significant recreational de- mand. Outside the critical areas, but within the coastal zone, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (PRT) will cooperate in implementation of the preceding policies of the Coastal Management Program. PRT is the lead State agency with respect to the development and maintenance of the State park system. The Memorandum of Agreement between these two agencies confirms and outlines this cooperative recreational planning effort mandated by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)( 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act. III-43 Where any part of a proposed recreational area outside of critical areas will involve encroachment below mean high water (MHW), a permit would be required from the Budget and Control Board. These permits are reviewed and certified by the Coastal Council for their compliance with the coastal program. The majority of public recreational facilities in the coastal zone (as throughout the State) will be financed in full or in part by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and recreation Service. These project proposals will be subject to A-95 review as well as the Federal consistency proivisions of the coastal program. B. COMMERCIAL RECREATION (tourist attractions, including, but not limited to amusement parks, boarkwalks, and theme parks) Findings Commercial recreation or so-called "tourist attractions" are a significant economic enterprise and con- tribute to the success of many coastal areas in appealing to vacationers and travelers. While their construction and operation may require regulation for public safety or aesthetic reasons, these issues are primarily of local concern, in terms of local plans and building codes. Commercial recreation facilities are of State-level coastal management concern only when they might alter a critical area, disrupt existing public access or significantly degrade water quality or other environmental fac- tors. Observance of the following policies can ameliorate or reduce these possibile negative impacts of tourist activities. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permits for commercial recreation will be based on the following policies; a) Proposals which include the filling, or other permanent alteration of productive salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands will not be approved unless no feasible alternatives exist. b) For locations immediately adjacent to the shoreline, the water-dependent nature of the project should be demonstrated, particularly if adjacent wetlands or water bodies will be significantly impacted. Water-dependent is defined here to mean those activities which require access to waters of the coastal zone as an essential aspect of their primary function. c) Construction methods and design features which minimize the possible degradation of adjacent water quality from erosion or stormwater drainage are encouraged - for example, use of silt screens and curtains, berm and swale drainage systems rather that direct discharge, and maintaining permeable sur- face rather than extensive pavement as much as possible. d) Commercial recreation centers must demonstrate compliance with applicable State and federal standards for sewage treatment facilities. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: "a) Nonwater-dependent structures such as parking garages, apartments, restaurants, and shops have been built in the past on pilings over wetland areas. Such construction presents unnecessary en- croachment on the aquatic ecosystem by shading out the underlying vegetation. Nonwater-dependent structures shall be discouraged from being sited over water and/or wetland areas. Only when public need is demonstrated and no feasible alternative sites are avaliable should consideration be given towards ap- proval of the proposed structure. b) Nonwater-dependent structures such as commercial and residential buildings have been con- structed on primary sand dunes or beach areas in the past. Such construction may seriously disrupt the dune/beach system and its vegetation, hampring their effectiveness as a storm and erosion buffer. Ths siting of nonwater-dependent structures on the primary dunes or the beaches will be discouraged where other feasible alteratives exist. Design and construction options which minimize destruction of the dunes and dune vegetation will be encouraged." II1-44 3) Further, the Council recommends that the following policies be considered in planning for tourist attrac- tions in the coastal zone: a) Minimizing negative aesthetic impacts, for example, disruption of scenic vistas or significant alteration of the character of an area; b) Development of local planning and zoning controls which address the location and design of tourist attractions; c) Locating tourist activities in areas convenient to existing population centers rather than placement in remote areas which may encourage strip-devel~opment. Management Authority The South Carolina Coastal Council has direct permit authority over any activity in the critical areas of the coastal zone, including tourist-oriented or commercial recreation facilities. Therefore, the proposed construc- tion of such structures on beachfront or primary dunes or in wetland areas is subject to permit requirements of the Council, Possible impacts on the critical areas are the major concern of these tourist developments. In the rest of the eight county coastal zone, State permits are required from the Budget and Control Board for construction below mean high water (MHW). These permit applications are reviewed and certified by the Coastal Council for their compliance with policies of the coastal management program. This review and cer- tification authority is mandated by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(l 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977. The Department of Health and Environmental Control has permit authority over certain aspects of facilities open to the public, i'ncluding sewage systems and other sources of environmental pollution. These permit applications are subject to the review and certification process of the Coastal Council. In some cases where dredge or fill in waters or wetland areas would be required, such commercial recrea- tion areas are under the jurisdiction of Federal permit authority on the basis of Sections 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended. These permits are sub- ject to the Federal consistency provisions of the coastal management proram. IV. MARINE RELATED FACILITIES MARINAS, BOAT RAMPS, and DOCKS and PIERS Findings Marinas are facilities that provide boat launchings, storage, mooring, supplies and service. They, along with ramps and docks and piers, support an important form of water-dependent recreation and by definition must locate along shorefront areas. Recreational boating is a significant economic enterprise, as well as a leisure-time activity for its participants. All marinas, boat ramps, and docks and piers will affect aquatic habitat to some degree, due simply to their location, the action of boats in the water and associated spills or discharges of oils and other waste materials. However, adverse effects can be minimized by utilizing proper location and design features. A. MARINAS Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification or permit applications and marina proposals will be based on the following policies: a) Marinas are encouraged to locate only in areas that will have the least adverse impact on salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands and water quality. b) Marinas should be located in areas where maximum physical advantage exists and where the least initial and maintenance dredging will be required. c) Marinas should avoid or minimize the disruption of currents. Dead-end or deep canals without adequate circulation or tidal flushing will not be permitted unless it can be determined that water quaity will not be adversely affected. d) Marina designs which minimize the need for excavation and filling of shoreline areas are en- couraged. e) Provision of facilities for the proper handling of petroleum products, sewage, litter, waste and other refuse must be made in new marinas, with regard to South Carolina Department of Health and En- vironmental Control (DHEC) specifications. f) In review and certification of marina permit applications outside the critical areas, the Council will consider the extent of public demand for the facilities, as demonstrated by the applicant. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "Marinas should be located in areas that will have the least adverse impact on wetlands, water quality, wildlife and marine resources, or other critical habitats; b) Marinas should not be located within 1,000 feet of open productive shellfish harvesting areas; c) Marinas should be located in areas where maximum physical advantages exist and where the least initial and maintenance dredging will be required; d) Marinas should avoid or minimize the disruption of currents; e) Marina design should minimize the need for the excavation and filling of shoreline areas; f) Open dockage extending to deepwater should be considered as a preferable alternative to the ex- cavation of boat basins; g) Turning basins and navigation channels shall be designed to prevent long-term degradation of water quality. Dead-end or deep canals without adequate circulation should be avoided. For example, the depth of boat basins and access channels shall not exceed that of the receiving body of water; h) Project proposals shall include facilities for the proper handling of petroleum products, sewage, litter, waste, and other refuse with regard to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmen- tal Control (DHEC) specifications. The following minimal on-shore restroom and shower facilities will be required as a condition of any marina permit so as to protect water quality of the affected waters. III-46 No. Slips or Toilet (Head) Urinals Lavatories Showers Moorings Men-Women Men Men-Women Men-Women 21 -40 1 -2 1 2 -2 2 -2 41 -60 2 -3 2 2 -2 2 -3 61 -80 3 -4 2 3 -3 3- 3 81 -100 4 -5 3 3 -3 3 -3 If there are more than 100 slips, there shall be provided one additional toilet (head), lavatory and shower for each sex for each additional 40 slips or fraction thereof and one additional men's urinal for each 100 additional slips or fraction thereof. Additional facilities are required by DHEC where restaurants, motels, laundries, and other non-water dependent structures are provided. All pump-out and sewage facilities should be included in the public notice and certified by DHEC before permit approval. Also, DHEC can provide advice regarding the necessity of having hose connec- tions from boats to shore-based sewage facilities where these boats are used as residences. Trach receptacles or similar facilities should be plentiful and convenient for the proper disposal of trash, waste and noxious materials such as paints, rags and oil cans required for normal boat maintenance and repair. Boat maintenance areas should be designed so that all bottom scraping and painting be accomplished over dry land allowing for proper control and deposition of residues, spills and strom water runoff. i) Dry storage type marinas should be 'encouraged wherever possible; j) Applications for construction of marina and commercial dock facilities will be considered by the Council only after demonstration by the applicant of public demand for the facilities; k) Applications for marinas should include maintenance dredging schedules and dredged material removal sites when applicable." [R. 30-12 (E)(a-k)l 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered in marina location and design: a) Adequacy of transporation access from the landward side, b) Adequacy of parking facilities, c) Upland facilities which are compatible with and enhance recreational boating opportunities. Management Authority In critical areas of the South Carolina coastal zone, permits are required from the Coastal Council for all new marina projects, including associated dredging and construction of docks, piers or other structures. (The Council's direct permit responsibility is explained in detail in the legal analysis in Chapter V [Al.) Beyond the critical areas, the creation of new marinas in the coastal zone is subject to the permit re- quirements of the Budget and Control Board for activities below mean high water (MHW). These permits are subject to the provisions of Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(l 1) of the 1977 Coastal Management Act by which the Coastal Council reviews and certifies each permit application in the coastal zone for compliance with provi- sions of the coastal program. .Permits may also be required from the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) if sewage treatment facilities are included as part of a marina project proposal or if 401 Water Quality Certifica- tion is required. Permits -issued by DHEC in the coastal zone are subject to review and certification by the Coastal Council. Marina facilities also require permits pursuant to certain Federal statutes which receive review and com- ment by the Coastal Council and its staff and will be subject to the Federal consistency provisions of the South Carolina coastal management program. The State Ports Authority also has regulatory authority over marinas since Section 15(A) of the Act pro- vides that: 111-47 If the proposed project is in one or more of the State's harbors or in a waterway used for commercial navigation and shipping or in an area set aside for port development in an approv- ed management plan, then a certificate from the South Carolina State Ports Authority declar- ing the porposed project or activity would not unreasonably interfere with commercial naviga- tion and shipping must be obtained by the Council prior to issuing a permit. B. BOAT RAMPS Policies 1) In the coastal zone Council review and certification of applications for boat ramps will be based on the following policies: a) Filling of productive salt, brackish, or freshwater wetlands for boat ramp construction is discouraged, and will only be approved when no feasible alternatives exist in adjacent non-wetland areas. In addition, the amount of fill required should be minimized. b) The following priorities are considered when justifying boat ramp location in sensitive areas: i)public use - open to all citizens, ii)restricted use - open only to citizens of a particular area or organization, iii)private use. c) Boat ramp locations requiring dredging of productive salt, bracking or freshwater wetlands to provide channel access to deep-water will be discouraged. d) Boat ramps should be constructed of environmentally acceptable materials. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone it is Council policy that: a) "Boat ramp construction materials should consist of environmentally acceptable materials such as concrete or oyster shell. Environmentally unacceptable materials include, but are not limited to, asphalt roofing shingles, asphalt, and rubble; b) Justification for boat ramp construction in environmentally sensitive areas shall be considered us- ing the following priorities: i)public use - open to all citizens, ii)restricted use - open to citizens of a particular area or organization only, iii)private use - use for one citizen or family; c) In cases where private use is necessary, siting of ramps should be in areas where the least en- vironmental impact will accrue to that area. Locations requiring dredging or productive wetlands to pro- vide deepwater access to the ramp are discouraged; d) "The siting of 'public use' boat ramps is encouraged in easily accessible areas such as bridged and deadend causeways." [R. 30-12(B)(a-d)]. 3) The Council also recommends the following policies be considered in location and design of public boat ramps in the coastal zone: a) Provision of adequate transportation access from the landward side; b) Provision of adequate parking in non-wetland areas; c) Incorporation with other public recreational and boating facilities to improve recreation opportunities; d) Adequate facilities, for example, trach recepticles, restrooms, drinking water fountains, lighting; e) Provision for continuing maintenance. Management Authority In critical areas of the coastal zone, a permit from the Coastal Council is required for any boat ramps which are proposed. (All boat ramps must involve filling in periodically inundated areas, in fact, below mean high water, in order to provide boats with access to the water. This filling is defined by the South Carolina Coastal Management Act as an alteration to a critical area - in this case, tidelands and/or coastal waters). Boat ramps located in other than critical areas of the State are subject to permit requirements of the Budget 11148 and Control Board for activities on State-owned submerged bottoms (below MHW). In the coastal zone, these permit applications are also reviewed and certified by the Coastal Council for consistency with the coastal management program, pursuant to Sections 7(A) and 8(B)( 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act. In some areas a Federal agency permit may be required. These permit applications must be reviewed and certified by the Coastal Council and are subject to Federal consistency provisions. C. DOCKS AND PIERS Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permits for docks and piers will be based on the following policies: a) Docks and piers will not be approved where they interfere with navigation or reasonable public use of the waters. b) Docks and piers should not restrict waterflow or circulation, in order to maintain existing hydrologic characteristics and water quality. c) Docks and piers must be limited to a reasonable size and extension for the intended use. d) Docks and piers should be located and designed to minimize disruption and shading out of salt, brackish or freshwater marsh vegetation. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "Docks and piers shall not impede navigation or restrict the reasonable public use of waters; b) Docks and piers shall be constructed in a manner that does not restrict waterflow; c) The size and extension of a dock or pier should be limited to that which is reasonable for the in- tended use; d) To preclude the adverse effects of shading marsh vegetation, walkways which are built over vegetated marsh and lead to the dock or pier shall not exceed four feet in width (unless the applicant can justify a need for a wider structure) and should be elevated at least three feet above mean high water; e) Dry storage in uplands will be encouraged in preference to moorage in crowded areas; f) Developers of subdivisions, motels, and multiple family dwellings will be encouraged to develop single, joint-use moorage facilities while their plans are in the development stage; g) Project proposals shall include facilities for the proper handling of litter, waste, refuse, and petroleum products, where applicable; h) Where docks and piers are to be constructed over bottoms under lease by the State for shellfish culture or other mairculture activity, the Council will consider rights of the leasee prior to approval or denial." [R. 30-12(A)(a-h)] 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered in location and design of docks and piers: a) Developing joint-use or community piers in future subdivisions rather than the proliferation of in- dividual structures; b) Use of construction materials which are easily maintained and repaired, for safety and aesthetic con- siderations; c) Attention be given when property is subdivided to provide waterfront lot-owners with adequate riparian access, so that conflicts over the alignment of docks and piers will be avoided. Management Authority A permit directly from the South Carolina Coastal Council is required for docks and piers in the critical areas of the coastal zone. The Rules and Regulations governing permitting and the process specified therein are applied to docks and piers. Outside the critical areas, a permit from the Budget and Control Board is required for activities involving navigable waters of the State and all lands below the mean high water line in tidally-influenced areas and III-49 ordinary high water in non-tidal areas. The Coastal Council reviews and certifies these permit applications in the coastal zone for their compliance with the coastal management program, based on the preceding policies, as mandated. by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(1 1) of the Coastal Management Act. Docks and piers may also be subject to Federal agency permit authority based on Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Coastal Council is involved in review and certification of such permit applications. Private docks and piers which meet certain size specifications are covered under the provisions of a general permit to the citizens of South Carolina from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is discussed in detail in Appendix K. III-50 VII. WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT A. WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Findings The findings for this policy section are those presented in the Living Marine Resources Segment, Chapter IV(E). Policies The following policies were developed by the South Carolina Coastal Council in conjunction with the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department for inclusion in the S.C. Coastal Program. 1) In the coastal zone, including critical areas, Council issuance or review and certification of permit applications which would impact wildlife and fisheries resources will be based on the following policies: a) Activities deemed, by the South Carolina Coastal Council in consultation with the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, to have a significant negative impact on wildlife and fisheries resources, whether it be on the stocks themselves or their habitat, will not be approved unless overriding socio-economic considerations are involved. In reviewing permit applications relative to wildlife and fisheries resources, social and economic impacts as well as biological impacts will be con- sidered. b) Wildlife and fisheries stocks and populations should be maintained in a healthy and viable condi- tion and these resources should be enhanced to the maximum extent possible. c) Critical wildlife and fisheries habitat should be protected and enhanced to the extent possible. Management Authority The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department is the principal State agency with statutory authority for the protection, management and conservation of wildlife and marine resources, including fish, game, non-game and endangered species. The Memorandum of Agreement between the Coastal Council and the Department confirms the cooperative relationship between the Council and the Department which has authority in the establishment, implementation, administration and enforcement of State game, fish and shellfish laws. B. ARTIFICIAL REEFS Findings The artificial reefs off South Carolina represent a well-used resource for the State. Recreational fishing as a whole offers great economic potential to the coastal zone. Correspondingly, commercial fishing has increased, especially in live bottom areas. Groundfish resources over natural live bottoms are heavily harvested both by recreational, "head-boat" industry, and the commercial hook and line fish trap fisheries. Artificial reefs har- bor some of these same and very desirable live bottom groundfish species; most notably, black sea bass (Cen- tropristes striata), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), jack crevalle (Caranx hippos), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nothus), red porgy (Pagrus sedecim), grouper (Epinephelus sp.), and spadefish (Chaetodiperus faber). Also, artificial reefs and accompanying midwater reef structures serve to attract pelagic fishes such as Spanish mackeral (Scomberomorus maculatus), King mackeral (Scomberomorus cavalla), little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus), cobia (Rachycentron canadum) and scads (Decapterus sp.). These artificial reef areas also serve as habitat for many species of encrusting and free-living invertebrates. In turn, due to visual aspects and their geological relief, these reefs provide excellent habitat for a wide variety of flora and fauna on otherwise barren, gently sloping, hard-sand shelf areas prevalent off the South Carolina coast. The relief provided by sunken objects, such as ships, landing craft and caisons, provides not only a visual attraction but a suitable substrate for attachment of fouling by encrusting organisms which in turn provide the basis of the food chain for resident as well as transient fish species. Besides the benefits of these reefs to the recreational fisherman, recreational SCUBA divers enjoy these ar- tificial reefs for their aesthetic values. These reefs are bustling underwater communities with large schools of fish, ie., spadefish and scads, solitary brilliantly colored wrasses, triggerfish and sea urchins. Also, these reefs III-51 provide the spearfisherman an opportunity to enjoy this form of recreation. The artificial reef serves as a source of relatively inexpensive controllable and accessible live bottom research. One is able to study marine live-bottom community ecology, fishery recruitment and energy flow by using artificial reef areas. Also, food habit and behavior studies are more easily accomplished in reef areas due to their accessibility and reliability for attracting and maintaining certain species of groundfish. These ground- fish resources are hardly found so easily and in such numbers over open bottoms. Numerous aspects of man's activities can impact these artificial reef resources. The South Carolina ar- tificial reefs would not be threatened directly by Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development. These reefs are well inshore of all tracts and potential drilling sites. However, pipeline corridors could possibly traverse some reef locations. Probably the most impending development in and around reef locations would be the possibility of open water dredged material disposal. Open water spoil disposal on or near an established artificial reef site would have a deleterious effect on the fauna and flora of the reef due to covering and possi- ble suffocation of encrusting organisms, increased turbidity and toxicity of spoil material. Additionally, commercial fishing pressure, such as blackfish traps and trawling, may occur as prices and supplies of marketable groundfish diminish or are regulated in the Middle and Northeast of artificial reef areas. These pressures could possibly deny the recreational fisherman of harvest and enjoyment of the very ac- tivities for which these reefs were created initially, using public funds. Also, net dragging may disrupt reefs both physically, by altering contour, and biologically, by increasing turbidity and non-selectivity of harvest. Policies In the critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) The location and development of artificial reefs should not interfere with navigation or with ex- isting fisheries, and they should be compatible with all existing and approved uses for an area. b) Materials utilized in the construction of artificial reefs must not create any adverse environmental impacts. c) The development of artificial reefs for fisheries management purposes shall be encouraged, par- ticularly in areas where the biological productivity will be enhanced. d) In considering areas for artificial reef development, the possible impacts on historical or ar- cheological resources in the area will be considered. Management Authority Many artificial reefs along the South Carolina coast are beyond the 3-mile limit of State jurisdiction, and therefore, located outside the coastal zone. Any artificial reefs located landward of the 3-mile limit would be within the "coastal waters" critical area, as defined in Section 3 of the S.C. Coastal Management Act of 1977. Alterations in these areas are subject to the direct permitting authority of the Coastal Council. The Rules and Regulations for Permitting and the previously stated policies would be applied to all artificial reef proposals in the critical areas. Coordination with the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (SCWMRD) will be essential in any artificial reef proposals or projects for siting, construction and maintenance. SCWMRD is the State agency mandated to protect, manage and conserve wildlife and marine resources. C. IMPOUNDMENTS Findings Impoundments are wetland areas that have been separated from adjacent rivers and estuaries by a dike or series of dikes. There are usually flapgates or similar structures interspersed along the dikes that proviUe a method of controlling water levels within the impoundment. By selectively opening the flapgates on flood or ebb tides, water levels can be manipulated. Salinities within brackish impoundments can be controlled in a similar manner. The majority of coastal impoundments in South Carolina were used for rice cultivation during the 1700's and are currently managed to attract waterfowl for hunting. Management techniques are variable but basically 11-52 consist of seasonal drawdown which drains the interior of the impoundments and which. could eliminate natural wetland flora. Drawdown is followed by disking, burning, grazing or applying herbicides which fur- ther remove the flora (Landers et. al., 1976). These techniques encourage the growth of attractive food plants for waterfowl but eliminate natural wetland production during important summer months. Brackish impoundments are principally managed for widgeon-grass (Ruppia maritima), salt marsh bulrush (Scripus robustus) and dwarf spike-grass (Eleocharis parvula), which are excellent duck food species (Wilker- son, 1970). Other duck food plants, such as sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus), soft-stem bulrush (Scripus validus), muskgrass (Chara hornemannii) and duckweeds (Lemna and Spirodela), may also be present (Tiner, 1977). Some natural but less desirable plants, from a duck management standpoint, may also persist in these diked wetlands. These plants include smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), black needlegrass (Juncus romerianus), glassworts (Salicornia spp.), marsh hay cordgrass (Spartina patens), giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) and others (Tiner, 1977). Under fresh-water conditions many other marsh plants which are desirable duck food are encouraged within waterfowl impoundments. Smartweeds (Polygonum spp.), panic grasses (Panicum spp.), wild millet (Echinochloa spp.), red root (Lachnanthes caroliniana), water shield (Brasenia scherberi), spike ruches (Elecharis spp.), pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), arrow-arum (Peltandra virginica), white water-lily (Nymphaca odordate), southern naid (Najas quadalupensis), asiatic dayflower (Aneilema keisak), soft-stem bulrush (Scirpus validus), wild rice (Zizania aquatica), and watergrass (Hydrochloa carolinensis) (Conrad, 1965; Morgan, 1974). Cultivated crops, such as corn (Zea mays), brown top millet (Panicum ramosum), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crusgalli), wheat (Triticum aestivum), barley (Hordeum sp.), rye (Secale cereale), Italian rye grass (Lolium sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), soybeans (Glycine max) and grain sorghum (Sorghum sp.), are planted in conjunction with summer drawdown in some fresh- water impoundments. Undesirable marsh plants found within fresh-water impoundments include alligator- weed, cattails, giant cordgrass, giant cutgrass, pickerel-weed, soft rush, sea myrtle, marsh fleabane, American frogbit, bladderwort, pennywort, coontail(Ceratophyllum spp.), waterweed, green algae (Cladophora spp.) and fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana) (Conrad, 1965; Morgan, 1974; Tiner, 1977). Impoundments are areas of high productivity. When flooded, aquatic organisms are confined in an area where food is abundant and competition and predation is minimal. Fishes, such as the mummicho (Fundulus heteroclitus), the striped kikifish (F. majilis), eel (Anguilla rostrata), mullet (Mugil cephalus), spot (Leio stomus xanthurus), summer flounder (Paralichthes lethostigma) and others are found within impoundments. Some invertebrates found in impoundments include fiddler crabs (Uca spp.), blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), snails (Littorina irrorator and Melampus bidentatus) and mussels (Modiolus demissue). Impoundments substantially increase the utilization of wetlands by waterfowl and wading birds by enhanc- ing resting and feeding opportunities. Although many species of fish and invertebrates can survive and even flourish within impoundments, very few can reproduce in this unnatural environment. However, shallow wetland areas that are typically sites for impoundments are highly productive con- tributors of deritus to the estuarine food web and also supply vital habitat and nursery grounds for most com- mercial vertebrate and invertebrate estuarine species (Odum, 1961). Some important species using these nursery grounds are white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus), brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), Atlantic oyster (Crassostrea virginica), croaker (Micropogon undulatus), menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), and summer flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) (Conner and Truesdale). When impounded, the function of wetlands in providing detrital export, nursery areas and estuarine habitat is removed from the estuarine system and consequently is extremely detrimental to the estuary from a marine fisheries standpoint. Policies I) In the coastal zone, the Council will apply the following policies in review and certification of per- mit applications for wetland impoundments: a) Impoundment of previously undisturbed salt, brackish or tidal freshwater wetlands will be discouraged. b) Impoundments are preferred in areas dominated by vegetation and water salinities characteristic of freshwater conditions rather than salt or brackish conditions. III-53 c) The construction of dikes or embankments to create impoundments must not block public water- ways navigable to commercial and recreational craft unless there is an overriding public necessity. d) Wetland impoundments should be constructed in such a manner as to minimize adverse en- vironmental impacts. e) Permit applications for wetland impoundments must include a detailed plan, subject to review and approval by the Council. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone it is Council policy that: a) "Impoundment of previously undisturbed saline and brackish water marshes shall be discourag- ed as these areas are among the most valuable and productive of our coastal wetlands. b) The re-diking and embankment repair of former impoundments is preferred over the impound- ment of undisturbed wetland areas. c) Permit applications involving marsh impoundment proposals shall include details describing in- tent and use, as well as management plans which will be subject to Council review and approval, such management plans being a condition of any final permit and subject to enforcement." [R. 30-12(K)(2)a-cl. 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered in location and design of wetland impoundment proposals: a) The inclusion of buffer zones, where appropriate, between the impoundment dike and the mean high water line of adjacent waterways, to help both in preventing erosion and providing limited marine and ter- restrial habitat. Sources - Impoundments Conner, John V. and Frank M. Truesdale. 1972. Ecological implications of a freshwater impoundment in a low-salinity marsh. Proc. 2nd coastal marsh and estuary symposium. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 17 p. Conrad, W.B., Jr. 1965. A food habit study of ducks wintering on the lower Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers, Georgetown, South Carolina. Proc. 19th Annual Conference S.E. Assoc. Fish and Game Comm., 19:93-98. Landers, J.L., A.S. Johnson, P.H. Morgan, and W.P. Baldwin. 1976. Duck foods in managed tidal impoundments in South Carolina. Journal Wildlife Management. 40(4):721-F28. Morgan, P.H. 1974. A study of tidelands and impoundments within a three river delta system - the South Edisto, Ashepoo and Combahee Rivers of South Carolina. M.S. Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, 92 p. Odum, E.P. 1961. The role of tidal marshes in estuarine production. N.Y. State Conservationist, 15:12-15, 35. Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1977. An inventory of South Carolina's coastal marshes. S.C. Marine Resources Center, Report No. 23, 33 p. III-54 VIII. DREDGING Findings Dredging is the removal of sediments from waterways or wetland areas for the purposes of maintaining or deepening and extending navigable channels, harbors or marinas; for laying cables or pipelines; or for obtain- ing suitable fill and construction material (sand and aggregate). All of these activities may at times be necessary, economically justified projects in the coastal areas, but there also are potential negative impacts associated with dredging. These impacts may present conflicts not only with preservation of environmental quality, but with other economic interests dependent on the same resources - for example, shell fishing and recreational boating, both dependend on good water quality. The most obvious effect is direct destruction of the natural habitat provided in submerged bottoms or coastal wetlands, the important of each of these resources being increasingly recognized [Chapter I (C) and Chapter IV (E) of the prgram document]. In addition, the removal, transportation and consequent disposal of these sediments can result in problems of siltation, increased turbidity and pollution which degrade water quality. Marine and estruarine organisms may be severely impacted with uncontrolled dredging. Perhaps the most vulnerable life forms are oysters, because they are sedentary creatures. "A deposit of 1/20 inch of silt or shell or rocks from dredging is enough to make attachment impossible for young oysters", (Clark, John C. Coastal Ecosystem Management, p. 93). Harvesting of oysters is a significant recreational as well as comercial fishing enterprise in the South Carolina lowcountry. Dredging upstream, beyond the reach of saline or brackish waters (defined in the South Carolina Coastal Management Act as "critical areas") also can have significant negative impacts on estuarine areas. Since freshwaters drain into the estuary, their quality play important roles in the function of the estuarine system. Disposal of the dredged material is another major concern. The provision of adequate disposal areas while at the same time avoiding potential environmental impacts is vital to maintaining navigation in the S.C. coastal zone. For example, suitable upland disposal sites would be necessary for a channel deepening project as an alternative to disposal in adjacent waters or wetlands. Underwater salvage is a very specialized activity, which would only have significant impacts in coastal waters if dredging were associated with a particular salvage operation. Therefore, the concerns and policies for this activity are limited in nature. The need exists for maintaining navigational access in the coastal zone, for national defense, commercial shipping, commercial fishing and recreational boating. Pipeline and cable construction also meet economic needs, for commercial, industrial and residential growth. But serious environmental consequences present a potential problem and make the following policies for dredging, dredge material disposal and underwater salvage vital for South Carolina's coastal resources. A. DREDGING Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permit applications for dredging projects will be based on the following plicies: a) To the extent feasible dredging should be performed only during closed shell fishing season if proposed in a productive shell fish area. b) Suspended sediments should be kept to a minimum through use of structures such as weirs and silt curtains to minimize water qality degradation. Where highly toxic sediments are encountered, dredg- ing will be prohibited unless tha activity is consistent with other dredging policies, as well a those for manufacturing or other industrial activities. c) Dredging should not reduce water circulation, water currents, mixing, flushing or salinity in the immediate area. d) Dredging for establishment of new canals which involves permanent alteration of valuable wetland habitats, especially for the purposes of creating waterfront lots from inland property or for creating dead-end canals, will be prohibited unless the Council finds there will be no significant III-55 environmental impacts. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: "a) Dredging for public projects in the wetland areas should be undertaken only if that activity is water-dependent and there are no feasible alternatives; b) Dredge activities should be restricted in nursery areas, in public and private shellfish grounds dur- ing periods of migration, spawning, and early development of important sport and commercial species; c) Dredging and excavation shall not create stagnant water conditions, lethal fish entrapments, or deposit sumps or otherwise contribute to water quality degradation; d) Designs for dredging and excavation projects shall, where reasonable, include protective measures such as silt curtains, diapers, and weirs to protect water quality in adjacent areas during con- struction by preventing the dispersal of silt materials; e) Dredged materials shall be deposited and contained in such a manner so as to prevent dispersal in- to adjacent wetland areas; f) In general, excavation of materials from productive submerged and wetland areas for fill pur- poses shall be denied; g) Wetlands shall not be utilized as depositories for waste materials except as discussed in R.30-12 (I); h) A specialized form of dredging activity involves the creation and maintenance of navigational channels and access canals. These activities have a potential for severe environmental impacts and should meet a demonstrated public need; -i) To the extent feasible, project plans should utilize piers or catwalks, rather than channels or canals, to reach deep water areas; j) Access canals shall be designed to insure adequate flushing and shall not create dead-end water or stagnant pockets. Open-end, U-shaped, or semicircular canals are generally preferred over dead-end canals, since they usually provide better water circulation; k) Highway waterway construction that is slated to be tied into wetland areas should be constructed in the dry, if possible, so that sloping and stabilization of the banks can be completed before the plug is removed for the connection to open waters. Where dry construction is not possible, temporary plugs or silt curtains at the end of canals connected to waterways should be maintained until all sediment settles out; 1) The sides of navigation channels and access canals should be gently sloping rather than vertical to facilitate biological as well as physical stabilization of the canal banks; m) When several landowners are to be served by a project, dredging for navigation channels and ac- cess canals should be well planned to prevent unnecessary excavation. Tributary canals in the highlands leading to a central navigation channel should be utilized rather than separate channels for each water- front landowner; n) The berm of access should be raised so that there is a gradual slope away from the canal edge. This will help prevent introduction of contaminants into adjacent wetland areas; o) Alignment of channels and canals should make maximum use of natural or existing channels. Alignment of channels and canals should avoid shellf ish beds, ursery areas, and spawning areas in highly productive wetlands." [R. 30-12(G) and (D)] Management Authority In the critical areas of the coastal zone, a permit from the Coastal Council is required for any dredging ac- tivity. The Final Rules and Regulations of the Council (presented in Appendix K) outline the conditions that must be satisfied for such permits to be issued. Outside the critical area of the coastal zone, the Budget and Control Board has permit authority for dredg- ing activity below mean high water. The Coastal Council must review and certify applications to the Budget and Control Board as being in compliance with the prededing policies, as mandated by Sections 7(A) and I1-56 8(B)(l 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act, and as outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement between the two agencies. In certain locations, permits from Federal agencies will be required for dredging operations. The Council will review and certify these permit applications for their consistency with the coastal program. B. DREDGE MATERIAL DISPOSAL Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permit applications for dredge material disposal projects will be based on the following policies; a) Spoil should not be placed on high value natural habitats such as salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands; sumberged vegetation; oyster reefs or tidal guts. Where upland disposal is not possible, areas of relatively low productivity should be utilized, or ocean disposal should be employed. b) Upland dredge material disposal sites should be stabilized and maintained to prevent erosion and direct water run-off. c) Where water disposal is necessary, natural channels and existing water circulation should not be blocked with dredge material. Spoil deposition in water areas of higher flushing rate will decrease damage from suspended sediments and oxygen depletion. d) Consideration should be given to the temporal aspects of spoil deposition such as impacts on spawnig seasons, fish migrations, and waterfowl nesting and wintering areas. e) The selection of upland dredge disposal sites should include consideration for minimizing negative impacts on valuable terrestrial wildlife or vegetative habitats. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: "a) Upland disposal of dredged material should always be sought in preference to disposal in wetlands. Where upland disposal is not possible, areas of relatively low productivity above mean high water mark should be utilized. Highly productive wetland areas or bottoms situated below the mean high water mark should not be utilized for disposal of dredged materials when other alternatives exist; b) Open water and deep water disposal should be considered as an alternative if highland alter- natives are not feasible. However, open and deep water disposal sites should be seriously considered only after careful consultation with the Council and other relevant State and Federal agencies; c) Toxic and highly organic materials should be disposed of in highland areas behind impervious dikes; d) Dikes surrounding disposal areas should be shaped and vegetated immediately to minimize ero- sion, with outfalls positioned to empty into non-wetland areas; e) Future disposal sites shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis; f) Existing disposal areas should be utilized to the fullest extent possible; this utilization would in- clude raising the height of the embankment to increase the holding capacity of the disposal area; g) In evaluating potential sites for dredged material disposal, attention must be given to possible adverse impacts on public health and welfare as well as on critical fish and wildlife areas such as en- dangered species habitats, waterfowl wintering areas, and shellfish harvesting areas." [R. 30-12(1)] 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered in planning for dredge material disposal: a) Consideration for future maintenance of the spoil area, for example, development of spoil islands which have been found to be beneficial for terrestrial habitat and migratory waterfowl. b) Abandoned sand or gravel pits in proximity to a dredge site, where spoil can be more adequately con- tained, should be used for disposal areas. c) Consideration for reuse of spoil disposal sites, such as development of public parks or recreational areas. d) Consideration for the mining of spoil areas so as to extend their life expectancies. III-57 e) Prior to major dredging projects, the economic and environmental feasibility for alternative use of the dredged material should be studied. The physical and chemical characteristics of the spoil should be determin- ed in order to decide the most appropriate disposal options. Spoil suitable as fill material for residential, com- mercial or industrial development should be utilized for such uses. Spoil shells can be used to stimulate oyster production or for dike construction. Beach renourishment and spoil disposal are related issues and should be addressed concurrently. Management Authority In the critical areas of the coastal zone, the Coastal Council has direct permitting authority for location of disposal sites for dredged material. The policies in the Rules and Regulations for Permitting, as well as the pro- cedures thereunder, shall be applied. Act 508 of the 1978 S.C. General Assembly (R. 601) gave the Coastal Council authority for the granting of rights and easements to the Federal government for spoil disposal sites for purposes of maintenance of navigable waterways, including the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. This authority was shifted from the S.C. Development Board where it had previously been located. (Chapter 5 of Title 3 of 1976 Code of Laws was amended, substituting the term "Coastal Council" for "State Development Board" wherever it appeared.) Outside of the critical areas in the coastal zone, the Budget and Control Board has permitting authority for dredged material disposal sites which are below mean high water. Permit applications to the Budget and Con- trol Board are reviewed and certified by the Coastal Council as being consistent with the Coastal Management Program, as mandated by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(l 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act. Section 15(A) of the Coastal Management Act states that: If the proposed porject is in one or more of the State's harbors or in a waterway used for com- mercial navigation and shipping or in an area set aside for port development in an approved management plan, then a certificate from the South Carolina State Ports Authority declaring the proposed project or activity would not unreasonable interfere with commercial navigation and shipping must be obtained by the Council prior to issuing a permit. In most areas a Federal agency permit will be required for dredge material disposal. Permit applications to appropriate Federal agencies must be reviewed and certified by the Coastal Council, under Federal consistency provisions of the coastal management program. C. UNDERWATER SALVAGE Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of underwater salvage permits will be based on the policies for dredging activities when applicable, VI (A)(2), p. 107. 2) In the critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: Any dredging and dredge material disposal associated with a salvage operation will be subject to the policies for dredging, as expressed in the Rules and Regulations for Permitting, R.30-12(G), and VI (A)(1) of this section. Management Authority Underwater salvage operations are subject to the permitting authority of the Coastal Council if such opera- tions will alter or disturb a critical area. The Institute of Archeology and Anthropology also controls such operations through a permitting program. Application for such permits will be reviewed and certified for con- sistency with the Coastal Management Proram, as mandated by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(11) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act. Outside of the critical areas in the coastal zone, underwater salvage operations may be subject to Budget and Control Board authority, in addition to that of the Institute of Archeology and Anthropology. Council III-58 review and certification of permit applications to the Budget and Control Board are required. In some areas a permit for underwater slavage operations may be required by~ a Federal agency. Applica- tions for these permits must be reviewed and certified by the Coastal Council, subject to Federal consistency provisions. 111-59 IX. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES Findings The range of services and facilities provided by the public sector continues to increase with growing population and complexity of life-styles, especially in urbanized areas. In many instances, consideration of economics, efficiency or environmental constraints have led the way to government provision of these services - for example, sewer and water services which are very expensive for private concerns to construct and main- tain. Individual systems such as wells and septic tanks are adequate where development is limited, but can have major environmental impacts in densely populated areas. For example, a proliferation of wells in some areas can seriously draw-down or drain the aquifer, reducing the groundwater resources, and possibly resulting in saltwater intrusion. The continuing commercial and industrial expansion of the coastal zone in South Carolina will mean in- creasing populations which demand new and improved services. As rural areas are developed, the need to ex- tend services to these areas will grow. The full range of public services must be supplied in order to provide for the needs of coastal residents, maintain economic interest to stimulate needed jobs, and at the same time con- serve the environmental quality of coastal resources. There are also potential negative impacts from these public facilities if they are not adequately planned and managed. Several activities are addressed under other headings, by specific type of activity, for example, recreation and transportation. For this section, public facilities include the following: A.Sewage treatment B.Solid waste disposal C.Public/Quasi-public buildings D.Dams and reservoirs E.Water supply Energy facilities are addressed in a separate section on Energy Facility Planning, Chapter IV(B). In South Carolina's coastal zone, many of the benefits and potential negative effects of provision of public services have not yet been felt because growth was relatively slow in the past and most of the coastal zone is rural and undeveloped. Thus the following policies for coastal management of public services definitely will affect the future. In this State there is a unique opportunity to encourage positive growth and development while preserving and protecting coastal resources. A. SEWAGE TREATMENT (treatment plants and associated transmission systems, lagoons, impound- ments, and outfalls; septic tanks) Findings The provision of adequate sewage treatment systems in order to protect public health and welfare, as well as environmental quality in coastal communities becomes increasingly important with growing populations and urban densities. The importance of these issues was stressed in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which provided for Section 201 Facilities Construction Grants and 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management planning. Other than actual location of facilities in sensitive areas, the major negative impact associated with sewage treatment systems is potential water quality degradation from effluent discharge - either septic tanks or treat- ment plants. Septic tanks are only effective in treating sewage in areas where soils are suitable for proper drainage, where they are spaced adequately and where groundwater and surfacewater are sufficient distance away. The provision of central treatment plants also can present environmental problems. Eventual disposal of the effluent or sludge may degrade the quality of coastal waters, and possibly disrupt wetland systems, recreational activities and fish and shellfish resources. The same issue involved in the laying of other pipelines can be present in construction of sewer transmission systems. The potential secondary impacts of growth inducement from sewage treatment facilities can result if sewer systems are extended into areas with little previous development. This type of growth catalyst is only a serious problem if sensitive or fragile areas are threatened or if local zoning or other regulation is inadequate to pro- vide proper management. III-60 Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of sewage treatment and disposal permit ap- plications will be based on the following policies: a) Sewage treatment facilities and transmission systems in the coastal zone must meet applicable Federal, State and local construction and water quality standards. b) The Coastal Council will coordinate with designated 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Manage- ment implementation agencies (pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, P.L. 92-500) and other agencies with responsibility for implementing conprehensive plans affecting sewage treatment, to ensure that proposed projects are compatible with growth and develop- ment plans and that alternative locations for sewage treatment facilities are considered. c) Construction of such facilities in productive salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands will not be ap- proved where feasible alternatives exist. For locations adjacent to such sensitive habitats, priority con- sideration will be given to major public facilities over smaller, private package plants. d) Sewage treatment facilities shall be constructed to limit effluent discharge as much as possible in- to areas containing productive shellfish beds. Construction of facilities shall in no case degrade the ex- isting water quality classification of the receiving water body, and if the current classification is not the highest achievable, the plans shall show a consideration for the water body ultimately achieving the highest classification. In addition, the facilities shall be constructed in conformance with the appropriate policies contained elsewhere in the plan. Where appropriate, construction of the facilities and associated transmission systems shall be timed so as not to disrupt spawning seasons or migrations of significant marine resources. e) Outfall locations should consider water depth, circulation and mixing in order to protect water quality. Effluent should not be discharged into poorly confined or poorly flushed estuarine areas. f) Maximum study and analysis should be given to alternatives to conventional treatment methods; for example, land disposal, water conservation techniques, land application and overland flow. g) Council will ensure that all proposed septic tank systems requireing a State permit will meet cur- rent DHEC standards and regulations. h) The Coastal Council will also coordinate with local health departments, DHEC, and other im- plementing agencies to ensure that septic tank standards and regulatory enforcement are adequate to pro- tect coastal resources. i) Extension of public sewage treatment systems with excess capacity into previously undeveloped areas where the resulting growth would have detrimental impacts on the critical areas is discouraged. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "Normal repair and maintenance of sewer facilities are exempted from Council permit re- quirements by Section 13(D) of the Act. The discharge of treated effluent is also exempted provided, however, that the Council shall review and comment on these discharges. The Council is concerned primarily with wetland degradation problems which could involve commercially important shellfish, recreational fisheries, and critical wildlife habitats. Standards applicable to these installations are as follows: i)Applications for the construction of lagoons or impoundments for waste treatment facilities, and similar activities should be denied when adverse effects on productive tidelands will result; ii)Such facilities should not be constructed in or immediately adjacent to wetland areas and must be designed in such a manner that no effluent will be discharged into areas open for shellfish harvesting." [R.30-12(J)] b) "Excavating activities in critical areas are sometimes required for the installation of transmission lines. These installations should be designed to minimize adverse environmental impacts. In addition to standards for dredging and filling, the following standards are applicable: i)Creation of permanent open water canals to install pipelines is discouraged since such projects generally interfere with drainage patterns and may adversely affect water quality through 111-61 bank erosion; ii)Dimensions of excavated canals for cables and pipelines should be minimal. Silt curtains are recommended for all excavations; iii)All excavations in wetland areas should be backfilled with the excavated material after installa- tion of the appropriate structure, while being careful to maintain the original marsh elevation; iv)The appropriate erosion control measures shall be employed during the crossing of wetland areas. Where appropriate, revegetation with suitable wetland species will be required; v)Alignments of new projects should be designed to utilize existing rights-of-way and topographic features wherever possible." [R.30-12(D)]. c) The Coastal Council will coordinate with the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and the designated 208 Areawide Waste Management and 201 Construction Grants implementa- tion agencies to ensure that protection of critical areas is given priority in their programs and that pro- cesses are developed to prevent adverse effects from sewage facilities and discharges. d) The Coastal Council will coordinate with the Department of Health and Environmental Control and local health departments or other implementing agencies to ensure that septic tank standards and regulatory enforcement are adequate to avoid adverse effects on critical areas. 3) The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered in planning and design of sewage treatment facilities: a) Providing visual buffer areas around sewage treatment facilities; b) Private package treatment plants proposed in subdivision areas and other developments should either be contained in the existing 208 Waste Treatment plan or receive 208 program approval before they are con- structed; c) Excess capacity in treatment facilities should not be approved unless the projects are contained in 208 plans and meet population projections for the area. Management Authority In the critical areas of the coastal zone, proposed construction of any new structure or facility to treat sewage must first receive a permit from the Coastal Council. This authority extends to placement of pipes or lagoons or any other activity which alters a critical area. Normal maintenance and repair and actual effluent discharge are exempted; however, the Council has the opportunity for review and comment on these activities. In the coastal zone outside of the critical areas, there is an overlap of State agency authorities for sewage treatment facilities. Both the Budget and Control Board and the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) have regulatory authority over several aspects of sewage treatment facility placement and operation, (discussed in detail in the Legal Authorities chapter). DHEC retains regulatory authority over sep- tic tanks with flow rate of 1500 gallons per day or greater (Section 44-1-140, S.C. Code of Laws). The permits of these agencies, whether issued jointly or independently, are subject to review and certification by the Coastal Council to ensure compliance with the preceding policies, as mandated by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(l 1). B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Findings Solid waste disposal may be a crucial problem in the future, since about nine pounds of solid waste is col- lected per day for each person in the U.S. (1972 data). In coastal areas where populations are concentrated, de- mand for disposal sites can be greatest while ecosystems are very fragile. The need for suitable upland disposal sites is clear since today it is recognized that productive wetlands are valuable habitat and should not be filled indiscriminately. In addition to their direct loss from filling with solid wastes, wetland and lower flood plain dump sites have high potentials for causing water pollution. In these areas there is a high rate of leaching of toxic chemicals, nutrient chemicals, and dissolved organic matter from the town dump into the groundwater, combined with the washoff of the same pollutants during rainstroms and flooding. Coastal waters may be adversely affected by the downstream flow of III-62 polluted water from dump or landfill sites located far inland on coastal tributaries. (Clark, Coastal Ecosystem Management, 1977, p. 527) The following policies for solid waste disposal are important for guiding the location and operation of disposal sites in the future in order to meet the need while protecting coastal resources. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permit applications for solid waste disposal sites and facilities will be based on the following considerations: a) All solid waste disposal sites in the coastal zone must meet applicable Federal, State water and air quality standards and local regulations for siting and operation. b) The location of solid waste disposal or landfill sites in salt, brackish or freshwater wetlands will not be approved unless no alternative exists and an overwhelming public need can be demonstrated. Solid waste disposal sites should be located in appropriate upland sites, where they will not pollute surface waters, coastal waters or ground waters. Site-specific evaluations are made in each case by the Depart- ment of Health and Environmental Control to determine the suitability of the site, considering variables such as soil permeability, the characteristics of the leached refuse, and the distance from groundwater. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "Wetlands shall not be utilized as depositories for waste materials." [R.30-12(G)(h)] b) Policies for deposition of dredged materials shall also apply to solid waste disposal activities (ex- cluding incineration). 3) The Council also recommends that the following be considered in solid waste disposal planning in the coastal zone: a) Maximum sutdy and analysis should be given to alternative means or techniques for refuse disposal such as recycling, reuse, burning for generation of electrical power, etc. Management Authority The alteration of a critical area, which includes filling or draining, requires a permit from the Coastal Council. The Final Rules and Regulations for Permitting apply to proposed solid waste disposal sites or facilities for critical areas [see R.30-12(G)]. Outside of critical areas in the coastal zone the Budget and Control Board requires permits for any use, in- cluding filling, of lands below mean high water. Permit applications for solid waste disposal in such areas must be reviewed and certified by the Coastal Council for compliance with the coastal management program. The Department of Health and Environmental Control issues permits for and otherwise regulates solid waste disposal outside of critical areas. Such permit applications are also subject to Council review and certification. The administration of these regulatory authorities must be in compliance with the rules, regulations and policies of the coastal management program as specified in Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(1 1) of the Coastal Manage- ment Act of 1977. C. PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC BUILDINGS (structures including but not limited to churches, governmental administration buildings, public park information centers, police and fire stations, public beach restroom facilities) Findings Although construction of new public or government buildings may serve a need in the public interest, the Council feels that these facilities should set an example for sound resource management in terms of location decisions, construction methods and building and site design. Public and quasi-public buildings have potential negative impacts along similar lines to those associated with other developments, such as residential or commercial construction. They are of coastal management concern only if they involve problems of proposed dredging or filling in productive wetlands or impacts on water quality from erosion, stormwater run-off or sewage discharges. There may also be conflicts with other III-63 potential uses for the same site locations. