[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Public Beach Access &Recreation, So lnan IIIN.~~~~~~ look.~~~~~~~~. -~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Jn GB zog ~Lader &Richards ~~p835 //57'3 i,�~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~�p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;: ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~';; ,,t~'' I ~ ~ ~ j? i/S73~rZ�i �g~ I :R',, eem --- I wi , .I . .,FvPUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Acknowledgements, Part One The analysis, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report represent the findings of Hartzog, Lader & Richards. We wish to express apprecia- tion for the generous assistance and cooperation of the following individuals and organizations. Fred P. Brinkman Ben C. Boozer Tom L. Hansen Executive Director Executive Director Acting Director South Carolina Department of Charleston County Park, Recreation Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Parks, Recreation and Tourism and Tourist Commission Regional Planning Council Columbia, SC Charleston, SC Charleston, SC Robert L. Gunter Dr. James A. Timmerman, Jr. N. S. Thompson Assistant Director, Administration Executive Director Executive Director South Carolina Department of South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Low Country Regional Planning Parks, Recreation and Tourism Resources Department Council Columbia, SC Columbia, SC Yemassee, SC Buddy Jennings Graham Lewis Charles Gatch Director, Planning Division Director, Planning Division SouthCarolna Deartmnt ofDirecor, lannig DivsionChairman South Carolina Department of U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Beaufort County Joint Planning Parks, Recreation and Tourism Southeast Regional Office Commission Columbia, SC Atlanta, GA Beaufort, SC Dr. Eugene A. Laurent C. Kenneth Thompson Director Executive Director Natural Areas and Resource Planning Waccamaw Regional Planning Office of Coastal Zone Planning and Development Council South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Georgetown, SC Resources Department Columbia, SC HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 2 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part One Credits Hartzog, Lader & Richards is an independent professional firm rendering services to public and private organiza- tions for the assessment, planning, design, impact analysis, and implemen- tation of conservation, recreation, and development projects. This study's conclusions and recommendations have been derived solely from the professional judgment of the principals and the following assembled professional staff associates: George B. Hartzog, Principal Thomas W. Richards, Principal Philip Lader, Managing Principal Mark T. Zachman, Project Coordinator Richard Wildermann, Environmental Studies Diana B. Permar, Market Analysis Kenneth D. Fullerton, Research Assistant Patricia M. Halcomb, Research Assistant Shauna Doyle, Research Assistant Richard Remmer, Research Assistant Peter Ovens, Cartographer Jackie Blackburn, Report Preparation Carolyn Guffie, Report Preparation PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 3 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Introduction Part One X~~~~~~~~~~~~ '"~ ~~~~~~~~This report was funded in part by ;,~.~, ~~~~~~~~~~~a grant from the Land and Water Conservation Act made by the Bureau .~, ~ ~~~~~~of Outdoor Recreation of the U.S. -', " , . . ~~~~~Department of the Interior. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 4PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA i�~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ��,.-~.,�� :� '�.�-::..�~.I i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .;� I' �.~~~~~~~~~~~~2~ ~ ~ " :.r *JF~~~~~~~~~~:~~~� ~~~~ `*�~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,Jr*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :.: :~~~~~~ 2,:.4-~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~-a ~~~~ ~Ti repor wa fnedinprtb :~~~~~~~~~~~~~rn frmth an ndWte ~~~~~�"� ~~~ ~ ~ osevto Act made by the Bureau� �~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~o Oudor eretin fth US :. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Dprmn of��: the: Interior. HARTZOG LADER & RICHARDS 4 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLIN I ~~Part One Introduction U ~~~South Carolina beaches, amongst the State's greatest natural resources, represent many things: *Sunbathing, swimming, fishing, boating, surfing, picnicking, bi- I ~~~cycling, volleyball and touch- football, shell-collecting, jogging, sitting, thinking, and dreaming *Vacation, a week or day away from home and work frustrations -- afterW maneuvering through traffic jams and finding a place to park the car I ~~*Home for those who have long yearned to live by the sea and for many whose livelihood depends on beach recreation -- so long as land values and taxes do not become so high that older neighborhoods are overrun by more expensive commercial and *The marriage of land and ocean, residential development whose natural majesty and productivity *Posh resorts and private communities are part of the national heritage. with quiet and isolation -- beyond 'Amidst these conflicting demands, most the financial reach of most citizens South Carolinians agree that there and rapidly ensnaring prime coastal is a need for State and local governments I ~~~tracts to ensure the ad uacy of public beach access and recr on for present and *Potential sites for power plants future gen a Ar and industrial factories, offshore &N oil production, onshore refineries, %1 and moorings for super-tankers N I ~~PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Introduction Part One At first glance, the United States there is no such thing as a private seems to offer ample beach for everyone's beach, a Connecticut activist each recreation: 210 million Americans share summer leads busloads of black and 84,240 miles of shore. But more than Puerto Rican children in scaling walls, half of this coast is in Alaska, and landing in small craft, and parachuting of the remainder, there are only 12,150 from the sky to swim at exclusive miles of beaches. beaches. /1/ Just 6.5 percent of the total national South Carolina's coastal zone problems shore is in the public domain, much are aggravated by the State's great of it reserved for military use. Only tourism and recreation potential. four percent of the coastline is suitable and available for public recreation. How can the State best respond to One-third of this amount is National the projected demand for coastal beaches Park Service or National Seashore frontage. and water-based recreation within specific It is no wonder that Jones Beach hosts environmental, market, and legal parameters? six million persons per mile each summer! That is the question upon which this study of Public Beach Access and Recrea- Throughout the nation, consequently, tion in South Carolina is premised. coastal recreation has become a major issue. How does government ensure .." '".. public access, both physical and visual, ..- -... .. .,..~~~...> to the ocean's edge and, at the same time, allow private landowners' enjoyment of their historical and legal property rights? No Federal law gives the public any right-of-way over private lands to reach the beach. California has placed management of its 1,072-mile . seacoast in the hands of a state agency to ensure its use for the public's benefit. The Oregon Supreme Court opened roads and paths leading to the State's shoreline. Asserting that HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 6 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROUNA * ~~Part One Introduction The Project As a'supplement to the State's overall recreation plan, this study has sought Duringthe atumn ad winer ofto balance both public and private I 1974,rin the Soutum Candolinteprtmen recreational opportunities. Its objectives of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (PRT), are the Charleston County Park, Recreation t eeo nitgae osa and Tourist Commission, and many coastal * t eeo nitgae osa hearings ~~plan for conservation, recreational municipal governments convened hernsdevelopment, and beach access; to address this problem. The Bureau I ~~of'Outdoor Recreation (BOR), U.S. Depart- t dniycatlrceto ment'of Interior, underscored this n oidesnheetihy Stasteay rensreato concern;, and patcpnsiaCotlpublic beach access and adequate Plains Regional Commission annual confer- recreational opportunities ence called for public action "to savecostetwhprdncatl our beaches". Throughout this periodcostetwhprdncatl the State Legislature was considering zone management; and I ~~several measures which would directly impact the State's coastal recreation * to propose, generally, effective resources. ~~~~~~~~~governmental means of implementing the beach access and recreation As a result, the State and Charleston plan. County PRT Commissions, BOR, and the State's Coastal Council agreed to fund "Recreation" is viewed in its fullest a comprehensive analysis of the subject. contemporary dimensions, including The project would be a qualified planning both active and passive features. element of the South Carolina Overall Although beach access is the study's I ~~Recreation Plan and, as such, eligible focus, ancillary recreational needs for funding under the Land and Water also have been determined. But site- Conservation Act. In July, 1975, Hartzog, specific planning and determination Lader & Richards -- representing experience of title to disputed accessways were in conservation, recreation and develop- expressly excluded from the consultant's ment -- was commissioned to complete scope of work. this study. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 7 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Introduction Part One Methodology records were obtained from coastal jurisdictions throughout the United This multi-disciplinary project States and other countries. Extensive has consisted of four phases: research was also conducted at the Library of Congress, Harvard University (1) Collection of Existing Data, Library (Law, Design, and Widener), Maps and Information and The University of South Carolina Law Center. All pertinent studies and other information, completed or in progress, The data base was supplemented byI were identified, and the most recent site inspections to locate and evaluate and accurate maps, charts and aerial appropriate water-based recreation photographs of the coastal area were areas. For citizen input, the consultantI assembled. Local, regional, State team, participated in public meetings and Federal agencies with planning, in each of the three coastal planning management, protection or permitting districts and attended other relevant responsibilities were identified, appro- hearings in coastal communities.I priate officials contacted, and the extent of such responsibilities as- (2) Review and Analysis certained. Site evaluation was integrated with The consultant team, with the Executive analysis of areas of critical environmental Director of the South Carolina PRT, concern, unique natural areas, and met with representatives of principal environmental phenomena. Beach demand government agencies to secure a com- was projected and reviewed.' prehensive data base. Extensive environ- mental, transportation, marketing, Exhaustive statistical study focusedI demand, usage, motivational and land on present and projected beach use use studies relating to recreation demand through 1990. A gravity model and beach areas -- previously completed was fashioned to analyze day visitation,I by various state agencies, academic weekend vacations, extended vacations, institutions and commercial firms --in-state and out-of-state visitors. were examined. Trends in beach use -- including the characteristics of coastal vacations, General information, government expanding vacation markets, and in- reports, and legislative and judicial creasingly successful attractions - HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS -8 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA3 I ~~Part One Introduction were investigated. A Statewide beach areas, and described legal and adminlistra- use survey was conducted as primary tive mechanisms for plan implementation. research. The preliminary plan was submitted Local, State and ,Federal laws and to the sponsoring agencies and the SCORP regulations relating to South Carolina Exchange Council Board members for commerft. I ~~beach use were studied. Relevant laws The consultant met with officials of and policies of other states and countries State and local public agencies to gather were considered for possible application. suggestions and critiques. A bibliography of all studies, reports, and publications examined in the study (4) Final Plan-Presentation is the final part of this Technical Report. The preliminary plan was augmented and reconciled with the sponsors', agencies', (3) Pelimiary lan Dvelopentyand SCORP Exchange Council's recommendations. I (3) ~~PublicmHaings, Pand Revelowet Three versions of the study were printed: Based on the review, analysis, and Peinayplase (frsecond) projections, a preliminary public beach paerve) access and recreation plan was desi.gned. Technical Report (for distribu- The plann rocess considered the tion by the sponsoring agencies State Comprehensive outdoor Recreation to interested public agencies Plan (SCORP), related studies, and and municipalities). other planning projects completed or undertaken by other public agencies, * Executive Summary of the Technical suhas the Coastal Zone Management Report (for distribution by the Plan and the Heritage Trust Program.spnoigaecstollnertd Response to a detailed policy questionnaire organizations and individuals, was sought from the sponsoring agencies pbi n rvt) and regional planning districts. pbi n rvt) I ~~~The preliminary plan proposed State and local policies, recommended expansion * ~~or development of public beach access PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAOIAHRZG9LDR&RCAD Introduction Part One This technical report, therefore, consists of eight parts: Part One: Introduction 4 Part Two: A Look At South Carolina Beaches 30 3 Part Three: Beach Recreation Market Analysis 100 Part Four: Beach Use Survey 160 Part Five: Environmental Review 186 Part Six : Legal Aspects Of Public Beach Access And Recreation 236 Part Seven: Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan 312 Part Eight: Appendices And Bibliography 1 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 10 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part One Introduction even though its oceanfront property is privately owned. Palmetto Dunes Resort, restricting its beach use to The problems of public beach access residents and guests, is not exclusively and recreation may be briefly characterized "private" because the public willing by several intrinsic issues: differences and able to-pay for accommodations have as to what constitutes "public use"; ready access to the beach. Conversely, the inadequate present supply of public publicly-owned Cedar and Murphy Islands beach access; beach maintenance and are no more "public" beaches than privately parking problems; environmental imperatives; owned Daufuskie Island since they all increasing demand for coastal recreation lack road access. and shorefront property; the exclusive character of commercial recreation develop- This report treats "public" in its ment; the economic importance of beach broadest sense. The State's beaches recreation; inefficient means of allocating and recreation facilities are categorized coastal land use; and the limited resources as follows: available to combat these problems. *"Public", where people have access because of public ownership, I Definitional Differences . regulations, easements, or other legal accessways, whether or not a fee is required for parking "Public access" generally designates or use; puba location owned or controlled by ae public agency, designed to allow the *"Private", where the oceanfront public legal passage to a body of water". /2/ But for the purposes of oped or use is limitely this study, public ownership of neither owned and ues an d owners and guests; and the sandy beach nor the uplands is a satisfactory criterion for distinguishing "Commercial", where the beachfront use characteristics. or.facility is privately owned, typically by a hotel, motel, For example, Surfside Beach, where r esort, by a open totel, accessways connect the public road and re upon pen o regic I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~use upon payment of registration the beach, may be considered "public" I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ or other fees. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA H ATO.11E RCAD Introduction Part One "Public beach access and recreation" Of the State's 281-mile coastline, is therefore understood to include both 86.6 miles of beachfront are developed, public and commercial resources, but and 61.4 miles are generally accessible special attention is focused on the by the public. Only 35.9 miles, in- need for "public" recreation opportunities cluding the State parks, have both in the narrower sense. existing road access and parking, and the remaining 23.5 miles permit pri- marily commercial access. (Exhibit 1-3) All of these areas currently experience Present Inadequacy serious crowding on even normal summer days. The paucity of direct accessways to the ocean often makes academic any Most of the 37.1 miles of unde- claim of public rights in the foreshore. veloped beaches are privately owned. Legal distinctions between "public" and (Exhibit I-4) All four publicly owned, "private" ownership are frequently undeveloped beaches are inaccessible meaningless in practice. meaningless in practice. by road, and only Capers Island is not a wildlife refuge. More than half All but six of the S'tate's Atlantic of the undeveloped ocean beach areas islands are privately owned, and each are privately owned and inaccessible restricts access by the general public by road. in some way. (Exhibit I-1) The public'owns merely 25.2 percent of South--Carolina's Atlantic coast. (Exhibit 1-2) Forty-seven miles are held by the Federal govern- ment, and 24 miles by State and local agencies. /3/ HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1 2 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part One Introduction EXHIBIT I-1 OWNERSHIP STATUS OF SOUTH CAROLINA OCEANFRONT ISLANDS Committed for Undeveloped Development * Federal Ownership: Cape Bull State Ownership: Cedar Capers Murphy Hunting Private Ownership: Waties Pawleys North Isle of Palms South Sullivans Dewees Folly Morris Kiawah , Pritchards Seabrook St. Phillips Botany Bay Bay Point Edisto Daufuskie Fripp Hilton Head * Includes development for recreation, residential, or commercial use. Source; HLR, October, 1975. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 13 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Introduction Part One EXHIBIT I-2 PUBLICLY-OWNED OCEAN SHORELINE Length of Tract # Land Use Acreage Shoreline Ownership Horry County 20 Park (Hurl Rock) 1.00 .04 Municipal 37 Amusement & Campsite 143.00 .75 Municipal 38 Public Beach (Myrtle Beach) 150.00 6.00 Municipal 72 Park - PRT (Myrtle Beach State Park) 534.00 1.00 State Total Horry County 828.00 7.99 Georgetown County (b) 2 Ocean Access .22 .02 County 3 Ocean Access .28 .02 County 38 Game Reserve (Santee) 4,000.00 4.25 State 42 Coast Guard (North Island) 7.40 .11 Federal Total Georgetown County 4,007.90 4.40 (a) Sites border Charleston Harbor, but were considered as having ocean shoreline by the study. (b) Huntington Beach State Park is not publicly owned, but permits public use under a lease arrangement. The park is 2,500 acres in size and has 3 miles of ocean frontage. Source: Coastal Zone Public Land Ownership Inventory of South Carolina, South Carolina Land Resources Commission, April, 1975. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1 4 PUBUC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part One Introduction EXHIBIT I-2 (con't.) PUBLICLY-OWNED OCEAN SHORELINE Length of Tract # Land Use Acreage Shoreline Ownership Charleston County 191 (a) Alhambra Hall & Park (Mt. Pleasant) 1.00 .04 Municipal 213 School - Sullivans Island ' 19.20 .17 Municipal 218 Citadel Beach Club (Isle of Palms) 3.85 .08 State 220 (a) College of Charleston 3.10 .07 State 230 (a) Medical University :1.58 .05 State 232 Park - PRT (Edisto Beach State Park) 840.00 1.25 State 238 Game Reserve (Santee Coastal Reserve) 8,000.00 5.50 State 254 Corps of Engineers (Charleston Harbor Site) 34.00 .23 Federal 256 Coast Guard (Sullivans Island) 3.75 .08 Federal 257 Coast Guard (Folly Island) 14.30 .15 Federal 259 Migratory Bird Refuge 34,218.00 46.25 Federal 260 (a) Park Service (Ft. Sumter) 34.27 .23 Federal Total Charleston County 43,169.30 54.10 Beaufort County 87 Park - PRT (Hunting Island State Park) 8,160.00 4.50 State 94 Hilton Head.Survey Tower .01 .01 Federal Total Beaufort County 8,160.01 4.51 South Carolina Total 56,165.21 71.00 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1'5 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 5 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Introduction Part One EXHIBIT I-3 ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING: DEVELOPED BEACH AREAS Existing Road Access/Parking Available Existing Road AcceSs/Limited Parking Available Public Access (Total: 61.4 miles*) North Myrtle Beach 9.3 Surfside Beach 2.0 Atlantic Beach 0.3 Garden City Beach 4.0 Myrtle Beach 14.3 North Litchfield Beach 1.5 Myrtle Beach State Park 1.2 Litchfield Beach 1.5 Huntington Beach State Park 3.0 Pawleys Island 2.5 Edisto Beach 2.5 Isle of Palms 6.2 Edisto Beach State Park 1.5 Sullivans Island 2.6 Hunting Island State Park 3.8 Folly Island 5.2 35.9 miles 25.5 miles Primarily Commercial Access (Total: 23.5 miles) Seabrook Island 1.8 Fripp Island 2.3 Hilton Head Island 11.4 Kiawah Island 8.0 23.5 miles * Approximate length of oceanfront sand beach in miles. Source: HLR, October, 1975. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 16 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part One Introduction EXHIBIT I-4 ROAD ACCESS: UNDEVELOPED BEACH AREAS Existing Road Access No Road Access Public Ownership (Total: 14.2 miles*) Cedar Island 2.5 Murphy Island 4.2 Bull Island 5.7 Capers Island 1.8 14.2 miles Private Ownership (Total: 22.9 miles) Waties Island 2.3 North Island 3.0 Debidue Beach 3.3 Dewees Island 1.8 South Island 1.0 Pritchards Island 2.5 6.6 miles St. Phillips Island 1.0 Daufuskie Island 3.0 16.3 miles * Approximate length of oceanfront sand beach in miles. Source: HLR, October, 1975. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 17 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Introduction Part One of a typical beach resort town cannot .:: : :support these incremental services. Every South Carolina beach suffers, in varying degrees, from these maintenance problems. Litter is a recurring problem in Myrtle Beach. Maintenance and trash i:. ~;~collection are the responsibility of concessionaires, who render these services in return for income from chair, raft, and umbrella rentals. Local government, ~~ nonetheless,, provides customary sanitation, police, and emergency services. ~j~ ~ In smaller beachfront communities like Litchfield Beach, and in the Charleston area, local governments bear the full i ~ burden of beach maintenance. Motels occasionally employ lifeguards and clean the beach fronting their property, but other beach areas are not regularly maintained. Where litter barrels are placed near Beach Maintenance the road for aesthetic or environmental reasons, such as Folly Beach, people tend to ignore them and scatter debris Beach maintenance and parking, or along the beach. At high tide, the garbage the lack thereof, are passionate subjects is washed away and redeposited down the for beachgoers and townspeople alike. beach. Where, as at North Myrtle Beach Users complain of beaches fouled with and Isle of Palms, use of cans and bottles litter and congested with traffic. Town on the beach is prohibited, enforcement councils argue that "outsiders" require is difficult. Few municipalities can extra lifeguards, beach cleaning services, afford lifeguard services. And there and police. Neither residents nor visitors are few indications that neighboring are quick to assume these costs of public inland cities or counties would be willing beach recreation, and the low tax base to contribute or share such services. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 18 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 ~~Part One In'troduction Parking beach, which can provide shuttle service I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~otebah Convenient automobile parking is in Beach hotels and motels are required by most local zoning ordinances to provide extremely short supply. On summer mornings, parking spaces equal to the number of beach access streets are lined with cars,gusrom.Teeqimntgnral and pdestiansmay b see crosingmay be met by space either on the property major thruhaelk ideBueador in a separate lot within a certain on Sullivans Island, with umbrellas, distance, 400 feet, of'the facility, blankets, ice chests, lounge chairs, at Myrtle Beach, for example. Because and children in tow. of the inadequacy of on-street parking, day users often park in these private Parallel parking along typically narrow, parking lots, compounding the parking one-way beach roads usually impinges situation by forcing guests to find on- on private property. Throughout the street space. I ~~summer, several cars are almost always parked in front yards of beach cottages, and frequently they belong to neither owners nor guests. Driveways are blocked, fire zones ignored, and street corner clearance reduced. The result: "no parking" signs. There are few public parking lots .in'South Carolina's beach communities. Some, like Myrtle Beach, have municipalPAKN parking lots that serve commercial areas as well as the beach. But because of the seasonal nature of beach use, most communities are unwilling and financially l unable to purchase property for use as a public off-street parking lot. Neither Iprivate enterprise nor government has developed inland parking areas, on less. expensive land some distance from the PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTHr CAROLINA 1 9 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Introduction Part One YK? N nature of fundamental beach use issues. Tidal beaches and the uplands behind � ~".~ ~,,~'.e ' ,' the dunes can absorb, without significant ecological damage, much recreation use. Lovers of solitude may cry, with an appeal ||;||7|i I <>a 1t to humanist instincts, for easily accessible wilderness area throughout the coast. But like Fifth Avenue's great nineteenth century mansions, secluded private estates 4' ,/. :' 'may have to be foregone for more intense !~ z - siArJ;\uses. Scientific analysis of environmental ~~~X~~ ~;impacts and market demand is often clouded by the preservation liturgy of those with vested interests in limited public access to beaches. Reasonable densities are often preferred to solitude. Contemporary Americans prefer group recreation, and observation of beach use patterns demonstrates that the majority of users choose to congregate Environmental Imperatives in clusters. It may be argued, consequently, that the State's responsibility is merely The coastal ecosystem is a fragile to ensure public access and that the network of natural, economic, and aesthetic, seeker of privacy should earn that luxury as well as recreational significance. by walking down the beach. Some beaches are areas of critical environ- mental concern which can withstand little, if any development impact. Preservation of these places is in the public interest, and respect for the entire coastal environ- Increasing Demand ment's irreplaceable character is a national mandate. Fifty-four percent of the nation's population presently lives within the The language of conservation, nevertheless, fifty-mile coastal strip that comprises is often used to disguise the psychological only eight percent of the country's HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 20 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part One Introduction lands. /4/ Three-fourths of all Americans foot of prime oceanfront property on reside and nine of the ten largest cities Hilton Head Island, for example, is are located in the 30 coastal States. /5/ $2,000. An acre of oceanfront property And there is no apparent shift away on Myrtle Beach costs more than $150,000. from this migration to the sea. Kiawah Island, with 4,100 developable acres, was purchased in 1974 for $17.3 Beachfront homesites and recreation million. Such costs simply reflect areas are more highly prized than ever an unparalleled demand for beach access before. The State's land values are and recreation. seemingly boundless: the cost per front- PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 21 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS I~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~-.�:� ��.i:~."b;~. :I:'' I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~�~ I~~~~~~~~~: I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:��; Introduction Part One A 1965 BOR Survey, the most comprehensive power plants, refineries, and shoreI and authoritative reference in this support facilities for offshore oil field, reported that swimming was America's- drilling compete with established industrial second most popular recreation activity, and recreational coastal land uses.1 in terms of user participation, and But these may eliminate those attributes would be first by 1980. /6/ In 1965, that comprise the State's unique coastal 48 percent of the population (12 years recreational experience, namely, cleanI and over) swam an average of 14.3 days skies, clean water, long stretches of each; 30 percent went fishing an average clean, white sandy and a horizon generally of 7.6 days; 24 percent went boating uncluttered by smokestacks and high-I an average of 6.5 times. /7/ rise buildings. A 1970 BOR survey indicated that per capita participation in both swimmingI and boating activities had risen nearly 50 percent from 1960 levels. /8/ ProjectedComrilRcetnDvlpet growth rates for water-oriented recreationcomrilRretnDvlpet activities, illustrated in Exhibit 1-5, are staggering. in the past two decades, a few notable private corporations have adopted land- An exploding urban population with use planning techniques to combat the an improved standard of living places deterioration of coastal lands into' inordinate demands upon coastal communities. shoddy beach resort "strips". Albeit More people, with more leisure time commercial, such a resort is far more and more disposable income, have more "public" than an inaccessible island demands for recreation. New roads, under government ownership. parking areas, campgrounds, vacation homes, and marinas serving this constituency State and local government support require large amounts of land, consume of such developments can help guarantee tax dollars, and are changing the character that the demand for coastal recreation of most towns near the sea. is met, to a significant degree, by the private sector. In lieu of public The demand is not only for recreation. subsidies, these projects are financed Development pressures coming from industrial through debt amortized by revenues. and commercial concerns have been exacerbated Their lower densities and more private by the "energy shortage".. Electric accommodations service the recreation HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 22 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part One Introduction EXHIBIT I-S GROWTH IN SHORELINE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES Annual Growth Coastal Participation User Occasions Activity Rate (a) (%) 1975 (b) (millions) 1975 (c) (millions) Swimming 3.8 40.5 369 Boating 4.0 28.6 189 Fishing 1.8 29.0 308 Surfing 3.0 1.3 18.5 Skin Diving 5.0 1.6 9.8 101.0 894.3 Sources: (a) Swimming,,boating, fishing -- U.S. Bureau of Outdoor RecreatibW, 1965 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities (1967), p. 9 & 11. surfing -- Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Leisure-Investment Opportunities in a $150 Billion Market (1968), p. 7. skindiving -- Winslow & Bigler, "A New Perspective on Recreational Use of the Ocean", Undersea Technology, vol. 10, no. 7, (July, 1969), p. 52. (b) University of Rhode Island, New England Marine Resources Information Program, Outdoor Recreational Uses of Coastal Areas, No. 1 (1969), p. 18. (c) Winslow & Bigler, supra, p. 52. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 23 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Introduction Part One wants of a portion of the vacationing And second homes --exceeded $105 billion public which cannot be ignored in the in 1974 and funded about one of every campaign to open beaches for day-users twenty jobs in the country. /9/ TheI and other income groups. ocean-recreation market comprises almost one-third of total outdoor recreation Yet because of rising land, financing, expenditures. /10/ At least one conclusionI and construction costs, few housing :is clear: coastal tourism and recreation and tourism facilities for persons of have a significant impact on rbgional low and moderate income are now being economic development. built along the coast. Existing facilitiesI for these markets are being replaced in 1974, 30.9 million non-residents by higher cost condominiums, apartments, spent $896.2 million in South Carolina. /11/ and motels. Tourism is the State's second largestI industry, and beaches are among the The result has been that significanit greatest attractions. Food, lodging, portions of South Carolina's coast have and other tourism expenditures circulate become playgrounds for the affluent. throughout coastal communities' business But people of all means cherish the network, and travel dollars generate beach experience, and many elderly citizens additional trade and payrolls. Beaches, with fixed incomes have long'anticipated in short, are a major economic resource,I retirement by the sea. All of these and public beach access and recreation seek access to the ocean, whether in are crucial to State and local economic exclusive communities or traditional development ambitions.I neighborhoods. Economic Importance Leisure spending in the United States now exceeds national defense expenditures and exceeds the value of the country'sI total exports. Recreation spending -- including recreation products, equipment'. vacation spending, recreational trips, HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 24 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA3 * ~~Part One Introduction I ~~Shoreline Allocation Mechanisms the Nation's' coastal zone for this and succeeding generations, Coastal zone management requires and difficult trade-of fs.. Increased publictoecuaendsitth recreation, for example, may conflicstaetoxrcsefcivl with conservation objectives or adverse their responsibilities in the affect private interests. Allocation J'"coastal zone through the develop'- of land uses requires a delicate balance ment and implementation ofmage of physical, market, environmental, mage I ~~legal, political, and social factors. ment programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources Existing implementation tools areoftecaalzngingul thought to be incapable of accomplishing consideration to ecological, these eds withut thedenigraion ofcultural, historic, and aesthetic traditional property rights and the vle swl st ed o disintegration of accrued land values. economic development. /13/ One observer has commented that "traditional Ti td a enudrae spr winthithealctiona ofsarranemet coarstal of such a state program. But State resorce thae beectin incapabe cofastriin and local governments cannot look to a socially optimal balance, not only Wsigo o ouin fbahacs between conservation and development, and recreation problems. but also between private and public use."' /12/ Through the powers of zoning, subdivision control, acquisition, and eminent domain, * ~~~One response to these pressures has municipal governments are in the best been enactment of the Coastal Zone Manage- Position to encourage coastal land uses ment Act of 1972, introduced by South most consistent with the general welfare. Carolina's Senator Ernest Hollings. But the particular economic and political I ~~Congress therein declared it the national contexts of local governments can lead policy to inefficient allocation on a broad scale. to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore in the absence of any mechanisms or enhance, the resources of to articulate this regional PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 25 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Introduction Part One value, the municipality is free the imposition of discriminatory parking to use its powers on behalf fees to protect these beaches from over- of purely local objectives. crowding by "outsiders", and the zoning The difficulty with this situation of remaining waterfront for private is that municipalities are in development to maximize the tax base. general willing to accept localized Parochial, inefficient, and inequitable benefits when the costs are from the regional standpoint, such political distributed throughout the region, actions are entirely. defensible to local but, conversely, are not willing constituents. to incur costs in order to provide benefits that accrue to the region as a whole. /14/ Beaches can be lost to private development Limited Resources Available if local communities are more eager to obtain added tax revenues and new jobs. Certain conclusions about the national coastline are generally accepted: Not all coastal communities ignore the dangers of indiscriminate development, *The shoreline has been relegated but some try to preserve their beaches to private interests; by asserting 'exclusive claim to that resource. They are unwilling to provide *Pollution, erosion, and competing free recreational services at substantial industrial uses pose a continuing social and economic costs to themselves. threat; The simplest reaction is to restrict use to all but local residents, at least, *Most public beaches and recreation to discourage non-commercial recreation. facilities are saturated. /15/ Such action is not irrational. Municipal These phenomena, equally true in South government is charged with protecting Carolina, have become acute amidst the the interests of local residents, not nation's realization that its resources, the public at-large. Coastal town charters physical and financial, are limited. typically permit provision of municipal beaches sufficient for residents who are not beachfront property owners, HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 26 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part One Introduction, Just as the supply of coastal lands As this Plan is being discussed early is limited, relatively few public or in the nation's Bicentennial year, there private dollars are available for beach is uncertainty about energy and mineral I ~~recreation development. Land acquisition shortages, government's proper role, costs are only the most obvious line and the capacity of ,Rublic coffers to item in beach recreation budgets. Intensive provide public services. South Carolinians use creates a need for additional municipal increasingly comment, that the post-war services. The State and coastal communities era of abundance may be over, that the serve as playgrounds for the nation, answers to public problems.