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permit applications for public/quasi-public buildings will be based on the following policies: a) For locations immediately adjacent to the shoreline, the water-dependent nature of the structure should be demonstrated before such sites are committed to development. A water-dependent facility is one which requires access to or use of the water as an essential aspect of its primary function. b) Permanent alterations to productive salt, brackish or freshwater wetlnads, from either dredging or filling for the construction of public buildings will not be approved unless no feasible alternatives exist or there is an overriding public interest or need. c) The use of construction methods and site drainage plans which reduce erosion hazards and limit the direct discharge of stormwater runoff are encouraged in order to protect coastal water quality. To the extent feasible, public buildings should not be located in high flood zone areas, as designated under the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Where public buildings must be located in these zones, they must meet applicable Flood Insurance criteria and/or building standards. d) Plans for major public buildings or complexes must include adequate sewage disposal systems (septic tanks or treatment systems), meeting Federal Environmental Protection Agency, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and local health department standards. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "Nonwater-dependent structures such as parking garages, apartments, restaurants, and shops have been build in the past on pilings over wetland areass. Such construction presents unnecessary en- croachment on the aquatic ecosystem by shading out the underlying vegetation. Nonwater-dependent structures shall be discouraged from being sited over water and/or wetland areas. Only when public need is demonstrated and no feasible alternative sites are available should consideration be given towards ap- proval of the proposed structure." [R. 30-12(M)] b) "Nonwater-dependent structures such as commercial and residential buildings have been con- structed on primary sand dines or beach areas in the past. Such construction may seriously disrupt the dune/beach system and its vegetation, hampering their effectiveness as a storm and erosion buffer. The siting of nonwater-dependent structures on the primary dunes or beaches will be discouraged where other feasible alternatives exist. Design and construction options which minimize destruction of the dunes and dune vegetation will be encouraged." [R.30-13(D)] 3) Further, the Council recommends that the following policies be considered with respect to public/quasi- public buildings in the coastal zone: a) Encourage visual compatibility, to the maximum extent practicable with surrounding development and natural resources in terms of scale, height, materials, color, texture, and geometry of building and site design. b) Development of local plans and development regulations that address the location and design of public/quasi-public buildings. Management Authority The construction of any public/quasi-public building in a critical area requires a permit from the Coastal Council. Any alteration of a critical area requires a permit under the Council's direct permit authority as im- plemented through the Final Rules and Regulations for Permitting. The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control has permit authority for any septic tank (1500 gpd or greater) or sewage system associated with such buildings. These permit applications are subject to review by the Coastal Council for certification of compliance with the preceding policies of the coastal management program, based on Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(11) of the Coastal Management Act of 1977. If fill below the mean high water is proposed for site preparation or construction, a permit would be III-64 D. BEACH AND SHORELINE ACCESS I. Introduction The South Carolina coastal zone boasts 158 miles of Atlantic Ocean shoreline - this wealth of beaches is an invaluable and irreplacable resource for the State. The General Assembly recognized the increasing demands on all coastal resources in the passage of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977, which mandates development of a comprehensive coastal management program. Among the many findings and con- cerns expressed in the State legislation are those of protecting public access and preserving and expanding recreational resources. The following beach and shoreline access policies and existing management authority address these issues. In order to receive Federal approval and thereby continued funding through the Department of Com- merce, the State must also meet Federal requirements for shoreline access in its coastal management program. The rules and regulations from the Office of Coastal Zone Management for program development and ap- proval read as follows: States must develop a planning process that can identify public shorefront areas ap- propriate for access and protection. This process must include: (1) A procedure for assess- ing public areas requiring access or protection; (2) A definition of the term "beach" and an identification of public areas meeting that definition; (3) Articulation of enforceable State policies pertaining to shorefront access and protection; (4) A method for designating shorefront access and protection; (5) An identification of legal authorities, funding pro- grams and other techniques that can be used to meet management needs. (S 923.24; Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 41 - March 1, 1978) II. Definitions (A) Beach The South Carolina Coastal Management Act (Act 123 of the 1977 South Carolina General Assembly) defines "beaches" as "those lands subject to periodic inundation by tidal and wave action so that nonon- littoral vegetation is established". (Section 3(H). This definition includes that area of sand between mean low and spring high water, in other words, the foreshore and the dry sand beach up to the line of vegetation. Beaches are included in the management program as "critical areas", subject to the Coastal Council's direct permitting authority. B. Public Beach and Public Access According to the Federal Regulations "public beach" must be defined within each management program. In South Carolina it is defined in terms of State ownership or of demonstrated public use sufficient to create public rights in the land. In South Carolina there is no specific statutory right for public use of the beaches. However, the doctrine of the public trust forms the basis for the public's right to use the foreshore or wet-sand beach seaward or below the mean high water mark. Under this doctrine, title to the foreshore (below mean high water) is presumed to be held by the State in trust for her citizens unless title has been expressly granted to an owner out to the low-water mark. Based on traditional concepts of law, or common law, the public has rights to use the foreshore for naviga- tion and fishing. In recent years, this traditional interpretation has been expanding in other jurisdictions. In South Carolina, statutory expression in State legislation for coastal management and oil spill monitoring and control, and opinions of the S. C. Attorney General reflecting strong public interest in recreation, have to some degree broadened the common laws basis to include recreational uses within the public trust. Upland access across to the wet-sand beach below mean high water is another important factor in identify- ing public beach access. Unless the property landward of the wet-sand beach is owned outright by the State - through acquisition, express dedication from developers and owners, or through an express trust - assurance of public rights for use of the "dry-sand beach" or shoreline property adjoining the traditional public beach IV-60 not interfere with existing drainage patterns, discourage the building of permanent open ditches through wetlands, and require the use of erosion control methods when construction must cross wetlands. Dams and Reservoirs 1 (c) requires that the existing sediment budget be preserved whenever possible so as to reduce ero- sion problems in beach and shoreline areas downstream. Two final policy areas are those discovered by Dredge Material Disposal policies 1(b) and 2(d) which re- quire the stabilization of spoil disposal sites and related dikes, and the policies for Areas of Special Resource Significance which require that development plans for dunes and barrier islands be evaluated in light of the possible increase in erosion or storm drainage they may produce. VI. Management Authority The S.C. Coastal Management Act of 1977 explicitly states that the regulatory program developed to con- trol beach erosion is for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety and welfare, and the protection of public and private property from beach and shore destruction. The Coastal Council has been granted very broad authority to study and control erosion in the coastal zone. Besides the permit program for the alteration of critical areas, which would encompass most erosion control activities, the enabling legislation gives the Council responsbility to develop and implement a com- prehensive beach erosloin control program and permit jurisdiction over erosion control and water drainage structures not otherwise covered by law (�48-39-120; 1976 S.C. Code of Laws). The Council has also been designated as the State agency to accept Federal money for erosion control in areas to which the public has full and complete access. State funds, if available, may be spent by the Council to alleviate emergency erosion con- ditions, as declared by the Council, in areas to which the public has full and complete access. Public access is a pivotal requirement for the allocation of funds by the Council under the erosion control segment of the coastal management program. The specific policies for erosion (management control) are designed to accomplish this purpose. Through direct action, such as an order, or as a last resort, by seeking court intervention, the Coastal Council may en- force these policies and insure the implementation of this segment of the program. Footnotes IStephen, M. F., P. J. Brown, D. M. Fitzgerald, D. K. Hubbard and M. 0. Hayes, 1975. "Beach Erosion Inventory of Charelston County, South Carolina: A Preliminary Report." S. C. Sea Grant, Tech. Rept. No. 4 (SG-SG-75-4), 79 p. 2 Hubbard, D. K., J. H. Barwis, F. Lesesne, M. F. Stephen and M. 0. Hayes, 1977. "Beach Erosion In- ventory of Horry, Georgetown, and Beaufort Counties, South Carolina." S. C. Sea Grant, Tech. Rept. No. 8 (SC-SG-77-8), 58 p. I Hubbard, D. K., M. 0. Hayes, P. J. Brown, 1977. "Beach Erosion Trends Along the South Carolina Coast," pp. 797-814. Coastal Sediments 1977, ASCE Publ. NY. 1133 p. I Landers, H., 1970. "Climate of South Carolina." Climates of the States, South Carolina, Climatology of the United States, No. 6038, ESSA Environmental Data Service. 5 Kurz, H. and Wagner, K. 1957. "Tidal Marshes of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts of Northern Florida and Charleston, South Carolina." Florida State University Studies. No. 24. 168 p. 6 "Highly eroding" is defined in this instance as a short-term change in excess of five meters per year. IV-59 2) To the extent possible, the secondary dunes should be kept intact to insure protection of adjoining areas against flooding during storms. 3) Buffer areas should be established, where feasible, to allow for frontal dune growth and move- ment. 4) All plans for dune restoration, reconstruction or stabilization should be part of a comprehensive shoreline protection program. 5) Dune reconstruction should be done only above the existing berm line or in line with existing fron- tal dunes. Dunes should be constructed using only native material (sand) of the appropriate grain size and stabilized with native vegetation. 6) Walkover structures are encouraged over all frontal dunes (R.30-13, B.) However, these walkover structures should not interfere with public access or extend below the mean high water line. 7) Seawalls, bulkheads or revetments should not be placed in front of frontal dunes, except where severe erosion is indicated and unless there are no feasible alternatives or there is an overriding public in- terest. 8) Public access should be provided either over frontal dunes via walkover structures or by using natural breaks through frontal dunes. In no case shall access be provided by bulldozing or cutting open- ings through frontal dunes. 9) In all cases, the primary front-row sand dune, as defined in R.30-10(B), should not be permanently altered. Recommended Policies 1) The Council recommends that local governments in shoreline areas institute shorefront construction set- back lines as part of their land-planning activities and/or local building codes, subdivision regulations, or zon- ing ordinances. 2) Private property owners and developers are encouraged to consult with the Council or with technical consultants to learn the erosion trends and shoreline dynamics in their particular area before initiating con- struction. V. Other Resource Policies Affecting Erosion In addition to the policies listed above, a number of resource policies for activities subject to management pertain to erosion control. Generally speaking, filling in the critical areas is prohibited and construction over primary dunes and beaches is discouraged in order to protect upland property and from erosion and storm damage. More specific erosion control policies are directed toward minimizing damage from storm runoff. Policies in this category include Roads and Highways l(d), 2(e) and (h); Airports 1(b); Railways l(e), 2(e); Parking Facilities 1(b); Agriculture 1(c); Forestry l(c); Mineral Extraction l(c); Manufacturing l(c); and Commercial Development 1(d). In some cases specific methods are suggested, and in others, cooperation with the county Soil and Water Conservation District offices is recommended. A number of other resource policies address the problem of construction technique and drainage plan design. Included here are the following policies: Residential Development l(a) and (d); Commercial Develop- ment 1(d); Parks l(c)(iv); Commercial Recreation I(c); Public/Quasi-Public Buildirigs l(c); and Dunes (2). Once again, approved techniques are often suggested. A third broad resource policy area affecting erosion control is that of channelization, drainage and sedimentation control.'Policies in this category are Navigation Channels (2); Sewage Treatment 2(b)(i) and (iv); and Water Supply 2(c)(i) and (iv) which recommend that water supply and sewage treatment construction IV-58 2)-Care must be taken to insure that jetties do not interfere with public access (R.-30-13, C(2)(C)). 3) Where appropriate, jetties should be designed to provide recreational fishing opportunities (R.30-13,C(2)(d)). 4) Construction activities should be scheduled so as not to interfere with nesting and brood-rearing ac- tivities of important seabird colonies or other wildlife species (R.-30-13,C(2)(3). 5) These structures should be consistent with other erosion measures being undertaken as part of any comprehensive shoreline protection projects. Artificial Beach Nourishment 1) A thorough study of littoral transport mechanics as well as beach slope, grain size, and berm geometry should be done before artificial nourishment is attempted. 2) Sand for artificial nourishment should come from offshore deposits or areas of active accretion and from bars or spits only where it can be clearly demonstrated that no negative impacts will result in downshore areas. Fill material should not come from dune fields, adjoining beaches or nearshore bars. 3) Dredging in the borrow areas should not be in conflict with spawning seasons or migratory movements of significant estuarine-marine species. 4) Dredging offshore shall be done in locations and in such a manner so as not to create anoxic sumps or uncover toxic or anoxic deposits. 5) All other policies concerning dredging and filling (R.30-12,G) will be applied to beach nourishment proposals. 6) Careful study must be given to the type (size, quality, etc.) of fill material most suitable for use in a particular beach area. 7) Nourishment of beach areas should be scheduled so as not to interfere with nesting or brood- rearing activities of important seabird colonies or other wildlife species. 8) The recreational and public access requirement of the affected beach area will be a major concern when determining the width of the beach fill. 9) Where possible, inlet stabilization and/or navigation projects shall be done in concert with artificial nourishment projects. 10) Structural control measures should be used, where appropriate and feasible, to complement ar- tificial nourishment projects. Sand Dune Management 1) Private and public projects to restore and stabilize dunes through non-structural means are en- couraged. IV-57 C) EROSION CONTROL POLICIES The Coastal Council will apply the following policies in its review and evaluation of permits for the following erosion control activities: Seawalls, Bulkheads and Revetments (Riprap) 1) Seawalls, bulkheads and revetments will be considered only as part of a comprehensive erosion control program to insure that these structures do not cause adverse effects to adjoining property owners or ap- preciably accelerate erosion in the general beach area. 2) These structures must not interfere with existing or planned public access unless other adequate access can be provided. 3) These structures shall not impede public use of beaches below the mean high water line (R.30-13(2)(C). 4) These structures should be sloped seaward or concave with riprap at their bases to reduce the adverse effects of scouring where appropriate. 5) Applications for construction of a seawall in the beach or dune critical areas for the purpose of filling behind these structures to create land for private development shall be denied unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate to the Council that no feasible alternatives exist, that the individual circumstances are extenuating such that they demand an exception to the general policy and that the project would other- wise be consistent with the coastal management program. 6) Except under special circumstances, such as critically eroding shorelines that have a direct measurable effect on the economic well-being of anapplicant or are a threat to the public safety, the Council will pro- mote the use of natural features of the dune and beach system rather than artificial protection (R.30-13(2)(a)). 7) Additionally, all other regulations covering bulkheads and seawalls will be applied in the critical areas (R.30-12(C)). 8) Riprap must consist of appropriate materials. Groins 1) Significant volumes of sand via the littoral transport system should be available. 2) The extent to which the downdrift beach areas will be damaged must be determined before construc- tion. 3) The adequacy of shore anchorage of groins to prevent "flanking" as a result of erosion must be demonstrated. 4) The positive effect and applicability of a groin system in a comprehensive shore protection program must be demonstrated. 5) Care must be taken to insure that groins do not interfere with public access (R.30-13,C(2)(c). Offshore Breakers and Jetties 1) Since these structures tend to impound littoral drift on their updrift sides, provisions should be made so that sand is pumped at appropriate intervals to downdrift areas so as not to starve these areas of sand thereby creating or worsening an erosion problem. IV-56 IV., Policies A) FUNDING POLICIES Regarding the expenditure of public funds for beach and shore erosion control measures throughout the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: 1) Public funds can be expected for beach or shore erosion control only in areas, communities, or on barrier islands to which the public has full and complete access (as defined in the shoreline access segment of the program). 2) Public funds can be expected only for beach erosion control measures which are deemed by the Council to be consistent with the Beach Erosion Control Policies in this section and any applicable rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act. 3) Public funds can be expended only for erosion control measures which are consistent with the overall coastal management program. 4) Funding for particular erosion projects shall be approved by the Coastal Council only after ade- quate consideration has been given to the erosion control problems and needs of each coastal county and the relative benefits of the particular project. 5) Consideration will be given to the extent to which the proposal will maximize the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. 6) For expenditure of public funds, the full range of alternative erosion control measures which are possible, including no action, must be studied. Before decisions are made, consideration must be given to the long-and short-range costs and benefits of the various alternatives. 7) Removal or modification of existing publicly-funded control structures will be authorized by the Council based on the applicable policies in this section and determination that the structure has an adverse impact on the public interest, as mandated by Section 12(C) of the Act. B) GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS The Coastal Council will consider the following before any erosion control projects are approved: 1) The type of materials employed, their useful life expectancy along with anticipated maintenance and replacement costs; 2) The economic justification of the proposed project in comparison with available erosion control alternatives including consideration of the anticipated damage and economic loss due to failure; 3) Rate of rise or fall of sea level at the location; 4) Sediment transport and sand budget in the project area; 5) Extent of up or downdrift damage due to installation or lack of installation of the erosion control structure; 6) The extent to which the project fits into a comprehensive shore protection program for that par- ticular stretch of beach, aimed at preserving the beach profile in its present slope and configuration. small (fine) this material is unsuitable for beach nourishment. Also, dune removal threatens existing beach profile due to the reduction in storage capacity and subjects the adjoining upland area to a flood hazard. Sand taken from adjacent beaches, longshore bars, or nearshore submerged bottoms also ultimately will affect the existing beach profile, since these areas act in much the same way as dunes, that is, as sand storage areas. Since dunes, nearshore areas, longshore bars, adjacent beaches, and estuaries may not be suitable to be us- ed as borrow areas for beach nourishment, then one must consider the use of offshore deposits (beyond a depth of 30-50 ft.) or areas of accretion, such as inlets, where the supply of sand is constantly replenished by natural forces. Inlet sand removal for nourishment usually can be done in concert with navigation dredging. Selection of offshore sites should be done carefully so as to avoid vital habitat areas and prevent excess silta- tion of the water. Finally, the beach's natural sand depository, the sand dune, can be a secondary non-structural method of shore protection. Dunes are mounds of drifting sand; their height and movement depend on the direction and intensity of the wind. The dunes that are located directly behind the berm are the most susceptible to the stress of wind and deterioration from airborne salt. (This is the primary dune, identified by the South Carolina Coastal Management Act as a critical area.) Mild summer waves add sand to the berm, and prevailing offshore winds move sand from the berm to the dunes. This berm moderates winter losses by providing a reservoir of sand available to either dunes or beaches as needed. During storms the berm may be completely eroded away by the ocean, at which time the dunes slump onto the beach, replenishing the lost sand. The initial stress of storms is usually sustained by a broad beach. However, strong storms may succeed in eroding the beach face and primary dunes, whereupon the secondary dune will bear the brunt of the wave energy. The fragile network of vegetation covering most dunes is adapted to withstanding wind, sand, high temperatures and salt. However, pedestrian and vehicular traffic as well as animal grazing will have detrimen- tal effects on these dune areas. When the dune vegetation is lost, dune movement accelerates to a point where plant growth cannot keep pace with the shifting sand. The result is a chain reaction that leads to erosion and eventual loss of the dune. In summary, dunes are very dynamic, valuable and fragile resources which man should not alter. Not only should they be protected and preserved but where possible buffer areas should be established to allow for their natural movement and growth. Sand dunes can be constructed and/or stabilized to form a non-structural shore protection device. The proper use and placement of snow-type sand fences can stimulate dune formation. These sand fences can act as wind breaks, thereby slowing down offshore sand-bearing winds and causing these breezes to release some of their sand supply. The placement of old Christmas trees between sand fences increases the wind-breaking resistance; and the decaying trees add vital nutrients to the sand, promoting the eventual and necessary stabilizing plant growth. In all cases, dune construction should take place above the natural beach berm or in line with existing dunes, and the dunes should be stabilized by revegetation with appropriate native plant species. Dunes should never be constructd with any other materials than sand, since materials other than sand will not erode at the same rate or offer proper beach renourishment as will sand. In fact, these non-sand dunes may eventually act as a seawall, reflecting wave energy and thereby accelerating erosion. Related to the non-structural alternative erosion controls are "institutional" means for management of erosion pro- blems. These are preventative measures which do not reduce the effects of erosion but seek to manage local growth and development so that hazards are not created or new property threatened. Of primary importance is the implementation of construction setback-lines in all ocean-front areas, particularly those prone to erosion. This mechanism is available as an option for local governments along the coast as well as private developers or land-owners and lends itself well to inclusion within local subdivision regulations as well as zoning and building codes. Another institutional-type mechanism is that of public expenditures and funding. Public construction monies should be expended and improved services provided only in stable or accreting beach areas, or in areas with adequate setback ordinances both to set an example for private develop- ment and to influence the extent and location of growth. Institutional issues are addressed as Recommended Policies in the following section. rV-54 transport out of an area. Groins act to stabilize this area by reorienting a section of beach to an alignment more nearly perpendicular to the prevailing wave direction. Groins may be classified as permeable or impermeable, high or low, and fixed or adjustable. They may be constructed of timber, steel, stone, concrete, sand-filled nylon bags, or other materials, or combinations of these. Impermeable groins have a solid or nearly solid structure that prevents sand from passing through the structure. Permeable groins have openings through the structure of sufficient size to permit passage of ap- preciable quantities of sand (littoral drift). However, fouling by marine organisms may turn a permeable groin system. When considering groins as a shore protection method, it is critical to assess several factors. These are: (1) availability of large volumes of sand via the littoral transport mechanism, (2) the extent to the downdrift beach will be damaged if groins are used, (3) economic justification for groins as compared to other alternatives, and (4) adequacy of shore anchorage of groins to prevent "flanking" as a result of shoreline erosion. The major factor determining groin use and placement is the supply of sand via littoral drift. If this supply is insufficient to permit the withdrawal from the littoral drift of enough material to fill the groin or groin system then damage will occur to downdrift areas. In some cases, artificial placement of fill with the groin can minimize the reduction of littoral drift to downdrift areas, but this can add substantially to the cost. Finally, the last structural method of shore protection is the offshore breakwater. Offshore breakwaters have been constructed to provide safe passage through inlets and inhibit sand blockage. Breakwaters can have both beneficial and detrimental effects on the shore. When placed on the updrift side of a navigation opening, a breakwater may serve to impound sand, thereby preventing it from shoaling the navigation channel. The breakwater stops wave action and creates a quiet water area behind it, benefiting navigation. However, in the absence of wave action to move the sand stream, sand is deposited and builds up the shore, seaward toward the breakwater. This build-up actually serves as a barrier to littoral sand drift and deflects the sand stream seaward, depriving the downdrift beaches of sand. In conclusion, there are many structural methods of shore protection; however, they may also have many complex secondary effects. Too often short-term erosion control solutions cause intensified long-term pro- blems. Therefore, thorough and comprehensive study of an area to determine the best protection plan should be developed before structures are authorized. Accompanying the many methods of structural shore protection are some non-structural alternatives. These non-structural alternatives involve use of native beach material or sand dune reconstruction. The most commonly used non-structural means of shore protection is beach nourishment. Artificial beach nourishment is a desirable method of beach protection in many situations and is very often preferable to structural methods. The reconstruction and restoration of beach slope through a beach. renourishment effort will yield a beach much like the original beach prior to its erosion. The life-expectancy of a renourishment project is of primary concern in determination of the cost and feasibility of the project. Beach renourishment will generally be a temporary measure unless the causes of erosion in the area can be rectified. Estimates of the need for con- tinued, periodic renourishment on a given stretch of beach which is subject to erosion must therefore be con- sidered. A widened, resloped beach also has considerable value as a recreational resource. Planning and design for establishment of beaches by artificial nourishment involves consideration of the following: (1) geometry of fill (beach berm elevation and width, adjusted foreshore slope, etc.), (2) determina- tion of direction and volume of littoral transport, (3) determination of grain-size of native material in the ac- tive littoral zone, both temporarily and spatially, (4) identification of borrow material for initial and subse- quent nourishment, (5) availability of borrow material (quality, quantity, location and cost), and (6) recrea- tional function of the beach so as to allow a minimum of 100 square feet per bather, as determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The cost of beach fill varies and depends on the exposure, proximity of suitable borrow areas, length of beach and degree of restoration required. Possible sources of sand for beach nourishment are: bays, lagoons, estuaries, and nearshore areas. Since most sediments available in coastal bays, lagoons and estuaries contain large amounts of silts and clay and are very fine in texture, dredging in these highly productive areas may be ecologically harmful. These areas are usually not considered available for beach nourishment borrow areas. In the past, dune sands have been used as beach nourishment .borrow areas. However, since the grain size of dune sand is extremely IV-53 several natural and several man-influenced. These factors are: 1) large annual rainfall - 46.61 in. annually,* 2) rising sea level (from 1833-1903 = 9 in. rise; 1930-1940 = 6 in. rise; 1940-1950 = 4.08 in.), ,3) interruption of the longshore (littoral drift) movement of sand due to jetty construction associated with inlet stabiliz- tion/navigation projects, and 4) loss of sediments which were originally transported by river systems now dammed for flood control of power generation, including the Santee River diversion project completed in 1941. With consideration for all of these factors, some of the most highly erodinge beach areas in South Carolina can be identified. These areas are, proceeding from north to south: southern end of Waites Island; Garden Ci- ty Beach; Magnolia Beach (Hunting Beach State Park); north and south ends of Pawleys Island; southern spit of Dubordieu Beach; north and south ends of North Island; all of South Island; eastern end of Murphy Island; central portion of Cape Island (Cape Romain); all of Raccoon Key; eastern end and central portion of Bulls Island; all of Capers Island; western end of Dewees Island; Sullivans Island side (western side) of Breach Inlet; all of Morris Island; eastern end and most all of the central portion of Folly Island; eastern end of Kiawah Island; western end of Seabrook Island; all of Eddingsville Beach; eastern and western ends of Edisto Island; all of Hunting Island; eastern and western ends of Fripp Island; eastern end of Pritchards Island; all of Capers Island (Beaufort County); all of Bay Point Island; western end and central portions of Hilton Head Island; and western end (Bloody Point) of Daufuskie Island. Beach erosion can cause many problems in coastal areas. Primary among these is, of course, the destruc- tion of coastal property and buildings. Large amounts of land (property) can be lost in a relatively short period of time, and beach-front property values have soared in recent years. In addition to the financial loss by private property owners, issues of public health, safety and welfare may arise with regard to beach erosion. In areas not served by centralized sewer systems, septic tank drain fields may be eroded, posing a health hazard on the public beach. The beach areas below mean high water are a public, recreational resource which may be lost. The erosion control methods or structures themselves may present obstacles to public acces, and in some cases may involve physical hazards to swimmers or aesthetic nuisances. Finally, because public tax monies are often expanded for control projects, erosion and its management are a paramount importance as one aspect of any comprehensive coastal program. C) Alternative Control Measures In areas where the decision is made to proceed with erosion control, it will be basically one of two types - structural or non-structural. Shore protection in South Carolina has focused on use of seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments (structural methods). These structures serve to separate the land from the sea and are used where it is necessary to maintain the shore seaward of or at its present position in areas where there is little lit- toral sand supply in addition to little or no protected beach area. These structures afford protection only to the land immediately behind and none to adjacent up or downcoast areas. These structures also interdict the path of sand renourishment from dunes, berms, or ridges. Seawalls and bulkheads are solid vertical barricades built to protect shorefront property or to prevent in- land flooding. Seawalls and bulkheads are very expensive, and since they reflect energy they may compound erosion problems. Essentially, these structures are designed to absorb and reflect wave energy as well as to hold fill in place and to raise the affected areas above flood elevations. However, vertical seawalls and bulkheads reflect wave energy downward, causing sand to erode away at the base of the seawall, possibly undermining the footings and eventually causing collapse. It has been estimated that storm forces with one foot of wave height have the potential to scour the beach to a depth of two feet. A revetment armours the slope face of a dune or bluff with layers of rock (rip-rap) or concrete. This type of shore protection acts to dissipate wave energy, having a less adverse effect on the beach than a vertical seawall. Revetments are less expensive than seawalls; however, they are hazardous to swimmers and are, in some cases, unattractive since they have a tendency to accumulate debris. Another example of structural design for shore protection is the groin. A groin is a dam for sand built at right angles to the beach to interrupt longshore sand movement (littoral drift) and trap sand in order to stabilize or widen a beach. However, this trapping of sand by a groin can have severe impacts on the adjacent shoreline down the beach. Groins can be used to stabilize a beach which is subject to intermittent periods of erosion and accretion and build or widen a beach by trapping littoral sand or reducing the rate of littoral IV-52 porated with the consultant reports and results of the Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Working Group meetings. This process insures the validity, accuracy, and workability of the South Carolina Erosion Control Program. III. Findings A) Introduction Erosion control on beaches must initially address not only the solution but clearly define the problem before any work or funds should be committed. Design of erosion control structures in the coastal zone should consider not only the materials to be employed and the forces they must withstand, but also the modification the works will cause in the natural sedimentation processes. Effective engineering for shore protection should include non-structural as well as structural alternatives. This type of approach depends on a clear understan- ding of the multiple interactive processes operating in the coastal zone. Objective information provided by good scientific data and engineering is a prime requirement for sound shoreline management, including erosion control. The basic knowledge of long and short-term shoreline adjustment has been addressed in two comprehen- sive studies. ' This knowledge can be applied in decisions on how or whether to develop certain segments of coastline; design and location of shore protection structures or setback limits; and estimates of the frequency, nature and cost of maintenance of shore protection structures. Whenever public funds are spent for erosion control measures, added considerations must become a part of the decision-making. Therefore, the effects of any erosion control measure upon the public interest or other affected areas must always be assessed closely, as the responsibilities are increased whenever public money is to pay for the erosion control. In South Carolina, the Coastal Council has a statutory directive to use public funds only in areas which provide full and complete access. The Appropriations Bill authorized $600,000 of revenue bonds to the South Carolina Coastal Council during 1978-79 to use for erosion control within the State in areas where public ac- cess is provided. This statutory'directive is consistent with the overall coastal management program and the Council's sense of responsibility for using public funds with care. B. The Erosion Problem The South Carolina coast is fronted by approximately 158.5 miles of beaches comprising 10,701 acres. Studies of coastal morphology and physical processes in South Carolina have been few; however, Hubbard, et al. (1977) * offers a functional classification of coastal types based on overall geomorphology, nearshore bathymetry, beach profiles, beach processes, and erosional-depositional history. The four types identified in this study are: 1) arcuate strand, 2) cuspate delta, 3) beach-ridge barrier, and 4) transgressive barrier. The ar- cuate strand extends from Little River Inlet to Winyah Bay and is characterized by a stabie,;continuous beach interrupted by a few tidal inlets and swashes. The cuspate delta, located between Winyah Bay and Bulls Bay and including Cape Romain, was formed mainly by deltaic sediments of the Santee drainage and is characterized by an eroding headland, elongating spits on the flanks of the headland, and an overall erosional nature. Beach-ridge barrier islands extend southward from Bulls Bay to the Savannah River and are composed of vegetated beach ridges fronted by a thin eroding beach and backed by extensive salt marshes. Transgressive barrier islands are Morris Island, Eddingsville Beach and Bay Point. These areas are characterized by straight beaches which are rapidly retreating landward over salt marsh through a washover effect. Conclusions of the Hubbard, et al. (1977) study are as follows: 1) erosion rates along the South Carolina coast range from 30 cm. to 1 m. per year; 2) the area north of Winyah Bay is relatively stable since the underly- ing formation, Myrtle Beach formation, formed 100,000 years before the Pleistocene (2.1 million years ago) and is in itself eroding slightly; 3) beach-ridge barriers longer than 3.7 miles are composed of unstable, round- ed updrift ends, stable or accretional central portions, accreting downdrift ends (recurved spits), yielding a "drumstick-like" shape; beach-ridge barriers shorter than 3.7 miles show large and sporadic changes along their entire length in response to changes in adjacent tital inlets; and 4) the remainder of the coast exhibits varying degrees of instability directly dependent on the character of the backshore area and the size and fre- quency of tidal inlets. Beaches backed by well-developed beach ridges show lower short-term erosion rates than those where these ridges are absent. Adding to the geologic erosional-depositional trends of the South Carolina beaches are'four other factors, IV-51 C. EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM I. Introduction The widespread concern for effects of coastal erosion is reflected in the coastal management legislation passed on both the Federal and State levels. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended in July, 1976, provides in Section 305(a)(9) for: A planning process for (a) assessing the effects of shoreline erosion (however caused), and (b) studying and evaluating ways to control, or lessen the impact of, such erosion, and to restore areas adversely affected by such erosion. In addition, the rules and regulations promulgated as a result of the Federal legislation by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, guiding program development and approval, require States to include in their coastal management programs an erosion planning process which includes: (1) A method for assessing the effects of shoreline erosion; (2) Articulation of State policies pertaining to erosion, including policies regarding preferences for non-structural and/or no controls; (3) A method for designating areas for erosion control, mitigation and/or restoration as areas of particular concern or areas for preservation and restoration, if appropriate; (4) Procedures for managing the effects of erosion, including non-structural procedures; and (5) An identification of legal authorities, funding programs and other techniques that can be used to meet management needs. (� 923.26, Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978.) The South Carolina Coastal Management Act (Act 123 of the 1977 South Carolina General Assembly) mandates the Coastal Council to develop a comprehensive beach erosion control policy and gives authority to the Council for the implementation of the policy, including permitting powers for erosion control, authority to remove erosion control structures which have an adverse effect on the public interest, and the authority to accept and spend Federal and State erosion control funds in areas which provide full and complete access to the public. The Erosion Control Program is a close look at the existing South Carolina coast, the patterns of erosion and the interactive dynamics involved in those patterns, the policies which will guide the Council when evaluating alternative erosion control measures, the policies guiding the expenditure of public funds for ero- sion control, and the legal authority for implementation of the Program. II. Process of Policy Development Erosion is a result of the dynamics of the entire coastal region. Therefore, understanding the patterns of erosion and the most effective control has required thorough and comprehensive study. The South Carolina Coastal Council contracted with two expert consultants to provide technical informa- tion specifically applicable to South Carolina's coastline, based on their extensive study and experience. The consultant reports are an integral part of the erosion inventory and policies contained in this document. A Beach Erosion Technical Advisory Committee was formed by the Council. The members of the Com- mittee represent varied expert approaches to erosion control-State agencies whose responsibilities are rele- vant to the subject; local, county, and State public officials from coastal communities; environmentalists; and Councils of Government from the coastal regions. To serve as a guide to the Council and staff the Committee met before and after the initial draft of the Erosion Control Program was written to discuss, from their unique perspective, erosion patterns, alternative control measures, and policies. In addition, Citizens Working Groups were formed in each coastal county, and one inland group was formed composed of citizens outside of the coastal zone. Each group discussed the Erosion Control Program document, and their comments were considered to assure that the wealth of experience of citizens who live on and visit the coast was incorporated into the Program. The Council and staff have had one full year of direct experience with implementation of the permit authority for all beach erosion structures for coastal South Carolina. This practical experience has been incor IV-50 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1978 projections - S. C. Divisions of Research and Statistical Services. 1975 Natural gas consumption - American Gas Association "Gas Facts." 1975 Electricity consumption - Edison Electrical Institute, Statistical Year Book. 1975 Petroleum information - Bureau of Mines, "Sales of Fuel Oil and Kerosene." 1975 Demand of Motor Gasoline - Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics. 1975 Coal consumption - National Coal Association. Abt Associates, Inc. A Guide to the Preparation of the Social Well-Being Account, Social Assessment Manual, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior, July, 1975. Bukshire County Regional Planning Commission. Evaluation of Power Facilities: A Reviewers Handbook, April, 1974. Burcell, Robert W. and David Listokin. The Environmental Impact Handbook. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, N.J., 1975. California Institute for Technology, Environmental Quality Laboratory. People, Power, Pollution, Report #1, September, 1971. Clark, John. Coastal Ecosystem Management. Wiley-Interscience Publications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y., 1977. Consumers Power Company. "Substitution Site Selection and Development," 1969; and "Transmission and Distribution Rights-of-Way Selection and Development", 1970. Department of Energy. Energy Supply Initiatives, May 15, 1978. Energy Research and Development Administration. Assistance from Energy Developers: A Negotiating Guide for Communities, September, 1977. Energy Research and Development Administration. Managing the Socioeconomic Impacts of Energy Development: A Guide faor the Small Community, September, 1977. Energy Research and Development Administration. Models and Methodologies for Assessing the Impact of Efiergy Development, Sepiember, 1977. Planning Environmental International. Interior Guide for Environmental Assessment, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, June, 1975. Saltonstall, Richard. Your Environment and What You Can Do About It, Walker and Co., N.Y., 1970. Sax, Joseph L. Defending the Environment: A Strategy for Citizen Action, Knapp, Inc., N.Y., 1971. Schaemen, Philip S. Using an Impact Measurement System to Evaluate Land Development, The Urban Institute, September, 1976. South Carolina Division of Research & Statistical Services, Annual Report, 1978. South Carolina Division of Research and Statistical Services Scope Senario, July 1977. U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, Committee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation, Research, Development and Demonstration Hearings, April 4-5, 1977, Energy Demand, Conservation Potential and Probable Life Style Changes. Williams, David C. Rapid Growth from Energy Projects; Ideas for State and Local Action: A Program Guide, Office of Community Planning and Development, 1976. IV-49 r) All transmission facilities and pipelines should follow existing roadways and railways and be attached to bridges and crossovers where applicable, especially in wetland areas, to prevent unnecessary alteration or disruption of adjacent wetlands or waterways. The number of pipelines and new transmission lines shall be limited as much as possible. All pipelines through the coastal zone will be laid in pipeline cor- ridors to be developed in coordination with the Council. s) Siting of nuclear power plants or liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities is strongly discouraged in hazar- dous areas such as: i) geological faults as determined significant by authoritative sources, or; ii) flood prone areas. t) Siting of nuclear power plants or liquified natural gas facilities is prohibited in areas of significant population or areas which the Council expects are likely to become significantly populated over the operating lifetime of the facility, except where no feasible alternative exists or an overriding public need can be demonstrated. u) The plans for temporary and permanent disposal of all types of nuclear waste which will be associated with a proposed nuclear power plant will be considered as a vital part of the evaluation of the facility ap- plication in determining the overall safety and environmental impacts of the nuclear power plant. v) Transportation patterns associated with proposed liquified natural gas facilities will be considered a vital part of evaluation of the facility application in determining the overall safety and environmental im- pacts of the LNG facility. LNG should be moved by pipeline unless no other feasible alternatives are available. Where absolutely necessary to transport LNG over land, safety precautions as strenuous as those required over water must be followed in order to avoid subjecting South Carolina residents to unac- ceptable safety hazards. Recommended Policies The Council also recommends that the following policies be considered: a) The location of new energy and energy-related facilities is generally preferred in already developed areas which are capable of accommodating additional development without significant expenditure of public funds for infrastructure or in areas which the local government and the Coastal Council deem to be both en- vironmentally and economically compatible with the type of energy-development proposed. Thus, onshore development is preferred where adverse physical, economic, and institutional impacts will be less than those which are likely to be experienced in less developed areas such as those which are more dependent on tourism and the resort industry. (The exception to this siting policy would be the locating of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nuclear facilities. Specific policies included on the preceding pages shall apply in these two in- stances.) Care should be taken that proposed new facilities be located, wherever possible, in areas where they will minimize disruption of existing land use of the area. b) Renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, tidal power, geothermal and biomass, including ex- perimental and demonstration projects, will be encouraged to locate in the coastal zone to the extent that they meet all Federal and State air and water quality standards and are consistent with other Council policies. c) The use of recoverable energy sources such as co-generation (combined industrial production of elec- tricity and heat) is also encouraged. d) Upgrading of old generating facilities operated by each energy supplier is preferred to construction of new facilities by that supplier. e) Recommendations of the U.S. Department of Energy to encourage the development of small-scale, diversified, dispersed industrial systems are encouraged. f) A coordinated effort in consumer, commercial, industrial, governmental and recreational energy conser- vation and support for the Department of Energy Extension Service Concept is encouraged. IV-48 i) the extent and severity of environmental disruption at various sites; ii) short and long-range economic and social impacts on the community for various sites; iii) comparison of the degree to which the proposal could be modified at different sites if necessary to more fully meet environmental standards. m) Permit applications for energy and energy-related facility proposals will consider the extent and significance of negative impacts on Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCs). Applications which will negatively impact GAPCs will not be approved or certified unless no feasible alternative exists or an overriding public interest can be demonstrated, and any substantial environmental damage can be minimized. The determination of significant negative impacts will be made in each case with reference to the specific priorities of use for each type of GAPC. n) Prior to permitting and certification of energy and energy-related facilities, including oil refineries and petrochemical facilities, the extent and significance of negative impacts on the quantity or quality of these valuable coastal resources will be considered: i) unique natural areas - destruction of endangered wildlife or vegetation or significant marine species (as identified in the Living Marine Resources segment), degradation of ex- isting water quality in the area; ii) public recreational lands - conversion of these lands to other uses without adequate replacement or compensation, interruption of existing public assess, or degradation of en- vironmental quality in these areas; iii) historic or archeological resources - irretrievable loss of sites identified as significant by the Department of Archives and History or the South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, without reasonable opportunity for adequate professional examina- tion and/or excavation, or preservation. o) "Excavation activities in critical areas are sometimes required for the installation of submerged cables, pipelines, and transmission lines. Excavation and filling are sometimes required to construct foundation structures attendant to the installation of overhead transmission line crossings. These installa- tions should be designed to minimize adverse environmental impacts." (R.30-12(D)(L)) Outside of the critical areas these installations should also be designed to minimize adverse environmental impacts. p) The following standards will be applied both within and outside the critical areas. "In addition to standards for dredging and filling, the following standards are applicable (for the installation of cables, pipelines, and transmission lines): i) creation of permanent open water canals to install pipelines are discouraged since such projects generally interfere with drainage patterns and may adversely affect water quality through accelerated bank erosion; ii) dimensions of excavated canals for cables and pipelines should be minimal. Silt curtains are recommended for all excavations; iii) all excavations in wetland areas should be backfilled with the excavated material after in- stallation of the appropriate structure, while being careful to maintain the original marsh elevation; iv) the appropriate erosion control measures shall be employed during the crossing of wetland areas. Where appropriate, revegetation with suitable wetland species will be re- quired; v) alignments of new projects should be designed to utilize existing rights-of-way and topographic features wherever possible." (R.30-12(D)(2,a-e)) q) Locations for new pipelines shall avoid offshore munition areas, chemical and waste disposal areas, and geological faults, as determined significant by authoritative sources, and wherever possible shall avoid heavily used waterways and significant and productive fish and shellfish habitats. IV-47 e) Energy and energy-related facilities must meet applicable State and Federal air pollution standards and controls, as based on the National Clean Air Act, as amended (P.L. 91-604). f) In instances where groundwater resources will be utilized either in the processing or effluent discharge stages of the production process, the project shall: i) meet existing standards and/or management programs of the Water Resources Commission; ii) prevent saltwater intrusion and land subsidence, to the extent feasible; iii) wherever feasible, provide natural vegetated areas on the site where aquifer recharge or percolation can occur to mitigate the impacts of groundwater withdrawals. g) The filling, dredging and/or drainage of productive fresh, brackish and saltwater wetland areas for energy and energy-related facilities will be prohibited, unless no feasible alternative exists or an over- riding public interest can be demonstrated, and any substantial environmental damage can be minimized. These facilities should be directed away from ecologically sensitive areas such as marshes, forested wetlands, and pocosins. h) Where other activities are associated with energy or energy-related activity sites, such as construc- tion of navigation channels, docks and piers, parking, commercial buildings, or transportation access, the policies for that particular activity, found in the Resource Policies, shall apply. i) Energy and energy-related facilities and sites should be designed and constructed to minimize ero- sion and sedimentation, and to limit the impacts from direct stormwater discharge into adjacent water bodies and wetlands. Persons proposing to develop these sites are encouraged to contact and work closely with the local Soil and Water Conservation District in the county for assistance in developing site plans which reduce sedimentation and drainage problems. The following considerations shall be included in site location, construction and design whenever feasible: i) provision of a buffer strip of natural vegetation between the facility and the water's edge. This vegetated area provides a visual screen, a purification system for stormwater runoff, and a protective area for the more ecologically sensitive areas, especially fringing wetlands; ii) during site preparation, the controlling of storm runoff, soil erosion, and accidental placement of sediments in wetland areas; iii) the use of permeable surfaces in parking lots and bulk storage areas to provide water recharge areas and minimize the effects of stormwater runoff; iv) retainment of open space or natural (undisturbed) areas around sites as buffer zones and recharge areas. j) Unless a waterfront location is required for the operation of an energy or energy-related facility, major structures, such as electric generating facilities, should be located outside of flood prone areas. When energy and energy-related facilities must be located in flood prone areas, they must meet applicable flood management and construction requirements, as required by the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Inclusion of buffer areas and protection of salt, brackish and freshwater wetlands, which help absorb flood water surges, are strongly encouraged. k) When electric generating facility applications are evaluated, the following considerations of need must be taken into account: i) evaluation of forecasted need for the facility; ii) alternative means of meeting the energy demands, wherever feasible. 1) When the energy or energy-related facility applications are evaluated, the following considerations of available, alternative sites must be taken into account: IV-46 with the South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources, the waters of the State for oil spills (Section 5(S) of the Act). No regulations have as yet been promulgated but are presently being developed by the Water Resources Commission. V. Energy Resource Policies The policies which follow will be used by the South Carolina Coastal Council to evaluate proposed energy and energy-related facilities to ensure consistency with the coastal management program. Energy and energy- related facilities are defined in Section 923.14(d) of the coastal zone management development and approval regulations (Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 46, March, 1978) as: any equipment or facility which will be used or expanded primarily (1) in the exploration for, or the development, production, conversion, storage, transfer, processing, or transportation of any energy resources, or (2) for the manufacture, production or assembly of equipment, machinery, products or devices which are involved in any activity described in (1). This includes (i) electric generating power plants, (ii) petroleum refineries and associated facilities, (iii) gasification plants, (iv) facilities used for the transportation, conversion, treatment, transfer or storage of liquefied natural gas, (v) uranium enrich- ment or nuclear fuel processing facilities, (vi) oil and gas facilities including platforms, assembly plants, storage depots, tank farms, crew and supply bases and refining com- plexes, (vii) facilities, including deepwater ports, for the transfer of petroleum, (viii) pipelines and tranmission facilities, and (x) terminals which are associated with the foregoing. - The mechanisms for the implementation of these policies are described in the preceding section on the legal analysis of the Council's participation in energy facility siting decisions. Policies Throughout the coastal zone, Council issuance of permits or review and certification of applica- tions for permits for energy facilities and energy-related facilities will be based on the following policies: a) Nonwater-dependent energy and energy-related facilities are prohibited from locating along the shorefront unless no feasible alternative is available or an overriding public interest can be demonstrated, and any substantial environmental impact can be minimized. (A water-dependent facility is one which can demonstrate that dependence on, use of, or access to coastal waters is vital to the successful functioning of its primary activity.) All water-dependent structures should be design- ed and constructed so as to minimize enroachment on the aqs primary activity.) All water-dependent structures should be designed and constructed so as to minimize enroachment on the aquatic ecosystem and minimize destruction to the wetlands, beach areas, and dunes. Inland siting of all but water-dependent facilities is preferred to waterfront siting. b) New water-dependent facilities should locate on already maintained channels or rivers to reduce the need for dredging of new channels. Where no presently maintained channel exists and one becomes necessary, the policies for dredging (VIII(A) of the Resource Policies) will apply. c) Expansion of existing energy and energy-related facility sites by each energy supplier is prefer- red to the development of new energy sites by that supplier if applicable Federal and State air and water quality standards are not violated. d) Energy and energy-related facilities must meet the applicable water quality and effluent limita- tion standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Sec- tions 401 and 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Public Law 92-500). In some cases, pre-treatment of wastes may be required before introduction into public waste treatment systems, based on local 201 and 208 Waste Treatment Management Plans, as developed under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. - IV-45 energy projects will be subject to Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-95 review, and frequently subject to EIS review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Rural Electric Cooperatives All electric cooperatives are separate corporate entities incorporated during the 1930's under the Rural Electric Cooperative Act of South Carolina (�58-27-10 - 58-27-230, 1976 Code). The South Carolina Electric Cooperative Association, Inc. represents the twenty-one electric cooperatives in this State on various issues. These cooperatives are enterprises set up to meet a common need and are owned and controlled by the people they serve. Cooperative leadership is provided by a board of trustees elected by the membership. With rare exceptions, projects of the electric cooperatives are smaller in size than those projects covered by the Siting Act. Since the passage of the Siting Act in 1971, there has not been an electric cooperative project of a magnitude large enough to require a PSC certificate under the Siting Act, but large projects in the future would come under the Siting Act certification requirements. In addition, Rural Electrification Administration funds are expected to be used for any sizable projects and therefore come under the National Environmental Policy Act requirement for Environmental Impact Assessments and Statements. The Coastal Council would have the opportunity to evaluate such a project through the A-95 process and through Section 8(B)(l ) of the Act to evaluate all State and Federal permit applications pertaining to the project. Other Projects (not covered by the Siting Act) Projects of less magnitude than those covered in the Siting Act are subject to normal State permitting re- quirements. If in a critical area, a Coastal Council permit is required. If outside of the critical area jurisdiction but below ordinary high water, a Budget and Control Board permit is necessary. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) water and air quality regulations also apply. The Council will use its certifica- tion powers with the Budget and Control Board and DHEC permit applications. If a project is not subject to the Siting Act and there are no State or Federal permit processes applicable, the potential impact on critical areas is thought to be slight. For example, if a transmission line below 125 KV were installed in a highland area, there might be no permit required nor would there be any significant impact of concern to the Council. In these cases the Council will not be evaluating the projects. OIL AND GAS FACILITIES In addition to the supply of electricity, regulatory authority exists in South Carolina to manage the ex- ploration and drilling for, transportation and production of oil and gas and their products. In June 1977, a bill, commonly referred to as the Oil and Gas Bill (Sections 48-43-10 et.seq., 1976 Code Supplement) (Appen- dix E(1)), passed the legislature, giving this regulatory authority to the Water Resources Commission (Com- mission) and DHEC. The Commission is charged with permit jurisdiction over exploration and drilling operations within the State's legal jurisdiction and is to act as a leasing agent for the Budget and Control Board in the leasing of lands for drilling and producing oil and gas. The Commission is authorized to limit amounts that may be pro- duced in each underground oil or gas reservoir (pool), establish spacing units within each pool and integrate separately-owned tracts embraced within a single spacing unit. The Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) is responsible for controlling transfer of pollutants, registering terminal facilities and im- plementing plans and procedures to minimize and control spills (Sections 4843-510 through 48-43-620 of the Code). The Council will review and certify permit applications to the Commission for exploration and drilling and applications to DHEC for registration certificates. A DHEC certificate can be issued only if the applicant has shown that State and Federal plans and regulations for prevention, control and abatement of pollution discharges will be met. Any activity which would alter a critical area requires ahCouncil permit in addition to clearances from the Commission and DHEC. Violations of the Oil and Gas Act carry both requires a Council permit in addition to clearances from the Commission and DHEC. Violations of the Oil and Gas Act carry both criminal and civil penalties (Sections 48-43-810 and 48-43-820 of the Code). Other duties of the Council related to oil and gas development include directing, in coordination with DHEC, the development and implementation of an emergency contingency plan for oil discharged in the State's waters (Section 5(T) of the Act). Also, the Council is to monitor, in coordination IV-44 and significance to require long construction phases, this emergency certificate is not likely to be invoked. The procedure which the PSC follows in consideration of applications is specified in the Siting Act. In brief, the application is submitted to the PSC; proof of service is issued to all municipalities, government agen- cies, and interested persons in the affected area; the application is forwarded to all "parties to the certification proceedings;" a hearing on the application is held; and the Commission makes a decision based on the record of the hearing proceeding. The point of primary importance in this procedure, from the Council's point of view, is the definition and input of "parties to the certification proceedings." In �53-33-14D (Code) of the Siting Act, the various parties to the certification proceedings are identified as the Department of Health and Environmental Control; Wildlife and Marine Resources Department; Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; and the Water Resources Commission. This act was passed in 1971 before establishment of the South Carolina Coastal Coun- cil; therefore, the Council is not mentioned as a party. However, assurance that the South Carolina Coastal Council is a party to the certification proceedings is confirmed in Sections 7(A), 8(B)(11), and 13(D)(9), of the Act (Appendix B). Section 7(A) obligates State agencies to administer their powers in accordance with the Council's statute and rules and regulations. Section 8(B)(11) empowers the Council to develop a system of review for all State and Federal permit applications in the coastal zone and to certify that these do not contravene the coastal management program. Section 13(D)(9) specifically states, as already indicated, that facilities permitted by the PSC do not have to receive a Coastal Council permit provided "that the South Carolina Public Service Com- mission shall make the Council a party to certification proceedings for utility facilities within the coastal zone." The Memorandum of Agreement (Appendix D) between the South Carolina Coastal Council and the Public Service Commission affirms that the Coastal Council is a party to the certification proceedings of the Public Service Commission. A practical affirmation that the SCCC is considered a party to the certification proceedings exists since the SCCC staff has already participated in a certification review. In early 1978, South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) Company submitted to the Council staff for review an application requesting a PSC certificate to build new transmission lines to Mt. Pleasant, S.C., in an area which would be outside the critical area. The ap- plication was received by the SCCC, and Council staff commented on the application. The PSC staff attorney, during the Commission hearing on the application, addressed specific questions to the applicant to assure that the SCCC's concerns would be addressed by SCE&G. To carry out its statutory powers the SCCC plans to participate in the hearing directly whenever the pen- ding application is of special significance to the Council. The Coastal Council's authority to condition a PSC certificate is affirmed in �58-33-160 (Code) of the Siting Act (Appendix E(1)). Criteria to be used by the South Carolina Coastal Council for evaluating the Council's position on applica- tions for PSC certificates are in this document. The criteria are an outgrowth of S. C. Coastal Council energy development policies and an outgrowth of the Council's rules and regulations pertaining to critical areas, in- cluding adequate provision for consideration of the national interest. In this manner an on-going procedure, compatible with the coastal management program, will evolve for the evaluation of energy facility siting. Public Service Authority The South Carolina Public Service Authority (PSA) was created in the 1930's. At that time, its primary function was to develop and maintain the Santee-Cooper hydroelectric project. The PSA is also empowered to manufacture, generate, transmit, distribute and sell electricity primarily in Berkeley, Georgetown and Horry Counties within the coastal zone. Section 58-31-10 (Code) defines the PSA as "a body corporate and politic." This description has been interpreted judicially to mean the PSA is, in fact, a State agency (Rice Hope Planta- tion v. S. C. Public Service Authority, 216 S.C. 500, 59 S.E. 2d 132 (1950). Because the PSA is exempt from the Siting Act, the permitting exemption in Section 13(D)(9) of Act 123 of the 1977 South Carolina General Assembly does not apply. Therefore, any proposed alteration by the PSA within the critical areas would require a Coastal Council permit. Outside of the critical areas, the PSA, as a State agency, is subject to Section 7(A) and 8(B)(11) of Act 123. It is anticipated that the criteria for review of PSA projects by the Council will be identical to those for review of PSC-regulated projects. Upon approval of the management program, Federal permits for all IV-43 CHART 2 State Agencies From Which Permits/Certificates Are Required for Major Energy Facilities Electric Generating Facilities Facility Facility provided by: (inside critical area) (outside critical area) South Carolina Electric and Gas Company PSC PSC DHEC B & CB* WR** DHEC WR** Carolina Power and Light PSC PSC DHEC B & CB* WR** DHEC WR** Cooperatives PSC PSC DHEC B & CB* WR** DHEC WR** Public Service Authority SCCC B & CB* DHEC DHEC WR** WR** Oil and Gas Facilities SCCC B & CB* DHEC DHEC WR WR 1) B & CB - Budget and Control Board 2) DHEC - Department of Health & Environmental Control 3) PSC - Public Service Commission * If below ordinary high water. 4) SCCC - South Carolina Coastal Council ** In designated capacity use areas. 5) WR - Water Resources IV-42 IV. Regulatory Authority The existing regulatory authority pertaining to energy facilities, as it relates to the South Carolina Coastal Council, is entirely different from the State regulatory authority for other activities. Whereas the Coastal Council's authority for other activities is implemented along a geographical boundary, with direct permitting authority within the critical area and networking authority throughout the remainder of the coastal zone, the State authority over energy facilities follows essentially no geographical boundary. Instead, the authority is primarily determined by the entity which regulates the supplier of energy rather than where the facility is located. A series of exemptions in several State statutes pertaining to energy facility siting further contribute to the complexity of the authority. In the coastal zone of South Carolina, the primary regulatory authority is the Public Service Commission (PSC) whose regulated utilities provide approximaty 89 percent of the electricity produced in South Carolina. The remainder is provided by either the South Carolina Public Service Authority (PSA), the rural electric cooperatives, or some combination of these. Chart 2 outlines the State agencies from which permits are re- quired for major facilities. An analysis of the PSC's authority and the role of the South Carolina Coastal Council in decisions by the PSC follows. Next, an analysis of the authority of the PSA and the rural electric cooperatives is given along with a description of the Coastal Council's networking authority in each case. Finally, a few general comments are presented regarding energy facility siting in the State. ELECTRIC FACILITIES Public Service Commission Although the Coastal Council has direct permitting authority within the critical areas, the South Carolina Coastal Management Act (the Act) in Section 13 (D) (9) provides an exemption that a Coastal Council permit is not required for the "Construction or maintenance of a major utility facility where the utility has obtained a certificate for such facility under 'The Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act,' Sections 58-33-10 through 58-33-430 of the 1976 Code. Provided, however, that the South Carolina Public Service Commission shall make the Council a party to certification proceedings for utility facilities within the coastal zone. " The Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act (the Siting Act) is the primary piece of en- vironmental legislation under which the PSC operates, and it exempts the PSA from the requirement for a PSC permit. Thus, no Coastal Council permit is required within the critical area for an energy facility unless the facility is being built by the PSA or is otherwise specifically exempted from the Siting Act, such as a facility which is too small to be covered under the Siting Act. The Public Service Commission (PSC) requires certificates for all major utility facilities which are defined as: (a) Electric generating plant and associated facilities designed for, or capable of, operation at a capacity of more than seventy-five megawatts. (b) An electric transmission line and associated facilities of a designed operating voltage of one hundred twenty-five kilovolts or more;...(�58-33-20, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976)) (Code) (Appendix E(1)) The remainder of the section quoted above gives the exemption for any facilities leased to or operated by the South Carolina Public Service Authority in �58-33-20 (Code). Two additional exemptions are granted in �58-33-110 (Code). In Section (4) an exemption for a PSC cer- tificate is granted to any hydroelectric generating facility over which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis- sion has licensing jurisdiction. Because of the relatively low stream flow gradient hydroelectric generating plans will not typically be built within the coastal zone. Where hydroelectric generating facilities are built within the coastal zone; the Coastal Council will either directly permit the project or have the authority for review and certification through the South Carolina Budget and Control Board permit. In Section (6) the PSC is given the authority to waive normal procedures and issue emergency certificates. However, because the type of' facilities for which PSC certificates are issued are of such size IV-41 Local planners would then be able to utilize the Council library as needed. The remaining sources of information available to the Coastal Council for energy planning will come from the A-95 process and from the individual energy suppliers. An Energy Facility Siting Advisory Committee has been organized by the South Carolina Coastal Council (Appendix J). All energy suppliers in the coastal zone, in addition to the State regulatory agencies and the Department of Energy, have representation on the Committee. The energy planning process, because of its complexity, requires input from a variety of sources. Much of the necessary information is technical in nature, requiring the inclusion of experts in the planning process. Therefore, the Energy Facility Siting Advisory Committee met once before the first draft of the Energy Plan- ning Process was written and has continued to meet throughout the various developmental writing stages. In this way the Committee members have participated in the formation of management program elements which most directly affect them. It is likely that the Advisory Committee may be called upon regularly after the management program is ap- proved in order to inform the Council of new energy developments, suggest areas requiring further research, and advise the Council on proposed amendments to the coastal program. Forecasting data from the PSC and Division of Research Statistics, and any additional energy prediction and demand studies, can significantly augment information available to the Coastal Council. HII. Demands For Coastal Resources Among the General Assembly's findings in the Coastal Management Act of 1977 is that "basic state policy in the implementation of this act is to protect the quality of the coastal environment and to promote the economic and social improvement of the coastal zone and of all the people of the State." One of the specific State policies to be followed by the Coastal Council in implementation of the Act is: To promote economic and social improvement of the citizens of this State and to en- courage development of coastal resources in order to achieve such improvement with due consideration for the environment and within the framework of a coastal planning pro- gram that is designed to protect the sensitive and fragile areas from inappropriate development and provide adequate safeguards with respect to the construction of facilities in the critical areas of the coastal zone;... Consequently, decisions concerning the siting of energy facilities, as well as all other resource allocation decisions, must be made by balancing the need for development which is essential to the economy of the State with the safeguarding of fragile coastal resources. The increasing concentrations of people along the coast re- quire both energy supplies to provide for their personal needs and energy supplies to run the industries in which'they are employed. At the same time, increasingly large numbers of people living along the coast reduce the amount of open land available for sites for energy facilities. The production and transmission of energy can potentially bring negative impacts if siting decisions are not made carefully. A poorly located energy facility can bring to an area problems which can outweigh the tax revenues and other benefits which the community receives. Prime sites for energy facilities should be available for development since the development of poorly chosen sites could result in misspent funds, upheaval to a community, and frequently permanent environmental damage. Numerous conflicting demands are placed on coastal resources to support such diverse economic activities as manufacturing, tourism and fishing. In addition, the people who work in the coastal zone must have space to live and play, thus requiring housing, recreational facilities, and open space. Energy facilities may require such coastal resources as port facilities. Moreover, the natural regeneration of the coastal ecosystem should be accommodated. South Carolina has a unique opportunity to learn from other states whose coastal resources have been strained by more intense development and higher population density than this State has yet experienced. Energy facility siting decisions yet to be made provide us with one opportunity to maintain the quality of life we now enjoy and ensure it for our children and succeeding generations. IV-40 FIGURE 2 INDUSTRIAL GROWTH COMPARED TO ENERGY USE 120- 110 PRODUCTION / I10 - ENERGY / z 100_ / U 9. / / 0 ~15 X 90 _ / - = ~~~~ / 7 0.. /" ,, -o_ , i M MBOE -. / DAY / / - / / 0 1947 19 60 / /I a /0. / " 50// o / / ,,40_ z; 30.. "~ 20_ .10 - 0i0 1947 1975 Source: Testimony of Richard W. Barnes, Dow Chemical Company, before the Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation RD&D of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, April 4, 1977. IV-39 Because the South Carolina coastal zone contains a wide variety of economic, demographic, geologic and geographic conditions, such an approach to meeting the State's energy needs may prove to be workable. A final future alternative is increased conservation of energy. Actions such as retrofiting insulation on buildings and car-pooling can do much to reduce the State's energy demands. The institution of user fees and tax credits may also lead to significant conservation of our energy resources. Industrial use of energy has become increasingly more efficient since the middle of the century (Figure 2), and further conservation mneasures are being investigated extensively within the State. Richard W. Barnes of the Dow Chemical Com- pany has estimated that with "very strong incentives" (increasing real energy prices, economic incentives for conservation investments and "practical accommodation within environmental protection requirements") in- dustry could reduce the intensity of its energy use (hence increasing energy conservation) by an average of 0.8 percent per year over approximately the next decade. Therefore, as Figure 2 indicates, industrial expansion is not necessarily detrimental to the State's energy balance. It is entirely possible to have economic growth within the State without excessive consumption of our energy resources. Energy Planning Energy planning in its most rudimentary form began at the State level in 1973 with an Executive Order creating the Energy Management Office. The Energy Management Office was charged with developing a pro- gram of energy conservation for the State, as well as with providing a clearinghouse function for all energy in- formation passing through-the State. In the fall of 1978, the Energy Management Office was replaced by 'thie Office' of Energy Resources, directed by Dr. Lamar E. Priester, Jr. The Office of Energy Resources is designed to carry out all of the func- tions of the Energy Management Office as well as to conduct assessments and evaluations, economic analysis and collaboration with the newly-formed joint legislative committee on energy to develop energy-related legislation. In addition, the Office will promote use of diversified energy sources throughout the State. The Office of Energy Resources will make policy recommendations, but does not yet have any regu.,latory authority or authority to require implementation of its recommendations. The Office could serve the State in the future as a mechanism for energy planning if it receives statutory authority. On July 25, 1978, the Division of Consumer Advocacy within the S. C. Department of Consumer Affairs was created to provide legal representation of the consumer interest before State regulatory agencies, such as the Public Service Commission. The Consumer Advocate at his sole discretion acts as a representative for the public before the PSC and utility siting proceedings and rate cases.. The S. C. Consumer Advocate may peti- tion to become a party of record under its legislation in these proceedings. The Public Service Commission (PSC), which is the primary regulatory authority for energy facilities in. South Carolina, is beginning to develop a forecasting capability. The PSC received a grant from the National Regulatory Research Institute for the the South Carolina and North Carolina Commissions to develop a methodology for regional forecasting within their respective states for energy consumption and peak energy demands for electricity. The methodology developed will assist in determining the type of plant and best plant mix (base, peak or intermediate) which will best meet the anticipat'ed needs for electricity. The PSC is attempting to obtain funding to develop a data base at the county level which would significantly increase their forecasting capability. Eventually the PSC would like to develop a State Energy Model to determine plant sites, types, and mixes. About a year and a half ago, the South Carolina Division of Research and Statistics prepared an energy demand study for the Energy Management Office. The data used in the study was accumulated on a statewide basis and has not been updated since that time. The usefulness of this for planning purposes may be significant if the data is accumulated at the county level and updated yearly. A possible use for coastal zone management implementation funds could be to participate in the develop- ment of computerized energy forecasting for energy planning purposes for the coastal zone. If the data were available on the county level, it could also be extremely valuable to coastal governmental units. It is logical to assume that local governments within the coastal zone will have to assess the impact of pro- posed energy facilities on their city, county or region. In many cases, local administrators will have little or no experience with such analysis, and consequently may require assistance. The Coastal Council office in Charleston has already compiled an annotated bibliography of materials which will be useful to the local plan- ners responsible for energy impact analysis, and hopes to acquire many of these materials. IV-38 TABLE 2 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY RESPONSE TO COASTAL PLANNING QUESTIONNAIRE Net Status of Peak Peak Installed Date When Present Projects Construction Operating Capacity Station Became Under Construction Countv Emnlovment Emnlovment Station (MW) Operational or Proposed Horry None Georgetown None Charleston 37 Hagood Steam 96 1947 (Ist Unit) None Charleston 5 0 Faber Place IC 9 1961 Beaufort 5 0 Burton IC 30 1961 None Jasper 5 0 Hardeeville IC 15 1968 None Colleton 550 78 Canadys Steam 422 1962 (lst Unit) None Colleton 5 0 Canadys IC 15 1968 Dorchester None Berkeley 925 54 Williams Steam 580 1973 None Berkeley 5 0 Williams IC 54 1972 IV-37 TABLE 1 Peak Construction Peak Operating Date Commercial Employment Employment Operation Began . South Carolina Public Service Authority 1. Winyah Generating Plants, #1 445 92 March 25, 1975 Georgetown County #2 428 92 July 1, 1977 2. Jefferies Steam Plant, #1 962 97 January 1, 1954 Berkeley County #2 962 97 January 1, 1954 #3 380 97 January 1, 1970 #4 380 97 July 1, 1970 3. Jefferies Hydro Plant, 12,670 17 December 1, 1942 Berkeley County 4. Spillway Hydro, Berkeley County 105 2 August 1, 1950 5. Granger Station fossil fuel plants, #1 411 55 June 1, 1966 Horry County #2 411 55 June 1, 1966 6. Combustion turbines, Myrtle Beach, #1 38 1 May 1, 1962 Horry County #2 38 1 May 1, 1962 #3 38 1 August 1, 1972 #4 38 1 August 1, 1972 #5 38 1 June 1, 1976 7. Combustion turbines, Hilton Head, #1 38 2 August 1, 1973 Beaufort County #2 38 2 Augustl, 1974 II. Amoco facility, Berkeley County 1,500 170 July, 1978 (No permits required until operation begins) III. Chicago Bridge and Iron, Beaufort Countya 100-150 600 1979 (Corps of Engineers, S.C. Budget and Control Board, (expected) and Beaufort County Building permit received. No other permits required.) IV. Chevron owns land, Jasper County, facility is planned. V. Cooper River Rediversion Hydro Plant, Berkeley County VI. South Carolina Electric & Gas (See Table 8 for detailed analysis.) a Purpose as yet undefined. IV-36 government-owned facility operated by private industry under a Department of Energy contract. Of these four, the Savannah River Plant, which produces nuclear materials and performs related research, has the most potential to affect the coastal zone because of its proximity to Jasper and Beaufort counties. Future Alternatives At the present time, there are 26 energy facilities in operation or planned for the coastal zone. These range from hydro plants and combustion turbines to industry land holdings with no construction yet begun. (Tables I and 2). Location of new facilities will depend in some measure on transportation and population centers, where the need for energy will be the greatest. Increases in industrial and commercial activity will also lead to addi- tional energy demands. The port'facilities at Charleston, Georgetown, and Port Royal'will require a great deal of energy. The Act (Appendix B) requires the South Carolina State Ports Authority to "prepare and submit to the Council a management plan for port and harbor facilities and navigation channels." Once the Coastal Couxncil approves the Ports Authority plan, it will become a part of the coastal management program, thereby enabling the Coastal Council to assess and guide energy-related development in the State's port areas. Forecasting energy supplies and demands is difficult, but forecasting alternative methods and sources of supply can be even more complex. Several points are well established: prices for all forms of energy will con- tinue to increase, supplies of natural gas and, in all likelihood, oil will diminish steadily, as will deposits of low-sulfur coal. At the same time, South Carolina's population and industrial base will continue to expand, resulting in greater demands for energy. Obviously, one alternative is to increase the State's reliance on nuclear power. However, in light of the en- vironmental and safety questions currently surrounding nuclear energy, it'is also prudent to consider other possible responses to the State's energy needs. One alternative course of action, pursued on the national level, is substitution of fuels. The Department of Energy publication Energy Supply Initiatives suggests that as oil prices rise, substitution of synthetic liquid and solid fuels and oil shale derivatives for petroleum products will become economically attractive. Un- conventional natural gas (iLe. from geopressurized sources or coal gasification processes) may also become economically feasible as current prices rise. Other sources of substitute fuel which may have a more direct im- pact on the State include the combustion of biomass - a technique currently utilized in the forest products in- dustry; production of fuel from corn and other agricultural products; and possible local applications of geothermal energy from granitic rock beneath the Atlantic Coastal Plain (experimental geological/geophysical research under Department of Energy contract). In addition to substitution of fuels, there are a number of new technologies with the potential to reduce demands on conventional resources. With the State's location, climate and forestry industry, renewable sources of energy and other soft energy technologies should be examined and developed in conjunction with historically important types of energy development and production. These include wind generated power, sea thermal power, geothermal, hydrogen as a fuel, photovoltaics, and passive solar heating and cooling. Photovoltaic cells convert sunlight directly into electricity, and can be used in either central or dispersed loca- tions. Progress in this field has been made at the University of South Carolina College of Engineering, leading to the possibility that South Carolina may be in the vanguard of states utilizing this technology experimentally. Passive solar heating and cooling seem to hold the greatest promise for South Carolina, and are also being studied extensively by a number of researchers throughout the State, most notably members of the Clemson University faculty. Additional research is underway investigating the possibilities of numerous other energy alternatives.I What is perhaps most significant about these alternatives is that they lend themselves to decentralized ap- plication. The Department of Energy proposes to initiate a program to - Encourage individuals and small business to develop and prove the feasibility of a variety of small-scale technologies... .Emphasis will be placed on technologies that may not be universally applicable, but which are appropriate to markets characterized by unique regional, institutional and end-use conditions. (Department of Energy,Energy Supply In- itiatives, May 15, 1978.) IV-35 FIGURE I SHARES OF ENERGY PRODUCTION Nuclear ........ 40 ~~~....... ....... I........ ~~I.0 Oi Ga. i a 19317.97 9617 SOURCE: S.C. Dvso fRsac ndSa. tcSrie IV3 The ways in which a state's energy demands are met are determined as much by geological and geographical criteria as any other. For example, South Carolina's relatively large share of hydroelectric power generation may best be explained by the State's abundant water resources in manmade reservoirs. Likewise, the low utilization of oil and natural gas is'explained in part by the absence of reserves and by the lack of oil refineries or other processing facilities in or near South Carolina at this time. While it is true that no coal is mined in the State, transportation networks and historical usage patterns make it the most important fuel source in South Carolina. Electricity As has been noted above, electricity is not only the most heavily utilized but also the fastest growing source of energy in the State. Per capital electricity consumption in South Carolina is 40 percent higher than the U.S. average, a fact which may be partially accounted for by the heavy use of air conditioners. The rapid growth in demands for energy, coupled with inflation and the high cost of environmentally acceptable technology, has led to rapidly increasing costs for electricity. The averae annual bill for South Carolina residents has risen from $150.61 in 1968 to $454.88 in 1977, an increase of 200 percent. Because of the projected increases in demand during the next decade, all four of the major electric utility companies serving the State are planning significant expansion of both generating facilities and transmission and distribution systems, with some of the expansion expected to take place outside the coastal zone. Statistics from South Carolina Electric and Gas, Carolina Power and Light and Duke Power companies in- dicate that no new generating facilities are specifically planned for the coastal zone until at least the late 1980's. However, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company does plan to upgrade its Hagood (coal-fired, steam generating) station in Charleston County by 1984 and to construct three new facilities whose locations are as yet undetermined. The South Carolina Public Service Authority is currently expanding its steam generating facilities in Georgetown County, and further expansion within the coastal zone is likely during the next decade. Natural Gas As pointed out in the preceeding discussion, natural gas usage has been declining in South Carolina and is likely to continue to do so in the years ahead. The decline may be traced to limited supplies of the resource, as there is no natural gas produced within the State, and allocations to South Carolina are controlled by the federal -government. Allocations to the State are handled by two major pipeline companies in the Piedmont re-ion of the State which distribute gas to their own customers, gas authorities, and private and municipal distributers. Nuclear Energy Estimates of nuclear energy's share of South Carolina's total energy supply range from 45 percent to 56 percent (Figure 1). Nuclear energy has been a major contributor to South Carolina's economy through related industries as well as through the plants themselves. At the present time there are two nuclear power stations with a total of four reactors in operation in South Carolina, with an additional six reactor units under con- struction or on order and scheduled to begin operation by 1989. None of these stations is in the State's coastal zone. A study conducted during the past year by the Southern States Energy Board identified five possible sites for a nuclear energy center in South Carolina. Two of these five possible sites were located in the coastal zone; however, a site in the northwestern part of the State was selected as the most promising for further analysis. Robert Hirsch, Energy Advisor to the Governor, former Director of South Carolina's Energy Management Office, has stated that no plans for additional nuclear facilities in the coastal zone have come to his attention. In addition to the power plants themselves, South Carolina has four service/manufacturing facilities. These are the Westin-house nuclear fuel manufacturing plant in Columbia, the allied General Nuclear Services reprocessing facility located (but not operating) in Barnwell, the Chem-Nuclear Systems low-level waste management facility at Snelling (near Barnwell), and the Savannah River Plant, which is a IV-33 CHART 1 SOUTH CAROLINA NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS Current status of operation and construction dates (Taken from August 1978 issue of Nuclear News.) Station (Power Unit) Company Date of Operation In Operation Robinson (2)* CP&L March 1971 Oconee (1) Duke July 1973 Oconee (2) Duke September 1974 Oconee (3) Duke December 1974 Under Construction Summer (1) SCE&G December 1980 Catawba (1) Duke July 1981 Catawba (2) Duke January 1983 Cherokee (1) Duke January 1985 Cherokee (2) Duke January 1987 Cherokee (3) Duke January 1989 *Robinson (1) is fossil-fueled. IV-32 will demonstrate the consolidated, comprehensive approach which South Carolina is developing in order to accommodate growth while maintaining its precious heritage. II. Overview The South Carolina Division-of R-search and Statistical Services predicts that energy consumption in the State will increase at a faster rate than the national average. While the increase will slow somewhat during the next decade, the i'ate will continue to outdistance the national average because South Carolina's economy is expected to continue to grow at a faster rate than that of the nation as a whole. Most of this demand has been met by coal and nuclear power. Oil and natural gas have become progressively displaced by nuclear power as fuel sources in South Carolina in recent years (Chart 1). Existing Energy Demands The most accurate figures available are, of course, those for current energy demands. In 1975, the last year for which accurate data are available, total residential energy consumption in South Carolina was 73.1 trillion BTU's. This figure can be further divided into energy supplied by natural gas (18.6 trillion BTU's), electricity (33.1 trillion BTU's) and petroleum (15.1 trillion BTU's as distillate heating fuel, .9 trillion BTU's as residual heating fuel and 5.4 trillion BTU's as kerosene). Commercial energy demands are not as systematically articulated as residential demands. The total con- sumption in South Carolina in 1975 was 37.4 trillion BTU's. Of this total, 15.6 trillion BTU's were provided by natural gas and 21.8 trillion BTU's by electricity. In 1975, total industrial consumption was 145.2 trillion BTU's, which can be further subdivided into demands for natural gas, (79.2 trillion BTU's), electricity (46.2 trillion BTU's), and oil (19.8 trillion BTU's). It is interesting that the demand for oil dropped from 25.4 trillion BTU's in 1974, presumably as a result of the energy crisis, yet immediately began to rise again in 1978. Transportation sector energy demands for 1975 were 1,471 million gallons of motor fuel. The electric utility sector's demand for fossil fuels in 1975 totaled 152.8 trillion BTU's. Of this, 100.6 trillion BTU's were supplied by coal, 30.1 by oil, and 22.1 by natural gas. Energy Supplies Figure 1 shows the relative importance of the various sources of energy production in South Carolina. Coal presently supplies the greatest proportion of the energy used in the State, with nuclear energy a very close com- petitor. Hydro-power is also a more important energy source than either oil or gas, but the production of hydro-power is also a more important energy source than either oil or gas, but the production of hydro-power is primarily concentrated outside of the coastal zone, as is nuclear power. As has been noted previously, the importance of oil and gas to the total energy balance of the State has declined dramatically in the past several yars. This State trend is a result of declining national supplies coupled with rising national prices and the fact that there are no sources of oil or gas close to South Carolina. With the results of offshore Lease Sale 43 which took place in Savannah, Georgia, in March, 1978, this trend is even more likely to continue. Tracts off of the coast of South Carolina in the Southeast Georgia Embayment were included in the nominations for bids in Lease Sale 43. No actual bids, however, were made on the offshore lease blocks affecting South Carolina. The next sale which could have affected South Carolina was Lease Sale 54. Sale 54 was scheduled to lease tracts in the Blake Plateau in November, 1979, but has been indefinitely delayed for a number of reasons in- cluding a lack of industry interest at the present time. The only other sale planned at this time for tracts off South Carolina's coast is Lease Sale 56 presently sclieduled for April, 1981. The tracts available for Lease Sale 56 are expected to be the same as those available in Lease Sale 43. Therefore, the likelihood of South Carolina experiencing any significant Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) related activity onshore in the immediate future seems slight. The exception would be in the case of pipelines across state or other OCS related facilities resuming from discoveries of oil or gas off of Georgia's coast or Florida's east coast. IV-31 B. ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS I. Introduction The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended in July, 1976, requires in Section 305 (b)(8) that each state's management program must include: A planning process for energy facilities likely to be located in, or which may significantly affect, the coastal zone, including, but not limited to a process for anticipating and managing the impacts from such facilities. The South Carolina Coastal Management Act (Act 123 of the 1977 South Carolina General Assembly) (the Act) (Appendix B) states in Section 8 (B)(6) that in the development of the State's coastal management pro- gram the Council shall: Provide for adequate consideration of the local, regional, state and national interest in- volved in the siting of facilities for the development, generation, transmission and distribution of energy, adequate transportation facilities and other public services necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nautre. Therefore, the South Carolina Coastal Council has the Federal and State mandate to include in its manage- ment program a planning process to incorporate the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone in a manner which is consistent with the other necessary uses of the coast. In addition, the Council is mandated to consider the national interest when making these decisions. Section 923.14 of the coastal zone management development and approval regulations (Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978) outlines the minimum requirements which the energy planning process must contain. (1) Identification of energy facilities which are likely to locate in, or which may significantly affect a State's coastal zone; (2) Procedures for assessing the suitability of sites for such facilities; (3) Articulation of State policies for managing energy facilities and their impacts, in- cluding a clear articulation of policies regarding conditions that may be imposed on site location and facility development; (4) Identification of how interested and affected public and private parties may be involv- ed in the planning process and a discussion of the means for continued consideration of the national interest, in the planning for and siting of energy facilities that are necessary to meet more than local requirements, after program approval; (5) Identification of legal authorities and management techniques that will be used to im- plement State policies and procedures. The energy planning element of South Carolina's coastal management program will begin with a look at the existing energy demands in the State and the pattern of supply, followed by an explanation of the future alternatives for South Carolina to meet its energy needs over the next ten years. The various mechanisms for providing the necessary energy planning to the State will be presented and explained. Furthermore, some sug- gestions for consolidated forecasting efforts during implementation of the coastal management program will be made. A brief description of the relationship between the use of coastal resources to provide for energy needs and the other vital demands for coastal resources will place the importance of siting decisions into a meaningful perspective. A legal analysis of the regulatory authority governing energy siting decisions, a look at the Coastal Council's participation in the decision making and the policies which will guide the Council's evaluations IV-30 South Carolina State Ports Authority. "State Ports Impact on South Carolina's Economy", September, 1977. South Carolina State Ports Authority. Port News: "Port Ranking", October, 1977. South Carolina Water Resources Commission. "Capacity Use Area Investigation of Lowcount-y Area (Colleton, Hampton, Jasper, and Beaufort Counties), South Carolina - a Six Month Progress Report." Geology-Hydrology Division, S.C. Water Resources Commission, August, 1977. South Carolina Water Resources Commission. South Carolina Scenic Rivers Program. Columbia, S.C.: Water Resources Commission. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. The South Carolina Heritage Turst, 1976 (Brochure). South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. "Francis Marion Game Management Area", August, 1976 (Brochure) U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Wild and Scenic Rivers. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, revised 1975. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants." Federal Register, Part V (July 14, 1977): 36420-36431. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. "Savannah National Wildlife Refuge." Government Printing Office: 1960-0-333-353. Refuge Leaflet 33-R. (Brochure). U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Final Environmental Statement: Operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Government Printing Office: 1976-0-222-029. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "National Wildlife Refuge System," Washington, March,1977 (Brochure). U.S. Forest Service. Francis Marion National Forest Land Management Plan: Final Environmental Statement. Columbia, S.C., USDA-FS-R8-FES ADM 77-10, August, 1977. University of South Carolina, College of Business Administration, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Division of Research; Occasional Studies Series, No. 6, October, 1974. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Commission. Survey of Historic Places. Georgetown, S.C.: Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Commission, September, 1971. The Junior League of Charleston, Inc. Historic Charleston Guidebook, (Compiled and Originally Published as Across the Cobblestones), 1965. Chamberlain, Samuel and Narcissa Chamberlain. Southern Interiors of Charleston, South Carolina. Hastings House Publishers, New York, 1956. "Antiques at Charleston." Reprinted from Antiques Magazine, April, May, June, and November, 1970. IV-29 FIO Lewisfield Plantation F11 Lack Dhu Plantation F12 St. Stephen's Episcopal Church Georgetown County: G1 Hopsewee Plantation G2 Annandale Plantation G3 Georgetown Lighthouse G4 Georgetown Historic District G5 Prince George, Winyah, Episcopal Church House G6 Old Market Building G7 Arcadia Plantation G8 Pawleys Island Historic District G9 Mansfield Plantation G10 Prince Frederick's Chapel G11 Brookgreen Gardens G12 Chicora Wood Plantation Horry County: HI Hebron Church H2 Old Horry County Jail REFERENCES Bayne, James N. and Rodger W. Mudd. South Carolina Public Land Ownership Inventory State and Federal Owned Lands - 1977 Update. Columbia, S.C.: S.C. Land Resrouces Conservation Commission, 1977. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council Historic Preservation Plan. Charleston, S.C.: Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council, June 1972. Cupka, David and Margaret Pridgen. Recreational Shellfish Guide. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Marine Resources Division, Office of Conservation and Management, Recreational Fisheries Section, September, 1976. Greeter, Stuart E., Jr. "Groundwater in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina." Internal Report, S.C. Wildlife Department, 1975. Hartzog, Lader & Richards. Public Beach Access and Recreation in South Carolina. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, 1976. Lowcountry Regional Planning Council. Preservation Plan and Survey. Lowcountry Region. Yemassee, S.C.: Lowcountry Regional Planning Council, June, 1973. Pender, David and Ronald Wilder. Impact of State Ports Authority Upon the Economy of South Carolina. Spigner, B.C. "Ground Water Capacity-Use Area Investigation of Lowcountry Area, South Carolina - a Mid-Term Progress Report." Submitted to Coastal Plains Regional Commission by S.C. Water Resources Commission, 1975. South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism. Executive Summary: South Carolina Out- door Recreation Plan, 1970/1984. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, 1970. South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission. Mining and Reclamation in South Carolina. Columbia, S.C.: Land Resources Conservation Commission, 1977. IV-28 E56 Edward Rutledge House E57 Governor John Rutledge House E58 St. Michael's Church E59 St. Philip's Church E60 Simmons-Edwards House E61 S.C.N. Bank of Charelston E62 S.C. State Arsenal E63 Col. John Stuart House E64 Sword Gates House E65 Unitarian Church E66 U.S. Customhouse E67 U.S. Post Office and Court House E68 Central Baptist Church E69 St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church E70 Old Bethel United Methodist Church E71 Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim Synagogue E72 Mount Pleasant Historic District E73 St. Andrews Parish Church E74 Old Court House E75 William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures E76 Site of Old Charles Towne E77 Magnolia Cemetery E78 Paul Pritchard Shipyard E79 Snee Farm E80 Christ Church ES! Auld Mound E82 Buzzard's Island Shell Ring E83 Oakland Plantation E84 Stono River Slave Rebellion Site E85 Ashley Hall Plantation E86 John Drayton House E87 Magnolia Gardens E88 Sewee Shell Ring E89 Harrietta Plantation E90 St. James Santee Episcopal Church E91 Fairfield Plantation E92 Hampton Plantation E93 Fort Pemberton E94 Bleak Hall Plantation Outbuildings E95 Edisto Island Presbyterian Church E96 Old House Plantation E97 Peter's Point Plantation E98 Windsor Plantation Berkeley County: F1 St. James Goose Creek Church F2 St. Thomas Episcopal Church F3 Medway Plantation F4 Middleburg Plantation F5 Pompion Hill Chapel F6 Strawberry Chapel F7 Calais Mile Stone F8 Tavon Church F9 Thomas Broughton (Mulberry) Plantation IV-27 E4 Fig Island Shell Ring ES Horse Island Shell Ring E6 Brick House Ruins E7 William Seabrook House (Dodge Plantation) E8 Village of Rockville Historic District E9 Hanckel Mound Shell Ring El0 John Seabrook Plantation Bridge (Adm. George Palmer Bridge)' Ell Arnoldus Vander Horst House E12 Willtown Bluff E13 Johns Island Presbyterian Church E14 Fenwick Hall Plantation E15 Marshlands Plantation House E16 Fort Johnson/Powder Magazine E17 Stiles-Hinson-Thompson House E18 Fort Sumter E19 U.S. Coast Guard Historic District E20 Fort Moultrie E21 Battery Gadsden E22 Battery Thomson E23 McLeod Plantation E24 Castle Pinckney E25 Charleston Historic District E26 Bethel Methodist Church E27 William Blalock House E28 Daniel Blake House E29 Branford-Horry House E30 Miles Brewton House E31 Robert Brewton House E32 Charleston's French Quarter District E33 C & S National Bank of S. C. Building E34 College of Charleston E35 Dock Street Theatre E36 The Exchange & Provost E37 Farmers' and Exchange Bank E38 Fireproof Building E39 William Gibbs House E40 DuBose Heyward House E41 Heyward-Washington House E42 Hibernian Hill E43 Huguenot Church E44 McCrady's Tavern and Long Room E45 Joseph Manigault House E46 Market Hall and Sheds E47 Clark Mills Studio E48 James Nicholson House E49 Old Marine Hospital ES0 The Circuiar Congressional Church ES1 Powder Magazine E52 Robert Barnwell Rhett House E53 Robert William Roper House E54 Thomas Rose House E55 Nathaniel Russell House IV-26 1) Uses which preserve the historical or cultural values for which the site was placed on the National Historic Register; 2) Educational opportunities for the public regarding the historical, archeological or cultural significance of the sights as long as the site is not disturbed. Designated Sites The following historic and archeological sites in the South Carolina coastal zone are on the National Register of Historic Places. They are designated as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern and are shown in the map appendix. A brief description of each site appears in Appendix F. Jasper County: Al Robertville Baptist Church A2 Gillisonville Baptist Church Beaufort County: Bl Sea Pines Shell Ring B2 Green's Shell Enclosure B3 Hilton Head Shell Ring B4 Church of the Cross B5 Charles Forte B6 Tombee Plantation B7 Hassell Point Shell Ring B8 Hunting Island Light House B9 Fort Frederick B10 Chester Field Shell Ring B11 Penn Center B12 Indian Hill B13 Beaufort Historic District B14 Tabby Manse B15 John Mark Verdier House B16 Barnwell-Gough House B17 The Marshlands B18 Robert Smalls House B19 John A. Cuthbert House B20 William and'Elizabeth Barnwell House B21 The Anchorage B22 Coffin Point Plantation B23 Little Barnwell Island Shell Ring B24 Sheldon Church B25 Auldbrass Plantation Colleton County: Cl Isaac Haynes Hall C2 Pon Pon Chapel C3 Colleton County Courthouse C4 Walterboro Jail C5 Walterboro Little Library Dorchester County: DI Middleton Place D2 Old Fort Dorchester D3 Summerville Historic District D4 Cypress Methodist Campground D5 Carroll Place D6 Indian Fields Methodist Church Campground Charleston County: E1l Middleton's Plantation E2 The Presbyterian Manse E3 Trinity Episcopal Church IV-25 Historic Preservation Act of 1960, amended in 1974. This program under responsibility of the Department of the Interior contracts with qualified state and private educational and scientific institutions to perform necessary research and surveys to meet program needs identified by work with other federal agencies.) All of this data for the eight coastal counties has been made available to the Coastal Council, and the historic and archeological sites have been added to the coastal map overlay system on U.S.G.S. 71/" quadrangle maps. For reasons of confidentiality to protect unmanaged sites from looting or destruction, the majority of this information will be limited to in-house use for review and evaluation of permits and project proposals. From this thorough inventory, sites which have been named to the Historic Register will be designated as GAPCs. Criteria for Designation The following criteria are those adopted by the Secretary of the Interior and are used in noIminating sites to the National Register. These evaluation criteria axe recognized by the Coastal Council for designating GAPCs under this category. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workman- ship, feeling, and association, and: A. that are associated with events that have been made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that repre- sent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties'primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: A. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or B. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architec- tural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his _productive life; or D. a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or E. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived-, or F. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or G. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. Priority of Uses The following are the uses of priority for areas of special historic, archeological, or cultural significance which have been named to the National Historic Register, beginning with the use of highest priority. IV-24 Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 1971, further'emphasized the leadership of the Federal government in historic preservation efforts. The National Register program is implemented and administered by State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) who are responsible for the survey and nomination process, in conjunction with a review board of professionals in the field. Also, the SHPO and the State review board are responsible for preparation and review of the State's historic preservation plan, which includes background information on the State (Volume III). Properties and sites listed on the National Register receive full consideration of their historic or ar- cheological values through OMB Circular A-95 review process, whereby Federal, State, and local agencies comment on proposed Federal activities or funding. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides that: The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally-assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal depart- ment or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the is- suance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation...a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such under- taking. In South Carolina the Department of Archives and History, Historic Preservation Division, and the In- stitute for Archeology and Anthropology as well as the South Carolina Coastal Council are involved in the State Clearinghouse process for project proposals subject to A-95 review and also review Environmental Im- pact Statements (EIS), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Historic Preservation Division estimated that they annually review over 500 A-95 project clearances, project notifications, and en- vironmental impact statements for possible impact on the historic environment. While the review and com- ment process for Federal, federally-assisted, or federally-licensed projects affecting a National Register pro- perty does not provide a veto power, it does ensure that historic values are thoroughly considered. Experience with the process has shown ample regard is given to relevant comments or objections by State agencies. The S.C. Coastal Council is mandated to consider historic and archeological resources in implementation of its permitting authority in critical areas of the coastal zone. In evaluating applications for alterations in the critical areas, the Council must consider, among other factors, "the extent to which the development could af- fect....irreplaceable historic and archeological sites of South Carolina's coastal zone" (�15 (6), Act 123 of 1977). Because of the scope of jurisdiction and the requirement for management authority for GAPCs, only those historic and archeological sites which have been named to the National Historic Register can be designated as GAPCs. The Coastal Council's inventory will provide its staff with complete information on all known historic and archeological sites for permit assessments and project evaluations. As those sites listed achieve National Register status, they will automatically be designated as GAPCs. Inventory The State of South Carolina has had an active Statewide Historic Preservation Program since 1969, based on the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. One of the major functions of the Historic Preservation Division of the Department of Archives and History has been an inventory idenfifying more than 6,000 sites in the State, reflecting 300 years of State history and over a thousand years of prehistory. Under contract with the Department of Archives and History as well as the Coastal Council, the regional Councils of Government also have been contributing to this inventory and research effort. The University of South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology has an on-going statewide survey and mapping program for identification of both archeological and historic sites. (The Institute operates under contract to the Interagency Archeological Program, as mandated by the Federal Archeological and IV-23 The basic idea of the reclamation plan is to develop a strategy for mining a resource and returning the land to an economically useful, environmentally sound, and aesthetically pleasing form. In the coastal zone, ponds or lakes are the main reclamation practice. This is because of availability of water from streams or a high water table. These water bodies must have certain shoreline construction for long-term safety and stability, a certain percentage of shallow area for spawning, and certain minimum depths to control vegetation. The potential ex- ists for a mining company to turn this reclamation process into a profitable real estate enterprise. Inventory Presently all mining operations in the coastal zone of South Carolina are required to have a mining permit and a reclamation plan filed with the Land Resources Conservation Commission. These mining operations have been located on aerial photos by the Coastal Council staff with assistance from LRCC personnel and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The mine locations have been plotted on U.S.G.S. 7 V2 minute quadrangle map overlays. As new deposits are discovered or as new mining operations are proposed, the inventory file can be updated. Priority of Uses The following are the uses of priority for all active mining sites within the coastal'zone in South Carolina, beginning with the use of highest priority: 1) The extraction of minerals in a manner consistent with all permit conditions and reclamna- tion plans pertaining to the mining site; 2) Uses which do not interfere with the extraction of minerals for which mining permits have been acquired or with the reclamation plans for the site. Specific Sites Currently there are five minerals that are mninied in significant amounts in the South Carolina Coastal zone. They are sand, gravel, limestone, peat, and clay. A listing of mining operations presently permitted in coastal counties are found in the Appendix F. III. AREAS OF SPECIAL HISTORIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE The coastal zone of South Carolina is rich in historic, archeological, and cultural features. The coastal area was the location of early colonial settlements and, prior to this, the territory of various Indian tribes. Both residents and visitors, alike, perceive these resources as valuable assets and their preservation and protection as an important issue in the growth and development of the Lowcountry. Historic societies are very active throughout the area, and the value placed on the South Carolina heritage by its citizens cannot be over- emphasized. On this basis, areas of specific historic, archeological and cultural significance are felt to be im- portant as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCs) in the coastal zone. Management Authority To date, there is no specific legislation for historic preservation in South Carolina. However, since 1960 the State, through its Historic Preservation Officer, has developed "a program recog~nized nationally as an in- novative and exemplary type of state-federal partnership in preservation and implementation." (South Carolina Historic Preservation Plan, Vol. III, 1977). Through 1975, this State led all others in an annual amount of federal funds received for preservation programs. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 states that: The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to expend and maintain a national register of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architec- ture, archeology and culture, hereinafter referred to as the National Register... IV-22 the Land Resourc'es Conservation Commission (LRCC). The permit application must be accompanied by a reclamation plan which must be approved by the LRCC, and the permit applicant must file a performance bond to ensure compliance with this reclamation plan. As an advisory body to the LRCC, the South Carolina Mining Council serves to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to implement the S.C. Mining Act, and also serves as an appeal body for any LRCC decisions. Also serving in an advisory capacity are: a) the State Technical Advisory Comndttee which is composed of State and Federal agencies, universities, and mining industry representatives; and b) the County Technical Advisory Committee, which is composed of local members of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Soil Conservation Service, Clemson University, the S.C. Forestry Commission, and local government officials. Assistance from these committees helps insure that the administration of the Mining Act is effective, reasonable, and technically sound. The required reclamation plans must include: 1. practices to protect adjacent surface resources; 2. specifications for surface gradient restoration; 3. manner and type of re-vegetation; 4. method to prevent conditions hazardous to fish or animal life; S. method of compliance with State air and water pollution laws; 6. method of rehabilitating settling ponds; 7. method of control of contaminants and mining refuse; 8. method of restoring stream channels and banks to minimize erosion, siltation and pollu- tion; 9. maps as required; and 10. time schedule to be followed. The LRCC shall deny a permit application if: 1. the operator violates the Act or regulations; 2. the operation has unduly adverse effects on wildlife or freshwater, estuarine, or marine ,fisheries; -3 the operation violates air quality, surface water quality, or ground water quality stan- dards; 4. the operation constitutes a substantial physical hazard; S. the operation has a significant adverse effect on a public-owned park, forest, or recrea- tion area; or 6. the operator has violated commitments under the permit. The LRCC may approve a permit application only when it meets the following minimum standards: 1. the final slopes have been minimized; 2. safety provisions to adjoining property are avoided; 3. placement of soil complies with accepted conservation practices; 4. no noxious, odious, or foul pools of water remain; 5. methods of re-vegetation and reforestation conform to practices established by the Agricultural Experiment Station of Clemson University and the South Carolina Forestry Commission. The operator shall file an annual report with the LRCC that describes the reclamation carried out and estimates the acreage to be actively mined in the next twelve months. IV-2 1 commercial navigation or shipping" must be reviewed by the South Carolina State Ports Authority prior to permit issuance for certification that the proposed project will not "unreasonably interfere with commercial navigation and shipping." The Act also requires the Coastal Council to consider "the extent to which the activity would harmfully obstruct the natural flow of navigable water" and "the extent to which the activity could cause erosion (and) shoaling of channels." Inventory Information on existing navigation channels was obtained from the SPA staff and the draft SPA Ports Plan. Priority of Uses Existing navigation channels should be maintained and utilized, while at the same time conserving the natural environment. The following are the uses of priority for navigation channels in the coastal zone, begin- ning with the use of highest priority: 1) Beneficial uses which require water access or uses for which the water orientation is the central purpose of the activity, such as maritime shipping, fishing, and recreational boating, providing these uses are conducted in such a way as to minimize adverse en- vironmental impacts; 2) Water-related uses which do not reduce or degrade the environmental quality of the waterway; 3) Nonwater-dependent or nonwater-related uses which do not obstruct navigation and do not impair the natural surroundings. Designated Sites All waterways within the coastal zone which meet the legal standards for navigability are designated as GAPCs. C. Mining Operations There are over 344 active mines in South Carolina, which in 1974 had an estimated mineral commodity value of $120,000,000. Extraction of minerals by mining is a basic and essential activity, making an important contribution to the economic welfare of this State and the Nation. While it is not practical to extract-minerals required by society without disturbing the earth's surface and producing waste materials, it is possible to conduct mining in such a way as to minimize its effects on the sur- rounding environment. Proper reclamation of mined land is necessary to prevent undesirable land and water conditions that would be detrimental to the environment and to the general health, safety, and welfare, and property rights of the citizens of the State. As such, areas of ongoing mining operations qualify as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCs), due to their geologic, economic, and environmental significance, and their dependence on a coastal location for access to particular mineral resources. Management Authority The provisions of Act 274 of the 1972 General Assembly are intended to allow the mining of valuable minerals and provide for the protection of the State' s environment with the subsequent beneficial use of the mine and reclaimed land. The expressed purposes of the South Carolina Mining Act are as follows: a) That the usefulness, productivity, and scenic values of all lands and waters involved in mining within the State will receive the greatest practical degree of protection and restoration. b) That from the effective date of the Act, no mining shall be carried on in the State unless plans for such mining include reasonable provisions for protection of the surrounding environment and for reclamation of the area of land affected by mining. The Act states that after January 1, 1 975, mine operators must obtain an operating permit from IV-20 Joint development of this required port and harbor management plan, coupled with the Coastal Council's permit authority in the critical areas, including coastal waters and wetlands that might be part of a harbor area, will result in coordinated efforts between the SPA and the Coastal Council. And it will ensure that port modifications or expansion activities and management of the ports system remain consistent with the goals of coastal zone planning. Inventory Information on existing SPA properties and facilities was obtained through consultation with SPA staff and the publications which were made available. When submitted, the required ports plan will provide exten- sive data on existing port facilities and on likely, potential sites for future parts development which will be con- sidered in identifying and designating additional port-related GAPCs. Priority of Uses The following are the uses of priority for all state ports created and operated by the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SPA) beginning with the use of highest priority: 1) Uses which require water access or uses for which the water orientation is the central pur- pose of the activity, such as maritime shipping, fishing, marine industry, and recreational boating. Included in the uses of highest priority for state ports are provisions to assure safety within the ports. These water-dependent uses should have no prudent or feasible alternative; 2) Water-related uses which do not reduce or degrade the natural value or resources within the port; 3) Nonwater-dependent or nonwater-related uses which retain future flexibility of the port for water-dependent needs. Designated Sites The South Carolina Ports Authority owns and manages the following facilities, which are designated as GAPCs: Beaufort County: Port Royal-State Pier 21; Charleston County: Port of Charleston; Georgetown County: State Piers 31 and 32. B. Navigation Channels Navigation channels are closely related to the preceeding category in that they enable travel to and from major ports, facilitate industrial and, commercial activities and allow for recreational and commercial boating. Thus, channel maintenance and development are vital to the economy of the coastal zone and the state as a whole. Like port development, channel maintenance and development may have secondary effects of an en- vironmental or developmental nature. Because navigation channels depend upon a coastal location and are vital to the State's economy, they have been recognized as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Management Authority The provisions of Chapter 1, Title 49 of the 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws declare that "(A)1 I streams which have been rendered or can be rendered capable of being navigated by rafts of lumber or timber by the removal of accidental obstructions and all navigable water courses and cuts are hereby declared navigable streams and such streams shall be common highways and forever free..." The section also prohibits the obstruction of waterways and provides for condemnation of land for rights of way and outlets for inland waterways. Enforcement of this statute rests jointly with the Budget and Control Board and the Attorney General's of- fice. Section 15 of South Carolina's Coastal Management Act requires that the Coastal Council consider navigation channels in its permitting process. Permit applications for activities "in a waterway used for IV-19 Industrial and commercial uses are crucial to the economy of the South Carolina coastal zone. In addition to preservation and protection of natural areas, the State's coastal zone management program must address the development of coastal resources. It must provide the citizens of the State with guidance on the best man- ner in which to capitalize on development opportunties while minimizing negative environmental effects, disruption of other coastal resources, or infringement on the rihts of other coastal property owners. Uses and facilities dependent on coastal location, for water access or proximity to other coastal resources, are recognized as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern due to their unique independence on coastal loca- tion and because of the economic importance and possible environmental impacts of these activities. Criteria for Desipnation To qualify as a GAPC under this category, an activity or facility must meet one or more of the following criteria: 1) Significant quantities of water, such that it can only be obtained in a coastal location, are an absolutely necessary component of the process for a particular industrial or commer- cial activity; 2) Access to coastal waters, primarily for transportation purposes, not only enhances but is fundamental to the given activity; or 3) Minerals, energy-related resources, or other coastal resources occuring in the coastal zone are the primary purpose of an activity which is the major source of income for a given in- dividual or company, and proximity to that resource is vital to success of the operation. A. State Ports Economists at the University of South Carolina estimate that the State Ports have an impact throughout the State of almost $60 million per year, representing direct and indirect employment of about 35,000 jobs. State Ports facilities are a major attraction of industrial investments, and also play an important role for South Carolina agriculture, which exports 29 percent of its total production value. These valuable economic assets are, by definition, dependent on their coastal location for access to the transportation corridor provided by coastal waters. While their maintenance and further development are vital to the South Carolina economy, these activities can have significant environmental impacts and also secondary development effects, particularly on other industrial and commercial uses and on public services, such as transportation. Because of their importance as an economic resource and their dependence on a coastal location, the port facilities in South Carolina have been recognized as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Management Authority The South Carolina State Ports Authority (SPA) was created by Act 626 of the 1942 South Carolina General Assembly (Sections 54-1, -12, -15, and -20, S.C. Code of Laws, 1976). Under direction of a seven member board appointed by the governor, the SPA has the responsibility for development, construction, operation, and promotion of the State's ports. The SPA has jurisdiction over waters, shore s, and tidal tributaries of the harbor at Charleston, Georgetown and Port Royal. It has the power to sue and be sued; the power of eminent domain; the power to acquire and dispose of property, and to take State property not other- wise in use; and the authority to issue revenue bonds. Section II of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act (Act 123 of the 1977 South Carolina General Assembly) has mandated another requirement for the SPA. It reads as follows: The South Carolina State Ports Authority shall prepare and submit to the Council a management plan for port and harbor facilities and navigation channels. Upon approval by the Council of such management plan it shall become part of the comprehensive coastal management program developed by the Council. The South Carolina State Ports Authority shall include in the management plan a designation of the geographical area ap- propriate for use by public and private port and harbor facilities and military and naval facilities and submit this to the Council for approval. IV- i8 The Secretary of Interior is authorized to publish a listing of endangered and threatened species based on the best available scientific data and, thereafter, to establish rules and regulations regarding the control of tak- ing, sale, import, export, or other disruption of each species. Endangered species are those in danger of extinc- tion throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Threatened species are defined as those likely to become endangered within the forseeable future. The bases of the South Carolina and national programs are parallel, and the protective mechanisms similar in that impact on endangered species is considered. The South Carolina Coastal Council is mandated to consider impacts on wildlife species in granting of per- mits for activities in critical areas of the coastal zone. The Council will also review and comment on other per- mits, applications, environmental impact statements and Federally-funded projects (A-95 process) throughout -the coastal zone. The Council comments will include an evaluation of the potential impacts on any designated critical habitats for threatened or endangered species. Criteria for Designation South Carolina Endangered Species are any species of wildlife whos e prospect for survival or recruitment within the State are in jeopardy or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. The causes may be: I) destruc- tion or modification of habitat; 2) species over-utilization for scientific, commercial, or sporting purposes; and 3) other natural or man-made factors. Species on the Federal endangered species lists for native or foreign fish and wildlife are included. Inventory An initial Endangered Species Symposium was held in Charleston in November, 1976, at which time com- mittees of knowledgeable experts and concerned individuals were established. A list of endangered species and "species of special concern" was developed with the aid of these communities. These communities and the ongoing endangered species programs constitute the inventory required for periodic update of the State listing. The South Carolina Endangered Species list is in Appendix F. Priority of Uses The foilowing are the uses of priority for all areas identified or designated as critical habitats for threatened and endangered species, beginning with the use of highest priority: I1)Uses which are compatible with all regulations and management programs developed to protect any designated habitat area under the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts; 2) Uses which maintain the natural functions of areas identified or designated as critical habitat areas of species listed on the State or Federal threatened or endangered species fists; 3) Non-structural, non-intensive uses which do not create irretrievable damage to any species listed as a threatened species. Within an area officially designated as a critical area habitat under the State or Federal Endangered Species Acts, uses are prohibited which violate -the integrity of the State or Federal legislation. Designated Sites Certain critical habitat areas have been identified but no formal designations have been made to date since most of these areas are. already a part of Federal or State preserves or refuges on the coast. At such time as specific habitat areas are designated and management guidelines or rules and regulations are promulgated, these will be adopted as GAPC's. 1I. ACTIVITIES, OR FACILITIES DEPENDENT ON COASTAL LOCATION This category includes those activities which are dependent on their proximity to coastal waters, in terms of use or access; or an proximity to specific coastal resources, such as minerals or other raw materials. (For initial purposes, port facilities and actively operating mining sites have been identified.) IV-17 E. Threatened or Endangered Species Habitats Policy has been affirmed by both the Federal government and State government in South Carolina that conservation of the natural ecosystem upon which endangered and threatened species depend is a high priori- ty. Untempered economic growth and development can result in the depletion or extinction of various species of fish, wildlife and plants. These species of fish, wildlife and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to our people, our Nation, and to the international community. The United States has committed itself through numerous treaties with other countries to a pledge of con- servation involving migratory birds, fisheries and wildlife preservation, for example. The scope of our respon- sibility as people and a Nation to protect the delicate balance of the natural ecosystem is demonstrated by these treaties of Federal and State legislation. As a result, the South Carolina Coastal Council will recognize al designatred threatened and endangered species habitats as (3eorgraphic Areas of Particular Concern. Management Authority In view of the National and State concern for endangered species, the South Carolina legislature passed the Non-game and Endangered Species Act in 1974 (Chapter 15, Section 50-15-10 through 50-15-90, S.C. Code of Laws, 1976) The Act instructs the Wildlife and Marine Resources Commission to conduct investigations on non-game wildlife to determine population distribution, habitat needs, limiting factors, and management measures necessary for their continued existence. Based on such investigations, the Commission must issue ap- propriate regulations and develop management programs. The regulations may establish proposed limitations relating to taking, possession, transportation, exportation, processing, sale, offering for sale, or shipment of particular wildlife species. The Commission is charged with the responsibility to establish programs necessary for the management of non-game and endangered wildlife. The programs may include research, census taking, law enforcement, education, and acquisition of land or aquatic habitats. The Endangered Species Program is coordinated close- ly with the Heritage Trust Program which allows donations of land or easements. The Commission must issue a list of State endangered species, including the United States List of En- dangered Native Fish and Wildlife and the United States List of Endangered Foreign Fish and Wildlife. The list will be reviewed and updated at least every two years. It is unlawful to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell, offer for sale, ship, or receive any of the identified species. The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (WMRD) is directed to enforce the Act and may issue special permits for scien- tific, educational, or other purposes.I The State lists current endangered species and, where appropriate, may desiggnate critical habitat areas, ac- cording to the Federal Endangered Species Act. The State Heritage Trust Program and Endangered Species Program work in close coordination in assessing, acquiring and managing sites that constitute endangered species habitat. If a critical area is formally designated, the effects of any Federally funded program in that area must be more carefully considered. This review by the State clearinghouse is an indirect extension of State management authority effectuated under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Secretary of In- terior makes the final conflict resolution in such a situation. The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 92-205, December, 1973, amended by PL 94-32, June, 1976, and PL 94-359, July, 1976) was passed with the purpose of providing a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species (See. 2,()) The national policy is stated as follows: all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. IV-16 Criteria for Designation The decision to designate a capacity use area is based on the report of the Executive Director of the Water Resources Commission, which describes the groundwater situation and trends. If the situation is poor or deteriorating such that the public interest is in jeopardy, a CUA is likely to be declared. Once this happens, no person shall withdraw, obtain or utilize groundwater in excess of 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) without first obtaining a permit from the Water Resources Commission. All permits will be subject to the CUA regulations adopted by the Commission. Inventory Presently, the Water Resources Commission is undertaking two capacity use area investigations and one reconnaissance level investigation in the coastal zone. CUA Investigations Counties Lowcountry Area Colleton, Hampton, Jasper, Beaufort Waccamaw Area Horry, Georgetown, Marion Regional Reconnaissance Investigation Counties Trident Area Charleston, Berkeley, Dorchester The CUA studies have been funded jointly by the Water Resources Commission, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Coastal Plains Regional Commission. In December, 1977, capacity use reports were completed for the Waccamaw Area recommending that the area be declared a capacity use area (#129, Spigner, Report on the Ground-Water Resources of Horry and Georgetown Counties; #8, Zack, The Occurrence, Availability, and Chemical Quality of Ground Water, Grand Strand Area and Surrounding Parts of Horry and Georgetown Counties). The area was declared a CUA by the Commission in November, 1978. Among several serious ground water problems cited in the Waccamaw capacity use reports are problems related to regional water level declines, salt water contamination, and poor water quality. Procedures to imple- ment capacity use regulations should be completed in early 1979. Lowcountry capacity use reports are scheduled for completion in 1979 with the reconnaissance study of the Trident area to be completed in 1980. Priority of Uses The Ground WaXer Use Act of 1969 is specific in the considerations which the Commission must make in determining whether and to what extent ground water use is permissable. Unreasonably adverse effects on the resource or on water users including public, potential and present users is not permitted. The Act provides that the water resources be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent capable to conserve and maintain conditions which are conducive to the development and use of the ground water resources. In highest to lowest priority, the following priorities will apply to ground water uses in. areas designated as capacity use areas within the coastal zone: 1) Ground water uses which are beneficial uses and are consistent with all provisions of the Ground Water Use Act and regulations promulgated by the Water Resources Commis- sion. 2) Ground water uses which are wasteful, or not beneficial or are found to cause unreasonable adverse effects on other water users or the long-term condition of ground water resources in the coastal zone. Designated Sites Currently, only one area, the Waccamaw Area, has been declared a CUA. Several more steps, however, are required under the Ground Water Use Act, before capacity use regulations can be implemented. Investiga- tions in other areas of the coastal zone may result in future CUA designations. As CUA regulations are adopted for specific problems within generally declared areas, all or a portion of declared CUAs in the coastal zone may be designated as GAPCs depending upon the relative extent of ground water use problems. MV-IS Groundwater can flow vertically as well as horizontally, and vertical wells can pass through several aquifers. The water in each aquifer is likely to vary in quantity and quality. In such a case, it is difficult to determine which aquifer(s) might be responsible for the poor water quality or if the capacity of one of the aquifers might be exceeded, at the expected pumpage, to the detriment of other wells in the area. Because groundwater serves as the vital water supply source for many coastal communities, and the resource may suffer from over-use or waste disposal problems (i.e., septic tanks and seepage from landfills), it is an extremely significant resource of the coastal zone. Those regions which have been identified as potential problem areas, requiring special regulation and coordination of groundwater use, are recognized as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Management Authority The Groundwater Use Act of 1969 (Section 70-31, S.C. Code of Laws, 1976) authorizes the Water Resources Commission to designate "capacity use areas" (CUA). The South Carolina Coastal Council sup- ports the implementation of this act and designation of CUAs by Water Resources as significantly important. The designation process is as follows: A county, municipality or sub-division of State government may request a review by the Commission if it is believed that a situation exists, or is emerging, where the use of ground- water may require coordination or regulation to protect the interests and rights of residents, property owners or the general public. The Executive Director will then conduct an investigation and submit the findings and recommendations to the Commission. Recommendations will include identification of area groundwater pro- blems, appropriate conservation measures, and boundaries of CUA. Based on the report, the Commission may adopt an order declaring a CUA, give public notice of the declaration, and hold at least one public hearing. After the public hearing, the Commission will take final ac- tion on the CUA designation and publish that action as part of its official regulations. Once a CUA has been designated, the Commission instructs the Executive Director to prepare proposed regulations commensurate with the degree of control which is needed. The Commission must hold at least one public hearing on the proposed regulations and publish the final action as part of the official rules. These regulations may be modified or revoked, subject to a public hearing. These regulations may include the following provisions: 1) provisions requiring water users to submit reports concerning quantity and source of waters withdrawn and nature of use; 2) provisions concerning timing of withdrawals, to abate unreasonable adverse effects and salt water en- croachment; and 3) provisions concerning well depth,spacing controls, prescribed pumping levels, and maximum pumping rates. When adopting or modifying the regulations and when reviewing permit applications, the Commission.will consider the following: 1) number of persons using an aquifer and their respective withdrawals; 2) nature and size of the aquifer; 3) physical and chemical nature of any impairment; 4) probable severity and duration of such an impairment; 5) injury to public health, safety or welfare which may result if such impairment were not prevented or abated; 6) kinds of businesses or activities related to groundwater uses; 7) the importance and necessity of the uses claimed by permit applicants and the extent of any injury or detriment expected to be caused to other water users; and 8) diversion or reduction in flows in other water courses or aquifers. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) also has legal authority to protect groundwater resources, with regard to surface pollution. This is accomplished through a statewide per- mitting system for septic tanks and waste disposal by earth burial. (Acts 1157, 1094, 203 and 1492; Sections 32-8, 1202 and 1251, S.C. Code of Laws, 1976; regulations PC-SW-I and 2; SCPCA-SWG-1, 2 and 3) IV-14 shellfishing, and establish the season and the limits for gathering. The Marine Resources Division, Office of Conservation & Management of the S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (WMRD) has jurisdic- tion over these areas and conducts numerous management activities, including maintenance of markers; plan- ting of shell and seed oysters, and thinning of over-crowded beds; and periodic surveying of additional pro- ductive areas. The same management authorities of the Budget and Control Board, Department of Health and En- vironmental Control, and the South Carolina Coastal Council apply to public and State shellfish grounds as are applicable in commercial lease areas. A detailed discussion is offered in Part 1 of F. Shellfish Areas. 3. Other State-managed Shellfish Grounds (Seed beds) Certain especially productive submerged bottoms in the Wando River, North and South Santee Rivers and North Santee Bay have been designated by the Marine Resources Division of the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department as seed bed areas. These vital resource areas serve as one of the major sources of seed oysters and, in the case of the Santee River, seed clams, for transport to other coastal waters, in order to restore and enhance shellfish resources. Management Authority The Marine Resources Division of the Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (SCWMRD) manages these seed bed areas. There is no specific legislation dealing with seed beds; however, SCWMRD is mandated generally to 1) manage the State's fishery resources, 2) protect and develop shellfish resources, and 3) manage State-owned submerged bottoms. (Sections 50-5-20, 50-17-1250 and 50-17-1210 of South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976, as amended). A special permit is required for commercial taking of clams or oysters in these areas. The public is allowed the same rights of use as on other public shellfish grounds. Inventory Shellfish areas have been included on the Coastal Council's 71/�" U.S.G.S. quadrangle overlay map system, and the information can be computerized readily. This data was made available partly through cooperation with the Division of Marine Resources. In addition, commercial leases must be recorded with the Clerk of the Court in the county of jurisdiction, and this was another source of detailed inventory informa- tion. As new areas are leased or assigned for public use, or as shellfish grounds are removed from production or closed to shellfishing, these changes can be made in the mapped data. Priority of Uses The following are the uses of priority for all shellfish areas beginning with the use of highest priority: 1) Water-dependent uses which do not reduce or degrade the quality of shellfish lease area or limit access to the area; 2) Water-enhanced activities or nonwater-dependent uses which do not reduce or degrade the quality of the shellfish lease area or limit access to the area. Designated Sites There are sixty-four commercial shellfish leases, totalling approximately 5,500 acres in the South Carolina coastal zone. There are nine State shellfish grounds and another sixteen public grounds along the coast. In ad- dition, there are state-managed subtidal seed oyster beds in the Wando River, and clam beds in the North and South Santee Rivers and North Santee Bay which are not leased, but are managed on an open and closed season basis. The map appendix in Volume II depicts these shellfish areas. Commercial leases, public shellfish grounds, State grounds, and other shellfish grounds (seed beds) are listed in Volume II, Appendix F. G. Groundwater Resources Groundwater is an abundant resource in the coastal zone of South Carolina; however, there are potential problems of quality and quantity. Proper management can ensure the continuing productivity of groundwater resources, but data collection and extensive study are necessary because this is a complex resource. IV-13 coastal waters of the State are very significant. The Coastal Council recognizes those bottom areas leased for commercial shellfishing as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Management Authority Section 28-811 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, governing the Marine Fisheries Laws for the State, authorizes the Wildlife and Marine Resources Department to lease portions of the water bottoms owned or controlled by the State, for the purposes of commercial shellfishing. Any State resident licensed to do business and who makes his/her livelihood primarily or largely through the commercial shell-fishing industry may lease shell-fish bottoms, in areas totalling not more than 1,000 acres to any one individual. (Leases for other than commercial uses may be made to State residents for areas totalling as many as two acres. The adjacent upland landowner has preference for a two acre lease in adjoining tidewaters, if this application is made before other leases are granted.) These lease agreements are valid for a five year period. Once an application has been made and the Division of Marine Resources has determined the area capable of producing shellfish, the boundaries are surveyed and established within the terms of the lease. No other leases for gathering shellfish can be granted within the perimeter boundaries. Each leasee is required to plant 65 bushels of shell or seed oysters for each acre, in an effort to prevent over-harvesting and depletion of this valuable resource. "Each lease or portion of a lease from which oysters are harvested must be replanted during the following planting season." (Section 28-822, S.C. Code of Laws, 1976) State permits for activities affecting State-owned bottoms are issued by the S.C. Budget and Control Board. For proposed activities within 1,000 feet of productive shellfish lease areas, leasees are given an oppor- tunity to comment on permit applications. And through memoranda of agreement between the Budget and Control Board and the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), all activities such as discharges or dredging and fill within 1,000 feet of lease areas are carefully controlled. (DHEC determines water quality criteria and health standards for shellfishing, and the 1,000 feet criterion is a generally accepted standard.) The South Carolina Coastal Council has authority over coastal waters and tidelands to mean high water, and above mean high water where wetlands are contiguous to coastal waters and integrally a part of estuarine systems. A Council permit is required for all activities or alterations in these "critical areas," as defined in Sec- tion 3 of Act 123 of 1977. In assessing permit applications, the Council must consider "The extent to which the applicant's completed project would affect the production of fish, shrimp, oysters, crabs or clams or any marine life or wildlife, or other natural resources in a particular area." (Section 15 (3)) The Interim Rules and Regulations for the Permit Process (Chapter 28, r. 32-1 through 32-11, State Register), state specifically that consideration will be given to the rights of the leasee when permits are being evaluated for construction of docks or piers over shellfish lease areas. 2. Recreational Shellfish Grounds Recreational shellfishing is a popular outdoor activity along the coast of South Carolina. Gathering oysters and clams is not only a unique form of recreation, but a source of fresh seafood for families of the area. As a valuable coastal resource and habitat of a significant living marine resource, recreational shellfish grounds are recognized as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Public oyster grounds are areas along the South Carolina coast where State residents may gather shellfish for their personal use, and these areas must be designated with metal signposts. State shellfish grounds, also marked with signs, are open to all recreational shellfishermen, and by permit to commercial shellfishermen (who may obtain their shells or seed oysters from these State-owned beds). Management Authority The Division of Marine Resources is mandated to keep open shellfishing areas for the personal use of South Carolina residents, with approval by the County legislative delegations. These public shellfish beds are not to exceed 50 acres in any one county, and their maintenance and adequate marking is the responsibility of the Division. (Section 28-792. S.C. Code of Laws, 1976) The regulations for shellfishing, Section 28-761 of S.C. Code of Laws, apply to recreational IV-12 South Carolina coastal zone. Criteria for Designation State applications for grants to establish estuarine sanctuaries are carefully reviewed and judged on the following criteria: 1. Benefit to the coastal zone management program; 2. The ecological characteristics of the ecosystem, including its biological productivity, diversity and representativeness; 3. Size and choice of boundaries (should approximate a natural ecological unit); 4. Cost (Federal share of the cost for each sanctuary is limited to $2,000,000.); 5. Enhancement of non-competitive uses; 6. Proximity and access to existing research facilities; 7. Availability of suitable alternative sites already protected which might be capable of pro- viding the same use or benefit; 8. Conflict with existing or potential competing uses; 9. Compatibility with existing or proposed land and water use in contiguous areas. Inventory (1 and 2) Inventories and studies have been accomplished, or are in the process of being completed, for most of the natural resources present in the coastal zone. Presently, "An Environmental Base Line Study of South Carolina Estuaries" is underway. Begun in February, 1973, by the S.C. Wildlife & Marine Resources Depart- ment (WMRD), this research is to determine basic biological, chemical and physical characteristics, and their interactions over a several year period. This study is funded by the Coastal Plains Regional Commission, WMRD and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. An inventory of South Carolina's coastal marshes has recent- ly been completed by WMRD personnel, and research to determine major wetland plant species productivity is nearing completion. Both of these studies were funded, in part, by the S.C. Coastal Council. Additionally, WMRD is funding studies dealing with recreational fishing, over-wintering shrimp manage- ment, shellfish resources and anadromous and ground fish stock assessments. The College of Charleston, under a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is beginning a study to document food webs, populations and productivity in a southeast coastal marsh. The University of South Carolina has recently finished and published a report through the Environmental Protection Agency entitled "The Dynamics of an Estuary as a Natural Ecosystem." The National Marine Fisheries Service has published a recent investigation by staff from WMRD and the College of Charleston entitled: "The Macrofauna of the Surf Zone off Folly Beach, South Carolina." The S.C. Water Resources Commission has funded many past studies including the "Port Royal Sound Environmental Study," "Wando River Environmental Quality Study," "The Cooper River Environmental Study," "The Tidelands Report," "Lower Santee River Environmental Quality Study," "Wando River Aerial Imagery and Marsh Productivity Study," "Volumetric and Related Characteristics of the Black River Reservoir near Charleston, S.C." Finally, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is funding a 21 month study to characterize the sea islands of the South Carolina and Georgia coasts through WMRD. Priority of Uses Priority of uses will be determined for each sanctuary as it may be designated in the future. The priority of uses would be developed in accord with the Federal guidelines and monitoring program affecting the sanctuary and the Coastal Council's regulatory authority over sanctuaries. F. Shellfish Areas 1. Commercial Leases Commercial harvesting of oysters and clams produced approximately one million dollars of direct revenue to the State of South Carolina in 1976. The annual catch of oysters was over 1,100,000 pounds of meat, and the clam harvest for the year totalled 172,000 pounds of meat. These constitute extremely important economic resources of the coastal zone, and as such, the areas suitable for shellfish production in the IV-11 Coastal Council. Its regulatory authority would also apply since any marine sanctuary would be located within the State's critical areas. To date, the general management principles for marine sanctuaries mainly address regulation of develop- ment to be harmonious with the overlying principles of preservation and protection of the sanctuary. The classification of these areas will not affect multiple use which may be permitted to the extent the uses are com- patible with the primary(s) for which each sanctuary is established. The establishment of marine sanctuaries may be to complement public or private, local, State or Federal government lands which have been set aside for similar purposes. The overall management of the sanctuary must include an initial and comprehensive en- vironmental assessment. (This should complete the original EIS which must be submitted upon nomination.) A continued monitoring program and guidelines to enforce the policies also must be formulated. Criteria for Designation The program objectives for marine sanctuaries emphasize the idea of preserving, restoring or enhancing these areas for their conservational, recreational, ecological, research or aesthetic values. Examples of coastal waters which might meet designation status include: (a) Areas necessary to protect valuable, unique or endangered marine life, geological features, and oceanographic features; (b) Areas to complement and enhance public areas such as parks, national or state monuments and other preserved areas; (c) Areas important to the survival and preservation of the nation's fisheries and other ocean resources; (d) Areas to advance and promote research which will lead to a more thorough understanding of the marine ecosystem and the impact of man's activities. 2. Estuarine Sanctuaries Management Authority Section 3 15 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 addresses the subject of estuarine sanc- tuaries and states that the Secretary may "make grants to any coastal state for the purpose of acquiring, developing, or operating estuarine sanctuaries..." Thus, the initiative for participating in the estuarine sanc- tuary program lies with the state, whereas nominations for marine sanctuaries can come from local, state or federal agencies or any interested persons. The term "estuarine sanctuary," as defined in the Act, means "a research area which may include any part or all of an estuary and island, transitional area, and upland in, adjoining, or adjacent to such estuary, and which constitutes to the extent feasible a natural unit..." The purpose of establishing an estuarine sanctuary is to set aside an area which would serve as a natural field laboratory where studies of "natural and human pro- cesses occurring within the estuaries of the coastal zone" can be made by scientists and students. (Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 108, Part IV, June 4, 1974) These sanctuaries would be areas which are relatively undisturbed by man at the time of acquisition and, therefore, could be used to make baseline ecological measurements. The designation of these areas would pro- vide them with long term protection, and multiple use of the sanctuaries would be allowed to the extent that such use or uses are compatible with the primary uses of research and education. The estuarine sanctuary program is intended to provide research data which would assist in coastal zone management decision-making. The State's coastal zone management program must be designed to protect the estuarine sanctuary. Management of estuarine sanctuary and land and water use regulations and planning con- siderations must be applied to adjacent lands. Management of estuarine sanctuaries is the responsibility of the applicant state, and the sanctuaries are intended to be incorporated into the state coastal zone management program. However, designation does not have to await the development and approval of a state's management program where operation of the sanctuary would aid in program development. In South Carolina, the Coastal Council and the management program, which is its responsibility, would have authority for estuarine sanctuary planning and implementation of the necessary management policies and techniques. At this time, there are no designated estuarine sanctuaries in the 'V-10 2) Uses which maintain long-term natural functions of the river while affording public recreational activities, especially those of a passive nature. The lowest priority uses would be those not related to the goals of the Scenic Rivers Program but which do not alter, reduce, or degrade the river resources or the integrity of the Scenic Rivers Program. Designated Sites To date, there are no Scenic River segments in the coastal zone. When designations are made and easements or titles donated, these rivers automatically will be considered to qualify as GA.PCs. NOTE: The Ashley River, in Dorchester and Charleston Counties, has been named as eligible for designation. It appears to meet the Class II qualifications, but various segments may be given different classifications. If and when donations are made, individual plans will be formulated for each donation. Since this river segment is particularly rich in historical resources, the South Carolina Department of Archives and History is assisting the Commission in assessing the intentions of adjacent landowners regarding donation. E. Marine and Estuarine Sanctuaries The coastal waters and wetlands of the State are valuable natural resources which have yet to be spoiled by development or real estate speculation. The preservation and protection of these resources is paramount in determining the growth of the seafood as well as the tourist industries. There are many citizen groups active in pursuing these goals; and State governmental agencies, in particular the South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department, have instituted research programs to document and inventory the marine environ- ment. On this basis, the Coastal Council feels that any area designated by the State of South Carolina, in con- junction with the U.S. Department of Commerce, as a marine or estuarine sanctuary will be a Geographic Area of Particular Concern (GAPC). 1. Marine Sanctuaries Management Authority Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532, 86 Stat. 1061), pro- vides the Secretary of Commerce, with approval from the President, the power to designate those areas of ocean waters as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf and all other coastal waters where the tide ebbs and flows, as marine sanctuaries. These sanctuaries are intended to preserve or restore such areas for their conservation, recreational, 'ecological or aesthetic values. The Secretary of Commerce, prior to designating a marine sanctuary, must consult with the Secretaries of State, Defense, Interior, and Transporta- tion and give du~ consideration to the views of the responsible officials of the affected state. The designation becomes effective sixty days after it is published, unless the governor of the state involved certifies to the Secretary of Commerce that the designation, or a specified portion, is unacceptable to his/her state. In this case the designated sanctuary will not include the certified unacceptable areas or become final until such time as the governor withdraws his certification of unacceptability. On March 13, 1974, the Secretary of Commerce authorized the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to exercise the authority granted under Title 1II. With this authority, NOAA has to develop proposed objectives, guidelines, criteria and procedures for designation of marine sanctuaries. Potential marine sanctuary sites, where development seems imminent, are screened by the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Development includes potential offshore as well as onshore sites, and is considered "imminent" if it is likely to occur within 18 mon- ths, or if actions to be taken within 18 months will establish the likelihood of development. OCZM offers the opportunity for state coastal zone management offices, commercial fishing organizations, development in- terests, environmental groups and the public-at-large to submit recommendations for marine sanctuary sites. If any marine sanctuary areas are designated by the Secretary of Commerce, the S.C. Coastal Council is mandated under the State coastal zone management law (Sec. 5(J), Act 123 of 1977) "to manage estuarine and marine sanctuaries and regulate all activities thermn, including the regulation of the use of coastal waters located within the boundary of such sanctuary." The primary management authority would rest with the S.C. IV-9 Class II - Preservation of the scenic values, with riparian landowners allowed customary agricultural ac- tivities, silviculture, and construction of compatible farm-use buildings. Mining and construction of roads paralleling the river are prohibited. Class III - Preservation of the scenic values, with landowners allowed agricultural, residential, recrea- tional, commercial, and light industrial activities. Mining and construction of new roads paralleling the river are prohibited. Where all or portions of a designated scenic river is located in the critical areas of the coastal zone, the South Carolina Coastal Council.will also have management authority. A permit would be required for any ac- tivities or alterations in such a river segment. The Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542) was enacted in 1968. The three basic river classifica- tions in that Act are 1) wild, 2) scenic, and 3) recreational. These classifications generally parallel the three categories in the South Carolina Act; however, rules for management in the Federal law are more rigorous. There are presently no national wild and scenic rivers in the coastal zone of South Carolina. However, the Federal Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service has inventoried numerous rivers in the coastal zone of South Carolina. Criteria for Designation The following criteria are those established for a river segment to qualify under the South Carolina Scenic Rivers program: Class I - Natural river i) it must be free-flowing (no impoundments or diversions) ii) the shorelines and scenic vistas must be essentially unchanged by man iii) there must be no extensive paralleling roads closer than one mile iv) in river gorges, there must be no extensive paralleling roads within one-quarter of the rim v) there must be only a limited number of road crossings and spur roads Class II - Pastoral river May be partially or predominately used for agriculture, silviculture and other dispersed human activities which do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of rivers and the shores. Class III - Partially developed The adjacent areas may be affected by works of man, but still possess actual or potential scenic, recreational or historic values. Inventory The Water Resources Commission has inventoried several rivers in the eight coastal counties. They are: the Little Pee Dee, Black, Edisto, Combahee, Salkehatchie, and Ashley Rivers. These same rivers have been in- ventoried by the Federal Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service and are being considered as potential designations under the Federal program. Information collected by the Commission includes flow characteristics, water quality, vegetation and wildlife data, and recreational amenities. Priority of Uses The following are the uses of priority for Scenic Rivers, beginning with the use of highest priority: 1) Uses which are consistent with the management plans developed by the Water Resources Commission with the assistance of WMRD. Each plan will be a comprehensive water and related use plan designed to protect the significant resources of each river section designated; IV-8 Priority of Uses The following are the uses of priority for State Parks, beginning with the use of highest priority: 1) Varied recreational activities open to the public; 2) Non-intensive uses which require minimal feasible alteration and maintain the natural functions of the area; 3) Provision of educational opportunities to visitors of the parks. Designated Sites The following existing State parks are designated GAPCs and are shown in-the map index. 1. Hunting Island State Park - Beaufort County 2. Givhan's Ferry State Park - Colleton & Dorchester Counties 3. Old Ft. Dorchester State Park - Dorchester County 4. Edisto Beach State Park - Colleton County 5. Charlestowne Landing - Charleston County 6. Drayton Hall - Charleston County 7. Hampton Plantation - Charleston County 8. Huntington Beach State Park - Georgetown County 9. Myrtle Beach State Park - Horry County As PRT and the Coastal Council identify other recreational resources which warrant particular State con- cern in the coastal program, these will be reviewed for designation. Proposed park sites should be included as priority or potential GAPCs. When new sites are added to the State parks system, these will be designated automatically. D. Scenic Rivers South Carolina is fortunate to have many river segments that still remain in a natural or near natural state. As such, these areas represent an important historical, cultural, and recreational resource. Rivers were the primary transportation system for early America, both for Indians and the later explorers and setters. Conse- quently, archeological sites are found at waterfront locations. Bounded by large expanses of swamp, several Lowcountry river segments have witnessed little develop- ment pressure and remain in primarily wilderness conditions. Other segments are good representatives of natural areas with wide species diversity. As recreational resources, the rivers serve as a "one-way water trail," offering boaters a unique sense of adventure. The silent movement of a canoe affords the opportunity to observe numerous wildlife species which it would not be possible to approach in other modes of transportation. The recreational potential of South Carolina's coastal rivers is both impressive and unique. In recognition of this tremendous resource, the Coastal Council recognizes river segments which have been designated as Scenic Rivers as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Management Authority In an effort to preserve and protect South Carolina's rivers, the 1974 South Carolina General Assembly passed the Scenic Rivers Act (Act 1106), which authorized the Water Resources Commission to designate scenic rivers. Proposals for designation may be made by State agencies, local governments, or citizens groups. To qualify, a river must possess unique and outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic or cultural values, in addition to relatively unpolluted waters. The Water Resources Commission is mandated to develop a comprehensive water and related use plan for designated rivers, with emphasis on protecting the significant resources of these scenic rivers. The Wildlife and Marine Resources Department assists the Commission in formulating and enforcing these plans and regula- tions. The management plans for each river segment must address the following. Class I - Maintenance of the wilderness character, with camping and river access allowed only at designated public access areas. Prohibiting new roads or buildings, mining and commercial timber harvesting. IV-7 Priority of Uses The following are the uses of priority for areas designated as State Wildlife Preserves, beginning with the highest priority: 1) Uses which are consistent with the wildlife management plan for each preserve; 2) Uses which are compatible with the preserve's wildlife, wildlife habitats and wildlife management and simultaneously provide public recreational opportunities, such as hun- ting and fishing. Designated Sites Because of their significance as natural habitats and their inclusion under ownership and/or management authority of WMRD, the following areas are designated as GAPCs. 1) Turtle Island - Jasper County 2) Bear Island Game Management Area - Colleton County 3) Alexander Sprunt, Jr. Wildlife Sanctuary (Deveaux Bank) - Charleston County 4) Santee Coastal Reserve - Charleston County 5) Hatchery Game Management Area - Berkeley County 6) Moultrie Game Management Area - Berkeley County 7) Santee Delta Game Management Area - Georgetown County 8) North Island & South Island Plantation - Georgetown County 9) Samworth Game Management Area - Georgetown County 10) State-owned segment - Francis Marion Game Management Area (Santee-Cooper) As new acquisitions are made into the State system of wildlife preserves and game management areas, these will be designated as GAPCs in the South Carolina coastal zone. C. State Parks State park facilities in the coastal zone are valuable resources for the recreational, scenic and educational enrichment of residents and visitors alike. Because of this significance, major existing parks have been recognized as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Management Authority The South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (PRT) is mandated to control and maintain the State parks system, and can accept or purchase lands for this purpose, with approval of the State Budget and Control Board (�51-71, S.C. Code of Laws, 1976). PRT must prepare a master plan for each ma- jor park facility, identifying plans for development of facilities, and the preservation and use guidelines for the park. On a more long-range basis, PRT is developing an update to the South Carolina State Comprehensive Out- door Recreation Plan (SCORP). The function of SCORP is to provide a guide for statewide recreation plan- ning and development, and to maintain eligibility for Land and Water Conservation funds from the Federal Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service. Where critical areas form part or all of State park facilities, the Coastal Council will also have regulatory control. Any alterations within critical areas will require a Coastal permit. This authority will aid in assuring that the use and development of these cherished recreational resources remain consistent with policies and guidelines of the State's coastal zone program. Inventory The organizations of studies for SCORP centers on six volumes, covering public and private outdoor and indoor recreation systems. Volume I of this planning process was a complete inventory of the State's physical characteristics, natural resources, and existing recreation facilities. This information has been made available to the Coastal Council. Consultation with staff of PRT has helped to identify the existing major parks in the eight county coastal zone (roadside parks, small neighborhood parks and the like have been exempted), and these have been mapped on 7 1/:" U.S.G.S. quadrangle overlays. IV-6 character of such areas or features and to provide the maximum public usage thereof which is compatible and consistent with the character of the area." (Section 4 (7)) Inventory Staff of the Division of Natural Area Acquisition and Resource Planning of the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, with support from other experts in the field, have been actively engaged in thorough investigative surveys of the natural areas of the State. The objetives of this search are identifying "significant elements of the natural environment such as unique and outstanding features, rare and en- dangered plant and animal species, and natural areas representing the range of biological diversity found in the State." These data have been made available to the Office of Coastal Planning. As the Heritage Trust Pro- gram identifies priority areas for preservation or acquisition efforts, this information will also be reviewed by Coastal Council staff and considered for designation as GAPCs, or as future or potential GAPCs. Prioritv of Uses The following are the uses of priority for areas deeded into the Heritage Trust Program, beginning with the use of highest priority: I) Uses which are consistent with the management plan developed for each property; 2) Uses which allow public enjoyment of the area as long as the primary natural character of the area is not disrupted; 3) Uses which are compatible with the area's wildlife and wildlife management. Prohibited uses are any which jeopardize the integrity of the Heritage Trust Program. Designated Sites Because of their unique value as wildlife habitats and natural areas, Heritage Trust lands have been designated as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Capers Island is the only site in the coastal zone which has been deeded into the Heritage Trust Program to date. B. State Wildlife Preserves The extensive system of wildlife preserves and game management areas owned or leased by South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department are irreplaceable resources, as both protected wildlife habitats and recreational hunting and fishing areas. Because of their value to residents and visitors of the South Carolina coastal area, they have been identified as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Management Authority The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (WMRD) is empowered to acquire land areas and enter into agreements with landowners and with the Federal government for purposes of managing wildlife species and establishing specific sanctuaries and game management areas (� 50-3-100, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1977). The areas owned and managed by WMRD are vital resources of the coastal zone, for conservation of the State's wildlife and also for recreational hunting and fishing opportunities. As part of this management responsibility, a full management plan is prepared for each preserve, identifying short and long- term uses and guidelines for protection and use of the area. Where critical areas, as defined in the South Carolina Coastal Management Act (Act. 123 of 1977), occur within these preserves, additional control is afforded, since Coastal Council permits would be required for any alterations within the critical areas of these preserves. Inventory A complete listing of the wildlife and game management areas under ownership and/or management authority of the WMRD in the eight coastal counties was obtained through consultation with WMRD and by reference to S.C. Public Land Ownership Inventor' (S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commission, 1977). These areas have been mapped into the Coastal Council's overlay mapping system. IV-5 ment program because of both their ecological and economic importance. It has become increasingly evident that these are finite and limited resources which need careful preservation and thoughtful management. Management Authorities Several different programs which involve State ownership, regulatory or management authority over natural resource areas exist in South Carolina. The specific authority is described in detail for each individual program in the following pages and is used in conjunction with the Council's authority as described in the im- plementation section on the preceding page. Criteria for Designation The criteria for designation of a natural area as a GAPC are that the area offers unique or important natural features which warrant special attention in the coastal management program. To indicate the resource values which make these areas particularly significant, general criteria have been developed, drawing from the objectives contained in each of these programs. (Certain of the individual pro- grams have further, specific criteria which are used to quality areas for inclusion within the program, and these will be identified where such exist.) The South Carolina Coastal Council recognizes the following criteria for designation of natural resource areas as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern: 1. The area consists of representatives of one or more coastal ecosystem types or habitats, is, intact in the sense that essentially all of the expected species and ecological processes are present in normal numbers and vigor, and meets one of the following conditions: a. Alteration or destruction of the area would substantially impair the ability of one or more ecosystem types to perpetuate themselves; b. The area has qualified as critical habitat for an endangered or threatened species, under the En- dangered Species Act of 1973; c. The area is unusually large or undisturbed in comparison to others of a similar kind, thus af- fording a unique opportunity for scientific observations or recreation. 2. The area represents superior habitat for species, which, while not endangered or threaten- ed, are of vital importance as commercial or sports-oriented coastal resources. 3. The area affords maximum recreational opportunities in the coastal zone because of ac- cess to beaches or other waterfront, presence of unique physical or cultural features or natural habitats (see #1 above), and/or wide range of active and passive recreation oppor- tunities in a natural setting. A. The Heritage Trust Program Management Authority The South Carolina Heritage Trust Program was established by passage of State legislation in April, 1976, (Act 600 of 1976). (An Advisory Board and initial staff efforts had begun subsequent to an Executive Order in 1974.) The Heritage Trust Advisory Board and Wildlife and Marine Resources Commission administer a system which provides for inventory, preservation, use and management of unique and outstanding natural or cultural areas. The public policy stated within the Act is: (T)o secure for the people, both present and future generations, the benefits of an endur- ing resource of natural and cultural areas and features by establishing a system of Heritage Preserves and Sites. This program provides for dedication of areas or sites by the owner to the Trust through transfer of fee simple title or lesser forms of ownership interest, such as open space easements. The Advisory Board and Wildlife and Marine Resources Commission review the proposed areas, which are nominated by the staff of the S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, other State agencies, and citizens of the State. A major requirement of the program is provision of management criteria, rules and regulations, and "allowable use" guidelines for Heritage Preserves. A management plan must be developed for each property in the Heritage Trust. These management mechanisms are intended "to preserve the primary natural IV-4 Coastal Council can designate additional GAPCs after the management program has received final approval without requiring formal amendment to the program. Future designations can be accomplished by a majority vote of the Council once the required management authority is determined and executed. New GAPCs would be automatically added, for example, when Heritage Trust Preserves and Scenic Rivers are designated as parts of the Heritage Trust Program or as a result of the Scenic Rivers Act in South Carolina. In addition, if a new natural resource area is developed or if a significant new coastal dependent activity needs special attention, application to the South Carolina Coastal Council for designation as a new GAPC would be appropriate. As new GAPCs are designated in South Carolina, the South Carolina Coastal Council will specify the priority uses for each new area. Policies for Geographic Areas of Particular Concern The South Carolina Coastal Council has designated the Geographic Areas of Particular Concern discussed in this document because of their unique importance as natural, aesthetic, recreational, scientific, or economic resources in the coastal zone. The existing State management authority for each GAPC is identified, and the priority of uses within each area is specified. In addition, management policies and permitting Rules and Regulations of the South Carolina Coastal Council for certain specified activities or alterations shall apply to designated GAPCs, where relevant. Goals The goals of the South Carolina coastal zone managemnet program for preservation and development of GAPCs are: To give highest priority to the identified primary value of a GAPC when considering the preservation or development of that area. To ensure management of GAPCs consistent with other policies of the South Carolina coastal zone management program. Objeetives The management of GAPCs shall be carried out in such a manner as to- *prevent, where possible, the disruption of valuable coastal resources; *protect the integrity of natural resource areas and preserve the unique and fragile areas; *protect the habitats of wildlife and marine species, particularly those with special commercial, recrea- tional or ecological value; **improve access to and management of recreational areas; *increase the usefulness of and access to economically important resources, without undue restrictions on the activities, while minimizing negative environmental impacts; * avoid preemption of appropriate commercial growth where it is consistent with the use of the areas; * encourage environmentally sound growth patterns and development practices where growth and development are priority uses of the area; *discourage development in high-risk areas, where damage to life, property, and coastal resources is likely to be severe. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS I. AREAS OF UNIQUE NATURAL RESOURCE VALUE Unique natural resource areas include those exhibiting scarce or vulnerable habitats, living marine resources, and physical features; those offering substantial recreational value; and those of vital importance in protecting and maintaining coastal resources. This category of Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCs) is especially significant because South Carolina's natural environmental attributes are a resource of great value, for ecological, aesthetic, recreational and commercial reasons. In the past, development has been relatively slow, so there are still unspoiled natural areas and abundant wildlife in the coastal zone to enjoy and protect. For example, over 400,000 acres of tidal marsh represent a vital link in the life cycle of a majority of commercial and sport fish species. The forests, marshes, streams, beaches, and coastal' waters warrant critical attention in the State's coastal manage- IV-3 For each of these categories, standards or criteria are defined, priority of uses within the area are specified, and the specific geographic sites or areas within the coastal zone are identified. Detailed descriptions of each designated site are found in the Appendix F. In the earliest phases of coastal zone management in South Carolina, an extensive National Resources In- ventory was completed. This inventory, the pertinent State and Federal regulations, and considerable assistance from the Heritage Trust Program were the intitial basis for designation of Geographic Areas of Par- ticular Concern (GAPCs) within each of the four categories. When a first draft of the GAPC segment was completed and adopted in draft form by the South Carolina Coastal Council, it was mailed to the many individuals, and State and Federal agencies on the Council's mail- ing list. Numerous comments, corrections, and additions were received as a result, and subsequently these have been incorporated. In addition, the County Citizens Working Groups, organized in each of the eight coastal counties, (described in Chapter V(E) received copies of the first draft of the GAPC document. Meetings were held to discuss the Geographic Areas of Particular Concern in detail with staff and Council members. As a result, substantive input from every section of the coastal zone was received in the designation of South Carolina's Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. The areas included in this section are of such special importance and concern to South Carolina that the State has established regulatory and/or management controls over them. The inclusion of these areas within the scope of the management program combined with the critical areas designated by the S. C. Coastal Management Act - tidelands, coastal waters, beaches, primary sand dunes - effectively cover all those areas of specific resource concern in South Carolina's coastal zone. The authority which assures adequate management of GAPCs is Sections 7(A) and 8(B)( 1) (described ful- ly in the Legal Analysis section) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act. This coordination and cer- tification authority is affirmed by Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) executed between the South Carolina Coastal Council and each of the State agencies with authority over GAPCs. These MOAs specify the type and level of coordination as well as that programs will be administered in a manner consistent with Council policies for the coastal zone of South Carolina. Their management in the future will be coordinated to ensure con- sistency with the policies of the Coastal Council for Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Implementation Special management consideration will be given to those areas designated as GAPCs through the process of issuance of permits in the critical areas, and review and certification of permits in the coastal zone. When a project overlaps with, is adjacent to, or significantly affects a GAPC, the Council will carefully evaluate the project based on the criteria listed as the priority of uses which specifically address each type of GAPC. A pro- ject would be discouraged or prohibited or the permit conditioned if the project would interrupt, disturb or otherwise permanently impact the priority uses of the designated area. For example, in consideration of the permit for a project adjacent to a State Park which would significant- ly interfere with the primary recreational activities of that GAPC, every effort would be made to preserve this highest priority use of the park. Although all listed priority uses would receive protection, the Council would be committed to especially safeguard the highest priority use. Future Designation of Geographic Areas of Particular Concern As development and implementation of the coastal zone program continues, other areas which may deserve particular attention will be further studied. Nominations of potential GAPCs can be made to the South Carolina Coastal Council by other State agencies, local governments, organizations, and interested private citizens. A new designation would be possible under any of the three existing GAPC categories. When these potential areas of concern are identified, they will be reviewed by the South Carolina Coastal Council to determine the nature of concern, if they satisfy the appropriate designation criteria, and what type of management needs exist to ensure adequate preservation or control of the areas. The South Carolina IV-2 A. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Introduction Statutory Requirements The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, while recognizing the entire coastal zone of each state as an important and vital resource, also declares that certain areas are of even more, special significance, and; warrant particular attention to their preservation and development. The Act requires, in Section 305(B)(3), that each state inventory and designate the "Areas of Particular Concern" within its coastal zone as part of the state's program. Section 923.21 of the Coastal Zone Management Development and Approval Regulations (Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978) defines the Federal requirements for Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCs). The subsection reads as follows: (a) Requirement. In order to meet the requirements of subsections 305(b) (3) & (5) of the Act, States must: (1) Designate geographic areas that are of particular concern, on a generic or site-specific basis or both; (2) Describe the nature of the concern and the basis on which designations are made; (3) Describe how the management program addresses and resolves the concerns for which areas are designated; and (4) Provide guidelines regarding priorities of uses in these areas, including guidelines on uses of lowest priority. The major emphasis in the GAPC segment of a coastal management program, from the Federal viewpoint, is on the adequacy of the State's authority to manage those areas or sites which have been identified. To a lesser extent, the reasons specific areas are significant as coastal resources and the criteria which establish this significance are also important for inclusion. The individual states may inventory and identify those areas which are significant given the coastal problems or issues which are characteristic of that particular state. Guidance for this designation process is provided in the coastal legislation passed in South Carolina in 1977. Section 8(B)(4) of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act (Appendix B) mandates that this comprehensive program include the identification of special management areas. It reads as follows: In devising the management program the Council shall: (a) Inventory and designate areas of critical state concern within the coastal zone, such as port areas, significant natural and environmental, industrial and recreational areas. These "areas of critical state concern" parallel the geographic area of particular concern requirements mandated by the Federal legislation. The designation process and the areas identified as GAPCs can be devised so as to be consistent with policies for preservation and development of South Carolina's coastal resources, as stated in the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act. Selected Approach In order to meet both the Federal and State requirements, this report identifies, maps, and describes the Geographic Areas of Particular Concern in the eight-county coastal zone. South Carolina has defined Geographic Areas of Particular Concern in its coastal zone in terms of four broad categories: - Areas of unique natural resource value, including those exhibiting scarce or vulnerable natural habitats and physical features; those offering substantial recreational value; and those of vital importance in protecting and maintaining coastal resources. - Areas where activities, development, or facilities depend on proximity to coastal waters, in terms of use or access. - Areas of special historical, archeological or cultural significance. IV-1 ,, , , .' ,' ', -, '' , . � " � � r . � ' ' ' , � , / ,: ':' ,, ,-L~,',~',~',: , , , r . ,, ~ ~i " '-";' ,- : ~ .~ ~ ii",,~:F/ ,, ~ ' � " 'Jr '~ , ' , ,' ,~' , . , " : I - '5 , , . '- ' ",' I , � , , ~ " ' iI ,' ~ ; , 'l � ~ ' ''.~ ,,' ,' ' ~'' , ' .', , - , , ' ,, �, ' ,, "'"' -,, ,'% ', ,Zl i', ,'~ , ~-' ,, I � ,' , � � ,. ,, i:~:~ . ~,'i ~",, 'i !',~: ~ ~ ~, ,' ~ _ ,' , _ , � ' ., , , -r.' ': ' Ii'i,' , �' , ,'" ' i:, , ., i~r' - :. , ~ ,, i �" ' P 'i,, -' ' ' r , , ' ', , , . , ', . , , "- , i , r , ., . , ,' ,', , , , , � ,,- ' ,, , � � , , , ' ' , ,, , ', J � FL'~ ,, % - ,:,,:r.�' -:l{.,,�, ',� ,i ~:: r~��i ;~ '~" J :',~ : ' ~' ' '~ ~'~';~ ; ;: i :"i! 'i ,1111/ iii! ii: i :Specia,! management AGENCIES WITH PERMITTING E OR PLANNING/MANAGEMENT - E ' - S AUTHORITY FOR ACTIVITIES . u 0 WITH A DIRECT AND . SIGNIFICANT IMPACT F , ; C a . o ACTIVITY t �;i ;E 0 3C u _ K Z Z , c c RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT X X X X X X TRANSPORTATION Ports X X X X Roads & Highways X X X X X X X Airports X X X X X X Railways X X X X X X X Parking Facilities X X X X COASTAL INDUSTRIES Agriculture X X X Forestry X X Mineral Extraction X X X X Manufacturing X X X Fish & Seafood Processing X X Aquacultire X X X X COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT X X X X RECREATION & TOURISM Parks X X X X X X Tourist Attractions X X X X X MARINE RELATED FACILITIES Marinas X X X X X Boat ramps X X X X X Docks and piers X X X X WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES MAN. X X X Artificial reefs X X X impoundments X X X DREDGING X X X Dredge Material Disposal X X X Underwater Salvage X X PUBLIC SERVICES & FACILITIES Sewage treatment X X X X X Solid waste disposal X X X Public/Quasi-public buildings X X X X X X Dams & Reservoirs X X X Water supply X X X X X EROSION CONTROL X X X X X ENERGY ACTIVITIES X X X X X X X XX *A listing of the State agencies and citations for their statutory authority for each activity is included in Appendix C, p. C-15. III-74 with commercial navigation. 4) Resource Policies and Rules and Regulations for Permitting which apply to Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal shall be -applied. D. PUBLIC OPEN SPACES Finidings (*NOTE* A number of State-owned or managed recreational and game management areas have been designated as Geographic Areas of particular Concern (GAPCs). The priorities of use for each of these areas are addressed in that segment of the management program. For purposes of this section, public open spaces means State or local (county or municipal) parks or other open space areas, other than those designated as GAPCs.) The values of public recreational and open space areas throughout the coastal zone cannot be overem- phasized. They provide recreational and aesthetic opportunities and amenities which are both desired and needed by the people. With increasing populations and continued growth and development, these limited resources become even more precious, as increasing numbers of people seek to find recreational opportunities within more urbanized areas and from fewer available open spaces. Open space is not only the basic resource necessary for development or recreational facilities, it also serves numerous other valuable functions. It can provide corridors for preservation of wildlife and may preserve uni- que natural areas and historic or archeological resources. Open space can serve as a buffer between incompati- ble types of development activity, and oftentimes open space increases the. value of adjacent land. Policies The Coastal Council will apply the following policies in review and certification of permit applications located in or which would directly affect public open space areas: 1) Project proposals which would restrict or limit the continued use of a recreational open area or disrupt the character of such a natural area (aesthetically or environmentally) will not be certified where other alternatives exist. 2) Efforts to increase the amounts and distribution of public open space and recreational areas in the coastal zone are supported and encouraged by the Coastal Council. E. WETLANDS (OUTSIDE THE CRITICAL AREAS) Findings In addition to the extensive areas of salt and brackish marsh within the critical areas along the South Carolina coastline, the State's coastal zone also contains over 60,000 acres of fresh-water marshes. These wetlands further up the creeks and rivers, beyond the reach of saltwater at high tides, have a great diversity of plant species. They play a vitally important role in contributing nutrients to the waters which eventually reach the estuarine system (the critical areas). Fresh-water marsh areas are active filters for improving water quality, and since they are linked with the downstream system, they affect water quality in the critical areas. The fresh- water marshes are important flood buffers and also function in maintenance of salinity levels in downstream estuaries. Policies The Coastal Council will apply the following policies in review and certification of permit applica- tior.s in freshwater wetland areas: 1) Project proposals which would require fill or other significant permanent alteration of a produc- tive freshwater marsh will not be approved unless no feasible alternative exists or an overriding public in- terest can be demonstrated, and any substantial environmental impact can be minimized. 111-73 critical areas. 2) Special attention should be given in new construction activities in ocean-front areas to prevent or mitigate negative impacts on adjacent property owners, specifically, increased erosion or loss of protec- tive dune formations on adjacent lots due to unnecessary destruction of or encroachment onto stable dunes. 3) Project proposals in ocean-front and dune areas should incorporate the resource policies and other considerations of the coastal management program for Beach Erosion and Beach and Shoreline Access. Recommended Policies 1) Local governments with coastal shorefronts are encouraged to develop and implement strong local zoning and building ordinances for beach and sand dune areas. 2) Property owners, development interests and local governments are encouraged to institute and observe set-backs or buffer zones for construction in beach and dune areas. C. NAVIGATION CHANNELS Findings Water-ways in the coastal zone which provide adequate depths for navigation are essential for commercial fishing and for surface water transportation, and also to recreational boating which is one of the most signifi- cant water-dependent recreational activities along the coast. These tidal rivers and bays also play important ecological roles for estuarine water circulation and as feeding habitats for waterfowl and varieties of finfish and shellfish. Growing pressure for use of shorefront can have detrimental effects on navigational access if development is not properly managed. Increased erosion and siltation from upland developments can reduce the depths of navigation channels. Maintenance dredging and associated dredge material disposal are also related issues. The South Carolina General Assembly recognized the significance of navigation along the coastline in identifying navigation as a specific consideration which the Coastal Council must make in all permit reviews in the critical areas. Section 15(A)(2) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977 directs the Coastal Council to consider: The extent to which the activity would harmfully obstruct the natural flow of navigable waters. If the proposed project is in one or more of the State's harbors or in a waterway used for commercial navigatin and shipping or in an area set aside for port development in an approved management plan, then a certificate from the South Carolina State Ports Authority declaring the proposed project or activity would not unreasonably interfere with commercial navigation and shipping must be obtained by the Council prior to issuing a permit. Policies (A majority of navigation channels in the South Carolina coastal zone are within the critical areas, and therefore, subject to direct jurisdiction of the Coastal Council for the issuance of the State permit required for any alteration, and the Rules and Regulations for Permitting shall apply, as well as the following general policies.) The Coastal Council will consider the following policies in review and certification of permit applica- tions for projects in or directly affecting existing navigation channels: 1) Development which would result in loss of navigability will be prohibited. 2) Development which might increase upland soil and shoreline erosion problems and resulting silta- tion of navigation channels should utilize the best mitigation measures feasible that will effectively relieve the problem. 3) The South Carolina State Ports Authority, as mandated under Section 15(A)(2) of the Coastal Management Act, shall review applications for permits in navigable waterways in the critical areas, and certify prior to the issuance of such permit that the project or activity would not unreasonably interfere II1-72 some barrier islands which are less stable or more prone to erosion or other hazard risks; these factors should be taken into consideration when alternative development plans are formulated. 2) Because of their proximity to and strong ecological relationship with the critical areas of the coastal zone, project proposals for activities on barrier islands should demonstrate reasonable precau- tions to prevent or limit any direct negative impacts on the adjacent critical areas (beaches, primary dunes, coastal waters and wetlands). 3) New road or bridge projects involving the expenditure of public funds to provide access to previously undeveloped barrier islands will not be approved unless an overwhelming public interest can be demonstrated, for example, provision of access to a public recreation area or other facility. Preference will be given to ferry access in those instances where public funds cannot be expended for road access. 4) The extension of public services, such as sewer and water facilities, to barrier islands should only be proposed in a comprehensive approach which considers the natural "carrying capacity" of the island to support development and which integrates these facilities to parallel the level of access which is available to the island. 5) The Coastal Council encourages and supports State, local and private efforts to acquire coastal barrier islands for inclusion in preservation and protection~programs. Public recreational benefit should be one primary motivation for these efforts, and where appropriate, barrier islands should be maintained for recreational use, based on the capacity of individual areas to accommodate human activity. B. DUNE AREAS (OTHER THAN CRITICAL AREAS) Findings Much like the barrier islands, the beaches and dunes along the South Carolina foreshore are also dynamic ecosystems, the focus of energy where sea and land meet. The sands of the beach area are constantly in mo- tion. As the waters of the tides ebb and flow, this wave action removes and deposits sand on the beaches. Both because of their dynamic characteristics and their value as unique recreational areas, the South Carolina General Assembly found them to need special management consideration. Beaches are identified as "critical areas" by the South Carolina Coastal Management Act of 1977, and defined as "those lands subject to periodic inundation by tidal and wave action so that no nonlithoral vegetation is established" (Section 3(H)). Within this beach critical area, the Coastal Council has direct permit jurisdiction, and the Rules and Regula- tions for Permitting are applied to any proposed activity. The dunes which fall landward of the beach zones are also an active area, comprised of sands which are on- ly partially stabilized and subject to the effects of wind and waves. Dunes serve as valuable physical storm buf- fers, as wildlife habitats and as recreational and aesthetic resources. They are also linked with the beach area as a reservoir of sand to replace that which is lost from the beach on severe tides or storms. Because of this in- terdependence with the beach system, and their fragile structure and susceptibility to disruption because of this indiscriminate building or alteration, the primary ocean-front dunes are considered "critical areas" under the South Carolina Coastal Management Act. A permit must be obtained directly from the Coastal Council for any activity on a primary sand dune, and the permitting Rules and Regulations apply in these areas. Of concern in this section are the dunes upland from or behind the primary dune. While not as crucial as the first dune adjacent to the Atlantic, the dune fields or landward ridges of unconsolidated sand are still vital as part of the overall storm protection and sand reserve system. The Coastal Council has no direct jurisdiction over proposed activities in these areas, but does have review and certification authority with regard to the ma- jor permits of other State agencies. Policies In review and certification of permit applications to other State agencies for proposals in the sand dune areas, the Coastal Council will consider the following additional policies: 1) Because of their proximity to and strong physical and ecological relationship with the beach and primary sand dune critical areas of the coastal zone, project proposals in secondary sand dunes should demonstrate reasonable precautions to prevent or limit any direct negative impacts on the adjacent 111-71 TABLE 1 BARRIER ISLANDS OF SOUTH CAROLINA ISLAND DEVELOPMENT STATUS PREDOMINANT OWNERSHIP Waites undeveloped private Pawleys developed private North undeveloped State South undeveloped State Cedar undeveloped State Murphy undeveloped State Cape undeveloped Federal Lighthouse undeveloped Federal Raccoon Key undeveloped Federal Bull undeveloped Federal Capers undeveloped State Dewees undeveloped private Isle of Palms developed private Sullivans developed private Morris undeveloped private Folly developed private Kiawah partially developed private Seabrooke partially developed private Deveaux undeveloped non-profit org. Botany Bay undeveloped private Eddingsville undeveloped private Edisto Beach developed private Pine undeveloped private Otter undeveloped private Hunting undeveloped State Fripp partially developed private Pritchards undeveloped private Little Capers undeveloped private St. Phillips undeveloped private Bay Point undeveloped private Hilton Head developed private Daufuskie undeveloped private SOURCES: 1) The Status of Barrier Islands of the Southeastern Coast, Langdon Warner, 1976, Open Space Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council 2) Coastal Council Staff Update 111-70 XII. ACTIVITIES IN AREAS OF SPECIAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE The following types of areas in the South Carolina coastal zone have been identified through the resource inventory efforts of the Coastal Council and its staff as being unique and either environmentally fragile or economically significant to the coastal area and the State. These areas of special resource significance are: -Barrier Islands -Dune Areas (outside the critical areas) -Navigation channels -Public open spaces -Wetlands (outside the critical areas) Because of this sensitivity and their role as an integral part of the coastal ecosystem, alterations in these areas are likely to have direct effects on the critical areas. Because of their value and characteristics the Coastal Council employs the additional resource policies presented in this section in review and certification of any permits associated with an activity in one of these areas. This is done in an effort to protect the value of the critical areas and of all coastal resources. The applicable policies for the individual activity which is proposed, as well as the general guidelines for evaluation of all projects, are also considered by the Council and its staff in permit and project reviews in these areas. Management Authority The Coastal Council has no direct permit authority in any of these areas (with the exception of critical areas of a barrier island and Navigation Channels, which come under the "coastal waters" category if within the critical areas boundary, and are then under the direct permit jurisdiction of the Coastal Council.) Resource policies in these areas will be implemented through the "network" of existing State agency authorities, and the Coastal Council's review and certification of the permit actions of these agencies, (as discussed in detail in the "Legal Authorities and Networking" segment of Chapter V.) The specific State agency with direct authority for each project will depend on the type of project or permit involved in the development proposal. A. BARRIER ISLANDS Findings Barrier islands are elongate landforms of unconsolidated material (usually sand), situated seaward of the inland shoreline and parallel to the ocean. They are one of the most dynamic coastal ecosystems since they are constantly being reshaped by the forces of wind or waves. (A more detailed discussion of their geologic characteristics is provided in Chapter I, "The Natural Environment"). These unique, dynamic islands perform a number of roles in the coastal system. They are the location of much of South Carolina's Atlantic Ocean beach-front, and are often significant wildlife habitats. Barrier islands help to create the proper conditions for saltwater wetlands and estuaries behind them. They are also a valuable storm and erosion buffer for more inland areas, being most effective when their dunes and vegetation are well-developed and intact. South Carolina has approximately 30 barrier islands, part of a chain along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts which extends from Maine to Florida and around to Texas. South Carolina is fortunate in that many of these islands are already under State or Federal ownership and are therefore maintained for recreational use or in a natural state as wilderness-type areas. A listing of both publically and privately-owner barrier islands is con- tained in Table 1, with an indication of their development status. Policies Because of their fragile and dynamic nature and their resource value, the Coastal Council will consider the following additional policies in review or permit proposals on barrier islands. (Within critical areas of a barrier island, the Rules and Regulations for permitting applicable to the proposed activity will apply.) 1) Construction and development on barrier islands should seek to retain existing dune ridges, drainage patterns and natural vegetation in landscaping and construction plans in order to maintain the value of the island as a storm buffer. Intensive or high density type development may not be suitable on III-69 X. EROSION CONTROL The planning process, policies, and management authority for this element are contained in Chapter IV(C), Erosion Control Program. IX. ENERGY AND ENERGY-RELATED FACILITIES The planning process, policies, and management authority for this element are contained in Chapter IV(B), Energy Facility Planning Process. 111-68 ii)Dimensions of excavated canals for cables and pipelines should be minimal. Silt curtains are recommended for all excavations; iii)All excavations in wetland areas should be backfilled with the excavating material after in- stallation of the appropriate structure, while being careful to maintain the original marsh eleva- tion; iv)The appropriate erosion control measures shall be employed during the crossing of wetland areas. Where appropriate, revegetation with suitable wetland species will be required; v)Alignments of new projects should be designed to utilize existing rights-of-way and topographic features wherever possible." [R. 30-12(D)] Management Authority Water supply activities, including the use of pipelines, pumping stations and treatment plants, in a critical area require a permit from the Coastal Council. Outside of the critical areas of the coastal zone, the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and the Water Resources Commission have regulatory authority and issue permits concerning water supply. DHEC requires a permit for construction, expansion, or modification of public water supplies. Permit applications for this activity must be reviewed and certified by the Council for compliance with the coastal program as mandated by Section 7(A) and 8(B)(11) of the S.C. Coastal Management Act. In capacity use areas, as declared by the Water Resource Commission, permits are required for the extraction of more than 100,000 gallons per day of groundwater and may be required for lesser amounts. (This does not apply to domestic wells.) These permit applications are also subject to the review and certification authority of the Council. III-67 Coastal Council. Outside of the critical areas of the coastal zone, the S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commission has permit authority over the construction of dams and reservoirs. Permit applications for this activity will be reviewed by the Coastal Council for certification of their compliance with the preceding policies. This review and certification process is mandated by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)(11) of the S.C. Coastal Management Act. The S.C. Public Service Authority (PSA) has authority to construct dams for certain purposes in the Cooper and Santee Rivers in the coastal zone. Coordination of the activities and policies of the two agencies, as mandated by Section 7(A) of South Carolina's coastal legislation, will be accomplished through provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement between PSA and the Coastal Council. The South Carolina Budget and Control Board has authority for permits for alterations to waters or submerged bottoms of the State below the meah high water line (MHW), outside the critical areas. These per- mits are subject to the review and certification process of the Coastal Council as mandated by Sections 7(A) and 8(B)( 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act. E. WATER SUPPLY Findings The provision of public drinking water supplies to residents and commercial and industrial users is a positive asset to the economic character of an area, This public service can, however, have negative effects, largely associated with the transmission of the freshwater. The laying of water pipelines can cause environmen- tal damage where they cross productive wetlands or submerged bottoms. Withdrawal of water resources, whether public or private, can negatively impact groundwater resources, if not properly managed. There are also potential secondary growth impacts from provision of new public drinking water systems. If public water supply is extended into previously undeveloped areas, it can induce rapid growth, with possible negative impacts if proper environmental management is not provided. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permit applications for water supply facilities will be based on the following policies: a) The Coastal Council will coordinate with the Water Resources Commission in its efforts to en- sure that groundwater is adequately managed, and that proposed withdrawals will not cause saltwater in- trusion, land settling or other negative impacts. b) The Coastal Council will coordinate with designated 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Manage- ment implementation agencies (pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) and other agencies with responsibility for implementing comprehensive plans affecting water supply, to en- sure that proposed projects are compatible with growth and development plans and that alternative loca- tions for water supply facilities are considered. c) Water supply facilities and transmission systems in the coastal zone must meet applicable Federal, State, and local construction and water quality standards. d) Construction of such facilities in or adjacent to productive salt, brackish, or freshwater wetlands will be prohibited unless no feasible alternatives exist. Construction activities should be timed so as not to disrupt shellfish harvesting, spawning seasons or migratory fish populations. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "Dredging and filling for public projects in wetland areas should be undertaken only if that ac- tivity is water-dependent and there are no feasible alternatives." [R. 30-12(G)(2)(b)] b) "Excavating activities in critical areas are sometimes required for the installation of submerged cables, pipelines, and transmission lines. These installations should be designed to minimize adverse en- vironmental impacts. c) In addition to standards for dredging and filling, the following standards are applicable: i)Creation of permanent open water canals to install pipelines is discouraged since such projects generally interfere with drainage patterns and may adversely affect water quality through ac- celerated bank erosion; III-66 required from the Budget and Control Board. These permit applications also are subject to the review and cer- tification process of the Council. D. DAMS AND RESERVOIRS Findings Dams and reservoirs are not foreseen as a major issue for the South Carolina coastal zone because the nature of coastal rivers - which are broad, relatively slow-moving and pass through flat, low-lying areas, with little flooding problems - gives them limited suitability for hydroelectric or related flood control projects. However, because of the other benefits dams and reservoirs provide such as drinking water and recreational areas, they may become important in the coastal zone at some later time and must be included in the planning process now. Most of the possible impacts of dams, reservoirs and rediversions which might locate in coastal waters are associated with the alteration of normal stream flow. These include water quality degradation, changes in salinity, loss of aquatic species habitat or adequate spawning periods, alteration of the character of downstream coastal marshes (Clark, Coastal Ecosystem Management, p. 602), and interdiction of upland sediments, in particular sand destined for coastal sediment budgets. Reervoirs or impoundments also may in- undate areas of special geological significance, archeological importance or historic interest. While many of the adverse environmental effects of dams and reservoirs cannot be avoided, there are management policies and techniques which can reduce the impact. Policies 1) In the coastal zone, Council review and certification of permit applications or project proposals for dams and reservoirs will be based on the following policies: a) Floodplain and ecosystem management and other non-structural solutions are generally preferred to the erection of damrns or flood control structures. b) Water control structures and water management programs should be designed to preserve or upgrade existing water quality. Best management practices should be used upstream of the dam or reser- voir to reduce agricultural and construction runoff and sedimentation thereby reducing the threat of eutrophication in the reservoir. This will also reduce the load of sediments deposited behind the dams, thereby prolonging the life of the facility. c) To the extent feasible, dams should allow for retaining some degree of circulation of waters and sediment flow. This will help preserve water quality and aquatic habitats downstream, and maintain the sediment budget, which is important to related erosion problems in beach and shoreline areas downstream. 2) In critical areas of the coastal zone, it is Council policy that: a) "Impoundment of previously undisturbed saline and brackish water marshes shall be discourag- ed as these areas are among the most valuable and productive of our coastal wetlands." [R. 30-12(K)(a)]. 3) The Council also recommends that the following additional policies be considered for dams and reser- voirs in the coastal zone: a) Installation of fish lifts where appropriate to facilitate the migratory passage of fish, b) Design of release gates to allow water to be let out from different depths in the reservoir for control of temperatures at appropriate levels for downstream aquatic life. c) When wildlife habitats are inundated or otherwise disturbed by construction of dams or flood control structures, lands suitable for wildlife management should be acquired elsewhere. d) Encourage the restoration of previous natural conditions in abandoned reservoir areas. Management Authority Any dam or reservoir proposed to alter a critical area would be under direct permit jurisdiction of the S.C. 111-65 Category 5: Unless a wetland area is impacted, highway landscaping, safety rest areas, scenic overlooks, truck weigh stations, bus shelters and bays and fencing. Category 6: Alterations to existing buildings to provide for noise attenuation and installation of noise barriers, berms, or any combination of devices. Category 7: Temporary emergency replacement of a highway facility which is commenced immediately after the occurrence of a natural disaster or catastrophic failure. This work is usually required to restore the highway for the health, welfare, and safety of the public and does not involve work of the nature and extent which causes it to come under the purview of NEPA. Category 8: Unless a wetland area is impacted, utility installations along or across a highway. U.S. Coast Guard 1. Construction of docking facilities and navigation approaches with the exception of Coast Guard maintained or authorized aids to navigation. 2. Construction of Coast Guard bases, facilities and installations. 3. Any activity related to oil spill or other clean-up operations which involves permanent alteration of a critical area. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 1. Construction or silvicultural activities which normally (i.e. within the coastal zone) would require a State' or Federal permit or which would result in any significant impact on coastal waters. Soil Conservation Service 1. Planning and management activities that require either a State or Federal permit or which would result in any significant impact on coastal waters. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 1. Location and design of proposed federal government property acquisition and building construction. 2. Disposal of surplus federal lands. III. Consistency Determination A. Decision Making Agency - The Federal agency makes the consistency determination. B. Responsibilities of Federal Agency 1. Determine consistency of activity/development project. 2. Notify South Carolina Coastal Council of determination. (Suggested method of notification is utilization of the OMB Circular A-95 process.) Federal regulations require that the con- sistency determination be provided to State agencies at least 90 days before final approval of the Federal activity unless both the Federal agency and the State agency agree to an alternative notification schedule. V-18 coastal zone) would require a State or Federal permit or which would result in any signifi- cant impact on coastal waters. 5. Proposed acquisition of wildlife refuges. National Park Service 1. Proposed acquisition of national parks and seashores and national park and seashore management activities which normally (i.e. within the coastal zone) would require a State or Federal permit or which would result in any significant impact on coastal waters. 2. Preservation of historic and cultural sites. Bureau of Land Management I. OCS Leases (The S. C. Coastal Council reserves the right to review proposed OCS Lease Sales when the question of whether lease sales are eligible for consistency has been resolv- ed.) U. S. Geological Survey 1. OCS Exploration, development, production plans and Environmental Reports. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 1. Construction of roads, bridges or rights-of-way in the coastal zone. (Because of their limited scope and absence of a significant effect on the coastal zone, the following ac- tivities are exempted from the Federal consistency requirements of this section.) Category 1: Modernization of an existing highway section including (but not limited to) such improvements as: a) resurfacing, restoring and rehabilitation. b) widening by less than a single lane width, unless in a wetland area. c) adding shoulders and/or sidewalks, unless in a wetland area. d) adding auxiliary lanes for localized purposes to provide weaving, speed changes and turn storage. e) making intersection improvementsthat do not change existing traffic patterns. f) improving railroad grade crossings, unless in a wetland area. Category 2: Installation of lighting, signing, pavement marking, signalization, freeway surveillance and control systems, and railroad protective devices. Category 3: Safety improvement projects such as pavement grooving, glare screens, safety barriers, energy attenuators , etc. Category 4: Unless a wetland is impacted, improvement to existing crossroad or railroad separations and stream crossings such as replacement of bridge decks and parapets, and closing open medians between dual bridges; grade-separated crossings of highways by railroads or by highways which do not require extensive approach relocations. V-17 Operational Guidelines (Direct Federal Activities/Development Projects) I. Definitions A. Federal Activity - A Federal activity is any function performed by or on behalf of a Federal agency in the exercise of its statutory responsibilities. Federal activities include Federal actions which are neither Federal development projects nor activities covered by the operational guidelines pertaining to Federal licenses,, per- mits and Federal assistance. B. Development Project - A Federal development project is a Federal activity involving the planning, construction, modification, or removal of public works, facilities, or other structures, and the acquisition, utilization, or disposal of land or water resources. II. Federal Activities/Development Projects Determined by the South Carolina Coastal Council as Likely to Have a Significant Effect on the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. The South Carolina Coastal Council has determined that the following activities significantly affect the South Carolina coastal zone. The Coastal Council reserves the right to make additions or deletions to this list after consultation with the pertinent Federal agency(ies). NOTE: All Federal development projects, whether on excluded Federal lands or within the coastal zone, are required to be considered as activities significantly affecting the coastal zone, and as such, they require a consistency determination. The "coastal zone" means all coastal waters and submerged lands seaward to the State's jurisdictional limits and all lands and waters in the following counties: Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Horry, Jasper, and Georgetown. All lands which lie within this geographic area and which are owned, leased, held in trust or whose use is otherwise by law subject to the discretion of the Federal Government, its officers or agents are excluded from the coastal zone. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Army Corps of Enginers, Air Force, Army and Navy) 1. Navigation projects. 2. Maintenance dredging. 3. Shoreline protection projects. 4. Beach nourishment. 5. Other public works projects with the potential to negatively impact coastal lands and waters. 6. Construction of docks, piers, bulkheads, mooring dolphins, etc. 7. Maintenance or construction of sewage or drainage ditches or canals. 8. Location, acquisition and design of new or enlarged defense installations. 9. Actions conducted on federal lands with potential negative impact on coastal lands and' waters. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1. Construction and/or maintenance of waterfowl impoundments. 2. Construction and/or maintenance of docking facilities and navigation approaches. 3. Construction and/or maintenance of shoreline protection projects. 4. All other activities which are proposed on refuge lands that normally (i.e. within the V-16 (1) Direct Federal Activities/Development Projects, (2) Federal Licenses and Permits, (3) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Activities, and (4) Federal Assistance. Through the consistency determination process, each pertinent activity under the four action-types will be reviewed by the relevant state agency (in South Carolina, the relevant State agency is the S. C. Coastal Coun- cil) and will be determined by it to be either consistent or not consistent to the maximum -extent practicable, with the management program. In each of the above categories, except for that of Direct Federal Ac- tivities/Development Projects, the action cannot receive Federal approval unless first determined by the state to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable. Federal consistency is intended to benefit both the coastal states and Federal agencies by maximizing com- munication and coordination on coastal land and water use decisions between the two levels of government. It serves a very important dual purpose in the overall national coastal zone management program. Under this re- quirement, national interests must be taken into consideration by coastal states, and in return for this conces- sion, the states are allowed a greater say in the future of their coastal zones. The following pages, which contain a Federal consistency matrix diagram and brief explanations of the four types of Federal actions with accompanying operational guidelines, serve to explain the way in which the consistencyprovisionsof theFederal Coastal Zone Management Act will be accommodated in South Carolina's coastal management program. This information is to be used as an action guide by Federal agencies, ap- plicants for Federal licenses and permits, persons submitting OCS plans and the State A-95 clearinghouse which receives State and local government applications for Federal assistance. The operational guidelines, while substantially comprehensive, do not attempt to take the place of the Federal consistency regulations promulgated pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. These guidelines, which conform to the Federal consistency regulations, are to be used in con- junction with those regulations (Section 930, Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 49, March 13, 1978). "The term 'consistent to the maximum extent practicable' describes the requirement for Federal ac- tivities including devopment projects significantly affecting the coastal zone of States with approved management programs to be fully consistent with such programs unless compliance is prohibited based upon the requirements of existing law applicable to the Federal agency's operations." (Section 930.32, Federal Register, March 13, 1978.) 1. DIRECT FEDERAL ACTIVITIES/DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Subsections 307(c) (1) and (2) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act address the subject of Federal Activities and Federal Development Projects in the coastal zone. Although these subjects are treated as a single class of Federal actions, "development projects" have been defined as being a subset of "activities". Federal agencies are required to determine which of their activities significantly affect the coastal zone of States with approved management programs. Once a Federal agency determines an activity as having a signifi- cant effect on the coastal zone, it is required to determine whether or not the activity is consistent to the max- imum extent practicable with the State's management program and to give notice to the State of the proposed or ongoing activity along with the accompanying consistency determination. The State agency is then required to inform the Federal agency of its agreement or disagreement with the consistency determination at the earliest practicable time. Should the State agency disagree with the Federal agency's determination, it must accompany its response with the reasons for disagreement as well as suppor- ting information on which its decision is based. If the disagreement cannot be settled, the Federal agency should delay the implementation of its proposed activity until the disagreement is resolved. NOTE: The operational guidelines below, which pertain to Federal Activities/Development Projects, explain the procedure by which Federal consistency requirements will be met. V-15 7. Both the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service were important contributors due to the importance of forestry and agricultural practices in South Carolina's coastal zone. Documentation Section 923.51l(b)(3) of the Federal Rules and Regulations pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act states that Coastal Zone Management offices must "summarize the nature, frequency, and timing of contacts with relevant Federal agencies, including attempts to resolve differences, if any." To that end, al Federal agency contacts have been logged and classified according to date, personnel involved, nature of the com- munication, and content. In addition, complete records of all correspondence with Federal agency contacts are maintained. Record keeping is facilitated by the use of contact sheets distributed to all staff members. The staff is asked to record the date, method of contact, name of the agency and person contacted, summary and/or purpose of the communication and any pertinent remarks. A copy of this contact log sheet, as well as individual log summaries for each of the relevant Federal agencies are found in Appendix 0, beginning on page 3. 2. FEDERALLY EXCLUDED LANDS Subsection 923.33 of the Section 306 regulations regarding requirements of approval of a state's coastal management program, states the following: States must exclude from their coastal management zone those lands owned, leased, held in trust or whose use is otherwise by law subject solely to the discretion of the Federal Government, its officers or agents. The regulations further state: The exclusion of Federal lands does not remove Federal agencies from the obligation of complying with the consistency provisions of section 307 of the Act when Federal actions on these excluded lands have spillover impacts that significantly affect coastal zone areas, uses of resources within the purview of a state's management program. Appendix Mv consists of a list of property within South Carolina's coastal zone which conforms to current Federal Regulations defining Federally excluded lands. Maps of these lands appear in Appendix N. 3. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY Introduetion Federal agencies play a significant role in the coastal zone through such actions or activities as the follow- ing: 1) the issuance of licenses and permits for activities such as dredging and the siting of nuclear power plants, 2) the issuance of licenses and permits assocaited with exploration and development of the Outer Continen- tal Shelf, 3) the provision of financial assistance such as grants for watershed protection and flood prevention, and 4) the undertaking of their own activities and development projects such as highway construction or the operation and management of national parks. Subsections 307(c) and (d) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, contain what is referred to as the "Federal Consistency" requirements of the law. Through these subsections and their accompanying rules and regulations, certain Federal actions are required to be consistent, to the maximum ex- tent practicable, with approved state managemeant programs. Four types of actions have been identified in the Federal rules and regulations as requiring a federal con- sistency determination: V-14 items as they have been completed. Contract names and addresses are listed in Appendix G, pp. 1-3. Federal agency awareness of Coastal Council activities is further enhanced by Carolina Currents, a mon- thly newsletter designed to acquaint Federal Agency contracts and other interested parties with relevant Coun- cil decisions and activities. Each issue contains minutes of the previous month's Council meeting, as well as brief discussions of recent developments of interest. Articles have included the results of the March 28, 1978, Outer Continental Shelf Lase Sale #43, which encompassed submerged lands off the South Carolina coast, a history and "state of the art" discussion of coastal impoundments, an explanation of the 1977 Clean Air Amendments, and developments in the public involvement program sponsored by the Council. Interaction In addition to listing and making initial contacts with relevant Federal agencies, states must "provide time- ly'opportunities for relevant Federal agency participation and input" (Section 923.51(d)(2)) and advise "those agencies of public hearings on the management program" (Section 923.51(d)(3)). Federal Agency contacts are advised of all public hearings and public meetings. They are invited to make presentations at these events and to express their views during the review and comment period preceeding adoption of any segment of the management plan or Rules and Regulations. Once a final draft has been ac- cepted, a copy is sent to each agency, along with a letter responding to the agency's comments on the docu- ment. In an attempt to ascertain what Federal agencies perceive to be their own, as well as the national interest in the coastal zone, the Coastal Council sent Federal agency contracts a questionnaire. Contacts were asked to list activities and projects as well as their primary functions and responsibilities in the coastal zone. Responses were used to further the Council's understanding of national interest considerations as well as coordination needs. By far the most important aspect of South Carolina's federal coordination procedure is that of personal contact between the Council staff and Federal agency contracts. Direct interaction between the Coastal Coun- cil and various federal agencies leads to informal resolution of conflicts as well as to a greater understanding of each other's needs, goals, and problems. A meeting of all Federal Regional Representatives and Coastal Coun- cil staff was held during the fall of 1978, in order to deal with questions arising from the management plan discussion draft. Frequent communication by letter and phone augments the personal contact schedule. Several special purpose coordination mechanisms are planned. Such a mechanism has been developed with the U.S. Army Corps' of Engineers in order to simplify the permitting process for certain classes of piers and docks. As a result of this dialogue, one general permit may be obtained in many cases instead of the multiple permits required prior to April, 1978. Special Needs The South Carolina Coastal Council has identified several agencies or areas requiring special attention for one reason or another. These include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The U.S. Air Force has been a significant contributor due to the location and operation of major air facilities in Charleston and Myrtle Beach. 2. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers worked in close coordination with the Council as the permitting section of the management program was developed. 3. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of the Navy were closely involved due to the large volume of navigation along our coast and the location of Coast Guard and Navy bases. 4. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service input was significant because of their interest in environmental protection. 5. The Fisheries Management Council was closely involved during their development of a fisheries management policy. 6. The Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies were able to contribute con- siderably due to expanded OCS activities. V-13 F. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 1. FEDERAL COORDINATION Section 306(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires States to develop their manage- ment plans "with the opportunity of full participation by relevant Federal agencies..." South Carolina's coastal zone legislation reiterates the need for state/federal coordination in Section 8(b)(8) and Section 8(c). Without active participation by Federal agencies, coordination between the State's coastal zone management plan and existing Federal programs and legislation would be impossible. The diveristy of interests - many of which are conflicting - in the coastal zone makes coordination of Federal, State, and, of course, local pro- grams an imperative if rational decisions regarding resource use and allocation are to be made. South Carolina's Coastal Council has endeavored to establish close ties with relevant Federal agencies in order to facilitate a mutual understanding of each others programs, goals, and procedures, and to develop workable ar- rangements which will accomodate the needs of all concerned. Relevent Federal Agencies The first step toward achieving federal coordination is the identification of those agencies which are af- fected by, or have an influence on, coastal zone management in South Carolina. The following agencies have been identified as having an interest in South Carolina's coastal zone. With one exception (the Marine Mam- mal Commission), they are the agencies named in the Rules and Regulations pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 1. Coastal Plains Regional Commission 2. Department of Agriculture 3. Department of the Army 4. Department of the Air Force S. Department of Commerce 6. Department of Energy 7. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 8. Department of Housing and Urban Development 9. Department of the Interior 10. Department of Justice I1. Department of the Navy 12. Department of Transportation 13. Environmental Protection Agency 14. General Services Administration 15. Marine Mammal Commission 16. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17. Veterans Administration Information Dissemination Section 923.51(d)(2) of the Rules and Regulations governing the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act states that "timely opportunities for relevant Federal Agency participation and input" must be provided in order for the states to be in compliance with subsection 306(c)(1) of the Act. One of the most important aspects of "relevant participation" is knowledge of Coastal Council objectives and activities, for without an awareness of developments in coastal zone management, Federal agencies will be unable to define and evaluate their own role in coastal planning. In orer to ensure that federal agencies with an interest in South Carolina's coastal zone are kept abreast of new developments, a contract has been designated within each agency. These Federal Agency contracts have been added to the Coastal Council's mailing list, and thus receive notification of all council meetings, public meetings and public hearings, as well as minutes and summaries thereof. They also have received copies of all new segments of the management plan, permitting rules and regulations, and other pertinent agencies and interested parties after proper public notice. The Council will consider all comments and proceed if sufficient public support for the change is evident. After consultation with the Assistant Administrator to determine that the proposed change is, indeed, a refinement and not an amendment, the Chairman of the Coastal Council shall submit a written request for the refinement. The request shall include a description of and justification for the change, an indication that the public has been informed of the proposal, a discussion of their reactions, and a determination that there will be no significant alteration of previously approved environmental impacts or intergovernmental relations. The Assistant Administrator will evaluate the materials submitted, consult with relevant Federal Agencies and in- terested parties as appropriate, and publish the decision in the Federal Register. E. WATER AND AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Section 307(f) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires States to incorporate all requirements established pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air Act into their management plans. In order to derive the maximum benefit from incorporation of these standards, South Carolina's Coastal Council has worked closely with the State Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), where responsibility for implementing these two Acts is lodged. (See South Carolina's Pollution Control Act, Title 48, Chapter 1, 1976 Code of Laws.) DHEC has been delegated Federal permit authority under the National Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. South Carolina's management plan incorporates the minimum air quality standards applicable to the coastal zone. Since the Department of Health and Environmental Control is charged with promulgating and enforcing such standards, close cooperation has been necessary between DHEC and the Coastal Council. A Memorandum of Agreement between the two agencies was signed soon after the Council was created. (See Ap- pendix D.) Among the points contained therein were clauses governing the designation of official liasons bet- ween the two agencies, review of Coastal Council (critical area) permits by DHEC personnel and review of DHEC permits by the CoastalCouncil. DHEC's permitting authority is broad: Any person...desiring to make any new outlet or source, or to increase the quantity of discharge from existing outlets or sources, for the discharges of sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes, or the effluent therefrom, or oil contaminants, into the waters or ambient air of the State, shall first make an application to the Department for a permit to con- struct and a permit to discharge from such outlet or source. (Section 48-1-100, 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws.) The minimum water pollution control requirements applicable to the coastal zone are met by South Carolina's management plan. These standards include the minimum established by the EPA for effluent limitations, new source performance standards, pre-treatment standards and toxic pollutant discharge stan- dards, as well as the regulations established by DHEC, including water quality management plans developed by the COG's under Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act and approved by DHEC. The state Non- Point Source Pollution Plan is another useful tool for controlling water pollution in tidelands. The same permitting procedures and review provisions applicable to air quality standards apply to water quality regulation. In addition, South Carolina's Coastal Management Act (Act 123 of 1977) requires that the Coastal Council: Consider, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Environmental Control the planning and review of existing water quality standards and classifications in the coastal zone. (Section 8(D)) This requirement has been addressed in the Memorandum of Agreement between the two agencies. In addition to enforcing water quality standads, the two dependents are working together to coordinate the prevention, control, removal, monitoring and reimbursement for oil spills in the coastal zone. Other agencies involved in this effort are the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard, as well as a number of local commercial and in- dustrial interests. V-11 alteration in order to be more effective. In addition, changes in public priorities, expectations, or issue of con- cern will necessitate changes in the original plan. These changes may take the form of modifications or refinements depending upon the extent of the proposed alteration. Amendments of either type are dealt with in Subsection 306 (g) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, which states that "Any coastal state may amend or modify the management program which it has submitted and which has been approved by the Secretary ..." Proposals for a change in the management plan may originate within the Coastal Council or its staff, within a Federal, State or local government unit, or with members of the general public. In the last instance - that is, changes proposed by members of the general public - a suggestion will be acted upon by the Council if twenty or more people so request in writing. In all cases, the Council will consider the proposal for a period of at least 30 days, before determining whether modification procedures should be initiated. If taken, Council action must begin with a determination of the nature and extent of the proposed change. Procedures to be followed will vary depending upon whether the change is classified as an amendment or as a refinement. Section 923.81 (Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978) states that amendments of modifications to an approved management program will represent one of the following cases: (1) Changes in basic program goals, objectives or policies, (2) Changes in techniques (for achieving goals, objectives or policies) that result in an en- vironmental impact significantly different from previously approved techniques; or (3) Changes in techniques (for achieving goals, objectives or policies) that result in significantly altered intergovernmental relationships not reviewed by and concurred with by affected agencies or units of government at the time of the proposed modification. South Carolina's Coastal Management Act of 1977 (Act 123), Section 9, states that "any change in or amendment to the final management plan shall be implemented by following the procedures established in Subsections (A), (B), (C) and (D) of this section and upon the review and approval of the Governor and the General Assembly." Accordingly, the same notice, public hearing, and review and comment procedures employed during initial approval of the management plan shall be followed in the case of amendments thereto. Once the amendment has been approved by the Governor and General Assembly, a formal request for its adoption shall be made to the Assistant Administrator by the Chairman of the Coastal Council. The request shall include a description of and justification for the change, evidence of adequate public notice and the degree and nature of public interest, and an environmental impact assessment (unless it has been determined that there will be no significant departure from the impacts of the previously approved management program). The Assistant Administrator will evaluate the proposed change according to the requirements of Subsec- tion 306(g) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, and will determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. If the Environmental Impact Statement is deemed necessary, normal review/approval pro- cedures (See Section 923.72, Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978) will be followed. If an EIS is not necessary, the proposal will be forwarded to relevant federal agencies for review and comment. Notice of the Assistant Administrator's decision will be published in the Federal Register. In the case of amendment disap- proval, the State will be advised in writing of the reasons for the decision. In addition to amendments, a number of minor adjustments may have to be made during the implementa- tion of the management plan. It is assumed that these changes will not require formal amendment proceedings but can be made after consultation with and approval by the Assistant Administrator. Refinements are defined in Section 923.82 (b) (Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978) as "changes relating to programs or techniques for attaining particular goals or objectives or for implementing particular policies (but not changes in these goals, objectives or policies themselves)". In addition, refinements cannot alter the environmental impact of the previously approved plan, nor can they alter intergovernmental relations. Proposals for refinements to the management plan may originate in any of the ways noted above. Depen- ding upon the scope and effect of the changes, the Coastal Council may at its discretion hold public hearings on the proposed refinement, or may simply circulate copies of the proposal to all relevent V-10 ministration where we can just throw money at a problem and assume it has gone away. Serious attempts at critical assessment must now be made to assure that a solution has really been delivered and not just paid for. If coastal management is to succeed in the long run, we must sharpen the tools of administrative analysis so that we can really assess organizational effectiveness. Effectiveness measures will assure that solutions as well as programs are a reality. Approach In keeping with the performance standard approach utilized throughout the management program, evalua- tion effects will focus on the outcomes and impacts of activities, rather than on procedures and processes. In- itially, only several of the most significant areas of possible impact will be monitored. These will include beach access, beach erosion. control, tidelands protection and marine and estuarine pollution. For each of these areas, a body of baseline data will be assembled, reflecting, insofar as is possible, conditions before the permit- ting process was instituted. A number of indicators of change will be identified for each of the areas of con- cern, and methods will be devised whereby these indicators can be periodically monitored. Such monitoring may take place monthly, semi-annually or annually, depending upon the nature of the data being examined. During the initial implementation stages, some attempt will be made to set forth criteria for "adequacy" - in other words, how much improvement is enough, or how much deterioration can be tolerated. However, recognizing both the lack of basic scientific knowledge and the infancy of the program, efforts will be concen- trated on determining the desired direction of change, rather than the absolute level of desirable change. Examples of possible sources of baseline data and indicators of change for each of the four areas to be evaluated follow: Beach access baseline data will include a map and list of present public access points along the South Carolina coast, a list of recreational access facilities (parks, boat ramps, marines, etc.), and an assessment of current parking facilities near access points. Indicators of change may include new public access points as pro- vided by permitted activities or developments related to erosion control funding. (Conditions under which a permit is granted or erosion control funds are released may specify that certain types of public access be pro- vided.) Other indicators of change are the number of new parking facilities built, increases in the availability of public transportation (i.e., bus or ferry service) and increases in the number of boat ramps, marinas, etc. available to the public. Some attention should also be paid to qualitative aspects of public access, although this is an admittedly arbitrary procedure. Criteria to be employed might include the presence or absence of such amenities as dressing rooms and showers available for public use. Beach erosion control baseline data will be provided primarily by several studies currently underway under the direction of outside consultants. In addition, erosion control funding will be monitored in order to ascer- tain spending patterns. Indicators of change will be the change in the rate of erosion and deposition, the longevity of improvements brought about by beach renourishment projects, and the frequency with which funds are spent on projects in the same locations as earlier expenditures. The success of management program policies may also be measured by the number of municipalities passing erosion control ordinances and by the percentage of new developments incorporating mandatory set-backs or other erosion control mechanisms. Tidelands protection and marine and estuarine pollution control will both rely on the same data base with regards to water quality. Sources of data will include the Department of Health and Environmental Control, Water Quality Control Annual Assessment, readings from monitoring stations in the coastal zone, data from shellfish area monitoring stations, reports from the South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources monitoring stations and Audubon Christmas bird count data for marsh and estuarine species. Each of these data sources will be monitored in order to determine the degree to which environmental conditions have improved or deteriorated within the coastal zone. An additional measure of the effectiveness of tidelands protection policies will be the annual rate of fill of the wetlands, based on long-term analysis of acreage filled by permit each year. Evaluation procedures may reveal that certain management policies, rules or regulations require some 'Swamson, Gerald C., Coastal Zone Management from an Administrative Perspective: A case study of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Coastal Zone Management Journal 2(2): 81-102, 1975.) V-9 E. Completion of work: Section 15(F) of the Act requires a permit holder to complete work within three years from the date of permit issuance. The Council may extend this three-year period upon a showing of good cause indicating that due diligence toward completion of the work has been made, evidenced by significant work progress. Work shall be continuous and expeditious whenever possible. F. Property rights not affected, no state liability, other permit requirements: No permit shall convey, nor be interpreted to convey, a property right in the land or water in which the permitted activity is located. No permit shall be construed as alienating public property for private use or as alienating private property for public use. In no way shall the State be liable for any damage as a result of the erection of permitted works. A South Carolina Coastal Council permit in no way relieves the holder from responsibility for compliance with other applicable Federal, State or local permit requirements. G. Legally commenced a use: Section 13(C) of the Act reads as follows: Ninty days after the effective date of this act no person shall fill, remove, dredge, drain or erect any structure on or in any way alter any critical area without first obtaining a permit from the Council. Provided, however, that a person who has legally commenced a use such as those evidenced by a state permit, as issued by the Budget and Control Board, or a project loan approved by the rural electrification administration or a local building permit or has received a United States Corps of Engineers or Coast Guard permit, where ap- plicable, may continue such use without obtaining a permit. Any person may request the Council to review any project or activity to determine if he is exempt under this section from the provisions of the act. The Council shall make such determinations within forty- five days from the receipt of any such request. C. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS If either method of coordination fails and a conflict between the Coastal Council and another agency oc- curs over the issuance of a permit (by the other agency) or adequacy of conformance with the Coastal Manage- ment Program, the Council may take several actions to resolve the conflict. The Council could (1) attempt to set a meeting of executive directors or other staff members of both agencies at a convenient location to discuss, outline and attempt to resolve the conflict; (2) attempt to set a meeting between the Council and the governing body of the other agency to solve the conflict through their direct negotiation; or (3) petition for an injunction and declaratory judgement under �15-53-10 et seq. (Declaratory Judgement Act) of the 1976 S. C. Code. Sec- tion 5 (I) of the Coastal Management Act and �15-53-30 of the Declaratory Judgement Act allows the Council to seek resolution of the conflict in court. Section 5(0) allows the Council to attempt the other actions of direct mediation and grants the Council the power to exercise all incidental powers necessary to carry out the provisions of the act. If the Council ultimately sought a court resolution of a conflict, the court's judgement would be binding on all of the parties. This analysis of the Council's ability to resolve conflicts applies to all of the networked agencies discussed in Appendix C. D. EVALUATION AND AMENDMENT PROCEDURE Because of the changing nature of the coastal zone, both politically and physically speaking, even a very flexible management plan will require periodic updating. In order to have a basis for revision, some means of evaluating the effects of current management policies must be devised. Therefore, evaluation procedures will be employed whenever possible, in order to facilitate periodic policy analysis and review, and, where necessary, revision. In a broader sense, evaluation procedures are necessary in order to assure the citizens of South Carolina that the Coastal Council is carrying out those functions for which it was created. Gerald Swanson, writing about the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, has rather forcefully expressed the reasoning underlying evaluation procedures: In the private sector, organizational effectiveness is measured by the ability to market products successfully in a competitive environment. In the public sector, however, there is no single measure of success. All too often a logrolling budgetary process substitutes for critical scrutiny of organizational performance. We have passed the point in public ad- V-8 E. Comments on application: Section 14(C) of the Act allows all interested federal and state agencies, all adjoining landowners, local government units and other interested persons to have thirty days after the receipt of Public Notice of permit application from the Council to file written comments pertaining to the ap- plication. Only those comments received within the thirty day period must be considered in the Council's deci- sion on a permit application. Any persons wishing to receive notice of the initial decision on a permit applica- tion shall notify the Council within this comment period. Exception: Comments on permit applications for minor development activities, as defined in Section 3 (N) of the Act, must be received within fifteen days after receipt of Public Notice of permit application. F. Public information: The complete file on each permit application, including all comments received, will be available for inspection by any member of the general public during regular business hours at the principal Council offices. G. Minor development activities: In determining whether a particular project is a minor development, as defined in Section 3(N) of the Act, a private pier shall be defined as a non-commercial, strictly private recrea- tional facility that is not used for, or in support of, any industry or commercial operation. Any charge to members of the public or any person for use of the facility is prohibited for a structure qualifying as a minor development. Minor dock or pier developments shall have the same specifications as furnished under the general permit- ting provisions with the Army Corps of Engineers. Erosion control structures means, in the case of minor developments, those structures commonly known as bulkheads which follow the existing shoreline, not fron- ting on the Atlantic Ocean, and the construction of which involves no direct effects on wetlands. H. State comment: Issuance or denial of the permit by the Coastal Council shall be the State comment on the corresponding federal permit application. I. Water quality certificate: If a water quality certificate, as required under �401 of P.L. 92-500, is not re- quired by a Federal permitting agency, the Coastal Council may require a statement of water quality certifica- tion from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 30-3 Public Hearings Section 14(C) of the Act directs the Council to hold public hearings on permit applications if it is deemed necessary. Section 15 (B) of the Act requires the Council to convene a public hearing before acting on an ap- plication if twenty or more citizens or residents of the affected county or counties request such a hearing. Each request must be in writing and on a separate sheet of paper and be received within thirty days after receipt of a Public Notice -of the permit application. In all cases, the public hearing shall be held in the county where the land is located and if in more than one county, the Council shall determine in which county to hold the hearing or may hold hearings in more than one county. These hearings will be open to all citizens of the State. When applicable and prctical, joint public hearings will be held with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies. 30-4 Decisions on a Permit A. Permit approval: The Council is allowed, under section 15(B) of the Act, to issue a conditional permit approval. Under this provision, the Council may direct the applicant to amend his proposal to take specific measures necessary to protect the public interest. If the Council has approved an application, Section 15 (B) of the Act also allows the Council, at its discretion, to support the applicant in a Federal permitting process. B. Permit denial: A Permit denial shall cite facts upon which the denial was based and the criteria or reasons for which the denial was issued. C. Action upon a permit: The Council, according to Section 15(c) of the Act, shall act upon an application for a permit within ninety days. This ninety day period shall begin when the application is complete and filed in approved form. Exceptions to the 90 day deadline are applications for minor developments on which action must be taken in thirty days. D. Licensing of equipment: Upon issuance of a permit, if the alteration authorized requires the use of a dragline, dredge, bulldozer or similar equipment, the permit holder shall be required to register the equipment, and the identification number assigned by the Council shall be prominently displayed. Equipment in use within critical areas for activities not requiring a Council permit must also be registered. The persons responsi- ble for this equipment must register it with the Council before use. V-7 (1) Name and address of the applicant; (2) A plan or drawing showing the applicant's proposal and the manner or method by which the proposal shall be accomplished; (3) A plat or a copy of a plat of the area in which the proposed work will take place; (4) A certified copy of the deed, lease or other instrument under which the applicant claims title, possession or permission from the owner of the property to carry out the proposal; (5) A list of all adjoining landowners and their addresses or a sworn affidavit that with due diligence such information is not ascertainable; (6) A brief description of the proposed alteration, its purpose and intended use, in- eluding a drawing of the type of structure, a description of the method of construc- tion, and identification of materials and equipment to be used; (7) A copy of the newspaper public notice. a) Minor developments (see R.30-2(G)): In the case of applications for minor development permits, the applicant shall publish notice at least once in a newspaper of local circulation in the county of the proposed activity. The newspaper notice should be published within 15 days of the date of Public Notice (see R.30-2(C)). No permit shall be issued by the Council until at least 10 days following the date of newspaper publication. The following form shall be used for newspaper publication: PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL (Name of applicant) will apply (has applied) to the South Carolina Coastal Council for a permit to (description of work) for (public/private) use, at/in (location and name of waterway). Comments will be received by the South Carolina Coastal Council, Suite 402, 19 Hagood Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29403 until (insert date, 10 days after date of this newspaper notice). b) Other activities. In the case of applications for other than minor develop- ment permits, the applicant shall publish notice at least once in both a newspaper of general statewide circulation (The State, News and Courier, or The Greenville News) and a newspaper of local circulation in the county of the proposed activity. The newspaper notices should be published within 15 days of the date of Publ'ic Notice (see R.30-2(C). No permit shall be issued by the Council until at least 15 days following the date of the last-published newspaper publication. The following form shall be used for newspaper publication: PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL (Name of applicant) will apply (has applied) to the South Carolina Coastal Council for a permit to (description of work) for (public/private) use, at/in (location and name of waterway). Comments will be received by the South Carolina Coastal Council, Suite 802, 19 Hagood Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29403 until (insert date, 15 days after date of this newspaper notice). (8) When considered appropriate by the Council or its staff, additional information may be required, such as impoundment management plans, and maintenance dredg- ing schedules. C. Notification: The Council is directed in Section 14(C) of the Act and shall within thirty days of receiving either a Joint Public Notice or South Carolina Coastal Council permit application, notify, in writing, in- terested agencies, all adjoining landowners, local government units in which the land is located and other in- terested persons. This notice shall indicate the nature and extent of the.applicant's proposal. D. Permit processing: Permit processing shall commence immediately upon receipt of either aJoint Public Notice or a South Carolina Coastal Council permit application and shall proceed concurrently but separately from any Federal authorization. V-6 Table 1 State Agency Permits Subject to Council Review and Certification 1. Aeronautics Commission -Certificates of approval for airports and other air traffic facilities. 2. Budget and Control Board -Permits for activities below the ordinary high water mark which are within the coastal zone but out of the critical areas. 3. Department of Health and Environmental Control -State permits to construct wastewater treatment systems or septic tanks handling either more than 1500 gallons per day or other than domestic waste. -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits (delegated by EPA). -Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act certification. -Construction permits for air emmissions. -Permits to operate for air emmissions. -Water supply permits. -Sanitary Landfill Design, Construction and Operation permits. -Oil and Gas facilities registration certificates. 4. Land Resource Conservation Commission -Mining operations permits. 5. Public Service Commission -Certificates for major utility facilities. 6. Water Resources Commission -Oil and gas facilities permits. -Groundwater capacity use area permits. V-5 Procedure The Coastal Council will review and certify permit applications made to other State agencies (for projects outside the critical areas) on their individual merits for compliance with the Coastal Management Program. Upon receipt of notice of a permit application from another State agency, Council staff will enter the notice in a file or log system and circulate copies for review and evaluation by staff members, including planning, biological, and legal personnel. Review and certification by the Coastal Council must in each instance be com- pleted and returned to the respective agency within the specified time period. (This time limit will vary by agen- cy and type of permit. In the case of A-95 review, the comment period is 30 days.) At the discretion of the Council staff, specifically, the Executive Director or the Permit Administrator, permit notification will be forwarded to the Management Committee of the Council for discussion, input, or recommendations. In instances where there may be major policy issues or decisions involved in review and cer- tification of a permit application, these notices may be brought before the full Coastal Council for its con- sideration. On each permit application, the Council will submit a letter to the respective State agency, stating either certification (approval) or non-certification (objection). Letters of objection must include a statement of the basis for objection, citing applicable policies of the coastal management program. Section 7(A) requires that each agency implement these resource policies through their respective permit processes. This implementation is accomplished through Council's certification or non-certification of the in- dividual permit applications of each agency. Through Section 8(B)(11), however, the Council is designated as the final authority for determining compliance with the Coastal Program, of which the resource policies are of prime importance. If the Council issues a certification determination, the permitting agency is not precluded from denying the permit application based on its own independent statutory or regulatory criteria. If Council non-certification would be the sole basis for the agency denying a permit application, the agency is urged to put the applicant in contact with the Council. The Council will then approach the applicant and the agency to discuss possible modifications to the proposed project. When the proposed activity cannot be modified to comply with the program, the permitting agency is bound by Section 7(A) to either deny the per- mit application or to seek a resolution of the conflict through the methods described in this chapter (Section C). If the application is ultimately denied solely on the Council's non-certification, the Council will provide the applicant an opportunity to appeal the non-certification determination if the permitting agency consents to reopening the application. The Council would conduct the appeal in accord with R.30-6 of the Council's per- mitting rules and regulations. 2) Procedure for Coastal Council Permits in the Critical Areas. The following procedure is taken from the Final Rules and Regulations for Permitting in Critical Areas of the coastal zone, Sections 30-2 through 30-4. 30-2 Applying for a Permit A. Preliminary review: The Council encourages the submission of development plans for preliminary review. If a permit is necessary, the Council will make every effort to assist the applicant in expediting the fil- ing of an application. B. Permit application: Except for those exemptions as specified in Section 13(D) of the Act (see R.30-5 below), any person wishing to alter a critical area must receive a permit from the Coastal Council. Section 14(b) of the Act directs that certain information be included in the permit application submitted to the Coun- cil. The following minimum information shall be required: V-4 other interested parties." Memoranda of agreement provide a convenient means for establishing the cooperative process necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Coastal Management Act. There is no case law or statutory language in South Carolina concerning the enforceability of memoranda of agreement between units of government. However, in the case of these memoranda, the question of such enforceability per se does not arise, since the memoranda merely confirm statutory responsibilities and do not seek to expand these duties. B. PROJECT EVALUATION PROCEDURE Introduction Within the eight-county coastal zone, the South Carolina Coastal Council is the State agency with respon- sibility for development and implementation of the resource policies and other provisions of the State's coastal management program. The legal basis for this authority, mandated by Act 123 of the 1977 South Carolina General Assembly (S.C. Coastal Management Act) is explained in detail in the preceding segment of the pro- gram document ("Legal Authorities and Networking", Chapter V(A)). As part of its implementation, the Council must provide a system under which it reviews permit applica- tions made to other State and Federal agencies to certify that issuance of these permits will not contravene the management program. The Council's review procedure for these projects is explained in the following section. (Federal permit reviews follow the procedures for Federal consistency determinations, as will be discussed in Chapter V (F)(3) of the program document.) This review system is the mechanism for Council management of activities throughout the coastal zone. In addition, the Council has direct authority for the issuance of the State-level permit for any activity in certain "critical areas" of the coasts, as defined by the 1977 Act. The review process for Council permits is ex- plained in detail in the Rules and Regulations for Permitting in the Critical Areas, Chapter 30, R.30-1 - 30-11, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended (which appears as Appendix K). The following section outlines not only the steps for the review and certification procedure, but also the general guidelines or criteria which are used in initial review of project applications throughout the coastal zone. The resource policies for specific areas or types of activities, which are found in Chapter III above, are also applied by the Council in project reviews. 1) Procedure for Review and Certification Notification Coastal Council review and certification of permits of other State'agencies is mandated by Section 8(B)(I 1) of the South Carolina Coastal Management Act, and the cooperative efforts of these agencies in implementing the program is mandated by Section 7(A). There are two primary means by which the Council coordinates with these agencies and receives permit notifications. The first is direct communication between the Council and other State agencies, as outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with each agency. Upon ap- proval and implementation of the management program, the process whereby the Council receives a copy of each permit application from an agency and responds with its comments and certification or non-certification within a specified time period will be officially established. The second source of project notifications is the South Carolina Project Notification and Review System, a State-wide clearinghouse for comments, administered by the Division of Administrative in accordance with Federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95. (This is the key mechanism for project notification of Federal activities, the procedure for which is detailed in the Federal consistency segment of the full program document, Chapter V, (F)(3)). At present, the Council staff informally reviews and comments on all A-95 notices in the coastal zone. This project review also will be formalized in the following procedure. Table 1, on the following page, indicates the State permits which will be subject to review and certification by the Coastal Council. The Environment Impact Statement, as required for major Federal or Federally-funded projects under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, will be another source of notification to the Council for major new activities in the coastal zone. V-3 Section 9 (D), which reads: "Upon review and approval of the proposed management plan by the Governor and the General Assembly, the proposed plan shall become the final management plan for the State's coastal zone." Section 7 (A) provides one measure of enforcement for the management objectives of the Coastal Council. All other state and local agencies and commissions shall cooperate with the Council in the administration or enforcement of this Act. All agencies currently exercising regulatory authority in the coastal zone shall administer such authority in accordance with the provi- sions of this act and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (Section 7 (A)) The OMB Circular A-95 Review Process is a significant addition to the State's coastal management effort as outlined by the Act. Applications, comments and other material circulated in the A-95 process may be coor- dinated.with specific policies through review and comment by State and Federal agencies involved in the pro- cess. Coastal management efforts will better encompass other applicable policies as other agency efforts are in- corporated with coastal management policies through the A-95 Review Process. Networking The burden of implementing the South Carolina Coastal Management Program rests not only with the Coastal Council, but also with all other State and local agencies and commissions. (�7(A)) Even though such agencies are statutorily mandated to carry out their own policies, the effect of networking is to tie the im- plementation of these individual authorities into a comprehensive framework that addresses mhre than the in- dividual responsibilities of each agency a individual authorities into a comprehensive framework that ad- dresses more than the individual responsibilities of each agency and that makes these authorities part of an overall, unified strategy for managing coastal resources. The Section 7 (A) mandate to the other state and local agencies broadens the scope of their legal responsibilities to include the implementation of the policies and rules and regulations of the Coastal Management Program. Section 7 (A), along with 9(D), 8 (B)(11) and other general provisions of the Act, binds all relevent agencies and commissions to the Coastal Management Pro- gram. Two methods of cooperation are needed between the Council and other State and local agencies in giv- ing effect to the Act: 1) a cooperative process of permit review and certification; and 2) memoranda of agree- ment confirming the statutory duties of the respective agencies. Certification Seventeen (17) State agencies exercise authority over: (1) the use of coastal resources, (2) specific areas in the coastal zone, or (3) activities in the coastal zone. This authority is granted by the statutes of South Carolina, most of them enacted prior to the Coastal Management Act. Some of the authority granted by these statutes is implemented through permit or license procedures. Through Section 8 (B) (11) of the Coastal Management Act, the Council is required to review and certify the compliance of these permit applications with the policies of the coastal management program. This section states that the Council shall "develop a system whereby the Council shall have the authority to review all state and federal permit applications in the coastal zone and to certify that these do not contravene the management plan". Memoranda of Agreement Memoranda of agreement are used to effectively coordinate all State agency activities with the Coastal Management Program. The specific authorities and activities of the agencies that are networked by Section 7 (A) are outlined in the memoranda along with the cooperative efforts of the agencies in implementing the pro- gram. Besides the general mandate of Section 7 (A), the Act specifically requires coordination with other State agencies in regard to: (1) beach and shoreline erosion, (2) oil spill monitoring and removal, (3) energy facility siting, (4) determination of water quality standards and (5) determination of port and navigational needs and standards. The memoranda between the Council and other agencies are based on the mandate of �7(A) and on �5(N) which grants the Council the duty "to encourage and promote the cooperation and ,ssistance of state agencies, coastal regional councils of government, local governments, federal agencies and V-2 A. LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND NETWORKING Purpose of South Carolina's Coastal Management Act The chief purpose of South Carolina's Coastal Management Act (�48-39-10 et seq. of the 1976 S.C. Code) is the proper management of the natural, recreational, commercial and industrial resources of the State's coastal zone - resources of present and potential value to all citizens of the State. The Act acknowledges the growth of the human population and the resulting demands on the lands and waters of the coast for residen- tial, recreational and economic developments as well as services such as transportation and waste disposal. A specific State policy contained in the Act is that of promoting the economic and social improvement of the State's citizens while protecting and, where possible, restoring or enhancing the rich variety of coastal resources. S.C. Coastal Council - Coastal Management Program To effectively achieve these goals for protection and development of coastal resources, the Act establishes the S.C. Coastal Council and directs it to develop and implement a comprehensive management program to achieve wise use of coastal resources. A part of this management program consists of the permitting authority of the Council over the "critical areas". Critical Areas Four areas of the coastal zone are very fragile and easily damaged or destroyed by man-made alterations. Those areas, designated "critical areas" by the Act, are the coastal waters, tidelands, beaches, and primary ocean front sand dunes. In order to protect them from inappropriate uses, the Council has been given the responsibility of permitting alterations of these resources. (Section 13). Permitting Authority As stated in Section 21 of the Act, the Council is "the only state agency with authority to permit or deny any alteration or utilization within the critical area." The Act further states "no person shall utilize a critical area for a use other than the use the critical area was devoted to on such effective date (of the Act) unless he has first obtained a permit from the Council." (Section 13). Finally, Section 8(A) mandates the Coastal Coun- cil to develop a regulatory system to provide for "the orderly and beneficial use of the critical areas." This regulatory or permitting system, contained in the Rules and Regulations pursuant to the Coastal Management Act, is enforceable through the authority of the courts. (Section 5(E), (I)). Section 13 (D) of the Act lists activities which are exempted from the Council's permit process - activities such as hunting, fishing, erecting duckblinds, the discharging of treated effluent as permitted by law, and nor- mal maintenance and repair of certain facilities. Also exempted are the accomplishment of emergency orders of any official of a state or local government, if the Council is notified of the emergency and the actions ordered. Management input from the coastal program in decisions on these activities is still ensured, however, through coordinated efforts with other state agencies and the authority of the Coastal Council to review, com- ment on, and certify the permits and actions of the other agencies in the critical areas. Section 7(A) of the Act provides that all other state and local agencies shall administer their authority in accordance with the Coastal Management Act and the policies and rules and regulations which are developed under the Act. In the event the coordination breaks down and resultant conflicts cannot be resolved, judicial relief may be sought. Authority Outside Critical Areas The scope of authority of the S.C. Coastal Council in the remaining portions of the coastal zone, i.e. those areas other than critical areas within the eight coastal countries, is established in Section 20 of the Act which states: "Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, the Council shall have no direct regulatory authority over any area outside the critical areas in the coastal zone." However, through several provisions contained in the Act, the Council is clearly given authority of an indirect nature, which extends to the full coastal zone. Section 8 directs the Council to develop a comprehensive coastal management program and provides that "the Council shall consider all lands and waters in the coastal zone for planning purposes." The significance of and authority for this coastal management program are emphasized through the language of V-1 ,,' �. ' , , :-: .I:~~~~~~ ?`- - , ' ' -' _ '~ I ! _, , ,, - ', ' * . * , _;~~~~~~; i 1 ~~~~~~~~, - , ,_ _ - .,,': . . ! , _ '.-. ',' r, r _ , ,_ L _ , , ,, . . ', :~~~~~~~� [. f~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ . , 0 ' _ , :, , ,' . , , ' , ' ' ' '~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ . .,-',' '' ' -~��i� , ', -r -� I,' 1.~~~~~ .. ,',% L'' ':',riq~olpbicivlvm ,'. ' ' : 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~, I , , , _ . J , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, -, , ,. r, ,. , ' .; , , ' r " ' | 'ss ' ' r~ , . . ' r' '' , iI . .... , ,] , ' ~ ' ,< _ - s I . _ ~', , ' ,, ,_ , - ' , ,... r I _ v, r r - ; S 1E ~~~~~~~~~~~~,' ' ',' ;:~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ' t " aaeen uhrte ',. ,'' ' '--'' '"-'1' ',' 8' ' v rnm na' bi i vo'm ! ,-|. - ' . ",<' ' . ' ;, "i - ': " Williams, A. B. 1965. Marine Decapod Crustaceans of the Carolinas. Fish. Bull. 65(1):1-298. Williams, T. M. and C. A. Gresham. 1976. Debidue Beach and North Inlet Land Form History Since 1733. Clemson Univ., Coll. Forest Recreation Resour. Dep. Forestry Tech. pap. 4. 15 pp. Wittkamp, T. A. 1968. Revised Report on the Shrimping Situation in the Charleston and Beaufort Areas of South Carolina. Bears Bluff Labs., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 4 pp. (Unpubl.) Zetler, B. D. 1953. Some Effects of the Diversion of the Santee River on the Waters of Charelston Harbor. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 34(5):729-732. Zingmark, R. G. 1975. The Phytoplankton of Kiawah Island. pp. P1-P38. In: W. M. Campbell, J. M. Dean, and W. D. Chamberlain. Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island. Environmental Research Center, Inc., Columbia, S.C. IV-144 Walburg, C. H. 1956. Commercial and Sport Shad Fisheries of the Edisto River, South Carolina, 1955. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 187. 9 pp. Warner, L. and D. Strouss. 1976. Inventory of the Status of the Barrier Islands of the Southeast. Open Space Inst., New York. 300 pp. Warner, R. W. 1972. Port Royal Sound Periphyton Studies. pp. 227-231. In: Port Royal Sound Environmen- tal Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Wastler, T. A. 1968. Municipal and Industrial Wastes and the Estuaries of the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, pp. 114-119. In: J. D. Newsom, Ed. Proceedings of The Marsh and Estuary Management Symposium. La. State Univ., Baton Rouge. Water Resources Research Institute. 1971. Economic-Ecologic Analysis in the Charleston Metropolitan Region: An Input Output Study. Clemson Univ., Clemson, S.C. Rep. No. 19. Wayne, A. T. 1899. Notes on Marion's Marsh Wren, Cistothorus Marianae, and Worthington's Marsh Wren, Cistothorus Palustris Griseus. Auk 16:361-362. Wayne, A. T. 1906. A Contribution to the Ornithology of South Carolina, Chiefly the Coastal Region. Auk 23:56-58. Wayne, A. T. 1927. Birds of South Carolina. Charleston Mus. Contrib. 1. 25 pp. Wayne, A. T. 1927. The Rough-Legged Hawk (Archibuteo Lagopus Sancti-Johannis) at Capers' Island, S.C. Auk 44:249. Welsh, W. M. 1916. Notes on the Fishes of the Pee Dee River Basin, North and South Carolina. Copeia 1916:54-56. Westvaco Corporation. 1972. A Summary of Biological Studies of the Cooper River and Adjacent Waters in the Vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina 1967-1971. Westvaco Kraft Div., Charston, S.C. 72 pp. White, M. G. 1969. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Edisto and Coosawatchie Rivers - South Carolina. Job Completion Rep. Project AFS-2-2. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Columbia. 94 pp. (Unpubl.) White, M. G. 1970. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Savannah and Ashepoo Rivers. Job Completion Rep. Project AFS-2-3. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Columbia. 94 pp. (Unpubl.) Whitesell, D. E. 1970. Wetlands Preservation-Management in North America. Trans N. Am. Wildl. Resour. Conf. 35:327-335. Weigert, R. G. and J. T. McGinnis. 1975. Annual Production and Disappearance of Detritus on Three South Carolina Old Fields. ecology 56(1):129-140. Wilkinson, P. 1968. Coastal Marsh Management. 9 pp. (Unpubl.) Wilkinson, P. M. N. D. Waterfowl Management in South Carolina. 9 pp. (Unpubl.) Wilkinson, P. W. 1970. Vegetative Succession in Newly Controlled Marshes. Job. Completion Rep. Project W-38-6. April 1, 1967 - June 30, 1970. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. 37 pp. IV-143 Ulmer, F. A. Jr. 1941. Kogia Breviceps in South Carolina and New Jersey. J. Mammal. 22:450-451. University of South Carolina. 1969. The Law Pertaining to Estuarine Lands in South Carolina. Belle W. Baruch Found., Columbia, S.C. University of South Carolina. 1973. Bioassay Studies, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. The Effects of Dredging Harbor Sediments on Plankton. Final Rep. to U.S. Army Corps. Eng., Charleston District. Belle W. Baruch Coastal Res. Inst., Columbia. 54 pp. University of South Carolina, Department of Biology. 1957. An Ecological Study of the Fauna and Flora of the Savannah River Plant Area. Biol. Serv. III. 2(2):45-117. Van Engel, W. A. 1974. Outlook for Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Production and Its Relation to South Carolina. Presented at Commercial Fisherman's and Seafood Dealer's Conf. Feb. 28 - Mar. 1, 1974. Charleston, S.C. 3 pp. (Unpubl.) Van Velzen, W. T. 1971. Recoveries of Royal Terns Banded in the Carolinas. Chat 35(3):64-66. Vernberg, F. J. 1973. Introduction: The Estuarine Ecosystem, pp. 3-8. In: L. H. Stevenson and R. R. Colwell, Eds. Estuarine Microbial Ecology. Univ. S.C. Press, Columbia. Vernberg, F. J. 1973. Tidelands as an Ecosystem. Bull. S.C. Acad. Sci. 35:56-61. Vernberg, F. J. 1974. The North Inlet Estuary, A Functioning Estuarine Sanctuary, pp. 127-129. In: M. P. Lynch, B. L. Laird and T. F. Sholen, Eds. Marine and Estuarine Sanctuaries. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. Spec. Sci. Rep. No. 70. Vernberg, F. J. and C. E. Sansbury. 1972. Studies on Salt Marsh Invertebrates of Port Royal Sound, pp. 271-277. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council. 1972. A Report for H.U.D. Certification for Water and Sewer Functional Planning and Programing for the Urban Protection of the Waccamaw District of South Carolina., Georgetown, S.C. 89 pp. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council. 1977. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Develop- ment Council 208 Work Plan. Georgetown, S.C. 153 pp. Wade, C. W. 1971. Commercial Anadromous Fishery, Edisto River, South Carolina. Annu. Progress Rep. Project AFC-4-1. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Columbia. 79 pp. (Unpubl.) Wade, C. W. 1972. Commercial Anadromous Fishery, Edisto River, South Carolina. Job Completion Rep. Project AFC-4. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. Columbia. 93 pp. (Unpubl.) Wade, C. W. 1972. Commercial Anadromous Fishery, Edisto River, South Carolina, Annu. Progress Rep. Project AFC-4-2. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Columbia. 49 pp. (Unpubl.) Wagener, H. D. 1970. Notes on Beach Erosion in the Charleston Harbor Area. S.C. State Dev. Board, Div. Geol., Environ. Geol. Ser. 1. 11 pp. Walburg, C. H. 1956. Studies on Edisto Bring New Knowledge on Shad. S.C. Wildl. 3(3):8-9. IV-142 U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (1975). Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge Month- ly Waterfront Reports, 1966-1974. (Unpubl.) U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1957. A Detailed Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources in Relation to the Watershed Protection Plan for Toogoodoo Creek Watershed, Charleston Coun- ty, South Carolina. Office of River Basin Studies, Region 4. Atlanta. 25 pp. U.S: Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1966. A Fish and Wildlife Evaluation Report on Pro- posed Project to Reduce Shoaling in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. 47 pp. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Santee National Wildlife Refuge. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Refuge Leafl. 539. 4 pp. U.S. Deprtment of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Southeast. Region, Atlanta. 21 pp. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. National Estuary Study. Vol. 6: Appendix H. Evaluation of Existing Methods of Coordinating State and Federal Actions. Appendix 1. Federal, State, and Local Laws and Tax Policies Affecting the Use of Estuarine Resources. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. and Bur. Comm. Fish. 240 pp. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife service. 1971. Birds of the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge. 8 pp. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1974. Stream Channel Alteration Guidelines. Washington, D.C. 23 pp. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1970. Water Resources Data for South Carolina. Part I: Sur- face Water Records. Columbia, S.C. 15 pp. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1972. Water Resources Investigation in South Carolina. Water Resour. Div. and S.C. Water Resources Comm. 10 pp. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1978. Water Resources Data for South Carolina, Water Year 1977. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-Data Rep. Sc-77-1. 232 pp. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. (1947). Lower Santee River Basin Studies. 124 pp. (Unpubl.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Santee River Basin - A Preview and Summary of Available In- formation on Physical, Chemical and Biological Characteristics and Resources. Surveillance Analysis Div., Athens, Ga. 129 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Water Quality Portion of the Cooper River Environmental Study, pp. 64-104. In: F. P. Nelson Ed. The Cooper River Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm. State Water Plan. Rep. No. 117. U.S. Naval Weather Service Command. 1975. Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Observation (SSHO). Vol. 3; North American Coastal Marine Areas-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Natl. Climatic Cent., Asheville, N.C. 553 pp. IV-141 U.S. Army Corps of Enginees. 1977. Water Resources Development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in South Carolina. South Atlantic Div., Atlanta. 78 pp. U.S. Congress. 1971. Stream Channelization (Part 1). Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations. House of Representatives. U.S. 92nd Congress. 1st Sess. 388 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1972. Recreation Work Group Report: Santee River Basin: North Carolina, South Carolina. Santee River Basin Recreation Work Group, Columbia, S.C. 44 pp. (Unpubl.) U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973. Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources: North Carolina, South Carolina. Econ. Res. Serv., Forest Serv., and Soil Conserv. Serv. 159 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1977. Ashley-Combahee-Edisto River Basin Cooperative Study Water and Land Resources. Main Report. Draft Econ. Res. Serv., Forest Serv., Soil Conserv. Serv. in Cooperation with S.C. Water Resources Comm. 2 Vol. 323 pp. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1968. Climatic Atlas of the United States. Environ. Data Serv., Environ. Sci. Adm., Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1950. North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones. In: Climatological Data, National Summary. Vol. 1. Environ. Data Serv. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1973. Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1941-70, South Carolina. Climatology of the U.S. No. 31. Natl. Climatic Cent. Asheville, N.C. 7 pp. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1973. Environmental Conditions within Specified Geographical Regions Offshore East and West Coasts of the U.S. and in the Gulf of Mexico. Environ. Data Serv. Prepared by Interagency Ad Hoc Task Force 735 pp. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1977. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Com- parative Data, 1976. Charleston, South Carolina. Environ. Data Serv., Natl. Climatic Cent., Asheville, N.C. 4 pp. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau. 1960. Hurricanes: A Quick Reference Guide to Synoptic Charts of Hurricanes that Threatened or Entered the United States. 1949-1960. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1964. Report on Pollution of Interstate Waters of the Mouth of the Savannah River, Georgia - South Carolina. Public Health Serv., Cincinnati. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1975. Recreation in the Coastal Zone. Sym- posium Sponsored by Southeast Region and U.S. Dep. Commer., Off. Coastal Zone Manage. March 25-26. St. Petersburg, Fla. 28 pp. U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1966. A Report on the Water Quality of Charleston Harbor and the Effects Thereon of the Proposed Cooper River Rediversion. pp. 1-115. In: Survey Report on Cooper River, South Carolina (Shoaling in Charleston Harbor). Appendix F: Harbor Pollution Study. U.S. Army Eng. District, Charleston, S.C. U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1968. State Programs Related to Estuaries and Estuarine Waters of South Carolina. 23 pp. IV-140 J U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1957. Investigation for Reduction of Maintenance Dredging in Charleston Harbor, S.C.: Summary Report of Model Investigation. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Stn.; Spec. Pro- jects Branch Tech. Rep., Vicksburg, Miss. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1966. Survey Report on Cooper River. S.C. (Shoaling in Charleston Harbor). Appendix E.:Hydroelectric Power Generation Study. U.S. Army Eng. District. Charleston, S.C. 71 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1966. Survey Report on Cooper River, S.C. (Shoaling in Charleston Harbor), Appendix A, Supplement 1: Field and Laboratory Studies, Methods and Results. U.S. Army Eng. District. Charleston, S.C. 39 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1966. Survey Report on Cooper River, S. C. (Shoaling in Charleston Harbor). Appendix 8: Spoil Disposal. U.S. Army Eng. District. Charelston, S.C. 91 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1966. Survey Report on Cooper River, S.C. (Shoaling in Charleston Harbor). Appendix A: Sources of Shoaling Material. U.S. Army Eng. District. Charleston. S.C. 42 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1966. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina - A Review of Certain Aspects of Plans for Rediverting Santee-Cooper Power Plant Discharges from Cooper River. Comm. Tidal Hydraulics. Vicksburg. Miss. 30 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1970. Comprehensive Program for Aquatic Plant Control in South Carolina. Feature Design Memo. No. 2. U.S. Army Eng. District, Charleston, S.C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1972. Georgetown Harbor Navigation Study. Comm. on Tidal Hydraulics. Charleston, S.C. 24 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1972. Provisional Environmental Reconnaissance Inventory of the Charleston District. Eng. Agency Resour. Inventories. 58 pp. (Maps.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1973. Environmental Reconnaisance Inventory of the Charleston District. U.S. Army Eng. District. Charleston, S.C. 51 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1974. Reconnaissance Report. S.A.D. Comments on Sullivan's Island, S.C. U.S. Army Eng. District. Charleston, S.C. File Rep. (Unpubl.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1974. Detailed Project Report on Navigation, Town Creek, McClellanville, South Carolina. U.S. Army Eng. District, Charleston, S.C. File Rep. (Unpubl.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. State of South Carolina Regional Inventory Report of Shoreline Ero- sion. Draft Rep. U.S. Army Eng. District, Charleston, S.C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Maintenance Dredging of Charleston Harbor, Ashley River, and U.S. Navy Channels in Cooper River, Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina. U.S. Army Eng. District, Charelston, S.C. 72 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Cooper River Rediversion Project, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. Final Environ. Statement. U.S. Army Eng. District. Charleston. 201 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1976. Maintenance Dredging of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, South Carolina. Final Environmental Statement. U.S. Army Eng. District, Charleston. 94 pp. IV-139 Stevenson, L. H., C. E. Millwood, and B. H. Hebeler. 1974. Aerobic, Heterotrophic Bacterial Populations in Estuarine Water and Sediments. pp. 268-285. In: R. R. Colwell and R. Y. Morita. Eds. Effect of the Ocean Environment on Microbial Activities. Univ. Park Press, Baltimore, MD. Stodder, C. 1874. Preliminary Examination of Mud from Oyster Beds in the Harbor of Charleston, S.C. Proc. Boston Soc. Natl. Hist. 17:182. Stone, W. 1914. Fishes from Pocataligo River, South Carolina. Copeia 1914:1-2. Strange, T. 1974. Waterfowl Status Report, 1973-974. S.C. Wildl. Mar.. Res. Dep., Div. Game Freshwater Fish. 23 pp. (Unpubl.) Strange, T. 1975. Waterfowl Status Report 1974-1975. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Div. Game Freshwater Fish. 15 pp. (Unpubl.) Strange, T. 1976. Waterfowl Status Report, 1975-1976. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. Div. Game Freshwater Fish. 16 pp. Strange, T. 1977. Waterfowl Status Report, 1976-1977. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. Div. Game Freshwater Fish. 17 pp. (Unpubl.) Talbot, G. B. 1958. Summary of Atlantic Coast Shad Investigation: 1950-1957. Annu. Rep. Atlantic States Mar. Fish Comm. 16:63-68. Theiling, D. L. 1977. South Carolina's 1976 Shrimp Trawler Season. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 24. 31 pp. Theiling, D. L. and H. A. Loyacano, Jr. 1976. Age and Growth of Red Drum from a Saltwater Marsh Im- poundment in South Carolina. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 105(I):41-44. Thomas, N. A. 1972. A Study of the Primary Productivity of Port Royal Sound, pp. 213-215. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Tiner, R. W., R. H. Dunlap, and J. P. Deveaux, 1976. Interim Report on an Inventory of South Carolina Non-Forested Tidal Wetlands. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Charleston. (Unpubl.) Tiner, R. W. Jr. 1977. An Inventory of South Carolina's Coastal Marshes. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 23. 33 pp. True, F. W. 1910. An Account of the Beaked Whales of the Family Ziphidae in the Collection of the United States National Museum, with Remarks on some Specimens in other Museums. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 73. 89 pp. 42 PL. Turner, W. R. and G. N. Johnson. I972. Standing Crops of Aquatic Organisms in Five South Carolina Tidal Streams. pp. I79-191. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study, S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Turner, W. R. and G. N. Johnson. 1974. Standing Crops of Aquatic Organisms in Tidal Streams of the Lower Cooper River System. South Carolina. pp. 13-20. in: F. P. Nelson, Ed. The Cooper River Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm. State Water Plan Rep. No. 117. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1965. Hurricane Survey, Interim Report, Isle of Palms, Sullivans Island and Charleston, South Caorlina. U.S. Army Eng. District. Charleston. 21 pp. IV-138 Sprunt, A. Jr. and E. B. Chamberlain. 1970. South Carolina Bird Life. Univ. S.C. Press. Columbia. 439 pp. (First Publ. 1949). Stalter, R. 1968. An Ecological Study of a South Carolina Salt Marsh. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. S.C., Co- lumbia. 62 pp. Stalter, R. 1972. The Flora of the Outer Otter Island. Colletan County, South Carolina. Castanea 37:298-300. Stalter, R. 1973. Seed Viability in Two Atlantic Coast Populations of Spartina Alterniflora. Castanea 38(1):110-113. Stalter, R. 1973. The Flora of Turtle Island, Jasper County, South Carolina. Castanea 38:35-37. Stalter, R. 1973. Factors Affecting Vegetation Distribution in the Cooper River Estuary, South Carolina. Castanea 38:18-24. Stalter, R. 1974. Vegetation in Coastal Dunes of South Carolina. Castanea 39:95-103. Stalter, R. 1974. The Vegetation of the Cooper River Estuary. pp. 41-45. In: F. P. Nelson Ed. The Cooper River Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm. State Water Plan Rep. No. 117. Stalter, R. 1975. The Flora of the Isle of Palms. South Carolina. Castanea 40:4-13. Stalter, R. and W. T. Batson. 1969. Transportation of Salt Marsh Vegetation. Georgetown, South Carolina. Ecology 50:1087-1089. Stalter, R. and W. T. Batson. 1973. Seed Viability in Salt Marsh Taxa. Georgetown County, S.C. Castanea 38(1):109-110. Stephen. M. F., P. J. Brown, D. M. Fitzgerald, D. K. Hubbard, and M. O. Hayes. 1975. Beach Erosion In- ventory of Charleston County, South Carolina: A Preliminary Report. S.C. Sea Grant Tech. Rep. No. 4 Mar. Resour. Cent., Charleston. 79 pp. Stephen, M. F., P. J. Brown, D. M. Fitzgerald, D. K. Hubbard and M. O. Hayes. 1975. Beach Erosion Inven- tory of Charleston County, South Carolina: A Preliminary Report. S.C. Sea Grant Tech. Rep. No. 4. 79 pp. Stephens, D. G., D. S. Van Nieuwenhuise, P. Mullin, C. Lee, and W. H. Hanes. 1976. Destructive Phase of Deltaic Development: North Santee River Delta. J. Sediment Petrol. 46(1):132-144. Stephens, D. G., D. S. Van Niewuwenhuise, W. K. Hanes., and T. T. Davies. 1975. Environmental Analysis of the Santee River Estuaries: Thirty Years after Diversion. Southeast Geol. 16(3):131-144. Stephens, D. G. and T. T. Davis. 1974. The Distribution of Cheilostome Bryozoa in a Tidal Creek System on the South Carolina Coast. Southeast Geol. 16:107-120. Stephenson, T. A. and A. Stephenson. 1952. Life Between Tide-marks in North America. II: Northern Florida and the Carolinas. J. Ecol. 40(1):1-49. Stevenson, L. H. 1975. Water Quality and Microbiology. pp. WQM1-WQM66. In: W. H. Campbell, J. M. Dean, and W. D. Chamberlain. Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island. Environmental Research center, Inc., Columbia, S.C. IV-137 South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1974. Reefs and Wrecks: A Guide to South Carolina's Artificial Reefs. Charleston. 12 pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1974. Report on Warnbaw Creek. Div. Natural Area Acquisition Resour. Planning. Columbia. 4 pp. (Unpubl.) South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1975. A Draft Management and Recreation Plan for the Santee Coastal Reserve. 31 pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1975. Marine Angler's Guide to Fishing Piers and Boats in South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Resour. Cent., Charleston. 16 pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1975. Murrells Inlet Environmental Study Report. Final Rep. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Charleston. Contract Rep. No. DACW60-75-0016 for U.S. Army Corps Eng., Charleston District. 47 pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1975. A Conceptual "Use Plan" for Capers Island, Charleston County, South Carolina. Mar. Res. Cent. Spec. Rep. No. I. 49 pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1975. Report on South Island. Div. Natural Area Acquisition Resour. Planning, Columbia. 4 pp. (Unpubl.) South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1975. Environmental Assessment of Capers and Dewees Island. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Charleston. 18 pp. (Unpubl.) South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1976. Public Oyster Grounds are Upgraded. Recreational Fish. Sec., Saltwater Conversation No. 14. 10 pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1976. Environmental Inventory of Little River In- let, South Carolina. Final Rep., S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Charleston. Contact Rep. No. DACW60-76-C-0017 for U.S. Army Corps Eng., Charleston district. 56 pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1977. Report on Cedar Island. Div. Natural Area Acquisition Resour. Planning. Columbia. 2 pp. (Unpubl.) South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1978. South Carolina Public Boat Landings. Col- umbia. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1978. Coastal Plains American Eel Study. Progress Rep. Oct. 1977 - Jan. 1978. Wildl. Freshwater Fish. Div., Columbia. In Cooperation with Clemson Univ., Clem- son. 68 pp. Sprunt, A. Jr. 1926. The Sooty Tern (Sterna Fuscata) at Charleston, S.C. Auk 43(4):535. Sprunt, A. Jr. 1930. Extension of the Winter Range of the Piping Plover (Charadrius Melodus). Auk 47:250. Sprunt, A. Jr. 1944. The Great White Heron. An Addition to South Carolina Avi-Fauna. Auk 61:150. Sprunt, A. Jr. and E. B. Chamberlain. 1931. Second Supplement to Arthur T. Wayne's Birds of South Carolina. Charleston Museum. Contrib. No. 6. 37 pp. IV-136 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. (1975). Edisto-Combahee River Basin Water Quality Management Plan Columbia. 128 pp. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. (1975). Santee-Cooper River Basin Water Quality Management Plan. Columbia. 469 pp. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. (1975). Savannah River Basin Water Quality Management Plan. Columbia. 164 pp. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1974. Water Classification Standard System for the State of South Carolina, Columbia. 11 pp. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1975. Prohibited Areas for the Taking of Shellfish. Columbia. 21 pp. South Carolina General Assembly. 1976. Economic and Environmental Effects of Petroleum Exploration and Production in South Carolina. Joint Legislative Committee to Study Oil and Gas. Columbia. 40 pp. South Carolina Pollution Control Authority. 1967. Water Classification-Standards System for the State of South Carolina~. Columbia. 8 pp. South Carolina Pollution Control Authority. 1972. Stream Classification for the State of South Carolina. Col- umbia. 24 pp. South Carolina Water Resources Commission. 1970. South Carolina Tidelands Report. Columbia. 178 pp. South Carolina Water Resources Commission. 1971. Water Use in South Carolina. 1970. Columbia. 114 pp. South Carolina Water Resources Comm. 1972. Ace Framework Study: Ashley-Combahee-Edisto River Basin. Columbia. 265 pp. South Carolina Water Resources Commission. 1972. Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. Columbia. 555 pp. South Carolina Water Resources Commission. 1973. Wando River Environmental Quality Studies, An In- terim Report. Columbia. 115 pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1967. Oyster Guide of Public Oyster Beds. Mar. Res. Cent., Charleston. 1 p. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1972. A Study of the Charleston Harbor Estuary with Special Reference to Deposition of Dredged Sediments. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Charleston. In Coopera- tion with U.S. Army Corps Eng., Contract No. DACW60-71-C-0014. III pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, 1973. Shellfish Guide. Charleston. 6 pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1973. South Carolina Waterfowl Status Report. Div. Game Freshwater Fish. 16 pp. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1974. Guidelines for Evaluating Coastal Wetland Developments. Mar. Resour. Div. 16 pp. IV-135 Sharitz, R. R. 1975. Forest Communities of Kiawah Island. pp. F1-F39. In: W. M. Campbell. J. M. Dean, W. D. Chamberlain. Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island. Environmental Research Center. Inc., Columbia, S.C. Shaw, S. P. and C. G. Fredine. 1971. Wetlands of the United States: Their Extent and Their Value to Waterfowl and other Wildlife. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv. Circ. 39. 67 pp. Shaw, W. N. 1965. Pond Culture of Oysters - Past, Present and Future. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 30:114-120. Shealy, H. H. Jr. 1974. Bottom Trawl Data from South Carolina Estuarine Survey Cruises. 1973. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Data Rep. No. 1. 113 pp. Shealy, H. H. Jr. 1975. Midwater Trawl Data from South Carolina Estuarine Survey Cruises (North Edisto, South Edisto, and Cooper Rivers). 1973 and 1974. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Data Rep. No. 2. 64 pp. Shealy, H. H. Jr., B. B. Boothe, and C. M. Bearden. 1975. A Survey of the Benthic Macrofauna of Fripp Inlet and Hunting Island, South Carolina, Prior to Beach Nourishment. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 7. 30 pp. Shealy, H. H. Jr., J. V. Miglarese, and E. B. Joseph. 1974. Bottom Fishes of South Carolina Estuaries- Relative Abundance, Seasonal Distribution and Length-frequency Relationships. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 6. 189 pp. Shoemaker, A. H. 1972. Reef Molluscs of South Carolina. Nautilus 85:114-120. Shriner, D. 1972. Vascular Plant Inventory of Selected Marsh Transects in Port Royal Sound. pp. 249-259. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study, S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Shriner, D. S. 1971. Transect Studies of Salt Marsh Vegetation In Port Royal Sound and North Edisto River Estuaries, South Carolina. M.S. Thesis, Univ. S.C., Columbia. 87 pp. Simpson, R. M. and M. B. Lawrence. 1971. Atlantic Hurricane Frequencies along the U.S. Coastline. NOAA Tech. Memo. NWS SR-58. Fort Worth, Tex. 14 pp. Siple, G. E. 1957. Ground Water in the South Carolina Coastal Plain. J. Am. Waterworks Assoc. 49(3):283-300. Siple, G. E. 1967. Salt-water Encroachment in South Carolina. S.C. State Dev. Board Geol. Notes 2(2). 36 pp. Smith, H. M. 1949. Summary of Oyster Farming Experiments in South Carolina, 1939-1940. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 63. 20 pp. Smith, R. O. 1949. Summary of Oyster Farming Experiments in S.C. 1939-1940. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. No. 63. Smith, T. I. J., P. A. Sandifer, and W. C. Trimble. 1976. Pond Culture of the Malaysian Prawn. Macrobrachium Rosenbergii (De man) in South Carolina. Proc. World Mariculture Soc. 7:625-645. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. (1975). Pee Dee River Basin Water Quality Management Plan. Columbia. 422 p. IV-134 Rhodes, R. J. 1974. Development of an Expanded Commercial Fisheries Statistics Program for South Carolina. Final Completion Rep. Project 2-137D. April 1, 1971 - June 30, 1974. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. in Cooperation with U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. 149 pp. Rhodes, R. J. 1974. Current Status of the Blue Crab Industry in South Carolina During 1974. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Commer. Fish Manage. Sec., Div. Mar. Resour., Charleston. (Unpubl.) Rhodes, R. J., W. J. Keith, P. J. Eldridge, and V. G. Burrell. 1977. An Empirical Evaluation of the Leslie- Delury Method Applied to Estimating Hard Clam, Mercenaria Mercenaria, Abundance in the Santee River, South Carolina. Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 67:44-52. Roberts, K. 1962. A Blue Crab Picking Plant Feasibility Analysis for the Bluffton S.C. Oyster Cooperative. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Charleston. 22 pp. Rogers, L. 1974. Game Section, Waterfowl Management Projects, Bear Island and Pee Dee Game Manage- ment Areas. Annu. Progress Rep., July 1973 - June 30, 1974. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Div. Game Freshwater Fish. 13 pp. Rutherford, T. C. 1956. Commercial Shrimp of South Carolina. Bears Bluff Lab., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 14 pp. (Unpubl.) Ruzecki, E. P. 1974. A Socio-Economic Environmental Baseline Summary for the South Atlantic Region Bet- ween Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida. Vol. II: Climatology. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point. 211 pp. Sanders, A. E. 1978. Mammals. pp. 296-308. in: R. G. Zingmark, Ed. An Annotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. Univ. S.C. Press, Columbia. Sass, H. R. 1926. Adventures in Green Places. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York 297 pp. Sawyer,, R. T. and D. L. Hammond. 1973. Observations on the Marine Leech Calioboella Carolinensis (Hirudinea: Piscicolidae) Epizootic on the Atlantic Menhaden. Biol. Bull. 145:373-388. Schneberger, E. and L. Funk. Eds. 1971. Stream Channelization: A Symposium. Am. Fish. Soc., North Cent. Div., Spec. Publ. No. 2. 83 pp. Schoner, R. W. and S. Molansky. 1956. Rainfall Associated with Hurricanes and other Tropical Disturbances. U.S. Weather Bur., Natl. Hurricane Res. Project. Rep. 3. 305 pp. Settlemyre, J. L. and L. R. Gardner. 1975. Low-Tide Storm Erosion in a Salt Marsh. Southeast Geol. 16(4):205-212. Settlemyre, J. L. and L. R. Gardner. 1975. A Field Study of Chemical Budgets for a Small Tidal Creek- Charleston Harbor, S.C., pp. 152-175. In: T. M. Church, Ed. Marine Chemistry in the Coastal Environment. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. No. 18. Settlemyre, J. L. and L. R. Gardner. 1975. Chemical and Sediment Budgets for a Small Tidal Creek- Charleston Harbor, S.C. Clemson Univ., Water Resour. Res. Inst. Rep. 57. Clemson, S.C. 56 pp. Settlemyre, J. L. and L. R. Gardner. 1977. Suspended Sediment Flux Through a Salt Mash Drainage Basin. Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 5:653-664. IV-133 Pinson, J. N. Jr. 1973. A Floristic Analysis of Open Dunes in South Carolina. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 82 pp. Poer, L. D. Jr. 1967. A Herpetological Survey of the Isle of Palms, A South Carolina Coastal Island. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 43 pp. Poole, K. T. 1978. Fish, pp. 236-259. In: R. G. Zingmnark, Ed. An Annotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. Univ. S.C. Press, Columbia. Porcher, R. D. Jr. (1975). A Quantitative Survey of Vascular Plants and Vegetational Zones along a South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Right-of-Way Ashley River Marsh. Charleston, South Carolina. 27 pp. (Unpubl.) Porcher, R. D. Jr. and K. T. Poole. 1976. A Checklist of Vascular Plants of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. Coastal Zone Manage. Council. (Unpubl.) Powles, H. and R. K. Stender. 1976. Observations on Composition, Seasonality and Distribution of Ichthyoplankton from Marmap Cruises in the South Atlantic Bight, 1973. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 11. 47 pp. Project Eutro.1974. Report on "In Situ" Benthic Respiration and Vertical Oxygen: Temperature Profiles, pp. 52-61. In: F. P. Nelson. Ed. The Cooper River Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm. State Water Plan Rep. No. 117. Purvis, J. C. 1964. South Carolina Hurricanes, S.C. Civil Defense Agency. Columbia. 44 pp. Purvis, J. C. and E. Rampey. 1975. Weather Extremes in South Carolina. S.C. Disaster Preparedness Agency, Columbia. 11 pp. Purvis, J. C. Ed. 1977. South Carolina Tornadoes 1972-1976. S.C. Disaster Preparedness Agency, Columbia. 29 pp. Purvis, J. C. and H. Landers. 1973. South Carolina Hurricanes or a Descriptive Listing of Tropical Cyclones that have Affected South Carolina. S.C. Disaster Preparedness Agency, Columbia. 52 pp. Purvis, J. C., H. Landers, and F. C. Craft. 1972. Tornadoes in South Carolina. S.C. Civil Defense Agency, Columbia. 54 pp. Randall, C. M. Jr. 1971. Tidelands - Urgent Questions in South Carolina Water Resource Laws. Prod. 5th Annu. S.C. Governor's Conf. on Water Resources. S.C. Water Resources Comm. 20 pp. Rayner, D. A. 1974. An Analysis of Maritime Closed Dunes Vegetation in South Carolina. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 128 pp. Rea, P. M. 1910. White Pelican in South Carolina. Bull. Charleston Mus. 6:57-58. Rees, G. H. 1962. Progress on Blue Crab Research in the South Atlantic. Gulf Caribb. Fish Inst. Proc. 15:110-115. Rhodes, R. J. 1973. South Carolina's Blue Crab Catch and Effort System: A Fisheries Management Aid for Industry and Government. Gulf Caribb. Fish Inst. Proc. 26:145-157. IV-132 Mullin, P. R. 1973. Facies of North Santee Inlet and Contiguous Areas. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 133 pp. Myatt, D. O. 1978. The Anglers Guide to South Carolina Artificial Reefs. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. Educ. Rep. No. 9. 31 pp. Myers, V. A. 1975. Storm Tide Frequencies on the South Carolina Coast. NOAA. Tech. Rep. NSW-16. U.S. Gov. Printing Off., Washington, D.C. 79 pp. Neiheisel, J. 1958. Concerning Stability of the South Carolina Coast. S.C. State Dev. Board Geol. Notes. 2(5):33-39. Neiheisel, J. 1959. Littoral Drift in Vicinity of Charleston Harbor. J. Waterways Harbors Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 85(WW2):99-113. Nelson, F. P. 1976. Lower Santee River Environmental Quality Study. S.C. Water Resour. Comm. Estuarine Study. Rep. No. 122. 60 pp. Nelson, F. P. Ed. 1974. The Cooper River Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm. State Water Plan Rep. No. 117. 164 pp. Niesemann, A. M. 1977. The Effects of Thermal Effluent Flooding on Riparian Bryophyte Communities. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 94 pp. Nordquist, L. E. and J. W. McAlhany. 1974. A Comparison of Usable Income Potential: Public Assistance Payments vs. Employment in Fisheries Related Industries in South Carolina. S.C. Sea Grant Tech. Rep. No. 2. SC-SG-74-2. 26 pp. O'Hara, J. 1972. The Port Royal Sound Ecosystem - A Review. pp. 305-310. In: Port Royal Sound En- vironmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Odum, E. P. 1968. The Theory of the Estuarine Ecosystem in Relation to Use, Management and Pollution. Prepared for Field Hearings. Jekyll Island, Ga., Feb. 29, 1968. In Connection with the National Estuarine Pollution Study. 12 pp. Ours, J. W. 1971. Index of Statutory Law Pertaining to Ownership, Development, and Management of South Carolina's Tidelands. S.C. Water Resources Comm. 29 pp. Oviatt, C. A., S. W. Nixon, and J. Garber. 1977. Variation and Evaluation of Coastal Salt Marshes. Environ. Manage. 3:201-211. Pareku, M. 1970. The Planning Policy for the Estuarine Resources of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. M. A. Thesis. Clemson Univ., Clemson, S.C. Parrish, L. P. 1972. Seasonal Abundance and Distribution of the Benthic Invertebrates Community, pp. 241-247. in: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Payne, M. W. 1970. Geomorphology and Sediments of the Santee Delta. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 60 pp. Pearse, A. S. and L. G. Williams. 1951. The Biota of the Reefs off the Carolinas. J. Elisha Mitchell. Sci. Soc. 67(1):133-161. IV-131 Martin, E. C. 1969. Stream Alteration and Its Effects on Fish and Wildlife. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 23 pp. Mathews, T. D. and M. H.-Shealy, Jr. 1978. Hydrography of South Carolina Estuaries with Emphasis on the North and South Edisto and Cooper Rivers. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 30. 148 pp. McCloskey, L. R. 1970. The Dynamics of the Community Associated with a Marine Scleractinian Coral. Int. Rev. Gesamten Hydrobiol. 55:13-81. McClure, B., J. Nicholson, and N. Bayne. 1976. Report Recreation Committee Watershed Task Force South Carolina, 1976. S.C. Dep. Parks, Recreation, Tourism, Soil Conserv. Serv. and Land Resources Conserv. Comm. 14 pp. (Unpubl.) McCollum, M. J. and H. B. Counts. 1964. Relation of Salt Water Encroachment to the Major Aquifer Zones, Savannah Area, Georgia and South Carolina. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Supply Paper 1613-0. 27 pp. McGilvrey, F. B. 1966. Fall Food Habits of Ducks Near Santee Refuge, South Carolina. J. Wildl. Manage. 30(3):577-580. McKenney, T. W. 1972. Fish Eggs and Larvae from Port Royal Sound and Adjacent Waters. pp. 233-240. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. McKenzie, M. D. and A. C. Badger. 1969. A Systematic Survey of Intertidal Oysters in the Savannah River Basin Area of South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. 50 15 pp. McNulty, J. K. 1953. Seasonal and Vertical Patterns of Oyster Setting off Wadmalaw Island, S.C. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 15. 17 pp. Menzel, D. W. 1975. Waste Disposal and Ocean Pollution, Ga. Operator 13(2):16-40. Middaugh, D. P. and C. L. Rose. 1974. Retention of Two Mercuricals by Stiped Mullet, Mugil Cephalus. Water Res. 8:173-177. Middaugh, D. P. and H. L. Yoakum. 1974. The Use of Chorionic Gonadotropin to induce Laboratory Spawning of the Atlantic Croaker. Micropogon Undulates. with notes on Subsequent Embryonic Develop- ment. Chesapeake Sci. 15(2):110-123. Middaugh, D. P., W. R. Davis, and R. L. Yoakum. 1975. The Response of Larval Fish, Leiostomus Xan- thurus, to Environmental Stress Following Sublethal Cadmium Exposure. Contrib. Mar. Sci. (Univ. Tex.) 19:13-19. Moore, C. J. 1977. A Guide to Saltwater Recreational Fisheries in South Carolina. S.C. Wild. Mar. Res. Dep. 51 pp. Morgan, P. H. 1974. A Study of Tidelands and Impoundments within a Three-River Delta System - The South Edisto, Ashepoo, and Combahee Rivers of South Carolina. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Ga., Athens. 92 pp. Morgan, P. H., A. S. Johnson, M. P. Baldwin, and J. L. Landers. 1975. Characteristics and Management of Tidal Impoundments for Wildlife in a South Carolina Estuary. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 29:526-539. IV-130 Lunz, G. R. 1957. Pond Cultivation of Shrimp in South Carolina. Gulf Caribb. Fish Inst. Proc. 10:44-48. Lunz, G. R. 1958. Unused Oyster Shell in South Carolina Suitable for Seed Oyster Production. Proc. Natl. Shellfish Assoc. 48:44-51. Lunz, G. R. 1958. Salt Ponds Can Raise Shrimp Cheaper than Sea Trawlers Can Catch Them. Quick Frozen Foods 1958:111-112, 11A. Lunz, G. R. 1959. Letter to Honorable George Warren, South Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission on Closing Beaufort County Sounds to Shrimping. Bears Bluff Lab., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 2 pp. Lunz, G. R. 1959. Report on Shrimp Sizes in St. Helena Sound. Bears Bluff Lab., Inc., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 14 pp. (Unpubl.) Lunz, G. R. 1961. Notes on the Commercial Fishery of Georgetown County. Bears Bluff Lab., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 5 pp. (Unpubl.) Lunz, G. R. 1962. Memorandum of Meeting, Pest Control Group vs. Fisheries Group. Bears Bluff Lab., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. (Unpubl.) Lunz, G. R. 1965. Salinity. Draft. Bears Bluff Lab., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 3 pp. (Unpubl.) Lunz, G. R. 1968. Farming the Salt Marshes. pp. 172-177. In: J. D. Newsom, Ed. Proceedings of the Marsh and Estuary Management Symposium. LA. State Univ., Baton Rouge. Lunz, G. R. and C. M. Bearden. 1963. Control of Predaceous Fishes in Shrimp Farming in South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 36. 9 pp. Lunz, G. R. and F. J. Schwartz. (1970). Analysis of Eighteen Year Trawl Catches of Seatrout (Cynoscion SP: Sciaendiae) from South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 53. 29 pp. Lunz,. G. R., J. T. Penney, and T. P. Lesesne. 1944. Special Study of the Marine Fishery Resources of South Carolina. S.C. State Planning Board. Bull. No. 14, Columbia. 61 pp. Manigault, G. E. 1885. The Black Whale Captured in Charleston Harbor January, 1880. Proc. Elliott Soc. 2:98-104. Manzi, J. J., V. G. Burrell, and W. Z. Carson. 1977. A Comparison of Growth and Survival of Subtidal Crassostrea Virginica (Gmelin) in South Carolina Salt Marsh Impoundments. Aquaculture 12:293-310. Mapocotec, Inc. 1972. Ecological Assesment of Marsh Plant Productivity Distribution at Seabrook Island, South Carolina. Daytona Beach, Fla. Prepared for Seabrook Island Co. 23 pp. Mapcotec, Inc. 1972. Map of Marsh Plant Productivity Distribution. The Estuarine Marshes of Seabrook Island, South Carolina. Daytona Beach, Fla. Prepared for Seabrook Island Co. Mapcotec, Inc. 1973. Ecological Assessment of Marsh Plant Productivity Distribution at Isle of Palms, S.C. Daytona Beach, Fla. Prepared for the Sea Pines Co. Marr. J. M. 1973. Impact of the Tidelands on Income. Bull. S.C. Acad. Sci. 35:63-73. IV-129 Lee, C. W. 1973. The Recent Lithofacies and Biofacies of North Santee Bay and the Lower Reaches of North Santee River, South Carolina, U.S.A. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 105 pp. Leland, J. G. II. 1968. A Survey of the Sturgeon Fishery of South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 47. 27 pp. Lonsdale, D. J. 1975. A Seasonal Study of the Zooplankton of the North Inlet Estuary, Georgetown, South Carolina. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.S., Columbia. 52 pp. Loosanoff, V. L. 1964. New Shellfish Farming. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 29:332-336. Lunz, G. R. 1935. Oyster Pest Control Investigations 1935. A Preliminary Report of The Survey of Coastal Waters of South Carolina. 5 pp. (Unpubl.) Lunz, G. R. 1938. Oyster Culture with Reference to Dredging Operations in South Carolina. (Part I). U.S. Ar- my Corps Eng., Charleston District, S.C. 135 pp. Lunz, G. R. 1938. The Effects of the Flooding of the Santee River in April 1936 on Oysters in the Cape Ro- main Area of South Carolina. Part 2. U.S. Army Corps Eng., Charleston District, S.C. 33 pp. Lunz, G. R. 1943. The Yield of Certain Oyster Lands in South Carolina. Am. Midi. Nat. 30:806-808. Lunz, G. R. 1949. The Clam (Venus Mercenaria) in South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 6. 6 pp. Lunz, G. R. 1950. Production and Yield of the Oyster Canning Industry of South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 9. 14 pp. Lunz, G. R. 1951. Laws for the Oyster Farmer. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 10. 14 pp. Lunz, G. R. 1951. A Salt Water Fish Pond. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 12. 12 pp. Lunz, G. R. 1951. Investigations of Trawling for Crabs in Inshore Waters of South Carolina. Rep. to S.C. Board Fish. Bears Bluff Lab., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 12 pp. Lunz, G. R. 1952. Bears Bluff Laboratories 1948 to 1952. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 13. 17 pp. Lunz, CG. R. 1952. Oysters in South Carolina Gro. Above Low Tide Level. Atd. Fisherman 18:42-43. Lunz, G. R. 1953. First Record of the Marine Fish Centropomus Undecimalis in South Carolina. Copeia 1953:240. Lunz, G. R. 1954. The General Pattern of Oyster Setting in South Carolina. Proc. Natl. Shellfish Assoc. 45:47-51. Lunz, G. R. 1955. Cultivation of Oysters in Ponds at Bears Bluff Laboratories. Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 46:83-87. Lunz, G. R. 1956. Harvest from an Experimental One Acre Salt Water Pond at Bears Bluff Laboratories, South carolina. Prog. Fish-Cult. 18(2):92-94. Lunz, G. R. 1957. Notes on Rock Shrimp Sicyonia Brevirostris (Stimpson) from Exploratory Trawling off the South Carolina Coast. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 25. 10 pp. IV-128 Kilpatrick, F. A. and T. R. Cummings. 1972. A Tracer Simulation Study of Potential Solute Movement in Port Royal Sound. South Carolina, pp. 47-72. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Kjerfve, B. 1976. The Santee-Cooper: A Study of Estuarine Manipulations, pp. 44-56. In: M. Wiley, Ed. Estuarine Processes. Vol. I. Uses, Stresses and Adaptation to the Estuary. Academic Press, New York. Klawitter, R. A. 1962. Sweetgum, Swamp Tupelo, and Water Tupelo Sites in a South Carolina Bottomland Forest. PH.D. Dissertation. Duke Univ. School of Forestry, Durham, N.C. 175 pp. Knight, H. A. and J. P. McClure. 1969. South Carolina's Timber, 1968. U.S. Dep. Agric. Forest Serv. Resour. Bull. SE-18. Southeast Forest Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C. 43 pp. Kohlsaat, T. 1974. Elements of Diversity: The Natural Communities of South Carolina. Nature Conservatory. Washington, D.C. 109 pp. Kretschmer, J. D. 1965. The Assets and Problems of Salt-Water Sportfishing in South Carolina. S. C. Dep. Parks, Recreation and Tourism. Columbia. 9 pp. Kronberg, N., J. C. Purvis, and A. L. Stone. 1955. Climatological Summary, Means and Extremes for Period 1925-1954, Georgetown, S.C. U.S. Dep. Comrnmer. Weather Bur. Climatography of the U.S. No. 20-33. 1 p. Kurz, H. and K. Wagner. 1957. Tidal Marshes of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts of Northern Florida and Charleston, South Carolina. Fla. State Univ. Stud. No. 24. 168 pp. Landers, H. 1973. Fifteen Cold Years in South Carolina and Neighboring States, 1958-1972. U.S. Dep. Com- mer., NOAA, Natl. Weather Serv. in Cooperation with S.C. Agric. Exp. Stn., Climatic Res. Serv. No. 15. Clemson Univ., Clemson. 17 pp. Landers, H. 1974. The Climate of South Carolina. pp. 353-369. in: U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA. Climates of the States. Vol. I: Eastern States plus. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Water Inf. cent., Inc., Port Washington, N.Y. (First Publ. 1970.) Landers, J. L., A. S. Johnson, P. H. Morgan and W. P. Baldwin. 1976. Duck Foods in Managed Tidal Im- poundments in South Carolina. J. Wildl. Manage. 40(4):721-728. Landers, J. L., T. T. Fendley, and A. S. Johnson. 1977. Feeding Ecology of Wood Ducks in South Carolina. J. Wild. Manage. 41(1):118-127. Laroe, E. T. 1973. Effects of Dredging, Filling and Channelization on Estuarine Resources, pp. 134-144. In: Proceedings of Fish and Wildlife Values of the Estuarine Habitat: A Seminar for the Petroleum Industry. June 13-14, 1973. Atlanta, Ga. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Sport Fish Wildl. Laure, P. 1975. A Carolina Man. S.C. Wildl. 22(1):56-61. Laurie, P. 1976. The Decline of Shad 16 pp. (Unpubl.) Lawrence, D. R. 1971. Shell Orientation in Recent and Fossil Oyster Communities from the Carolinas. J. Paleontol. 45(2):347-349. Leavell, C. 1971. Legal Aspects of Ownership and Use of Estuarine Areas in Georgia and South Carolina. Univ. Ga., Athens. 111 pp. IV-127 Hopkins, S. and J. M. Dean. 1975. The Response of Developmental Stages of Fundulus to Acute Thermal Shock, pp. 301-318. In: F. J. Vernberg. Ed. Physiological Ecology of Estuarine Organisms. Univ. S.C. Press, Columbia. Hopkins, S. H. 1956. The Boring Sponges which Attack South Carolina Oysters, with Notes on some Associated Organisms. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 23. 30 pp. Hosier, P. E. 1975. Dunes and Marsh Vegetation, pp. D1-D96. In: W. H. Campbell, J. M. Dean, and W. D. Chamberlain. Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island. Environmental Research Center, Inc., Columbia, S.C. Hoxie, W. J. 1885. Notes on the Birds of the Sea Island, Part II. Orinthol. OOL. 10:27-29. Huntsman, G. R. 1976. Offshore Headboat Fishing in North Carolina and South Carolina. Mar. Fish. Rev. 38(3):13-23. Hutcheson, M. S. 1975. The Respiratory Adaptations of the Stout Raxor Clam, Tagelus Plebetus Solander. To Environmental Factors Prevalent in the Intertidal Zone of a South Carolina Estuary. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 91 pp. Inabinet, J. R. 1976. Environmental Impact of the South Carolina Public Service Authority's FY-76 Aquatic Weed Control Program in Lake Marion. S.C. Dep. Health & Environmental Control, Spec. Serv. Sect. 60 pp. Investor, M. S. 1975. Ecological Diversification within Benthic Harpacticoid Copepoos. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. S.C., Columbia. (Libr. Cong. Card. No. MIC. 76-16-621). 100 pp. Univ. Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich. Johnson, F. A. 1970. A Reconnaissance of the Winyah Bay Estuarine Zone, South Carolina. S.C. Water Resources Comm. Rep. No. 4. Columbia. 36 pp. Johnson, F. A. 1977. A Reconnaissance of the Hydrology of the Edisto and Ashepoo Estuaries South Carolina. S.C. Water Resources Comm. Rep. No. 6. 53 pp. Jordan, D. S. and C. H. Eigenmann. 1887. Notes on a Collection of Fishes Sent by Mr. Charles C. Leslie from Charleston, South Carolina. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 10:269-270. Jordan, D. S. and C. H. Giblert. 1882. Notes on a Collection of Fishes from Charleston, South Carolina. With Descriptions of Three New Species. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 5:580-620. Keiser, R. K. 1976. Species Composition, Magnitude and Utilization of the Incidental Catch of the South Carolina Shrimp Fishery. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 16. 94 pp. Keith, W. J. and H. S. Cochran Jr. 1968. Charting of Subtidal Oyster Beds and Experimental Planting of Seed Oysters in South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 48. 19 pp. Keith, W. J. and R. C. Gracy. 1972. History of the South Carolina Oyster. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Educ. Res. No. 1. 19pp. Kerwin, J. A. and L. G. Webb. 1972. Foods of Ducks Wintering in Coastal South Carolina. 1965-1967. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 25:223-245. Ketchum, B. H., Ed. 1972. The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of the Coastal Zone. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 393 pp. IV-126 Hayes, M. O., S. J. Wilson, D. M. Fitzgerald, L. J. Hulmes, and D. K. Hubbard. 1975. Coastal Processes and Germorphology, pp. G1-G165. In: W. M. Campbell, J. M. Dean and W. D. Chamberlain. Environmental In- ventory of Kiawah Island. Environmental Research Center. Inc., Columbia, S.C. Hayne, D. W. 1968. Marine Sport Fishing by North Carolina Residents. N.C. Dep. Conserv. Dev., Div. Cohmer. Sport Fish. Spec. Sci. Rep. No. 14. 37 pp. Hebert, P. J. and G. Taylor. 1975. Hurricane Experience Levels of Coastal County Populations - Texas to Maine. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA. Natl. Weather Serv., Community Preparedness Staff and Southern Region. Fort Worth, Tex. 153 pp. Henningson, Durhan and Richardson, Inc. 1969. Georgetown County Water and Sewerage Planning Report. Charlotte, N.C. Henningson, Durhan and Richardson, Inc. 1970. Report Georgetown Sewerage Facilities for City of Georgetown, South Carolina. Charlotte, N.C. 39 pp. Hester, B. S. 1976. Distribution and Seasonality of Hydromedusae in South Carolina Estuaries. M.S. Thesis. Coil. Charleston, Charleston, S.C. 88 pp. Heyward, B. R. 1967. Report on Public Oyster Grounds of South Carolina 1966-1967. Final Rep. to Bur. Out- door Recreation. Project No. 39-00024. Bears Bluff Lab., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 85 pp. Hicks, D. B. 1972. Seasonal Distribution and Relative Abundance of Fishes in the Channel Reaches and Shore Areas, pp. 193-201. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Higgins, B. B. and P. Popenoe. 1974. A Geologic and Geophysical Study of the Charleston, South Carolina Earthquake Zone. Earthquake Inf. Bull. 6(6):16-23. Hite, J. C. and J. M. Stepp. 1969. Economic Analysis of the Development Potential of the Commercial Fisheries of the Coastal Plains Region. Clemson Univ., S.C. Agri. Exp. Stn. AE 319. Clemson. Hixon, S. L. 1975. The South Carolina Oyster Industry: An Economic Analysis of Institutional Ar- rangements. M.A. Thesis. Clemson Univ., Clemson, S.C. 55 pp. Hoese, R. 1971. Dolphin Feeding Out of Water in Salt Marsh. J. Mammal. 52:222-223. Holbrook, J. E. 1860. Ichthyology of South Carolina. Russell and Jones, Charleston, S.C. 205 pp. Holland, A. F. 1974. A Study of the Intertidal Macrofaunal Communities Inhabiting Sand and Mud Bars of the North Inlet Area near Georgetown, S.C., U.S.A. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. S.C., Columbia. (Libr. Con- gr. Card No. Mic. 75-16, 483), 196 pp. Univ. Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich. Holland, A. F. and J. M. Dean. 1977. The Community Biology of Intertidal Macrofauna Inhabiting Sandbars in the North Inlet Area, South Carolina, pp. 423-438. In: B. C. Coull, Ed. Ecology of Marine Benthos. Univ. S.C. Press. Columbia. Holland, A. F. and T. T. Polgar. 1976. Seasonal Changes in the Structure of an Intertidal Community. Mar. Biol. 37:341-348. Hook, D. C. 1976. A Partial Inventory of the Former'Ricefields of Coastal South Carolina. Clemson Univ., Belle W. Barush Forest Sci. Inst., Georgetown, S.C. 18 pp. IV-125 Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 1974. Savannah River Basin Plan. Environ. Prot. Div., Atlanta. Prepared by Bernard Johnson, Inc. 432 pp. Gibbons, J. W. 1978. Reptiles, pp. 270-276. In: R. G. Zingmark, Ed. An Anotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. Univ. S.C. Press, Columbia. Gibbons, J. W. and J. R. Harrison. 1975. Reptiles and Ainphibians of Kiawah Island, pp. R1-R26. In: W. J. Campbell, 3. M. Dean, and W. D. Chamberlain. Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island. Environmental Research Center, Inc., Columbia, S.C. Golden, J. 197I. Compilation of Tidelands Cases and Options. S.C. Water Resources Comm. 38 pp. Gracy, R. C. and W. 3. Keith. 1972. Survey.of the South Carolina Oyster Fishery, S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 3. 28 pp. Gracy, R. C., W. J. Keith, and R. J. Rhodes. 1978. Management and Development of the Shellfish Industry in South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Rep. No. 28. (In press.) Green, J. C. 1952. Effectiveness of Crab Traps in South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 14. 12 pp. Grice, G. D. Jr. 1951. Observations on Polydora (Mudworm) in South Carolina Oysters. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 11. 8 pp. Hagen, J. E. II. 1972. Estuarine Surveys in the Southeast. In: Coastal Zone Pollution Management. Proc. Symp. Feb. 1972. Clemson Univ., Clemson, S.C. Hammond, D. L. 1973. Record of Microdesmus Longpinnis (Weymouth) from South Carolina Waters. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89:72-73. Hammond, D. L. and D. M. Cupka. 1975. A Sportsman's Field Guide to the Billfishes, Mackerels, Little Tunas and Tunas of South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Educ. Rep. No. 3. 32 pp. Hammond, D. L. and D. M. Cupka. I977. An Economic and Biological Evaluation of the South Carolina Pier Fishery. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 20. (In press.) Harris, V. T. Muskrats on Tidal Marshes or Dorchester County. No. Board Nat. Resour., Chesapeake Biol. Lab. PubI. No. 91. Harrison, J. R. 1978. Herpetofauna: Amphibians, pp. 260-269. In: R. C. Zingmark, Ed. An Anotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. Univ. S.C. Press, Columbia. Hartzog, Lader and Richards, I. and NC. 1975. Public Beach Access and Recreation in South Carolina. 485 pp. Hartzog., Lader and Richards. I. and NC. 1976. Public Beach Access and Recreation in South Carolina - Ex- ecutive Summary. 53 pp. Havel, J. F. 1976. Vascular Plant Survey of the Lower Santee River Floodplain. pp. 23-32. In: F. P. Nelson, Ed. Lower Santee River Environmental Quality Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Rep. No. 122. IV-124 Farmer, C. H. III., C. W. Boardman, and J. D. Whitaker. 1977. The South Carolina Shrimp Fishery. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Educ. Rep. No. 8. 49 pp. Farmer, C. H. III., and J. D. Whitaker. 1978. Results of the Overwintering White Shrimp Study. "A Report to the Fishermen." S. C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Div. Mar. Resour., Charleston. 22 pp. Federal Security Agency 1951. Southeast Drainage Basisn. U.S. Gov. Printing Off., Washington, D.C. Feringa, P. A. 1944. Survey of the Savannah River, Georgia. U.S. 78th Congress, 2nd Sess. House Doc. 18(657): 1-68. Fleming, J. F. and L. T. Alexander. 1961. Sulfer Acidity in South Carolina Tidal Marsh Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 25:94-95. Fletcher, R. J. 1968. The Meteorological Conditions and Related Causes of Extreme Departures from Mean Monthly Precipitation within the Southeastern United States. Ph.D. Dissertation. Clark Univ., Worcester, Mass. 289 pp. Fodor, B. 1971. The Sperm Whale (Physeter Catadon L.), A Bibliography. U.S. Dep. Inter. Off. Library Serv., Bibliogr. Ser. No. 25. 100 pp. Forsythe, D. M. and W. B. Ezell, Eds. (1978). Proceedings of the South Carolina Endangered Species Sym- posium. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. and Citadel. Nov. 1976. Charleston. S.C. (In press.) Fritz, G. 1975. Measurement of the Standing Crop Biomass. Part 4. pp. 37-42. In: J. M. Dean, Ed. The Potential Use of South Carolina Rice Fields for Aquaculture. S.C. State Development Board, Columbia. Fuller, J. C. Jr. 1967. South Carolina's Striped Bass Story. South Carolina's Striped Bass. S.C. Wildl. Res. Dep., Vogue Press, Columbia. 22 pp. Fuller, S. 1974. Macroinvertebrates, pp. 49-61. In: Cooper River Survey 1973 for the E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company. Acad. Natl. Sci. Phila., Philadelphia, PA. Gaddy, L. L. 1977. A Physiographic and Vegetational Study of Brown Pelican Nesting Habitat on Deveaux Bank. S.C., S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Div. Wildl. Freshwater Fish., Columbia, 26 pp (Unpubl.) Galtsoff, P. S. and H. F. Prytherch. 1927. An Investigation of the Coastal Waters of South Carolina with Reference to Oyster Culture. U.S. Bur. Fish., Econ. Circ. No. 61. 8 pp. Gardner, L. R. 1973. The Effect of Hydrolic Factors on the Pre-Water Chemistry of Intertidal Marsh Sediments. Southeast. Geol. 15:17-28. Gardner, L. R. 1975. Runoff from an Intertidal Marsh During Tidal Exposure-Recession Curves and Chemical Characteristics. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20(1):81-89. Gardner, L. R. 1976. Exchange of Nutrients and Trace Metals Between Marsh Sediments and Estuarine Waters - A Field Study. Clemson Univ., Water Resour. Res. Inst. Rep. No. 63. Clemson, S.C. 95 pp. Garrison, R. C. 1965. Narrative Report: Reconnaissance of Santee Delta, South Carolina, in Reference to Santee - Cooper River Rediversion Report to Bureau of River Basin Studies, Raleigh. N.C. 9 pp. (Unpubl.) IV-123 Dennis, J. V. 1975. Carolina Bays of the Santee Coastal Reserve. 19 pp. (Unpubl.) Dennis, J. V. 1975. Blake's Reserve. 12 pp. (Unpubl.) Dennis, R. Jr. 1972. South Carolina's Waterfowl. S.C. Wildl. 19(6):11-15. Dennis, W. M. 1973. A Synecological Study of the Santee Swamp, Sumter County, S.C. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Col- umbia. 61 pp. Dias, R. K., J. K. Dias, and W. D. Anderson Jr. 1972. Relationships of Lengths (Standard, Fork and Total) and Lengths to Weight in the Red Porgy, Pagrus Sedecim (Perciformes, Sparidae), Caught off South Carolina. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 101(3):503-506. Dingle, E. S. 1937. Some Post-Hurricane Records from South Carolina. Auk 54:200. Doar, D. 1936. Rice and Rice Planting in the South Carolina Lowcountry. Charleston Mus. Contrib. No. 8. 69 pp. Dorroh, R. J. 1971. The Vegetation of Indian Shell Mounds and Rings of the South Carolina Coast. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. Douglass, C. C. 1973. A Toxonomic and Ecological Survey of the Bryophytes of the Baruch Plantation. Georgetown, South Carolina. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 81 pp. Duncan, R. E. 1975. Wando River Aerial Imagery and Marsh Productivity Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm. Spec. Stud. Rep. No. 120. 28 pp. Eldridge, P. J., F. H. Berry, and M. C. Miller III. 1976. Test Results of the Boothbay Neuston Net Related to Net Length, Diurnal Period and Other Variables. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 18. 22 pp. Eldridge, P. J. and W. Waltz. 1977. Observations on the Commercial Fishery for Blue Crabs, Callinectes Sapidus, in Estuaries in the Southern Half of South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 21. 35 pp. Eldridge, P. J., W. Waltz, and H. Mills. 1976. Relative Abundance of Mercenaria Mercenaria Notata in Estuaries in South Carolina. Veliger 18(4):396-397. , Elliott, W. 1918. Carolina Sports by Land and Water: Including Incidents of Devil-Fishing, Wild-Cat, Deer and Bear Hunting. Etc. By the Hon. Wm. Elliott of South Carolina. The State Co., Columbia. 260 pp. (First Publ. 1846). Ellis, R. H. 1972. Coastal Zone Management System: A Combination of Tools. In: Tools for Coastal Zone Management. Mar. Tech. Soc., Washington, D.C. Environmental Research Group. 1974. Econormic Survey of Wildlife Recreation. South Carolina: Executive Summary. Ga. State Univ., Atlanta. 76 pp. Erkenbrecher, C. W. and L. H. Stevenson. 1975. The Influence of Tidal Flux on Microbial Biomass in Salt Marsh Creeks. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20(4):6184-625. Erkenbrecher, C. W. and L. H. Stevenson. 1977. Factors Related to the Distribution of Microbial Biomass in Salt-Marsh- Creeks. Mar. Biol. 40:121-125. Farmer, C. H. III. and C. W. Boardman. 1976. Pilot Study of the Channel Net Shrimp Fishery in South Carolina. 1974. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Charleston (Unpubl.) IV-122 Curtis, T. A. 1975. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Santee and .Cooper River System. Annu. Progress Rep. Project AFS-3-5. July 1, 1974 - June 30, 1975. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. Div. Game Freshwater Fish, Col- umbia. 31 pp. Curtis, T. A. 1976. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Santee and Cooper River System. Annu. Progress Rep. Project AFS-3-6. July 1, 1975 - June 30, 1976. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Div. Game Freshwater Fish, Col- umbia. 28 pp. Dame, R. F. 1972. Comparison of Various Allometric Relationships in Intertidal and Subtidal American Oysters. Fish. Bull. 70:1121-1126. Dame, R. F. 1972. Variations in the Caloric Value of the American Oyster Crassostrea Virginica. Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 62:86-88. Dame, R. F. 1974. The Ecological Energies of Growth, Respiration and Assimilation in the Intertidal American Oyster. Crassostreal Virginica. Mar. Biol. 17:243-250. Dames, and Moore Associates. 1975. Environmental Assessment Report Proposed Chemical Plant, Berkeley County, South Carolina for Amoco Chemicals Corporation. Park Ridge, Ill. Darnell, R. M. 1976. Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. Off. Res. Dev., Corvallis, Oreg. EPA-600/3-76-045. Davis, J. 1973. Waterfowl - A Vanishing Heritage. S.C. Wildl. 20(6):29-36. Davis, L. V. 1978. Class Insecta, pp. 186-220. In: R. G. Zingmark. Ed. An Annotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. Univ. S.C. Press, Columbia. Davis, W. P., B. S. Hester, R. L. Yoakum., and R. G. Domey. 1976. Marine Ecosystem Testing Units: Design for Assessment of Benthic Organism Responses to Low-level Pollutants. Gulf Breeze Environ. Res. Lab. Con- trib. No. 321. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. Bears Bluff Field Str. 29 pp. Davis, W. P. and D. P. Middaugh. (1975). Impact of Chlorintion Processes on Marine Ecosystems. Bears Bluff Field Str., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 29 pp. Dawson, C. E. 1958. A Study of the Biology and Life History of the Spot Leiostomus Zanthurus Lacepede, with Special Reference to South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lau. No. 28. 48 pp. Dawson, C. E. 1958. Preliminary Report on the Effects of Closing Calibogue Sound, South Carolina, to Shrimp Trawling. Bears Bluff Lab., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 13 pp. (Unpubl.) Dawson, R. H. (1977) Partial Review of the Literature of Marsh Macrophyte Production. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Charleston. 23 pp. (Unpubl.) Dean, B. 1892. The Physical and Biological Characteristics of the Natural Oyster-Grounds of South Carolina. Fish. Bull. 10:335-361. Dean J.M., 1975. The Potential Use of S.C. Rice Fields for Aquaculture. S.C. State Dev. Board, Columbia. 96 pp. Decoursey, P. J. and W. B. Vernberg. 1975. The Effect of Dredging in a Polluted Estuary on the Physiology of Larval Zooplankton. Water Res. 9:149-154. IV-121 Cry, G. W. 1965. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean. Tracks and Frequencies of Hurricanes and Tropical Storms. 1871-1963. U.S. Weather Bur. Tech. Pap. No. 55. 148 pp. Cry, G. W. 1967. Effects of Tropical Cyclone Rainfall on the Distribution of Precipitation over the Eastern and Southern Untied States. U.S. Environ. Sci. Serv. Adm. Prof. Pap. No. 1. 67 pp. Cummings, T. R. 1970. A Reconnaissance of the Santee River Estuary, South Carolina. S.C. Water Resources Comm. Rep. No. 2. Columbia. 96 pp. Cupka, D. M. 1972. A Survey of the Ichthyofauna of the Surf Zone in South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 4. 19 pp. Cupka, D. M. and M. C. Pridgen. 1976. Recreational Shellfish Guide. S.C. Wild. Mar. Res. Dep. Educ. Rep. No. 7. 32 pp. Cupka, D. M. and M. D. Mckenzie. 1974. South Carolina's Recreational Shrimp Fishery. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. 17 pp. (Unpubl.) Cupka, D. M. and R. K. Dias. 1972. New Records for Marine Fishes in South Carolina Waters. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 35:158-160. Cupka, D. M., R. K. Dias, and J. Tucker. 1973. Biology of the Black Seabass, Centropristis Striata, from South Carolina Waters. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Charleston. (Unpubl.) Curtis, T. A. 1970. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Combahee River Watershed. Job Completion Rep. Pro- ject AFS-2-4. July 1, 1969 - June 30, 1970. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Columbia. 130 pp. Curtis, T. A. 1970. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Ashley River Watershed. Job Completion Rep. Project AFS-2-2. July 1, 1969 - June 30, 1970. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Colmbia. 91 pp. (Unpubl.) Curtis, T. A. 1971. Macrobenthos Studies. pp. 10-13. In: T. A. Curtis. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Santee and Cooper System. Job Progress Rep. Project AFS-3-1. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Columbia. Curtis, T. A. 1971. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Santee and Cooper System. Job Progress Rep. Project AFS-3-1. July 1, 1970 - June 30, 1971. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. Columbia. 57 pp. Curtis, T. A. 1972. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Santee and Cooper Rivers Job Progress Rep. Project AFS-3-2. July 1, 1970 - June 30, 1972. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Columbia. 40 pp. Curtis, T. A. 1973. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Santee and Cooper River System. Annu. Progress Rep. Project AFS-3-3. July 1, 1972 - June 30, 1972. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. Div. Game Freshwater Fish. Col- umbia. 44 pp. Curtis, T. A. 1974. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Santee and Cooper River System. Annu. Progress Rep. Project AFS-3-4. July 1, 1973 - June 30, 1974. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Div. Game Freshwater Fish. Col- umbia. 54 pp. Curtis, T. A. 1975. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Santee and Cooper River System. Annu. Progress Rep. Project AFS-3-5. July 1, 1974 - June 30, 1975. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. Div. Game Freshwater Fish, Col- umbia. 31 pp. IV-120 Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. 1973. A Bibliography of the Coastal Zone for South Carolina, Wilmington, N.C. 164 pp. Coastal Zone Resources Corporation. 1973. An Environmental Report on the Village Creek Project, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps Eng., Charleston District. Wilmington, N.C. 24 pp. Coastal Zone Resources Corporation. 1973. An Environmental Report on the Port Royal Project, Beaufort County, South Carolina, Prepared for U.S. Army Corps. Eng., Charleston District. 33 pp. Coker, W. C. 1905. Observation on the Flora of the Isle of Palms, Charleston, South Carolina. Torreya 5(8):135-145. Colson, C. B. 1888. History of the Mill Pond Oyster and Cause of its Disappearance. Elliott Soc. Proc. 5 pp. Conant, R. and J. D. Lazell Jr. 1973. The Carolina Salt Marsh Snake: A Distinct Form of Natrix Sipedon. Breviora 400:1-13. Conrad, W. B. Jr. 1965. A Food Habit Study of Ducks Wintering on the Lower Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers, Georgetown, South Carolina. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 19:93-98. Cornell, J. H. 1948. Potential By-Products of the South Carolina Fisheries Industry. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 5. 4 pp. Coull, B. C. 1975. Macrobenthic Communities of Kiawah Island, pp. MBI-MB-12. In: W. M. Campbell, J. M. Dean, and W. D. Chamberlain, Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island. Environmental Research Center, Inc. Columbia, S.C. Counts, H. B. and E. Donsky. 1963. Salt-Water Encroachment, Geology, and Ground-Water Resources of Savannah Area. Georgia and South Carolina. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-Supply Pap. 1611. 100 pp. Cowley, G. T. 1973. Variation in Soil Fungus Populations in a South Carolina Salt Marsh, pp. 441-4354. In: L. M. Stevenson, Ed. Estuarine Microbial Ecology. Univ. S.C. Press, Columbia. Craddock, G. R. and C. M. Ellerbe. 1966. Land Resource Map of South Carolina. Soil Map Leafl. 47. Clem- son Univ., S.C. Agric. Exp. Stn. In Cooperation with U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Conserv. Serv. (map). Crochet, D. W. (1976). Commercial Anadromous Fishery Waccamaw and Pee Dee Rivers. Anu. Progress Rep. Project AFC-5-2. July 1, 1974 - June 30, 1975. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Div. Game Freshwater Fish. 36 pp. Crochet, D. W. 1974. Commercial Anadromous Fishery Waccamaw and Pee Dee Rivers. Annu. Progress Rep. Project AFC-5-1. Oct. 1, 1973 - June 30, 1974. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Div. Game Freshwater Fish. 30 pp. Crochet, D. W., D. E. Allen, and M. L. Hornberger. 1976. Commercial Anadromous Fishery Waccamaw and Pee Dee Rivers. Job Completion Rep. Project AFC-5. Oct. 1973 - Sept. 1, 1976, S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Div.,Game Freshwater Fish. 114 pp. (Unpubl.) Crochet, D. W., D. E. Allen, and M. L. Hornberger. 1976. Evaluation of Commercial Fisheries for American Shad in South Carolina and Status of the Species in Selected Waters, pp. 1-16. In: Proceedings Workshop in American Shad. Amherst, Mass. IV-119 Caldwell, D. K. and H. C. Caldwell. 1974. Marine Mammals from the Southeastern United States Coast: Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral, pp. 704-772. In: H. H. Roberts, Jr. A Socio-Economic Environmental Baseline Summary for the South Atlantic Region Between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida. Vol. 3, Chemical and Biological Oceanography. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point. California Department of Fish and Game. 1971. Fish and Wildlife in the Marine and Coastal Zone: Summary Planning Information and Recommendations. Sacramento, Calif. Campbell, R. 1975. Return of the Wood Duck. S.C. Wildl. 22(6):50. Campbell, W. M., J. M. Dean, and W. D. Chamberlain. 1975. Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island. Environmental Research Center, Inc. Columbia, S.C. 703 pp. Cely, J. E. 1973. A Nest of the Swallow-Tailed Kite at Wambaw Creek, Charleston County, S.C. Chat 37(1):23. Chamberlain, E. B. 1930. Notes on Stomach Contents of an Alligator. Copeia 1930:83-84. Chamberlain, E. B. 1933. The Charleston Museum's List of South Carolina Reptiles. Charleston Mus. Leafl. No. 4. 7 pp. Chamberlain, E. B. 1965. A Preliminary Checklist of the Seals, Manatee, Whales and Dolphins of the Charleston, S.C. Region. The Charleston Museum. 2 pp. (Unpubl.) Chamberlain, E. B. 1965. Blue-Winged Teal Breeding in South Carolina. Chat 29(1):23-24. Chamberlain, E. B. and B. R. Chamberlain. 1966. American Avocet on the Carolina Coasts. Chat 30(2):51-52. Chamberlain, W. D. Jr. 1978. The Birds of Turtle Island. S.C. Chat 42(1):3-7. Chamberlain, W. D. Jr. and E. B. Chamberlain. 1975. Avifauna of Kiawah Island. pp. AV1-AV107. In: W. M. Campbell, J. M. Dean and W. D. Chamberlain. Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island. Environmen- tal Research Center, Inc., Columbia, S.C. Chisolm, C. S. 1911. American Merganser in South Carolina. Auk 28:254. Cliburn, J. W. 1957. Some Southern Races of the Common Water Snake. Natrix Sipedon. Herpetologica 13: 193-202. Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. 1970. Bibliography on Hurricanes and Severe Storms of the Coastal Plains Region. Publ. No. 70-2. Wilmington, N.C. 71 pp. Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. 1971. Proceedings Sport Fishing Seminar, October 1970. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Sem. Ser. No. 2., Wilmington, N.C. 76 pp. Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. 1972. Proceedings of Seminar on Planning and Engineering in the Coastal Zone. Charleston, S.C. June 8-9, 1972. Seminar Series No. 2. Wilmington, N.C. Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. 1972. Bibliography on Hurricanes and Severe Storms of the Coastal Plains Region. Supplement No. 1. Publ. 72-1. Wilmington, N.C. 17 pp. IV-118 Burbanck, W. D. 1961. The Disappearance of Cyathupa Polita from the Ashepoo River, South Carolina, After Hurricane "Gracie" in 1959. Ecology 42:606-607. Burrell, V. G. Jr. 1977. Mortalities of Oysters and Hard Clams Associated with Heavy Runoff in the Santee River System, South Carolina, in the Spring of 1975. Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 67:35-43. Burton, E. M. 1935. Shark Attacks Along the South Carolina Coast. Sci. Mon. 40:279-283. Burton, E. M. 1936. Marine Fishes of South Carolina. S.C. Vertebrate Fauna. Lander College. 1 p. Burton, E. M. 1940. Apriodon Isodon from South Carolina. Copeia 1940:140. Burton, E. M. 1940. A Record Tiger Shark from South Carolina. Copeia 1941:40. Cadieu, C. R. and J. D. Bayless. 1968. Anadromous Fish Survey of the Santee River and Cooper Rivers, South Carolina. Job Completion Rep. Project AFS-2-1. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep. 92 pp. (Unpubl.) Cain, R. L. 1973. The Annual Occurrence, Abundance and Diversity of Fishes in an Intertidal Creek. M.S Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 80 pp. Cain, R. L. and J. M. Dean. 1976. Annual Occurrence, Abundance and Diversity of Fish in a South Carolina Intertidal Creek. Mar. Biol. 36:369-379. Calder, D. R. 1976. The Zonation of Hydroids Along Salinity Gradients in South Carolina Estuaries, pp. 165-174. In: G. O. Mackie Ed. Coelenterate Ecology and Behavior. Plenum Press. New York. Calder, D. R. and B. B. Boothe. 1977. Data from Some Subtidal Quantitative Benthic Samples Taken in Estuaries of South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Data Rep. No. 3. 35 pp. Calder, D. R., B. B. Boothe Jr., and M. S. Maclin. 1977. A Preliminary Report on Estuarine Macrobenthos of the Edisto and Santee River Systems. South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 22. 50 pp. Calder, D. R., C. M. Bearden, and B. B. Boothe Jr. 1976. Environmental Inventory of a Small Neutral Em- bayment: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech Rep. No. 10. 58 pp. Calder, D. R., C. M. Bearden, B. B. Boothe Jr., and R. W. Tiner Jr. 1977. A Reconnaissance of the Macrobenthic Communities, Wetlands, and Shellfish Resources of Little River Inlet, North Carolina and South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 17. 58 pp. Calder, D. R. and F. W. Stapor Jr. 1976. A Geologic and Biologic Bibliography Pertinent to Oil and Gas Pipeline Development in South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Charleston. Contract Rep. for S.C. Coastal Zone Planning Manage. Council. 47 pp. Caldwell, O. K. and F. B. Golley. 1965. Marine Mammals from the Coast of Georgia to Cape Hatteras. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 81(1):24-32. Caldwell, D. K., H. N. Neuhauser, M. C. Caldwell, and H. W. Collidge. 1971. Recent Records of Marine Mammals from the Coasts of Georgia and South Carolina. Cetology 5:1-12. IV-117 Blanden, W. W. 1965. Renesting and Multiple Brooding Studies of Marked Clapper Rails. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 16:60-68. Bloomer, D. R. 1973. A Hydrographic Investigation of Winyah Bay, South Carolina and the Adjacent Coastal Waters. M.S. Thesis. Ga. Inst. Tech., Atlanta. 57 pp. Blus, L. J. 1977. Status of Colonial Nesters in South Carolina. (Unpubl.) Bodoritz, J. E. 1967. Problems of Maintaining Bays and Estuaries - A Panel. Trans N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 32:120-137. V2 Borthwick, P. W., T. M. Duke, A. J. Wilson Jr., J. I. Lowe, J. M. Patrick Jr., and J. C. Oberheu. 1973. Residues in Fish, Wildlife and Estuaries. In Accumulation and Movement of Mirex in Selected Estuaries of South Carolina. 1969-71. Pestic. Monit. J. 7(1):6-26. Bourn, W. S. and C. Cottam. 1950. Some Biological Effects of Ditching Tidewater Marshes. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Res. Rep. 19. 30 pp. Bradley, J. T. 1974. The Climate of Florida, pp. 45-70. In: U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA. Climates of the States. Vol. I: Eastern States plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Water Inf. Cent., Inc., Port Washington, N.Y. (First Publ. 1972.) Breder, C. M. Jr. 1962. Effects of a Hurricane on the Small Fishes of a Shallow Bay. Copeia 2:459-462. Brewster, W. 1883. The Common Cormorant on the Coast of South Carolina. Bull. Nuttall Orinthol. Club 8:186. Brewster, W. 1890. The Acadian Sharp-Tailed Sparrow and Scott's Seaside Sparrow on the Coast of South Carolina. Auk 7:212. Brooks, C. L., S. R. Pettigrew, M. C. Moore, M. R. Cannon, and B. C. Spigner. Eds. 1977. Pee Dee River Basin Framework Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm. Rep. No. 118. 427 pp. Brower, D., D. Frankenberg, and F. Parker. 1976. Ecological Determinants of Coastal Area Management. Vol. I: An Overview. Sea Grant Publ. UNC-SG-76-05. N.C. State Univ. Raleigh. 133 pp. Brower, d. J., W. Dreyfoos, L. Epstein, J. Pannabecker, N. Stroud, and D. Owens. 1978. Access to the Na- tions Beaches: Legal and Planning Perspectives. Univ. N.C. Sea Grant College Program, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh. 208 pp. Brown, S. O. 1971. The Effects of Duration of Inundation on Physiological Processes of Spartina Alter- niflora. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 30 pp. Bruce, J. A. 1941. Maritime Birds Occurring with Summer Storms, Near Charleston in 1939. Auk 58:268-270. Buchanan, c. C. 1973. Effects of an Artificial Habitat on the Marine Sport Fishery and Economy of Murrells Inlet, S.C. Mar. Fish. Rev. 35(9):15-22. Buchanan, C. C., R. B. Stone, and R. O. Parker Jr. 1974. Effects of Artificial Reefs on a Marine Sport Fishery off South Carolina. Mr. Fish. Rev. 36(11):32-38. IV-1 16 Bears Bluff Laboratories, Inc. 1964. Biological Studies of Charleston Harbor, S.C. and the Santee River. Wadmalaw Island, S.C. Submitted to U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Bur.Sport Fish. Wildl. Contract No. 14-16-0004-1024. 106 pp. Bears Bluff Laboratories, Inc. 1964. Biological Studies of Cooper River System, pp. Cl-C18. In: Biological Studies of Charleston Harbor, S.C., and the Santee River. Wadmalaw Island, S.C. Submitted to U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Contract No. 14-16-0004-1024. Bears Bluff Laboratories, Inc. 1964. Biological Studies of Santee River System. pp. S1-S30. In: Biological Studies of Charleston Harbor, S.C., and the Santee River. Wadmalaw Island, S.C. Submitted to U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Contract No. 14-16-0004-1024. Bears Bluff Laboratories, Inc. 1964. Biological Studies of Wando River System, pp. W1-W27. In: Biological Studies of Charleston Harbor, S.C. and the Santee River. Wadmalaw Island, S.C. Submitted to U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Contract No. 14-16-0004-1024. Bears Bluff Laboratories, Inc. 1965. Biological Studies of Price Inlet Area from Charleston Harbor to Bulls Bay, South Carolina. Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 54 pp. (Unpubl.) Beckett, T. A. 1964. Black-Crowned Night Heron Feeding Behavior. Chat 28(3):93-94. Beckett, T. A. 1965. Drum Island 1964. Chat 29(2):43-46. Beckett, T. A. 1966. Devereaux Bank - 1964 and 1965. Chat 30(4):93-100. Beckett, T. A. 1966. Devereaux Bank - 1964 and 1965. Chat 30(4):93-100. Beckett, T. A. 1970. Nesting of the Osprey Near Georgetown, S.C. Chat 34(3):80-81. Beckett, T. A. 1970. Nesting of the Bald Eagle in the Charleston, S.C. Region. Chat 34(2):48-49. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments. 1978. 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan; Chapter VII. Water Quality Under Future Conditions. Draft. Charleston, S.C. 97 pp. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council. 1978. Charleston Metropolitan Area Waste Treatment Facilities Plan. 9 Vols. Charleston, S.C. 4000 pp. Bishop, J. M., M. H Shealy Jr., and J. V. Miglarese. 1977. Distribution of Adult Blue Crabs. Callinectes Sapidus Rathbun. With Respect to Size and Sex in South Carolina Estuaries. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Charleston. 9 pp. (Unpubl.) Blackard, J. J., W. T. Parker, and F. Sumrell. 1972. A report on Upland Habitat and Wildlife Conditions, pp. 279-295. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Blackwelder, B. C. 1972. Algae of the Marshlands. pp. 265-269. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Blair, D. A. 1973. The Effects of Stream Channelization on Fish Populations. M.S. Thesis. Pa. State Univ., University Park. 41 pp. Blanden, W. W. (1965) Clapper Rail Studies in South Carolina: A Preliminary Report with Particular Em- phasis on Productivity. P-R Project 31-R. S.C. Wildl. Res. Dep. 19 pp. (Unpubl.) IV-115 Battle, J. D. 1892. An Investigation of the Coast Waters of South Carolina with Reference to Oyster Culture. Fish. Bull. 10:303-330. Bean, T. H. 1880. Description of a New Hake (Phycis Earllii), from South Carolina and a Note on the Occur- rence of Phycis Regius in North Carolina. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. (3):69-70. Bearden, C. M. 1960. Flounders and Their Cousins: Unique Fish. S.C. Wildl. Res., Dep. Div. Inf. Educ., Educ. Release 177. 5 pp. Bearden, C. M. 1961. Common Marine Fishes of South Carolina. Contrib, Bears Bluff Lab. No. 34. 47 pp. Bearden, C. M. 1961. List of Marine Fishes Recorded from South Carolina Bears Bluff Lab., Inc., Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 12 pp. (Unpubl.) Bearden, C. M. 1963. A Contribution to the Biology of the King Whitings. Genus Menticirrhus, of South Caorlina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 38. 27 pp. Bearden, C. M. 1964. Distribution and Abundance of Atlantic Croaker. Micropogon Undulatus, in South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 40. 23 pp. Bearden, C. M. 1965. Occurrence of Spiny Dogfish, Squalus Acanthias, and Other Elasmobranches in South Carolina Coastal Waters. Copei 1965:378. Bearden, S. M. 1965. Elasmobranch Fishes of South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 43. 22 pp. Bearden, C. M. 1967. Salt-water Impoundments for Game Fish in South Carolina. Prog. Fish.-Cult. 29(3):123-128. Bearden, C. M. 1969. A Report and Recommendations on the Saltwater Sport Fisheries of South Carolina. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dept., Div. Commer. Fish. 96 pp. Bearden, C. M. and .. 1971. Occurrence of Juvenile Broad Flounder. Paralichthys Squamilentus, in South Carolina Coastal Waters. Copeia 1971:723-730. Bearden, C. M. and C. H. Farmer III. 1972. Fishery Resources of Port Royal Sound Estuary, pp. 203-212. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Bearden, C. M. and M. D. Mackenzie. 1971. An Investigation of the Offshore Demersal Fish Resources of South Carolina. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Tech. Rep. No.2.Charleston. 119 pp. Bearden, C. M. and R. G. Lunz. 1963. Control of Predaceous Fishes in Shrimp Farming in South Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab. No. 36. 9 pp. Bears Bluff Laboratories, Inc. (1959). Shellfish Studies, 1958-1959. Wadmalaw Island., S.C. 2 pp. (Unpubl.) Bears Bluff Laboratories, Inc. (1960). Comments on the Oyster Situation in Georgetown and Horry Counties. Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 5 pp. (Unpubl.) Bears Bluff Laboratories, Inc. 1955. Management Plan for Shrimp Trawling in Rivers, Sounds, and Bays of South Carolina. Prepared for S.C. Wildl. Resour. Comm. Wadmalaw Island, S.C. (Unpubl.) IV-1 14 Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1974. Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Port Development in Charleston Harbor. South Carolina. Vol. II-A: Environmental Setting. Cambridge, Mass. 220 pp. Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1974. Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Port Development in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. Vol. 1: Background. Cambridge, Mass. 195 pp. Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1974. Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Port Development in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. Vol. 11-8: Impact Analysis. Cambridge, Mass. 198 pp. Baden, J. A. 1971. Tidal Marsh Vegetation in Abandoned Rice Fields. Winyah Bay, Georgetown, S.C. M.S. Thesis. Univ. S.C., Columbia. 48 pp. Baden, J. III., W. I. Diason, and R. Stalter. 1975. Factors Affecting the Distribution of Vegetation of Aban- doned Rice Fields. Georgetown County, South Carolina. Castanea (40(3):171-184. Badger, A. G. 1968. Oyster Research in South Carolina, pp. 67-69. In: Proc. Oyster Culture Workshop. Ga. Game Fish Comm. Contrib. Ser. 6. Baldwin, W. P. 1950. Recent Advances in Managing Coastal Plain Impoundments for Waterfowl. Presented Southeast. Assoc. Game & Fish Comm. Conf., Richmond, Va. 12 p. (Unpubl.) Baldwin, W. P. 1956. Food Supply Key to Attracting Ducks. S.C. Wildl. 3(1):5-12. Ballard, G. S. 1975. The Ecology of the Rice Field. pp. 1-12. In: J. H. Dean. Ed. The Potential Use of South Carolina Rice Fields for Aquaculture. S.C. State Dev. Board, Columbia. Ballard, G. S. 1975. A Consideration of Oyster Culture in Old Rice Fields, pp. 13-17. In: J. M. Dean, Ed. The Potential Use of South Carolina Rice Fields for Aquaculture. Sc.C. State Dev. Board, Columbia. Baltzer, R. A. 1972. Mathematical Simulation of the Flow Dynamics and Constituent Transport in Port Royal Sound, South Carolina: An Interim Report, pp. 21-46. In: Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. Banta, J. S. 1978. Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas. Vol. IV. Regulatory Framework for Protecting Living Resources. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biological Serv. Program FWS/OBS-77/15. 126 pp. Bara, M. 0. 1971. Alligator Research Project. Annu. Progress Rep. Aug. 1970 - Dec. 1971. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dep., Columbia. 24 pp. Barans, C. A. and V. G. Burrell Jr. 1976. Preliminary Findings of Trawling on the Continental Shelf off the Southeastern United States During Four Seasons (1973-1975). S.C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 13. 16 pp. Batson, W. T. 1974. Vascular Plant Survey of Marsh and Adjacent Highland in Selected Portions of Cooper River and Wando River, pp. 36-40. In: F. P. Nelson, Ed. The Cooper River Environmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm. State Water Plan Rep. No. 117. Batson, W. T. and B. C. Blackwelder. 1974. Vertical Distribution of Epiphytic Algae on Spartina Alterniflora from Transects Along the Cooper and Wando Rivers, pp. 22-35. In: F. P. Nelson. Ed. The Cooper River En- vironmental Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm. State Water Plan Rep. No. 117. IV-1 13 Coastal Council Sources Bohlen, A. W., (March 28) 1946. Interoffice Communication on "Salinity- Lower Santee River." Directed to J.H. Moore, Chief Engineer, South Carolina Public Service Authority. In Kjerfve, below. Clark, John R., Coastal Ecosystem Management, Wiley Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., 1977. Ketchum, Bostwich H., Ed., The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of the Coastal Zone, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1972. Kjerfve, Bjorn, The Santee-Cooper: A Study of Estuarine Manipulations, in Wiley, M., Ed., Estuarine Processes, Academic Press, 1976, pp. 44-56. Taylor, J. I., and Saloman, C.H., 1968, Some Effects of Hydraulic Dredging and Coastal Development in Grega Bay, Florida, Fisheries Bulletin, 67:213-241. In Ketchum, above. South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department Bibliography Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 1974. Cooper River Survey for 1973 for the E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company. Philadelphia. 150 pp. Acheson, J. M. 1975. Social and Cultural Aspects of the Southeastern Shrimp Industry: A Pilot Study. U.S. Dep. Commer., Natl. Har. Fish. Serv. prepared for S. Atlantic Shrimp Manage. Comm. 31 pp. (Unpubl.) Adams, S. H. 1950. There's More To Crabbing Than You Think. Sat. Evening Post Jan. 7, 1950. Alden, R., D. Brower, B. J. Copeland, D. Frankenberg, and F. Parker. 1976. Ecological Determinants of Coastal Area Management. Vol. 2: Appendices. N.C. State Univ. Sea Grant Publ. UNC-SG-76-05. 392 pp. Alexander, W. C. and J. D. Hair. 1977. Winter Foraging Behavior and Aggression of Diving Ducks in South Carolina. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish Wildlife Agencies 31. (In press.) Allen, E.R. and W.I. Neil. 1949. Increasing Abundance of the Alligator in the Eastern Portion of Its Range. Herpeiologica 5:109-112. Anderson, W. D. III. 1976. A Comparative Study of a Salt Water Impoundment with its Adjacent Tidal Creek Pertinent to Culture of Crassosirea Virginica (Gmelin). M.S. Thesis. Old Dominion Univ., Norfolk, Va. 65 pp. Anderson, W. D. Jr. 1964. Fishes of Some South Carolina Coastal Plain Streams. O. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 23(3):31-54. Anderson, W. D. Jr. 1964. New Records of Fishes for South Carolina, and the Occurences of Chaetodipterus Faber in Fresh Water. Copeia 1964:243-244. Anderson, W. D. Jr. and D. M. Cupka. 1973. Records of the Ocean Sunfish. Mola Mola, from the Beaches of South Carolina and Adjacent Waters. Chesapeake SC1. 14(4):295-298. Anderson, W. D. Jr., J. K. Dias, R. K. Dias, D. M. Cupka, and N. A. Chamberlain. 1977. The Macrofauna of the Surf Zone off Folly Beach. South Carolina. NOAA Tech. Rep. MNFS SSRF 704.23 pp. Anonymous. 1972. Algae, pp. 261-264. In: Port Royal Sound Environemntal Study. S.C. Water Resources Comm., Columbia. associated with saltwater sport fishing, including angling, shellfishing, shrimping and crabbing. It has recently been estimated that over 250,000 State residents currently participate in recreational fishing activities in the coastal zone, resulting in annual expenditures directly related to their sport of over $50,000,000. The total economic impact of saltwater sport fishing in the State is estimated to be over $100,000,000 annually, in- cluding indirect benefits related to retail sales and tourism. Other recreational uses related to living marine resources of the coastal zone are nature photography, shell collecting, bird watching and the like. In addition, there is the enjoyment to be derived from aesthetically pleasing surroundings, which include, of course, the beauty of dune and marsh vegetaion as well as the fauna present in the marine environment. While not directly quantifiable, it is clear that such benefits are important, particularly as they pertain to tourism. Commercial considerations are primarily tourist and fishery related, with the latter being of greater direct importance. Major commercial fisheries in South Carolina's coastal area are created around penaeid shrimp, mollusckan shellfish (hard clam, eastern oyster), blue crab, and finfish (shad, spot, mullet and others). The annual dockside value of coastal commercial seafood landings ranges from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000. The total economic impact of commercial fishing in South Carolina is estimated to be approximately $30,000,000, taking into consideration the wholesale and retail seafood trade, seafood processing and other aspects. The total economic impact of commercial and recreational fisheries in the coastal region of South Carolina is therefore conservatively estimated to be $130,000 annually. This includes values for commercial seafood landings and processed products, and estimated expenditures by recreational fishermen. As mentioned previously, many indirect economic benefits of the State's commercial and recreational fisheries are not known with certainty, since no comprehensive survey of the overall economic impact of these fisheries has been conducted. There are other benefits provided by living marine resources for which there is no generally accepted economic equivalent. As noted above, these include such functions as erosion control and waste assimilation. In addition, there are social and aesthetic values associated with the living resources of the coastal region which are difficult or impossible to quantify. Such values include those related to natural beauty and a clean, healthy environment. The significance of the visual appearance of an undisturbed marsh, a dune vegetated by sea oats, bottlenose dolphins playfully surfacing near shore, a shorebird nesting colony, and the like, although unquestionably of considerable value to many coastal residents and tourists, cannot be expressed in economic or related terms. However, the trend in recent years toward increased protection of nongame, noncommercial species in living marine resources, especially more visible ones such as marsh and dune vegetation, sea turtles, marine mammals and eastern brown pelicans is an indication of the high value society places upon these resources. In conclusion, two facts are apparent: South Carolina is blessed with living marine resources of exceptional diversity and abundance, and man's activities can severely threaten the continued existence of these resources. Evaluation of the impacts of man's activities should, therefore, take into account the immediate and long- term effects of his activities on all life in the coastal zone. IV-lll South Carolina. Published information for the South Atlantic region indicates an annual growth rate of four percent in the number of marine recreational anglers. Based on these data, the current estimated number of substantial resident anglers would be 248,000. If this figure is applied to the adjusted annual expenditure per angler, an estimated impact of $47 million is generated. This figure does not take into account non-resident anglers (whose numbers, from all indications at least equal that of resident anglers) or other segments of the recreational fishery (shrimping, crabbing and shellfishing). There is at present no on-going creel census or sportfishing survey which could be utilized in determing pre- sent conditions or evaluating the abundance of South Carolina's gamefish. Most fish populations naturally undergo long-term fluctuations in abundance with dominant year classes occurring somewhat regularly every so many years. At present, South Carolina sport fishermen indicate that there has been a general decline in in- shore fishing, particularly in the numbers of winter trout during the past two years. This may be a result of natural fluctuations in these populations or may be associated with the last two severe winters, which greatly reduced the shrimp population along South Carolina's coast, since shrimp serve as a major food item for many of these fish. Flounder fishing, however, has been reported as very good during the past two years. 5. Summary The marine, maritime and estuarine ecosystems of the South Carolina coastal zone are extremely signifi- cant in terms of biological, economic and social values, especially those associated with living marine resources. The wetlands and subtidal areas of these ecosystems cover approximately 1,200,000 acres of the coastal zone, extending from the Little River southward to the Savannah River and from the upper limits of saltwater penetration in coastal rivers seaward to the three mile territorial limit in the Atlantic Ocean. Major habitats included within these ecosystems are: open ocean waters and bottoms (500,000 acres); beaches (10,700 acres); coastal marshes (430,000 acres); coastal impoundments (70,000 acres); and open estuarine waters and bottoms (242,000 acres). These coastal waters and bottoms shelter many important species of fishes, invertebrates and other living marine resources, and support valuable commercial and recreational fisheries, research activities, and the in- terests of nature enthusiasts. Living marsh and dune vegetation not only accommodates fauna of the coastal marine-estuarine ecosystem, but serves man's interests as well. The marsh assimilates and purifies wastes from human activities, while both marsh and dune vegetation provide aesthetic beauty and protection from erosion and storm damage. Biologically, the coastal marine-estuarine system is among the most productive areas known to man, both in terms of species diversity and biomass. This unique environment supports complex assemblages of plant animal life, including both resident and migratory forms. The biological richness of the coastal marine-estuarine ecosystem is due in large part to the high concentra- tions of nutrients from upland sources. Marsh plants, algae and phytoplankton convert these nutrients into biomass which can then be consumed and utilized by higher levels of the food chain. Productivity is further in- creased by the decomposition of plant and animal matter into detritus and eventually into basic nutrients which repeat the cycle. Many of the organic materials and other nutrients from the near-shore environment are exported by currents to oceanic waters, and many species of fishes and invertebrates nurtured in estuarine areas migrate long distances, thereby increasing the biological productivity of areas outside of the coastal marine-estuarine ecosystem. Coastal marshes, dominated in South Carolina by vast expanses of saltmarsh cordgrasss, play an impor- tant role themselves in providing habitat and cover for many estuarine fishes and invertebrates such as shrimp and blue crabs. In addition, coastal marshes are significant habitat type for numerous species of birds and mammals, including clapper rail, wading birds, raccoons, mink and otters. Diked marshlands, many of which are vegetated by brackish-water plant species, provide some of the most important habitats for waterfowl in the United States and may be important for other species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians as well. In addition to the great ecological significance of the living marine resources of the coastal zone, there are a number of functions performed by these resources which are of specific utility to man. These functions are primarily recreational, commercial, and physical. (Examples of the last category include erosion control pro- vided by dune vegetation and waste assimilation provided by the marshes). The major recreational values provided by the living marine resources of South Carolina are those IV-1 10 TABLE 7 The recreational and commercial harvests (in thousands of pounds) of selected species of saltwater fish for the South Atlantic region (Cape Hatteras to south Florida) during 1970. Species Recreational Catch Domestic Commercial Catch (thousand pounds) (thousand pounds) Sea trouts 25,063 3,872 Black drum 12,123 144 Whiting 14,533 2,095 Channel Bass 13,358 157 Spot 9,840 3,304 Croaker 5,947 866 Flounder 8,938 3,397 Pompano 153 248 Cobia 775 21 Bluefish 19,271 2,551 Spadefish 51 2 Spanish mackerel 14,623 3,639 King mackerel 34,942 4,351 Dolphin 27,806 21 Sharks 669 10 Snappers 26,580 1,090 Porgies 24,059 799 Grunts 25,962 51 Groupers 24,121 754 Sea Bass 12,381 2,024 301,195 29,416 Grand Total (includes all finfish species harvested, not just sportfich cited above). 403,913 Sources: Devel, D. G. (1973) 1970 Saltwater Angling Survey, National Marine Fishery Service, Current Fisheries Statistics, #6,000,2000, 54 pages. U.S. Department of Commerce, (1973) Fishery Statistics of the U.S., 1970, National Marine Fishery Service Statistical Digest, #64, 489 pages. IV-109 tion of current fisheries under sound management. Commercial and Economic Aspects: The finfish fisheries in South Carolina are less significant than the shellfish fisheries. With the exception of mullet and spot, most marketed marine finfishes caught in South Carolina waters are captured incidental to shrimp trawling. This incidental catch includes croaker, flounder, king whiting, sea trout, shark and Spanish mackerel. Large quantities of spot and mullet are harvested by the beach haull seine fishery in Horry County. Other species like the red drum and sea trout are generally harvested by seasonal small-scale gill net operations in estuarine waters. These fisheries, compared to those in other Atlantic seaboard states, have generally been limited by marketing problems (e.g. undesirable product forms, seasonal availability, price differentials). In contrast, harvesting of the anadromous species, shad and Atlantic sturgeon, have not been limted by serious marketing problems. Shad harvesting, whether by drift gill nets or fixed gill nets, has been regulated by localized statutes and represents a traditional fishery of South Carolina's coastal rivers. Demand for sturgeon roe (caviar) and smoked fish has perpetuated this gill net fishery. Both of these fisheries provide seasonal, sup- plementary income to residents of rural coastal areas. Recent investigations of marine species (e.g. croaker, spot, flounder and king whiting) taken incidental to shrimp trawling activities show that these species are not being depleted. Similar studies in the Gulf of Mexico, where there has been a five-fold increase in fishing effort during the last 20 years, have indicated no decrease in these species groups. Presently available data are not sufficient for assessment of the commercial anadromous fisheries for the Atlantic sturgeon and shad. Reported declines in catches for individual fishermen may be a function of in- creasing total fishing effort (more fishermen and gear) to annual fluctuations in the returning stocks. Although information is insufficient to accurately assess the present status of eel stocks exploited in South Carolina, it is generally felt that the gradual expansion of the present fishery for elvers and subadults (yellow eels) would be commercially beneficial. Unfortunately, the environment in coastal rivers tends to exclude or inhibit the future development of such a fishery. Recreational Aspects: While current and complete information is not available on participation and the economic significance of all segments of the marine recreational finfish fishery, some data are available which provide an insight into the magnitude of saltwater sport fishing in South Carolina's coastal zone. During 1968, an estimated 174,000 South Carolina residents participated substantially in saltwater fishing. .Of this number, 41,600 residents par- ticipated in the surf and bank fishery and 121,000 participated in the small boat fishery. If children under the age of 12 and occasional fishermen were included in this 1968 survey, the number of total participants would approach 250,000. A study conducted on South Carolina's fishing piers estimated that a total of 25,000 residents fished a total of 228,000 days from 13 piers during 1974, harvesting some 210,000 pounds of fish. These estimates only take into consideration South Carolina residents. If one were to also count the number of non-residents who participate in this fishery, these figures would increase significantly. For exam- ple, a 1968 North Carolina survey indicated that 36,000 North Carolina residents fished in the marine recrea- tional fishery in South Carolina during 1973-74. These figures indicate that the number of non-residents par- ticipating in the finfish segment of South Carolina's fishery is significant. While data on the total recreational harvest of finfish for South Carolina are not currently available, there are data available which give some insight into the magnitude of this harvest for the South Atlantic region (Cape Hatteras to South Florida). This information, along with a comparison of the commercial harvest for the same area, is presented in Table 7. The figures indicate that the recreational harvest represents a significant portion of the total finfish resource. (See Table 7.) The economic impact of the marine recreational fisheries to South Carolina is considerable. The latest available (1970) published information on annual expenditures by saltwater anglers on the Atlantic coast gives a figure of $127 per angler. If this figure is adjusted for inflation, the current estimate would be $191 per angler. As mentioned previously, during 1968 there were an estimated 174,000 substantial resident anglers in IV-108 up the estuaries and into fresh water. Here they remain to feed and grow. At maturity, they migrate back out of the estuaries during the fall and return to the Sargasso Sea. Southern and summer flounder are the most common flounder species occuring in South Carolina. They spawn near the edge of the continental shelf during the winter months and during the following spring, migrate back to the coastal area to feed. Larval and juvenile flounder also move and are transported by water currents to the coastal estuarine waters which serve as a nursery ground for these small fish. White and striped mullet undergo a similar spawning migration each year, moving 5 and 20 miles off- shore during spring and fall, respectively. The larvae and juveniles are pelagic and are abundant in the open waters of South Carolina's bays and estuaries throughout the summer. Adults move back into the marshes and mud flats and are more abundant in the shallow waters of the estuary. Juveniles and adults show a southward migration in fall and a northward migration in spring. Bluefish, spots, northern and southern kingfish, Atlantic croakers and red drum also show a similar life history pattern. Each of these fish spawn offshore during the late fall and early winter months. The larvae and juveniles swim or are transported into the productive coastal estuarine waters the following spring, where they feed and grow. Following spawning, the adults overwinter in the deeper offshore waters and then also move back into the nearshore and estuarine waters to feed during the remainder of the year. Spotted and grey trout spawn in the lower portion of estuaries or in shallow oceanic waters during the spring.The larvae and juvenile trout are transported to estuarine areas, and the adults move back into the estuary to feed the remainder of the year. Several fish species undergo'a reverse type of spawning migration with the adults moving from near and offshore waters into freshwater streams to spawn. These are called anadromous species, and include sturgeon, striped bass, American shad and blueback herring. Several of these species, such as sturgeon and American shad, undergo long oceanic migrations and spend several years at sea before returning to their natal(birth) streams to spawn. Striped bass are thought to show different migratory habits in different parts of their range. Adult striped bass north of Cape Hateras, North Carolina, are known to undergo long oceanic migration, traveling a thou- sand or more miles along the Northern Atlantic coast. Adult triped bass south of Cape Hatteras are believed to remain within a particular river system, spawning in the upper fresh water reaches and overwintering in the lower estuaries near the river mouths. Environmental Perturbations: It is obvious from the life histories summarized above that marshes and estuaries are of vital importance to the finfish of the State. Not only do the highly productive salt marshes provide detrital food for fish living in the estuaries and coastal waters, but they also provide food and shelter for larvae and juvenile fish. Therefore, any destruction of marsh habitat will produce a corresponding reduction in the population of fish which sur- vive to maturity. In addition to outright destruction of habitat, alterations in the marsh or upland areas bordering an estuary may have deleterious effects on fish populations. Channelization and construction of impoundments may alter marsh and estuarine salinities, leading to juvenile fish mortality. In addition, natural migration patterns may be disrupted by the presence of obstruction. The introduction of pollutants may also kill or retard develop- ment of young fish. Excessive nutrients from agricultural runoff or domestic sewage may produce algal blooms which deprive the young fish of necessary oxygen. Finally, thermal pollution may speed upndevelop- ment so that the fish blooms which deprive the young fish of necessary oxygen. Finally, thermal pollution may speed up development so that the fish fry are ready to migrate before coastal waters are warm enough to sup- port them. Fish metabolism may also be altered, and the addition of excess heat may compound the effects of other pollutants. Finally, thermal pollution may provide miscues to adult fish ready to spawn. Additional spawning miscues may be sent by altered salinities or chemical compositions in rivers. If pollu- tion, heat, or new salinity gradients have made the natal river (the river in which the fish was hatched) unrecognizable to migrating fish such as sturgeon and striped bass, spawning may not occur. Physical barriers, such as bridge crossings and dams, may also prevent or interfere with spawning. Predation by man may have a greater impact on fish than on other living marine resources. The 1976 Fishery Conservation and Management Act was designed to prevent overfishing and to ensure the continua- IV-107 also a source of significant employment in South Carolina's coastal counties. White shrimp comprise about 68�'/ to 80% of the normal South Carolina catch, with most being landed during the fall months. Large one year old white shrimp which overwinter are caught during May and June, and in recent years have made significant contributions to the shrimper's income. Unfortunately, winter conditions in 1976 and 1977 reduced overwintering white shrimp stocks to extremely low levels, resulting in unusually poor white shrimp catches in the spring of 1977 and 1978. The remainder of the South Carolina shrimp harvest is mostly brown shrimp which are caught during the summer months. Shrimp are caught primarily by a double-rig trawler. Since the 1973 shrimp season, channel nets, which are basically stationary shrimp otter trawl nets, have been permitted in estuarine waters, but their catches only constitute a small percent of the commercial shrimp landings. The number of licensed shrimp trawlers has increased dramatically since 1970. During the 1971-1975 period the annual average number of shrimp trawlers licensed was 939, compared to an average of only 428 licenses in the 1960-70 period. Concurrent with this trend has been an increase in vessel horsepower, electronic equipment and net size. Recreational Use: A 1974 survey of recreational shrimping indicated that 16,780 South Carolina residents participated in this fishery on a total of 115,117 days and harvested approximately 815,000 pounds of shrimp (heads-on) that year. This recreational shrimp harvest was equal to 10% of that harvested commercially during the same period. Practically all of the tidal creeks throughout the coastal area provide excellent shrimping with cast nets, seines or baited drop nets. Shrimping is carried on from bridges, smal boats and from the shore. Unfortunately, because of the severe reductions in the South Carolina shrimp population in recent years, recreational shrimping has declined. Few catches have been reported during the past few years, although in the past several months recreational shrimpers have reported taking large numbers of small shrimp in the upper reaches of small creeks near Beaufort and Charleston. C. Finfish Finfish Resources: More than 400 species of finfish inhabit the marine and estuarine waters of South Carolina. Many of these fish enter directly into the commercial and recreational fisheries while others serve primarily as forage (food) and are indirectly important to these fisheries. The South Carolina coastline contains many productive bays and estuaries. These shallow estuarine waters and the productive marshlands which border them are of primary importance for fishery resources. Several species, such as striped bass, grey and spotted sea trout and black sea bass spend at least a portion of their lives within these waters. However, many commercially and recreationally important species such as red drum (channel bass), Atlantic croaker, striped mullet, flounder, and American eel spawn offshore, and the larvae and juveniles are transported into shallow estuarine waters which serve as nursery grounds where these young fish feed and grow. A 1968 survey of recreational fishing found that spotted sea trout, channel bass, spot, flounder, king whiting, Spanish mackerel, black sea bass, Atlantic croaker, bluefish, and drum were the preferred gamefish most often taken in South Carolina. These 10 fish along with menhaden, American eel, mullet, pigfish, grey sea trout, American shad and sturgeon were reported as part of the commercial landings in South Carolina during 1976 and 1977. Biological Aspects: The life histories of these fish generally fall within three categories - those which spawn offshore and utilize the coastal and estuarine waters as nursery and feeding grounds, those which migrate from offshore and nearshore waters into fresh water to spawn, and those which spend their entire life cycle predominantly within estuarine waters. Of those species which spawn offshore, the American eel makes the longest migration, traveling to the Sargasso Sea area of the Atlantic Ocean off Bermuda to spawn. Spawning takes place in winter, and the lar- vae, called leptocephali, migrate to the coastal areas of North America during the following spring, traveling IV-106 ing June or July, when they are about two inches long. At this time, the young white shrimp are sought by cast netters and recreational seiners. In July and August they begin to migrate to inshore waters and are caught by commercial trawlers fishing for brown shrimp. In the fall, their commercially desirable size and concentration in the South Carolina sounds and bays usually result in the opening of these areas to commercial trawling. During October and November, a portion of the white shrimp population migrates parallel to the shoreline toward Georgia and Florida. Surviving white shrimp which have migrated will return during the early spring of the following year. Recent evidence also indicates that a portion of the white shrimp population over- winters in deep water coastal areas. This overwintering is important to commercial harvesting success in the following year. Unlike white shrimp, brown shrimp do not overwinter in South Carolina. They spawn much further off- shore than white shrimp, and much earlier in the year. Brown shrimp postlarvae usually begin drifting into the estuaries during February or March. Consequently, the young brown shrimp become available to recreational and commercial fishermen sooner than the white shrimp. Brown shrimp migrate from South Carolina waters during the fall and winter months. Annual abundance of shrimp is dependent primarily upon various ecological factors and not significantly upon the previous year's population. Commercial shrimping has not been demonstrated to have had a signifi- cant effect upon the penaeid shrimp populations, although it might if an appreciable portion of the nursery grounds were destroyed. White shrimp are often considered the most sensitive to temperature of the three species caught commer- cially in the South Atlantic states. There seems to be a positive correlation between the winter's severity and the spring and fall white shrimp catches. Low water temperatures (near 470F) over an extended period of time can cause severe white shrimp mortality. The extended periods of low water temperature during the winters preceding the shrimp seasons of 1940, 1958, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1970 and, most recently, 1977, con- tributed to the relatively low abundance of white shrimp populations and the resulting poor commercial cat- ches. Effects of Man-Induced Perturbations: Many factors other than climate contribute to shrimp mortality. Most important of these is the destruction of marsh and estuarine habitats which serve as nurseries for developing shrimp. Changes in salinity, turbidity and chemical composition of the water may all affect larval development. Water pollution of various types may have deleterious effects on shrimp, particularly during the juvenile stages when they are found closest to shore. Toxic materials such as heavy metals and pesticides may produce effects ranging from mortality to feeding abnormalities. Thermal pollution may cause larval growth to proceed faster than that of the necessary' food organisms. If severe, it may also kill shrimp and shrimp larvae outright. Discharges of domestic sewage and fertilizer runoff from agricultural lands may produce algal blooms which deprive the shrimp of necessary oxygen and may kill the developing larvae. More importantly, oxygen depletion may discourage spawning or drive animals away from an area. Shrimp, like blue crabs, are able to swim away from areas of high turbidity or dredge spoil deposition. However, the turbidity may destroy food sources by blocking light needed for plant phyotosynthesis. Adult shrimp also swim away from areas of lowered salinity. Thus shrimp production may be impaired by chan- nelization or marsh destruction which allows a great deal of fresh water to enter an estuary. Shrimp are also harmed by pesticides and other toxins released to the environment. Crustaceans are very susceptible to harm from insecticides since they are biologically closer to insects than are other marine in- vertebrates. A dose as low as one part per billion of a common insecticide, mirex, caused 100% shrimp mor- tality. (Lincer, in Clark, p. 743.) Economic and Commercial Activities: With the growth of world shrimp consumption after World War II, the commercial shrimpers have annual- ly accounted for the highest total dockside value of all South Carolina commercial fisheries. In 1976 the South Carolina shrimp catch represented 5107 of all fishery landings (8.7 million pounds) and over 787o of total dockside value ($110 million). The South Carolina shrimp catch represented 12% of the weight and 32%o of the value of total South Atlantic states' landings that year. Commercial shrimping and associated services are IV-105 trol fire ants). (Lincer in Clark, p. 743.) Since blue crabs are mobile, they are affected less by some forms of environmental perturbations than the sessile molluscs, such as oysters and clams. Crabs are able to move away from areas of increased turbidity, siltation, or underwater deposition of dredge spoil. However, because they require brackish water for mating, they are sensitive to alterations in the mixture of fresh and salt water brought about by channeliza- tion, impoundment or destruction of marshlands. In addition, any reduction in marsh acreage deprives blue crabs (particularly males, which comprise 70% of the crab trap catch) of valuable habitat. Impoundments, bridge crossings, or other forms of construction may prevent mating if they interfere with female migration back into the estuary from deep water. Mating behavior may also be affected by thermal pollution, since artificially high water temperatures in any location may induce female crabs to begin their spring migration before estuarine waters are warm enough to support the larvae. Economic and Commercial Importance: The blue crab catch in South Carolina has generally increased since World War II as the demand for fresh blue crabs and crab meat has increased. Today, the commercial blue crab fishery ranks second only to the shrimp fishery, with nearly 80% of the catches landed in Beaufort and Colleton Counties. South Carolina's commercial catch constitutes a major supply for the State's three crab processors. These processors annually produce crab meat products with an estimated value of $4 million and employ nearly 200 residents during the summer months. The dockside value of blue crabs in 1977 ws $1.6 million for 7.3 million pounds of crabs. Two methods are most commonly employed in commercial crabbing: trapping and trawling. Trapping, the most common technique, accounts for the majority of the catch, with 462 commercial crab trapping licenses sold in the 1977-78 fiscal year. Trap-caught blue crabs which are not sold to the processors are shipped to the Middle Atlantic States for restaurant (i.e. steamed crabs) and other fresh crab consumption. When crabs are shipped, they are sold according to size and/or sex. In the 1950's, there was a small-scale soft-shell blue crab industry in South Carolina. Interest in developing a soft-shell crab fishery in South Carolina has recently been renewed. It has been estimated that such an in- dustry could annually harvest 40,000 pounds of soft-shell crabs with wholesale prices ranging from $4.00 to $14.00 a dozen. Recreational Aspects: The extent of participation in recreational crabbing in South Carolina is currently undocumented, but all indications are that the number of individuals involved is substantial, as crabbing is a favorite family recrea- tional activity along the coast. There is no closed season for recreational crabbing in the State, although crabs are caught primarily from April through November. A variety of methods are utilized, including baited drop nets, headline/dip nets and various crab traps. All reports have indicated that recreational crabbing is ex- cellent, and has been over the past several years, with an abundance of blue crabs being available for recrea- tional crabbers. 2. Shrimp Biological Aspects: There are two major species of shrimp caught in South Carolina: The white (Panaeus setiferus) which make up 70% of the catch and the brown (Panaeus aztecus aztecus) which account for 30% of the catch. Pink shrimp (Panaeus duorarum duorarum) are also found occasionally in South Carolina, but make up less than 1I% of the catch. White shrimp spawning generally takes place within two miles of the coastline, beginning in late March and continuing through the summer. The female lays 500,000 to 1,000,000 eggs directly into the water. The eggs (1/75 inch in diameter) hatch in 20 to 24 hours, and after 15 to 20 days, the surviving postlarval shrimp (about 1/5 inch long) drift into the brackish estuaries which serve as nursery grounds. From spring to early fall, growth is rapid. For example, a shrimp hatched on May 1 may measure over six inches by November. Growth is insignificant during the winter but resumes in the following spring. Young white shrimp will move from the shallow estuarine waters into deep creeks, rivers and sounds dur- IV-104 During 1974, there was a transition to mechanized harvesting with the opening of the Santee Delta clam beds. Since habitat alteration was considered insignificant; several escalator harvesters were issued permits in 1974. The excalator harvester consists of a blade which is pushed along the bottom by the forward motion of the vesel. The combined forward motion of the vessel and water jets near the blade move the clams across the blade and deposit them on a conveyor belt which takes them to the surface. Marketable clams are picked from the conveyer, and undersized clams and extraneous materials go back overboard at the end of the conveyor. (This method of harvesting may be harmful to oysters, crabs, and other marine life since they may become buried.) With the development of the Santee Delta clam fishery, South Carolina clam landings have exceeded 100,000 pounds since 1973 and have created winter income for McClellanville's commercial shrimpers. During the 1974-75 season, a record 73%7 of the State clam harvest came from the Santee, generating a $277,000 per year business. (Kjerfve p. 51.) In addition, the Santee clam fishery has probably improved the marketing situa- tion for other clammers in the State. Rotation of harvesting areas appears to be of primary importance to the continued success of the clam fisheries in South Carolina. Extensive harvesting of brood stocks may result in significant declines in future clam populations. That rotation is a viable means of stock control is borne out by statistics from the Santee Delta clam fishery. In 1974, about 59070 (15,312 bushels) of the marketable clam population in South Santee River was harvested. In 1978, 64%7 (13,750 bushels) was harvested with less effort - in other words, lower cost. (Unfortunately, if the Santee River is diverted this highly productive resource may be destroyed. More will be laid below regarding the proposed rediversion.) B. Crustacean Resources 1. Blue Crab Biological Aspects: The blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, ranges from Cape Cod to northern South America. In South Carolina, it is a common inhabitant of creeks, rivers, sounds and inshore waters. Juvenile crabs inhabit the shallow, low- salinity estuarine areas and mature in 12 to 14 months in South Carolina. After reaching sexual maturity, males tend to remain in brackish areas, while females move into deeper and/or more saline waters. In South Carolina the major commercial gear, crab traps, are generally set in waters away from high female concentrations. Consequently, crab trap catches average about 70%70 mature males. Mating occurs between early May and October when females return to brackish water areas to molt. Females are inseminated during their post-molt, soft shell period, before the new, larger shell'hardens, making mating impossible. After mating, the females return to deeper water. Two months after mating the fertilized eggs are extruded onto the female's abdomen, forming a "'sponge" approximately one third her size. The "sponge" contains 700,000 to 2,000,000 eggs which hatch in about two weeks. The larva, called a zoea, is about one mimllimeter wide and grows rapidly, molting every three to five days and increasing up to one third its size with each molt. There may be 25 to 27 molts between the first larval state and the adult, with adult size being attained in the nursery grounds of the estuary. Very little is known about blue crab population dynamics. It is generally felt that the annual fluctuations in blue crab abundance are associated with climatic factors which influence the distribtution, growth and general survival of the larvae, rather than with the abundance of spawning adults. Blue crab survival, unlike that of some other crustaceans, does not seem to be severely affected by occasional low winter temperatures. Evidence for this is the fact that the 1977 blue crab catch was significantly higher than in previous years, despite the unusually low water temperatures of the 1976-77 winter. Recent interpretations of the decline in blue crab lan- dings in the late 1960's indicate that there may be cyclical changes in annual blue crab abundance, although other theories suggest that pesticide pollution may have been the cause. Effects of Man-Induced Perturbations: As noted above, water pollution of various types may contribute to crab mortality. Death may occur dur- ing either adult or larval stages, although the larvae are more susceptible to small amounts of the toxic material than fully developed crabs. Juvenile crabs died when exposed to only one particle of mirex bait (used to con- IV-_1O These areas are designated under authoritzation of State legislation. At present, there are 15 public grounds (See Appendix D) throughout the coastal zone, ranging in size from a fraction of one acre to 10 acres. In addition, there are seven areas of State-owned bottoms which are not specifically designated as public oyster grounds, but which are marked for public utilization. The head of any household may, in person or by servant or employee, gather for private use not more than two bushels of oysters or one-half of one bushel of clams, or both, in any one day for not more than two days in any week from the public recreational oyster reefs or other State-owned bottoms not under lease. Existing recreational shellfish areas are for the most part intertidal oyster reefs located along shorelines and on flats. In many cases, existing areas designated as public grounds are inadequate insofar as quality, acreage and accessibility are concerned. Since there are no license or permit requirements for gathering oysters or clams for personal use, no direct source of revenue exists for either maintaining public grounds or for obtain- ing data on the extent of this activity. The recreational harvest is known to be significant and to place heavy demands on the shellfish resource. However, the economic activity associated with recreational shellfishing along with participation rates and the magnitude of recreational harvest have never been defined. Public recreational oyster and State shellfish grounds are for the most part in poor condition with few quality oysters remaining to be harvested. At present, neither State nor Federal funds are available to maintain these beds through a restocking program. With funding, nonutilizable oysters taken from polluted areas could be planted on public beds where, in a matter of weeks, they would become safe and suitable for harvest by the public. Such a program is desperately needed if South Carolina is going to continue to provide recreational shellfishing opportunities, since these marked public grounds are the only legal areas where individuals may recreationally harvest oysters and clams at this time. 2. Hard Clam (Quahog) Biological Aspects: The hard clam or quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria) is found in estuarine and shallow marine waters. Like the oyster and other bivalves, it is a filter feeder. In South Carolina, hard clam spawning usually begins in the late spring and continues to the fall. During a single release, millions of gametes are extruded by individual clams with fertilization occurring in the water. The fertilized eggs rapidly develop through several swimming larval stages lasting one to two weeks in all and then settle to the bottom. Once buried under the sediment, it generally takes two years for South Carolina hard clams to reach marketable size. Effects of Man-Induced Perturbations: Many of the factors harmful to. oysters are also detrimental to clams. Water, pollution is the greatest threat since pollutants and pathogens (agents of disease such as hepatitis and typhoid) may be contracted in the animal and subsequently transmitted to its human consumers. Pesticides have wide-ranging adverse effects, ranging from immediate death to growth abnormalities. Pesticides and heavy metals are also dangerous because they slow larval growth dramatically. Since larvae are far more susceptible to disease and predation than adults, a prolonged larval stage significantly reduces the number of animals reaching reproductive age, with a subsequent loss in harvestable stocks. Thermal pollution is also a threat since it may compound the deleterious effects of other pollutants. Siltation interferes with clam feeding behavior, just as it does with oyster and other bivalve feeding. Because the hard clams live only a few inches below the bottom sediments, dredge and fill operations which cover large areas of the underwater surface may bury clams so deeply that they are unable to feed. Likewise, dredging in areas populated by clams may kill the animals outright or redistribute them in areas unsuited to their growth. Economic and Commercial Importance: Historically, South Carolina fishermen have received lower prices for their hard clams than their counter- parts in the Middle Atlantic or New England areas. Before 1974, clam harvesting was generally labor intensive and conducted incidental to oyster picking arrangements with the leassee. During the 1970-73 period, the average clam landings were 62,000 pounds (meat) with an average dockside value of $29,000. Most of these clams were harvested with simple hand tools and were sold for local consumption as well as shipped to other states. IV-102 Effects of Man-Induced Perturbations: Obviously man's impacts on the marine environment may have a significant effect on the oyster in any one of a number of ways. For example, thermal pollution may give false cues to the spawning oyster, causing eggs and sperm to be released before the surrounding waters are warm enough to permit survival of larvae. The larvae are much more susceptible to pollution than the adult oysters, and consequently may be harmed by even slight amounts of toxic effluent. Concentrations of toxins and pathogenic microorganisms in adult oysters may make them hazardous for human consumption, resulting in the closing of oyster beds. (See Table 5.) Of approximately 275,000 acres of coastal estuarine areas classified as shellfish growing waters by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, approximately 28% of the acreage is closed ed due to fecal (coliform) pollution. Pesticides are extremely harmful to marine life of all types. Organochlorine pesticides have been shown to "interfere with almost every level of biological function tested in marine life." (Lencer, in Clark, p. 743.) A significant reduction in oyster growth has been caused by levels of DDT as low as 0.001 ppm. Oyster production may also be impaired by destruction or alteration of habitat, particularly the drainage of wetlands. Because the spat cannot settle without a suitably firm substrate, any activity which increases silta- tion or covers up old oyster shells or other clutch material is extremely harmful. Siltation also interferes with oyster feeding behavior, since the gills may become clogged with non-nutrient material. As noted elsewhere, large quantities of silt may also impair respiration. Since empty oyster shell provides one of the most desirable substrates for oyster spat, the develoment and maintenance of South Carolina's oyster resources requires cultivation techniques dependent upon shell cultch. Consequently, the propagation of oysters, whether for recreational or commercial use, includes the respon- sibility of dispersing oyster shell capable of facilitating oyster larvae survival and subsequent growth. Those who lease oyster beds re required by statute to plant shell or seed oysters on the leased property. Public grounds intended for recreational use require similar cultivation techniques in order to remain in good condi- tion. Commercial and Economic Aspects: Economically, the oyster is generally considered a very prolific organism in Georgia and South Carolina waters. However, despite the oyster's productivity, this resource is susceptible to over-harvesting. The over- harvesting in the leasing system has usually been associated with the lack of long-term oyster cultivation prac- tices (discussed above) which will sustain commercial yields. The lack of significant cultivation effort has resulted in the cancellation of some leases by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. In contrast to some other seafoods, oyster consumption in the U.S. has not been very responsive to rising income levels. In addition, there has recently been a significant shortage of labor coupled with slow recruit- ment of new labor into the industry. Since 1968, the annual oyster landings have only been between 1 and 1.3 million pounds of shucked meat. Before World War II, most oysters were harvested for steam canning, but today only one cannery in Beaufort County remains in the industry. This type of canning process uses large quantities of low yield cluster oysters for canning. About 50%7 of the total oyster landings in South Carolina are processed by this Beaufort cannery. There are 60 commercial oyster leases in South Carolina (see Appendix F) accounting for over six thousand acres of oyster-growing bottoms. Harvesting techniques on the leases usually involve the use of grabs and other hand tools to dislodge oyster clusters. The picker's small boat is filled with oysters and then towed to the leasee's unloading dock. Conventional "box" or oyster scrapes are used in harvesting subtidal seed oysters from the Wando and Santee Rivers. Recreational Aspects: Public harvesting of shellfish (oysters and clams) for personal consumption is an increasingly significant recreational activity in South Carolina. Although the major portion of the State's productive shellfish growing areas is currently under lease to commercial oyster producers, there are a number of areas available for public harvesting. The State of South Carolina may provide up to 50 acres of oyster grounds in each coastal county for public recreational use. IV-101 TABLE 6 Volumes and values (in thousands of pounds and dollars) of seafoods landed in South Carolina during recent years. January-July 1975 1976 1977 1978 Poundsa Dollarsb Poundsa Dollarsb Poundsa Dollarsb Poundsa Dollarsb Shrimpc 5,647 10,803 5,511 11,043 2,508 5,615 909 2,043 (Heads-off) Oystersd 1,036 617 1,187 759 1,592 1,092 1,011 716 (Meats) Clamse 176 203 172 209 199 258 152 266 (Meats) Crabs 6,565 865 5,740 976 7,765 1,778 4,141 808 (Whole) Finfish 3,594 630 5,714 1,079 3,180 1,100 1,695 1,208 (Whole) a) Volumes should not be added due to differing units of measure. b) Values are those to the fisherman or gatherer. c) Rock shrimp are not included in Shrimp. d) Oysters are 3.18 pounds of meat per U.S. Bushel. e) Clams are 8.75 pounds of meat per U.S. Bushel. Prepared by: Fisheries Statistics Section, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources, September 26, 1978 IV-100 TABLE 5 (Continued) 1978 Sanitary 1976 Sanitary Best Use Shellfish Harvest Shellfish Harvest Segment Name Classification Status Status Archers Creek from Parris Island bridge to Port Royal Sound SA Approved Approved except for shore & marshes of Parris Island which were closed at USMC request in 1970 Broad River SA Approved (1) Approved (I) except for 1000 ft. radius buffer zone at Laurel Bay S/D sewage treatment plant discharge Chechessee River SA* Approved Approved Hazzard Cr./Euhaw Cr. Colleton River including Okatee River and Chechessee Creek SA Approved Approved May River SA Approved Approved Cooper River SA Approved Approved Bull Creek SA* Approved Approved Calibogue Sound SA Approved Approved New River SB Prohibited Prohibited Wright River SB Prohibited Prohibited Savannah River SA Prohibited Prohibited Calibogue Sound SA Approved Approved Mackay Creek SA* Approved Approved Skull Creek SA* Approved Approved Jarvis Creek SA* Approved Approved Broad Creek/Palmetto Bay SA. Approved Approved Baynard Cove SA* Approved Approved Lawton Creek SA* Restricted Approved Note: Harbortown Marina Palmetto Bay Marina Baynard Cove Marina are closed for 1000 ft. radius each side and in front of the marina as a buffer zone. SA* Prohibited Prohibited Chechessee River SA* Approved Approved *tributary to listed class. S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control, 1978 IV-99 TABLE 5 (Continued) 1978 Sanitary 1976 Sanitary Best Use Shellfish Harvest Shellfish Harvest Segment Name Classification Status Status North Edisto River SA Approved Approved Wadmalaw River SA Approved Approved Wadmalaw Sound SA Approved Approved Bohicket Creek SA Approved Approved Church Creek SA* Prohibited Prohibited 1973 South Edisto River SA Approved Approved All waters of Edisto Island SA* Approved Approved Fishing Creek SA* Approved (2) Approved (2) except from the "Neck to Freedman" Restricted Approved St. Helena Sound SA Approved Approved Combahee River SA Approved Approved Ashepoo River SA Approved Approved Coosaw River SA Approved Approved Whale Branch SA Approved Approved Campbell Creek & 1000 ft. each side of junction with Whale Branch SA* Restricted Approved Huspa Creek (public shellfish grounds) SA* Approved Approved McCalleys Creek SA* Restricted Approved Whale Branch SA Approved Approved Middle Creek SA* Prohibited Approved Brickyard Creek SA Restricted Approved Albergottie Creek SB* Prohibited Prohibited 1964 Beaufort River: (1) from Albergottie Creek to Ballast Cr. and Chowan Cr. SB Restricted Prohibited 1964 (2) from Ballast Cr. to Chowan Cr. to Port Royal Sound SB Approved Prohibited 1964 Chowan Creek SA Approved Approved Battery Creek SB Prohibited Prohibited 1968 Archer Creek: (I) Port Royal to Parris Island Bridge SB Restricted Prohibited 1970 (2) Parris Island BridgetoPort Royal Sound SA Approved Prohibited 1970 St. Helena Sound Approved Approved Morgan River Estuary SA Approved Approved Harbor River (St. Helena Sound to Fripp Inlet) SA Approved Approved Trenchards Inlet Estuary SA Approved Approved Station Creek SA* Approved Approved Port Royal Sound SA Approved Approved Lucy Point Creek SA* Approved (I) Approved (1) Rock Spring Cr. to its junction with Lucy Point Creek Restricted Prohibited 1975 Port Royal Sound SA Approved Approved except for shore & marshes of Parris Island which were closed at USMC request in 1970 TABLE 5 (Continued) 1978 Sanitary 1976 Sanitary Best Use Shellfish Harvest Shellfish Harvest Segment Name Classification Status Status All waters of Breach Inlet Estuary SA* Approved Prohibited 1970 including: Hamlin Creek SA* Approved Conditional Swinton Creek SA* Approved Conditional Inlet Creek SA* Approved Prohibited Conch Creek SA* Approved Prohibited AIWW SA Approved Conditional to to within 1000 ft. of Sullivans Island Breach Inlet & causeway and Ben Sawyer Bridge prohibited to Ben Sawyer Bridge AIWW (1000 ft. above Ben Sawyer Bridge SC Prohibited Prohibited 1970 through Charleston Harbor) "The Cove" SC Prohibited Prohibited 1970 Wando River (headwaters to and including Conditional Approval Prohibited 1970 Duchman Cr. and Horlbeech Cr.) (from Duchman Cr. & Horlbeech Cr. to Cooper River Bridge) Restricted Prohibited 1970 Charleston Harbor & Cooper River SC Prohibited Prohibited 1970 Shem Creek SC Prohibited Prohibited 1970 Charleston Harbor & Ashley River SC Prohibited Prohibited 1970 Schooner Cr. & bay between Fort Sumter & Cummings Point on Morris Island SC* Prohibited Prohibited 1970 James Island Creek SC* Prohibited Prohibited 1972 Wappoo/Elliott Cut SC* Prohibited Prohibited 1972 AIWW (Charleston Harbor to SCL Railroad bridge over Stono River) SC* Prohibited Prohibited 1975 Stono River (SCL Railroad bridge to Abbapoola Cr.) SC Prohibited Prohibited 1975 Stono River (SCL Railroad bridge to Wadmalaw River) SA Approved Approved Stono River (Abbapoola Cr. to Folly River) SA Approved Approved Lighthouse Inlet Estuary SA* Approved Conditional 1972 Clark Sound SC Restricted (1) Prohibited 1972 (I) Clark Sound to be reappraised after upgrading and/or elimination of Westchester Subdivision's sewage discharge to Clark Sound new Seaside. Folly River Estuary SA Approved Approved Kiawah River and Sams Creek to and including Stono Inlet SA* Approved Approved IV-97 TABLE S SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 1978 AND 1976 SANITARY SURVEY OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S COASTAL WATERS 1978 Sanitary 1976 Sanitary Best Use Shellfish Harvest Shellfish Harvest Segment Name Classification Status Status Little River Inlet SA Restricted Prohibited 1968 (Relaying Only) Cherry Grove/Log Inlet SA Approved Approved Singleton Swash SA Restricted Approved Whitepoint Swash SA Restricted Approved Withers Swash SA Prohibited Approved Murrells Inlet SA Conditional Approval Approved North and South end public shellfish grounds, Restricted Approved Parsonage Creek, and all other waters adjacent Restricted Prohibited 1971 to mainland Restricted Approved Midway Inlet SA* Prohibited Prohibited 1968 North behind Litchfield Beach South behind Pawleys Island to Pawleys Inlet Approved Approved North Inlet SA* Approved Approved Oyster Bay SA* Restricted Restricted 1970 Sam pit River SC Prohibited Prohibited 1964 Winyah Bay SB Restricted Restricted 1964 Mudd Bay SB* Restricted Restricted AIWW (Winyah Bay to South Santee River) SA Restricted Restricted 1968 Santee Bay (North & South) from HWY 17 to 1000 ft. below the AIWW SB Restricted Restricted 1968 Santee Bay (North & South) from 1000 ft. below AIWW to Atlantic Ocean SA Approved Approved Cape Romain and Bull Bay SA Approved Approved AIWW SA Approved Approved Jeremey Creek SA* Prohibited Prohibited 1968 Awendaw Creek SA* Conditional Approved Tibwin Creek SA* Conditional Approved AIWW (Andersonville to Goat Island) SA Approved Approved AIWW (between Goat Is. & Isle of Palms) SA Prohibited Prohibited 1970 Seque Bay SA* Approved Approved Bull Harbor SA* Approved Approved Mark Bay SA* Approved Approved Copahee Sound SA Approved Approved Bullyard Sound SA* Approved Approved Hamlin Sound SA Approved Approved Grays Bay Sound SA Approved Approved All creeks and marshes of Prices Inlet SA* Approved Approved Capers Inlet SA* Approved Approved Dewees Inlet SA* Approved Approved IV-96 (or increasing) regardless of water conditions. Urbanization of coastal areas results in greater discharge rates, and the estuary and nearshore waters may continue to be the ultimate jump of sewage and slump discharges in the foreseeable future. These discharges contain not only nutrients which encourage eutrophication but also coliform bacteria and pathogenic viruses. Pathogenic organisms disperse outward from the point of waste discharge and either die or are consumed by filter feeding animals such as oysters and clams. Many productive shellfish beds are closed to harvesting because of domestic pollution which may contain pathogens causing typhoid, dysentery, jaundice or intestinal viruses such as infectious hepatitis. Areas closed to shellfish harvesting exist around Myrtle Beach, Murrells InWet, Charleston, Beaufort, and Savannah. (See Table 5.) Urban runoff is also a source of water pollution. Drainage from streets, service stations, and residential areas contains many organic and inorganic compounds toxic to marine life. Fallout from industrial airborne emissions, automobile exhaust, tire particles on highways, and leached materials from solid waste disposal sites are a few of the sources of pollutants found in urban runoff. 4. Commercially Significant Living Marine Resources The principal commercial contribution of living marine resources to the coastal economy comes from the fishing industry. The major marine fishery resources occuring within South Carolina's coastal zone can be classified into three major types: (I) molluscan shellfish (oysters and clams); (2) crustaceans (shrimp and crabs); and (3) coastal finfish. Table 6 presents data on the commercial landings and values of these resources during the past several years in South Carolina. The following sections summarize the life histories, commer- cial and recreational significance, and present condition of these major marine fishery resources. A. Molluscan Shellfish Resources 1. Oysters Biological Aspects: The Eastern or American oyster, Crassostrea virginica, is found in the marine and estuarine areas of South Carolina. This popular bivalve is found primarily in the intertidal region (i.e., the zone between high and low tides) and usually reaches market size (over three inches in length) in two years. In late spring, when the water temperature reaches about 70� F., the oyster begins to spawn. Both sperm and eggs are released directly into the water. Usually each oyster functions as a male during its first two spawn- ing seasons; afterwards, it may function as a female and may even alternate sexes. Fertilization is a chance union between sperm and eggs in sea water. A single female may produce a hundred million eggs in spawning, but many millions of these eggs are never fertilized. One or t'Nro days after fertilization, each egg enters the lar- val stage. About two weeks later, the larva develops a pair of transparent shells called valves. At this stage, it is now ready to find a firm surface to which it will attach. If a place for attachment is not found, the larva soon sinks to the bottom and dies. When a suitable place is found, the larva, now called a "spot," ejects a sticky fluid that cements the left shell to the place where it will remain for the rest of its life. Old oyster shells appear to be preferred "cultch" or resting place for the larva. Finding the correct spot is particularly important because the oyster is a filter feeder, obtaining its food by drawing water through its gills which retain the edible material and pass it into the animal's mouth. South Carolina oysters have a wide variety of shapes and sizes, but the most common type in South Carolina is the "cluster oyster" which is formed by successive yearly sets on the older intertidal oysters. Historically, steam canneries have preferred these cluster oysters because they can be more economically harvested and processed. Another type of growth pattern found in South Carolina is the subtidal or deep water oyster which, as the name implies,spends its entire life submerged in water. Due to the subtidal oyster's high meat yield and shape, it is considered highly desirable without processing (e.g. half shell servings). Unfortunately, due to adverse conditions such as predators and an unstable substrate, these oysters comprise only a fraction of South Carolina's oyster resource. IV-95 Water Utilization and Discharge As noted above, many industries locate in the coastal zone in order to take advantage of abundant water supplies. If water is used as a raw material (in other words, not returned to the ecosystem) the mixture of fresh and salt water in the estuary will be altered, causing a change in the species composition of the area. Of par- ticular pertinance to coastal South Carolina has been the diversion of water from the Santee River to the Cooper River for hydroelectric power generation. This diversion resulted in reduced flow of fresh water into the Santee estuaries, causing salt-water intrusion. In the Cooper River, estuarine conditions were displaced seaward, reducing the area suitable for strictly marine organisms. The magnitude of these changes on the fauna and flora cannot be assessed, however, because no surveys of aquatic biota were conducted prior to diversion. Dead cypress trees standing on the banks of the North and South Santee Rivers are mute testimony to the effects of salt-water intrusion on this fresh-water species. More common, however, is the return of altered water to the ecosystem. The use of coastal waters for cool- ing by industry and power-generating plants results in thermal pollution, especially when the power plant is a nuclear-fueled one. Thermal pollution results in lowered species diversity and subsequent loss of ecosystem stability. Temperature increases can also result in substantial alterations in the behavior of affected biota because water temperature may be a cue to organisms to migrate or to reproduce. Elevated water temperatures are known to cause developmental abnormalities in larval fish and to stress adult populations. Also, oxygen solubility decreases with increasing water temperature. In addition to physiological stresses, plankton, larvae, fish, and fish eggs may be killed directly by being drawn against intake screens or by drastic pressure changes once inside the cooling system. The loss of plankton is particularly detrimental since it may imperil the entire food web. The proposed offshore nuclear-fueled power generating plants may have drastic effects on near- shore biota as well. Effluents from heavy industry result in acute as well as chronic sources of pollution. Such effluents often contain complex metallic and organic compounds which resist biodegradation and are highly toxic. These compounds may be discharged in dilute concentrations, but because of their nature they are assimilated into the food web and undergo biological amplification with each consumer level. Increasing levels of water pollution in marine waters not only destroy the suitability of the habitat and kill marine life directly, but produce abnormalities. The abnormalities include reduction in weight, external le- sions, exophthalmia, neoplasms, fin rot, jellied flesh, behavioral changes, morphological peculiarities, and reduced fertility. Paper mills have been a primary source of industrial pollution in coastal areas. Effluents of paper mills can drastically alter the pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity of receiving waters and thus affect marine life directly and indirectly. Characteristically, pulp mill effluent exerts high demands on dissolved oxygen, and the suspended materials it contains reduce light, thereby inhibiting photosynthetic processes. Suspended materials may also settle out, forming sludge banks which render the bottom substrate unsuitable for benthic organisms. Finally, pulp-mill wastes have direct toxic effects upon the biota; especially damaging is the alkaline effluent which contains hydrogen sulfide, mercaptans, resin acids and soaps. The effluents may reduce surface tension of receiving waters and cause increased foaming although this has been alleviated by the use of settling ponds and aeration prior to discharge. Nuclear reactors, fuel fabrication plants and reprocessing plants may cause water pollution in the form of radioactive materials released to the environment. There are two sources of radioactive contamination which may become problems in the coastal zone: tritium, which is released to the environment from reactor opera- tion and fuel reprocessing, and plutonium. While tritium does not accumulate in living tissue, to any degree, and is of relatively low toxicity, plutonium is long-lived and extremely dangerous. Other sources of radioactive contamination include collisions of nuclear ships or submarines, collisions involving ships carrying nuclear wastes, and accidental releases from power plants. (Ketchum, p. 171.) Radioactive materials released into coastal waters may produce four broad types of effects: physical damage or death among marine organisms, increasing rates of genetic mutation, increases in rate of growth and maximum size of organisms, and a reorientation of human uses of estuaries. Urbanization is another cause of water pollution. In general, discharge of domestic sewage enriches the water's nutrient load not unlike fertilization from agricultural runoff, with one major difference. Whereas agricultural runoff predominates only during rainy periods, domestic discharge is relatively constant IV-94 Carolina coast; routine petroleum-related activties, however, probably have greater impact on land rather than marine life. Recreation Recretion is one of the only uses of the coastal zone which consumes relatively low amounts of the natural resources upon which it depends. Even though resources are "used," they are generally left unimpaired. It has been said thai: The product of tourism and recreation is the individual experience. As suchj it is composed not so much of natural goods as a psychological impact. Therefore, what one experienced today may be replicated day after day by thousands more with virtually no decay in the resource. (Ketchum, p. 93.) An obvious exception to this rationale is the "consumption" of beach front property by hotels, camp- grounds and other recreational facilities. In addition, certain recreational uses, such as power boating, do im- pair the coastal environment. Noise pollution, harrassment of fauna and/or other people, and degradation of water quality as a result of necessary support facilities are all unfortunate side effects of the use of power boats. The importance of water-oriented recreational activites to coastal communities cannot be overstated. Recreation and tourism often rank at least third in terms of income for even large, diversified, urban economies. In many of the non-industrialized areas of the coastal zone, they may be of even greater impor- tance. However, every effort must be made to mitigate the effects of recreation and tourism on the marine en- vironment, for if the living resources of the coastal zone are impaired, the recreational value of the area will be correspondingly degraded. Urbanization and Housing Population pressures on the coastal zone have increased dramatically during the preceeding decades, with even greater increases expected in the future. Figures for the entire United States show that while coastal (par- ticularly estuarine) areas have only 1507o of the land area, they now have about 33% of the population. Ob- viously,-this creates a need for housing. In addition, land will be needed for commerce, industry, transporta- tion terminals, recreation, and waste disposal facilities. The U. S. Department of the Interior estimated that as of 1975 the leading cause of loss of estuarine areas -was the construction of housing developments. (Ketchum, p. 104.) Marshland may be filled to increase land available for waterfront housing, causing a direct loss of habitat for marsh flora and fauna. In addition, pesticides used to make formerly swampy areas more pleasant for their human inhabitants inflict severe penalties on the original residents. Toxic runoff from driveways and streets contributes to the harmful impact of housing developments on living marine resources; paradoxically, it is the cessation of nutrient-rich runoff from the marshes which may have the most detrimental effect on the estuaries. In addition to the direct effects brought on by population increases in the coastal zone, there are several secondary effects which will be discussed below. One of these is an increase in the extent and degree of in- dustrial development, brought about in part by the need for goods and in part by the need for jobs near population centers. Another is the fact that waste disposal and water use problems increase at an even faster rate than housing and industrialization. Industrialization Industries tend to concentrate in the coastal zone because of readily available water. Although industries vary widely in their effect upon the environment, such problems as oil spills, pollution by toxic chemicals, air pollution and waste disposal are endemic to industrialized areas and affect water and air quality. Oil, as has been noted elsewhere, is damaging to marine life not only because of its inherent toxicity but because it smothers both flora nad fauna and blocks sunlight necessary for plant photosynthesis. Air pollution is primarily damaging to marine plants, although air borne deposits may harm zooplankton as well. Industrial water use and discharge practices may, however, be the most detrimental to marine life. IV-93 of many marine species, including some which were native to South Carolina. In other cases, populations may simply have been depleted due to overfishing. When declining catches indicate overfishing, the usual response is to increase the fishing effort, either by improving the efficiency of gear or by spending more time on the water. Further research into fish population dynamics should lead to a better understanding of declining catch- es. Commercial activities may have devastating effects on non-target species, as evidenced by the effect tuna fishing has had on porpoise populations. In South Carolina, the most damaging incidental catch comes from the shrimp trawls, which are relatively non-species-specific. Species captured along with the shrimp are generally discarded. Of the other important target invertebrate species in South Carolina - blue crabs, oysters, and clams - only clams tend to have a degree of environmental degradation associated with their harvesting. Crabs are harvested by pot, and oysters are selectively picked, causing little disturbance to other species. The hydraulic escalator dredges used to harvest subtidal clams in the Santee estuaries disrupt bottom communities; while the direct effect on the biotic communities is believed to be localized, the secondary effects caused by increased turbidity and sedimentation may be more widespread and longer lasting. There are a number of indirect effects associated with commercial fishing operations. Commercial docking facilities concentrate boats and are point sources of petroleum, solid waste, and domestic waste. The effects of leached chemicals from treated pilings at piers and marinas also contribute to the chronic, low concentrations of dissolved foreign materials in estuarine waters. Fish processing plants discharge waste water high in organics and particulate matter to nearby waters, causing elevated oxygen demands and eutrophication. Thus, waters near processing facilities may experience temporary depletion of dissolved oxygen and subsequent fish kills. There is also a certain amount of pollution which can be directly traced to fishing vessels from such sources as garbage thrown overboard. Agriculture and Silviculture Agricultural and forestry practices can significantly decrease the quality of water flowing into coastal areas and cause drastic reactions in marine life. In addition, they may alter the water runoff cycle and, in the case of agriculture, contribute to the loss of coastal wetlands. Department of Agriculture statistics (1975) report that about one-fourth of United States cropland is excessively wet, leading to pressures for land drainage and resul- tant loss of marsh habitat. Cultivation and forestry practices may also increase sedimentation loads in rivers running into marshes and estuaries. The increased turbidity impairs sight and smell in fish and other marine animals and may interfere with respiration and feeding in bottom dwelling invertebrates. The sediment which erodes and flows into the estuaries carries with it many excess nutrients from fertilizers and toxins from various herbicides and pesticides. Any chemical substance which kills plants and animals on land will also kill aquatic life. Insecticides, for example, produce massive fish kills and also result in mortality to fish food organisms such as insects and other invertebrates. Pesticides and herbicides can be fatal in concen- trations as low as several parts per million, and concentrations of parts per billion are known to cause behavioral and reproductive abnormalities. Pesticide residues may also be concentrated in marine animals and transmitted to higher levels in the food chain. Even the effects of fertilizers are not beneficial, for the excess nutrients encourage algae blooms which block sunlight from other plants and deprive animals of necessary ox- ygen. Mining Currently there are few extractive industries in coastal South Carolina, and those that are in operation (ex- -cept coquina mining) have little adverse effect on living marine resources. Mining of peat, sand, and gravel are current activities, but these are primarily land-based operations, although peat is mined from wetland areas. Coquina is mined from marsh areas near Little River, and the resulting pits experience restricted water circula- tion which causes low dissolved oxygen. Drainage from these pits reduces the water quality of receiving waters. The potential exists for mining phosphate and washed oyster shell, but no such operations are underway at the present time. Runoff from phosphate mines could pose problems for water quality (as experienced on Florida's southwest coast), and mining oyster shell for use in chicken feed, pet foods, cement and as a building material may conflict with the oyster industry. Oil and gas operations have yet to be realized off the South IV-92 shoaling, and is projected to reduce the need to dredge. On the other hand, water quality in both the harbor and the Cooper River may be further lowered, due to less efficient flushing. There is also a possibility of salt water intrusion into the Bushy Park intake canal with increasing river salinities. The Santee Delta may eventually revert to pre-diversion conditions, with a possible halt in erosion on Cape Romain, gradual succession of Spartina marshes by freshwater grasses, and loss of the valuable clam fisheries. This last is considered to be the most adverse effect of rediversion. (Kjerfve, p. 53.) Other potential effects are impacts on adjacent landowners along the Santee Cooper, due to increased water flow and salinity changes, and possible detriment to the world-renowned Santee-Cooper land-locked striped bass, due to loss of their food supply. Dredging and channelization are often carried out simultaneously, and may have several adverse en- vironmental impacts. Channelization may lead to reduced levels of oxygen as a result of restricted circulation which occurs when the main part of the channel is significantly deeper than the tributary channels. (Water flowing into the naviga- tion channel from shallower streams tends to remain near the surface and will not mix with the oxygen- depleted bottom waters.) When a channel is straightened, a formerly slow, meandering fresh water flow, entering a bay or estuary, becomes a swiftly flowing stream, increasing erosion and turbidity and leading to ex- tremely high and low salinities. Finally, because salt water is more dense than fresh, it will flow into newly created depressions and will reach further up into an estuary than had previously been the case. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, completed in 1941, typifies the changes which may accompany chan- nelization. Salt Water intrusion has led to depleted oyster populations since their primary preditor, the oyster drill (which is restricted to high salinities), is able to move further into newly saline estuaries and marshes. The plant population has also been altered, favoring more salt-tolerant species. The problem of erosion along the waterway is exacerbated by wave action from passing boats, causing loss of valuable marshland and a reduction in the total productivity of the estuary. Finally, the channel of the waterway must be periodically dredged in order to maintain navigability. Dredging is detrimental to marine life because it increases turbidity, thereby interfering with respiration, feeding and photosynthesis (by reducing light penetration). This, in turn, reduces the total productivity of the ecosystem. Dredging also physically disturbs plants and animals by uprooting some plants and sessile animals and by burying others when the dredge spoil is deposited elsewhere. Spoil deposition is by far the most damaging aspect of a dredging operation. Spoil may be dumped at sea, pumped onto beaches, marshes or other open areas, or used to fill diked upland areas. Because of the impor- tance of marshes as food sources and nurseries, productivity of the coastal zone is impaired. The filling of im- pounded shallow areas may also destroy important bird and mammal habitats. Bostwick Ketchum reports that "(I)n one area of Florida, dredge and fill operations in estuaries alone are estimated to result in biological pro- ductivity losses of $14 million annually." (Taylor, J.H. and Salomon, C.H., 1968, in Ketchum, p. 135.) Because dredge spoil is of a finer texture than most sediments in spoil deposition areas, it fills in the tiny air spaces which are found between sand grains. This, in turn, leads to anaerobic (oxygen deficient) conditions that are harmful to marine life. Dredge spoil from harbors or polluted areas near industrial complexes may contain heavy metals, pesticides or other toxic organic materials, which, when exposed to the leaching effects of weather, may recon- taminate the water. Another problem results from the presence of high concentrations of organic wastes, which lead to reduced levels of dissolved oxygen as a result of bacterial action, and may cause suffocation for marine life. Dredging and spoil disposal may have beneficial effects for living marine resources if the process is man- aged properly. Buried shell may be exposed by open-water dredging, enabling new oyster reefs to develop, while the creation of artificial islands from dredge spoil may provide additional wildlife habitats. (Ketchum p. 136.) If spoil is selectively disposed of in the open ocean it may in some cases enhance bottom conditions and improve sport and commercial fishing. Commercial Fisheries Commercial fishery activities affect living resources directly via capture of target species and coincidental capture of non-target species. Man has already decimated or hunted into extinction populations IV-91 to have an adverse effect on the resident marine life. These adverse effects may come from water transport ac- tivities themselves, or from shoreline alterations necessary to accommodate them. The most obvious effect of transportation on marine life is pollution, which may range from gasoline spilled at a marine to a major oil spill of Argo Merchant proportions. In between are "environmental insults" and as the release of human wastes from pleasure craft, non-petroleum spills (for example, detergents which may be washed from the deck of a ship into the harbor) and pollution which results from the release of cargo hold washings into the harbor. Toxic wastes, both organic and inorganic, affect marine life in a number of ways. Plants and animals may be poisoned by foreign substances which impair or prevent respiration. The presence of petroleum may also affect animal life indirectly by blocking sunlight, poisoning or smothering the plankton in the upper layers of the water. Substantial reductions in plankton numbers may jeopardize the marine environment. The physical presence of marine transportation also has deleterious effects on living marine resources, in that valuable living space is preempted, noise and other disturbances drive animal life away, and excessive wave action may damage plants and erode the banks upon which they live. Of greatest concern, however, is the shoreline alteration which accompanies marine