-- including reap substantial economic benefits from public beach access and recreation -- I ~~beach-oriented tourism, but bear tremendous may not be found in more government fiscal burdens as a result. Local govern- programs and spending. They recognize, * ~~ments' tax bases are inadequate to provide nevertheless, that there can be no hiatus required services, and are eroded if in the planning of coastal resources valuable beachfront property is removed lest development pressures preclude from the tax rolls for recreation purposes. expansion of public recreation opportunities. I ~~Moreover, the real estate market's collapse They ask only that public planning and and lenders' severe constraints havespnigedoe"sfpolemtrd. slowed private recreation developmentspnigbdoeasfpolemtrd" along the coast and left the most innovative I ~~developers inadequately financed to accomplish their public objectives. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 27 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Introduction Part One Bongartz, "Freedom of Beach", U.S. Department of Interior, New York Times Magazine, July 13, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, "Outdoor 1975, at 12. Recreation Action", Fall, 1975, at 6. 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~6 2 This definition is generally U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, accepted in coastal zone management 1965 Survey of Outdoor Recreation literature. See. e.g., New Hampshire At Washington, D.C., 1964, Public Water Todies and Public Access Points, Part II, State of New Hampshire State Planning Project, Concord, 7 NH, September, 1965. 3 Regional Inventory Report of U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, SRelinegEroional Invenormy RCorps oThe 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation of Engineers, Charleston District Ativiie, D.C.,iar 1972r, Wathing (Draft Report, 1975), at 4. 9 Recreation in the Coastal Zone, 4 Excluding Alaska and Hawaii, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1975, at 9. of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1972, at 6. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 28 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part One Introduction 10 Winslow & Bigler, "A New Perspective on Recreational Use of the Ocean", Undersea Technology, vol. 10, no.7, July, 1969, at 53. 11 South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, 1974 South Carolina Travel Study - Summary Report, 1975. 12 See, e.g., Ducsik, Shoreline for the Pul-fc, M.I.T. Press, 1973, at 5. 13 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Sec. 303(a)-(b). 14 Ducsik, supra, at 74. 15 Ducsik, supra. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 29 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 3 CAROLINA ~~~~~~~~~29 HARTZOG. LADER& RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two .� .iI .... -.... HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 30 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS 8 RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PartTwo South Carolina Beaches I A Look At South Carolina Beaches findings have been organized by these topics: (1) Beach Areas Review; (2) Coastal Recreation Facilities; (3) Recreational South Carolina's 281-mile Atlantic Carrying Capacity; (4) Non-motorized Access; shoreline includes some of the nation's (5) Public Acquisitions; and (6) Economic finest beaches. Along the 60-mile Grand Perspective. Strand, from the State's northern boundary to Winyah Bay, are North Myrtle Beach, Atlantic Beach, Myrtle Beach, Surfside Beach, Garden City Beach, Huntington Beach, North Litchfield Beach, Litchfield Beach and Pawleys Island. Charleston County beaches are located on Bulls Island, Isle of Palms, Sullivans Island, Folly Island, Kiawah Island, Seabrook Island, and Edisto Island. Hilton Head Island, Fripp Island, Hunting Island, and Daufuskie Island comprise Beaufort County's beaches. In addition, there are several tracts and reservations along the shoreline which have potential recreational use. In this study, each South Carolina beach was examined in detail for physical, aesthetic, and subjective factors not surfaced by market, environmental, or legal analysis. Distribution of the coastal area's 56 golf courses, 80 boat ramps, 14 fishing piers, 222 playgrounds, and historic sites was also noted. The beaches were visited by multi-disci- plinary fact-finding teams, and local community leaders were interviewed. Descrip- tive information from previously published planning reports was reviewed. The resultant PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 31 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two Beach Areas Review ~~~~The southern segment of the coast -- I Beach A r e as Review ~~~Colleton, Beaufort, and Jasper Counties - SouthCarolna'a c e a n eache mayis an extensive marsh, estuarine, and SouthCarolna's cean eache maysea island system with viable sport andI best be reviewed according to the Coastal commercial fisheries. Port and industrial Zone's three distinct regions: Waccamaw, development in the Low Country is limited. Charleston, and the Low Country. (Ex- Its tourism centers on expensive, tightlyI hibit 11-1) The northern segment (Horry, controlled semi-private second-home resort Georgetown, and Williamsburg Counties) communities. supports the Myrtle Beach tourism industry well-known for its beachfront motels, Although the problems of pollution, condominia, and mass recreational facilities. beach erosion, and industrial development The area is characterized by relatively are shared by all three regions, each small marsh and estuarine systems and has its own beach access and recreationI extensive oceanfront beaches. Sport characteristics. Exhibit 11-2 is a quantita- fishery and limited commercial fishery tive view of the acreage and beach frontage seem to thrive there. of South Carolina beaches. In the fold- 1 out maps identifying the State's regional The central region -- Berke ley, Charleston, beach areas, major traffic arteries are and Dorchester Counties -- also supports designated by highway number, and the sport and commercial fishery and is charac- State's coastal wetlands are shaded. terized by larger marsh and estuarine Cross-reference to this Part's consideration systems and numerous sea islands. It of physical carrying capacities and illustra- is the major permanent population center tive beach site problems is suggested.I on South Carolina's coast. There has been extensive port and industrial develop- ment in Charleston, and tourism is basedI on individually-owned beach cottages and cultural and historical attractions. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 32 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT II-1 Iz ) r- ~~SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL ZONE Io 2JASPER h / I r * - ' o I f ' y . ! -BERKELEY _ --. JASPER!/ ) ~GEORGETOWN i HORRY - >7&3P ARLESTON i A" L ANI O e E A N h T ! C LOW COUNTRY CHARLESTON WACCAMAW REGION REGION REGION PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 33 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches PartTwo EXHIBIT II -2 ACREAGE, BEACH FRONTAGE, AND WIDTH OF SOUTH CAROLINA ATLANTIC BEACHES Beach width Miles of Est. Width between high Name of Beach Area Total Acres Sand Beach of Dry Sand and low tide WACCAMAW REGION Waties Island 370* 2.3 - 185 feet North Myrtle Beach 5,600 9.3 0-20 feet 250 Atlantic Beach 118 0.3 80 250 Myrtle Beach 3,800 14.3 20 140 Myrtle Beach State Park 312 1.2 20 200 Sursfide Beach 1,187 2.0 60 100 Garden City Beach 970 4.0 50 100 Huntington Beach State Park 2,000* 3.0 20 140 North Litchfiel4 Beach 260 1.5 50 150 Undeveloped IP Property 650 1.0 Litchfield Beach 180 1.5 75 150 Pawleys Island 170 2.5- 50 100 Debidue Beach 460* 3.3 50 100 North Island 770* 8.0 50 100 * Acreage figures indicated represent high ground. Actual acreage, including low-lying marshlands, has been obtained for the following: Waities Island (790 acres); Huntington Beach (2,500 acres); Debidue Island (1,630 acres); North Island (6,030 acres); Cedar Island (4,050 acres); Murphy Island (6,030 acres); Kiawah Island (6,500 acres); Capers Island (2,260 acres); Dewees Island (1,468 acres); Pritchards Island (3,303 acres); St. Phillips Island (7,700 acres); and Turtle Island (1,700 acres). (a) Included in inmmediately preceeding acreage figure. Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 34 PUBUC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT II - 2 (con't.) ACREAGE, BEACH FRONTAGE, AND WIDTH OF SOUTH CAROLINA ATLANTIC BEACHES Beach width Miles of Est. Width between high Name of Beach Area Total Acres Sand Beach of Dry Sand and low tide CHARLESTON REGION South Island 300 1.0 0-10 200 Cedar Island 280 * 2.5 0-10 100 Murphy Island 690 * 4.2 0-10 100 Cape Romain Wildlife Refuge 34,230 20.0 Bull Island 5,426 (a) 5.7 0-10 200 Capers Island 1,168* 1.8 0 100 Dewees Island 821* 1.8 50 100 Isle of Palms 1,600 6.2 50 200 Sullivans Island 750 2.6 50 275 Folly Island 1,483 5.2 0-5 175 Kiawah Island 4,100* 8.0 50 300 Seabrook Island 2,200 1.8 0 100 Edisto Island 28,586 2.5 25 160 Edisto Beach State Park 1,225(a) 1.5 25 160 LOW COUNTRY REGION Hunting Island State Park 5,000 3.8 25 140 Fripp Island 2,000 2.3 50 150 Pritchards Island 537* 2.5 0-10 150 St. Phillips Island 1,900* 1.0 0-10 150 Hilton Head Island 28,000 11.4 50 300 Daufuskie Island 5,000 3.0 Turtle Island 90* - PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 35 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two ~~~~Waccamaw Region ~At the hieight of the summer season, more than 250,000 people can be found enjoying the 50 miles of public beaches, The Waccamaw Region extends from which include two state parks and several South Carolina's northern border to large commercial camping grounds. Although Waccamaw Neck at Winyah Bay. Its three sunbathing and swimming are the main counties -- Horry, Georgetown, and Williams- attractions, boating, surfing, fishing, burg -- contain an estimated 1975 population and golfing are favorite activities of 153,040 persons. (Exhibit II-3) here. It is estimated that some 65% Horry County is most populous (82,400 of the civilian labor force in the area persons), followed by Georgetown (36,400) is employed in retail trade, entertainment, and Williamsburg (34,200). Horry's recreation, and personal services related population has increased steadily since to tourism. /2/ 1930, leveling off during the ten-year period of 1960 to 1970. Williamsburg's Because of industrial growth, George- and Georgetown's populations have been town County households have a higher declining since 1950 and 1960, respectively. earning profile than either of the other /1/ two counties. Williamsburg County is rural: 43 percent of its households The entire Grand Strand -- encompassing earned $5,000 or less in 1974, and 73.4 parts of both Horry and Georgetown Counties -- percent earned $10,000 or less during has a permanent population of approximately that same period. Only 32.7 percent 41,000 persons, with a peak population of Horry County households earn below that ranges between 200,000 and 250,000! $5,000 annually; 18.2 percent earn in excess of $15,000. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 36 PUBLC BEACH ACCESS&RECREATION INSOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 36 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Reorep-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: ~co- ~ IP Page #: Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT II-3 PROJECTED POPULATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL REGION REGION 1975 1980 1985 1990 WACCAMAW 153,040 147,000 155,780 165,000 (Horry, Williamsburg, Georgetown-Counties) CHARLESTON 364,160 376,000 400,060 426,000 (Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester Counties) LOW COUNTRY 110,320 107,500 109,480 111,500 (Beaufort, Jasper, Hampton, Colleton Counties) TOTAL 627,520 630,500 665,320 702,500 Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards, September, 1975, from population statistics supplied by S.C. State Demographer, Columbia, S.C. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 37 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two The Waccamaw counties' recreational facilities in general public or commercial use are noted in Exhibit II-4. The communities are rich in commercial amusement EXHIBIT II-4 parks, but the wealth of historic homes and plantations are not open to the WACCA3AW RECREATIONAL FACILITIES public. Among the Region's major tourism attractions are the wildlife park and Horry Georgetown Williamsburg Horry Georgetown Williamsburg sculpture museum of Brookgreen Gardens, Parks 12 10 3 near Iurrell's Inlet and Georgetown's Country.~~ Ib/l CRice Museum and Belle Isle Gardens. Country Club/Golf Courses 19 5 1 nThe general Myrtle Beach area has become Fishing piers/facilities 16 6 1 one of North America's golfing centers oataps13 6 ~ 2 and a principal vacation camping destina- Boat ramps 1 in tion. Campgrounds 16 - Amusement parks 5 - Source: Waccamaw Regional Planning Council HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 38 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches Waties Island and perched immediately behind the dune line, the cottages and other accommo- The coastline from the North Carolina dations house a summer vacation popu- border to Myrtle Beach is approximately lation of some 47,150 persons, compared 16 miles long. At the state line is to approximately three thousand perma- Waties Island, a 790-acre oceanfront nent residents. (Exhibit II-5) island that is-nearly two miles long and three-quarters of a mile wide. Also known as the North Grand Strand, The mouth of the Little River forms this area is attempting to create its its northern boundary and leads to the own image as a destination beach resort. Intracoastal Waterway. North Myrtle Beach advertises "the widest beaches on the Grand Strand", promoting Currently under private ownership, the fact that most beaches are between Waties Island is the only undeveloped 250 and 265 feet wide at low tide. maritime forest and dune area in Horry Capitalizing on those beaches are hotels, County. It is teeming with fish and motels, campgrounds, apartments, res- wildlife, and its ocean beach is beautiful taurants, drive-ins, golf courses, and unspoiled. Present access'is via entertainment and amusement arcades, an unimproved road. souvenir and gift shops, fishing piers, and small shopping centers. North Myrtle Beach provides the iNorth Myrtle Beach best public access to its beaches of all of the State's oceanfront areas. Along the nine miles of coast south Thirty-six public streets end at the of Hog Inlet is an area composed of beach and provide beach access. These the four small communities of Cherry public accessways are clearly marked Grove Beach, Ocean Drive Beach, Crescent by signs stating "public walk" and Beach, and Windy Hill Beach. These are kept open for pedestrian traffic. towns have been incorporated, and are collectively referred to, as North-Myrtle Beach. The area is densely developed with 2,552 hotel and motel rooms, and 3,724 seasonal cottages. /3/ Built on stilts PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 39 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two EXHIBIT II-5 GRAND STRAND POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS Location* 1972 1977 1982 1992 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Cherry Grove 707 14,734 1,138 18,870 1,850 19,900 2,000 23,000 Ocean Drive 583 6,792 938 9,597 1,150 12,500 1,750 16,750 Crescent Beach 400 16,327 535 19,432 725 21,100 850 27,650 Windy Hill Beach 433 7,299 553 8,799 585 9,800 725 10,125 Remaining NMB zones 682 2,002 928 5,428 1,250 7,505 1,725 9,950 Total North Myrtle Beach 2,805 47,154 4,092 62,126 5,560 70,805 7,050 87,475 Atlantic Beach 215 2,375 262 2,712 315 3,125 350 3,725 Ocean Forest 1,510 31,113 1,767 52,080 4,275 61,065 6,150 70,700 Myrtle Beach 1,589 47,755 1,711 53,525 2,345 62,885 2,945 73,550 * Based on zones designated by Waccamaw Regional Planning & Development Council. 1 permanent population 2 = seasonal peak population Source: Grand Strand Comprehensive Planning Study, Summary of Findings, Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, August, 1973, pp. 13-14. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 40 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT II-5 GRAND STRAND'. POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS Location 1972 1977 1982 1992 31 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Undeveloped 4 132 4 332 8 736 25 1,625 Undeveloped 133 15,472 146 28,085 1,975 30,000 2,750 36,800 Surfside Beach 1,750 6,780 3,521 9,851 5,280 12,850 7,750 17,350 Garden City Beach 734 14,186 1,183 24,211 1,300 29,500 2,527 34,750 Murrell's Inlet 736 1,357 1,186 2,832 1,910 4,050 3,775 5,025 Undeveloped property between Litchfield Beach & Murrell's Inlet 14 694 15 650 18 700 20 750 Litchfield/North Litchfield 110 3,026 155 6,241 710 8,625 900 11,150 Debidue, Waccamaw Neck, North Island 21 21 22 1,466 1,550 8,300 3,100 9,500 Pawleys Island 231 4,077 308 4,430 400 4,575 650 4,950 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 41 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part TwoI Throughout North Myrtle Beach, 117 Crescent Beach, similar in physical pedestrian easements, varying from five appearance to Cherry Grove Beach, is to 25 feet, between privately owned oceanfront marked by two-story beach houses and lots allow for additional public beach many motel complexes. Its permanent access.' Almost all of these easements population exceeds 400. have either been dedicated to the city or recorded on subdivision plats where Windy Hill Beach, with 433 permanent public use has been established throughout residents, is physically separated from many years. Nevertheless, there are no the rest of North Myrtle Beach by the .publicly-owned parking lots, and on-street community of Atlantic Beach.I parking is limited.. .Cherry Grove Beach, with more than 700 permament residents, consists of an Atlantic Beach /4/ Ocean Boulevard commercial strip of beach- front motels and typical beach stores. Atlantic Beach, ten miles from-the Two-story wood frame and shingle cottages state line, is surrounded by the NorthI are divided into apartment units for summer Myrtle Beach incorporated area. The rentals. Other than motel and hotel parking town is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean lots, there are no off-street parking on the 'east and by Cherry Grove and WindyI facilities for beachgoers. Hill to the north and south ' Its western. boundary is adjacent to the Greater Myrtle OenDrive Beach, with 583 praetBeach Airport. U.S;.-Highway 17 bisects residents, contains a privately-ownedthcomny. parking area accommodating approximately 375 cars that fronts on the beach adjacent Atlantic Beach is a 118-acre incorporated to an amusement park. The parking facilities town, 98 percent of whose property owners1 are often used by beachgoers, who do are black. Lots zoned for residential not necessarily patronize the amusement use form the town's outer boundaries. park. The beach is especially popular Seventy-two lots are platted west ofI with teenagers. ~~~~~Highway 17, but few have been developed. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 42, PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches The remaining residential areas consist two-way traffic, except a one-way of 56 single-family homes and 36 mobile portion of First Avenue between Atlantic homes. There are 112 commercially-used Street and Tyson Street. None of the buildings, mostly motels, bars, and res- streets are curbed; for the most part, taurants, and 44 percent of them are sub- streets have been improperly maintained. standard. Only nine percent of all resi- dential structures, however, are deteriorat- Atlantic Street, the main road leading ing. Because of these conditions, 77.7 from Highway 17 to the ocean, is the acres of the community are considered un- only artery with a pavement width that derdeveloped land. provides diagonal parking on each side. There are only an estimated 50 public Although the 1970 Census lists 215 on-street parking spaces, and pedestrian permanent residents of Atlantic Beach, facilities are also inadequate. vacation users dramatically increase this figure. The seasonal population ranges between 3,500 persons on normal weekends to almost 10,000 during peak North Myrtle Beach to Myrtle Beach periods like July 4th and Labor Day weekends. Atlantic Beach, Myrtle Beach Pavilion, In the oceanfront Highway 17 corridor and Huntington Beach State Park are the between North Myrtle Beach and the City centers of recreation favored by most of Myrtle Beach are four and one-half Blacks. miles of high quality private development with primary homes in the $85,000+ bracket. Atlantic Beach's main attraction is This unincorporated area includes Arcadian the beach itself. Other recreational Shore, Lake Arrowhead, The Dunes, and facilities are operated by private owners Briarcliff Acres. A few small, 30- to and include dance patios, lounges, live 40-acre lakes highlight the area's natural entertainment centers, pinball amusement beauty, and most homes are inland. centers, and a ferris wheel. Four beach accessways allow use of the beach at Some half dozen campgrounds are located street endings between 29th Avenue South in this wooded area, and trees adequately and 32nd Avenue South. buffer the campsites and residential develop- ments. Building permits, not required The town is laid out in a grid pattern, for this area until 1972, were $6,559,000 with nine streets forming its traffic in that year. circulation system. All streets accommodate PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 43 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two Myrtle Beach Highway 17, the traditional New York-to- Miami route. It has a favorable climate, With a 12,500 permanent population, excellent beaches, and ample recreational Myrtle Beach caters to some 12 million amenities. It enjoys a popular vacation tourists annually. Its influence extended appeal in South Carolina, North Carolina, over a 30-mile strip of beach, the community and Canada. is commonly referred to as the "heart" of the Grand Strand. More than half of Myrtle Beach's expansion has stemmed all South Carolina's tourist dollars are principally from its tourist trade of spent in this area. one-week vacationers. Some high income accommodations notwithstanding, the city's Spaniards landed about 50 miles north market is generally of a lower income of Myrtle Beach in 1526 and established than that attracted to planned resort the first European settlement in the United developments like Sea Pines Plantation States about 30 miles south of the city. on Hilton Head Island. In addition to The settlement, San Miguel de Cauldape, hotels, overnight tourist accommodations was abandoned within a year, but was later are provided in numerous beach cottages gradually developed into very large rice and rooming houses. These facilities plantations, which thrived until the late are especially important during the peak 1800s. Named after the flowering myrtle tourist season when the daily tourist which grows abundantly there, the town population reaches approximately was incorporated in 1938 and became a 78,000. /6/ city in 1957. A new era of tourism may likely be Myrtle Beach is an unplanned resort at hand for the Grand Strand because of area that has recently experienced typical recently instituted commercial jet passenger problems of rapid growth. From 1970 to service to the area.- Since early 1975, 1973, building permits for the City of jet service has been provided by Piedmont Myrtle Beach grew from $7 million to $49.4 Airlines at part of the Myrtle Beach Air million, and the total value of taxable Force Base known as the Myrtle Beach Jetport. property- increased 272 percent from 1969 There'are various estimates of the precise to 1973. /5/ impact of this new access means, but no one doubts that it will add significantly Growth has resulted from a unique combina- to the demand for beach access and recreation. tion of advantages: the area is located on a major north-south thoroughfare, U.S. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 44 PUBUC BEACH ACCESS & REEATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PartTwo South Carolina Beaches Myrtle Beach's Grand Strand has more and even those which do often close such than 35,000 hotel rooms, mostly oceanfront facilities for at least part of the year. and with swimming pools. Many rooms have a direct view of the ocean, and most have private balconies. About half of the rooms In addition to a 160-foot wide beach, are efficiencies, with small kitchenettes, Myrtle Beach offers vacationers many fine and therefore attract families. City zoning golf courses, which have successfully ordinances require a parking space for each expanded its tourism market in-the spring hotel unit. Because of the demand for and fall. Most golf courses are privately oceanfront rooms and full-site utilization owned and depend on the sale of green for building purposes, many of the larger fees and memberships. Hotels have supported hotels have had to provide parking spaces golf course construction by purchasing on nearby sites to meet the local code. memberships and offering attractive "golf packages", whereby hotel guests' green The hotel strip, mainly along Ocean fees are paid by the hotel. The number Boulevard, contains older (10-15 years) of courses available for play on this family-operated hotels and motels and new basis has increased since 1960 from two absentee investor-owned food and lodging to 28. establishments. The former -- generally four stories, with six to ten units per In addition to golf, swimming pools, floor -- wane in appearance next to their and 14 miles of public beach, Myrtle Beach new competitors, but the personal attention also provides an abundance of recreational of owners and their families generate and leisure activities for people of all repeat business as well as absorb overflow. ages, incomes, and interests: 200+ restaur- Many are open year-round, but the smaller ants, 2 fishing piers, 70 tennis courts, and the non-oceanfront hotels close after boating, miniature golf, 2 amusement parks, Labor Day and do not re-open until late arcades, pavilion dancing, shopping, and March for Canadian-American Days. museums. The new hotels are typically ten to Myrtle Beach/Grand Strand has more than twelve stories high with 150-200+ units, 9,000 individual campsites accommodating clean and modern in appearance, and camp trailers, tents and mobile homes. sparingly landscaped. They remain open Generally located on the ocean, the dozen year-round by offering golf packages, campground areas typically include pools meeting facilities, and convention and showers, miniature golf, fishing, packages. Many do not have restaurants, tennis and basketball courts, playgrounds, PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 45' HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two recreation halls, paddle boats, laundromats, restrooms and changing rooms, and a swimming and convenience stores. pool along the ocean; an interpretive area with a visitors' center and historical, In Myrtle Beach, there are some 2,300 environmental, and museum trails; and homes used for permanent occupancy, and particular recreation facilities, such approximately 200 trailers with permanent as a 750-foot fishing pier with a bait- occupancy. There are many high quality tackle shop, miniature golf, five rental homes, and more than 95 percent are cabins, and an equipment rental concession. classified as standard or better. The one-mile beach is approximately 200 feet wide at low tide. The area south of the fishing pier is most popular with Myrtle Beach to North Island surfers. There are 400 parking spaces for day visitors and parking for each The Atlantic beaches between Myrtle developed campsite. The park annually Beach and North Island are spotted with attracts more than two million visitors. /7/ single-family vacation houses. Except for Myrtle Beach State Park, Huntington Beach State Park, and several oceanfront campgirunds, the development is principal- Surfside Beach ly resi-ential. The beach cottages are generally of an undistinguished character, Three miles south of Myrtle Beach but the three-to-four month rental season is the 1,189-acre Town of Surfside Beach. seems to be strong. Bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, its western-most boundary extends just past U.S. Highway 17. The community is 30-lots deep from the highway to the Myrtle Beach State Park ocean and is characterized by single- family cottages. The beach is two miles Covering 312 acres three miles south long and 160 feet wide at low tide. of Myrtle Beach on Highway 17, Myrtle Beach State Park.is divided into four Commercial facilities are concentrated use areas: a campground with 155 tent in a four-block area on the ocean and and trailer campsites, in addition to along Highway 17, and there is no industrial facilities for group and primitive camping.; development. There are seven motels a day-use area with eight picnic shelters, and an amusement park, a variety of other. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 46 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS 8 RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches recreation facilities including miniature areas have not advocated annexation, golf, a go-cart track, a fishing pier, is the lack of a city sewerage system a pavilion, and fast food restaurants. and treatment facility. There is parking for only 120 cars. Surfside Beach currently has two public Surfside Beach's permanent population recreation areas within its corporate grew from 1,777 in 1972 to 3,545 in 1975, limits. One park contains approximately a 49.9 percent increase. /8/ The seasonal 36,000. square feet and has two tennis peak population, likewise, was 6,802 courts, one basketball court and a tot in 1972 and is projected to increase lot. The second consists of two acres to 10,275 by 1977. Within the town limits, of multi-purpose ball fields. Both are there are 910 residential structures, used to capacity and are strained by containing 672 permanent dwelling units non-resident use. and 432 seasonal units. /9/ Of these, 66.4 percent are single-family homes. The Surfside Beach Planning Commission Trailers account for only 3.4 percent has established, among its recreation of the housing. goals, beach beautification, maintenance, and provision of adequate parking and Growth of surrounding areas, especially public access. But the zoning ordinance Myrtle Beach, has increased the demand contains no language requiring or legislating for land in Surfside Beach. Property the use of walkways to the beach. Al- along the ocean road will probably undergo though there are 34 public beach accessways, more intensive development in the future. they are not marked as public. Some Beachfront vacation homes are gradually of these have been encroached upon by giving way to higher intensity uses. private structures or private parking Condominiums and townhouses are springing lots. These accessways are not dedicated up, many of them in planned unit developments as easements, despite their intended just beyond the present city limits. public use. An 823-acre tract of land just north Parking is a major problem for beach of the town limits, bordered by Myrtle users, especially during the summer when Beach. State Park and Highway 17, shows Surfside Beach experiences a marked popula- the most growth potential. The principal tion increase. The only off-street public constraint on Surfside Beach's growth, parking within the two-block area immediately and one of the reasons why more adjoining adjacent to the beach is inadequate, and beachgoers park in public accessways, PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 47 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two street rights-of-way, and even on private Garden City Beach property. Such action frequently results in traffic problems and citizen complaints. Garden City Beach is located just south of Surfside Beach. Geographically split Two public beach-related projects between Georgetown and Horry Counties, have been proposed to alleviate the situation. it currently has no zoning restrictions The City has called for the opening and of its own, but is a responsibility of marking of all public beach accessways the Georgetown County Zoning Board. Although by 1978. This $20,000 project is to the subdivision and housing design are be funded equally by the State Highway much like Surfside Beach, housing is newer Department and the community. Also, and of higher quality. the City plans to acquire land for public parking, at an estimated cost of $300,000, The area is almost entirely developed to be half funded by the Bureau of Outdoor and has no tree cover and little vegetation. Recreation, and the State and community Overhead power lines along the ocean boulevard sharing the remainder. are a visual distraction. The beach itself is narrow -- only 100 to 150 feet wide Surfside Beach and North Myrtle Beach at low tide. Second homes and several are among the few beachfront communities mobile home parks dominate the community. in South'Carolina acting to encourage public beach use. Murrell's Inlet Surfside Beach to Garden City Beach Murrell's Inlet is an established fishing village located just off Highway 17 on There is one and one-half miles of Business Route 17. It has no beach frontage, oceanfront property between Surfside Beach but overlooks Garden City Beach across and Garden City Beach. Myrtle Shores the marsh. Its deep water access and is a new, 130-acre residential development secluded waterfront have encouraged the there. development of several small marinas catering to recreation sport fishing. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 48 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches Surrounding waters provide oysters, rooms and garden. The South Carolina soft-shelled crabs, clams, shrimp, and Arts Commission plans to create an arts flounder. The fishing and. seafood res- center within Atalaya and to provide taurants are popular tourism attractions. parking for 160 cars. Picnicking, swimming and fishing are the major park activities. The beach area within the park is spectacular. Swimming is not allowed at the northern Huntington Beach State Park end because of dangerous off-shore currents, but the three miles of pristine'beaches Huntington Beach State Park is a are among the cleanest and most scenic regional park located three miles south of the Grand Strand. Adjacent Brookgreen of 1Iurrell's Inlet (20 miles south of Gardens serves as a complementary education, Myrtle Beach) along U.S. Highway 17, recreation, and wildlife resource. across from Brookgreen Gardens. The site contains 160-foot wide sand beaches, picturesque sand dunes, protected inlets, marshlands, fresh water ponds, and exten- sive maritime forests. North Litchfield Beach Its 2,500 acres provide 135 overnight camp sites, comfort stations, picnic North Litchfield Beach is a beachfront pavilions, paved parking for approximately community separated from the mainland 275 cars, a recreation building and by marsh, and connected to Highway 17 small playground, and a small trading by Brookgreen Drive and Boyle Road. The post. Other facilities include an alligator island consists primarily of two- and habitat and feeding station, boardwalk three-story beach houses. Development and observation platform for salt water has occurred more recently here than at marsh habitat, two observation towers, most other Grand Strand beaches. The and interpretive kiosks. quality of these residential structures and the natural terrain, with high primary Atalaya is a unique structure built and secondary sand dune ridges, and extensive by the Huntingtons. Its condition has vegetation, make this family-oriented deteriorated, but is repairable, and area one of the highest quality beaches visitors can walk through its rambling in the Region. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 49 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two The community, however, imposes a de itchfield Beach facto exclusivity. A prominent sign wid th. Litchfield Beach placed a t t heetranctoh:is, however, smaller than North Litchfield placed at the entrance to the Island: Beach and, with approximately 204 homesites, "Warning: No public parking on North Litchfield". has only one-third t approximately 204 homesites, has only one-third the single-family In addition to posted "no parking" signs, residential dwelling area. there is no visible access between the homes to the beach. The 77-room Litchfield Inn is located Areorddpasthat six .prominently on a 4-acre tract at the A recorded plat indicates that six east end of the causeway. It has 400 streets and nine ten-foot wide footpaths feet of ocean frontage, paved parkings 400 end at the beach, but these are not readily for 150 cars, and a 245-seat restaurant. apparent, or marked by signs. A 650-acre for 150 cars, and a 245-seat restaurant. apparent, o marked bysigns. A 650-ace The beach and parking facilities, however, undeveloped parcel, adjacent to North Litchfield Beach to the south, is owned are available only to the Inn's guests. by International Paper Company and includes one mile of oceanfront beach. It will Several high-rise condominium structures and apartment projects have been constructed withbecome an estimatnned 1,500 residential communit s.y along the beach. Rents on Litchfield with an estimated 1,500 residential units. Beach range from,$325 to $550 a week for an oceanfront four-bedroom cottage. During the ten-week rental season, 100 percent of the island's available homes are rented. Litchfield Beach There are no designated public parking areas, on-street parking is restricted, Litchfield Beach is connected to the and few areas providing public beach mainland by a two-lane paved causeway and few areas providing public beach across Midway Creek. Development here access are available. On a plat of the across Midway Creek. Development here community, seven 10-foot walkways and is similar to that found at North Litchfield-f oot one five-foot path are shown between Beach. Oceanfront homesites contain 70 Norris Drive and the beach. Nonetheless, feet of frontage. Homes are relatively ' only one 10-foot accessway to the beach new and well-maintained. can readily be found within Litchfield Beach's residential area, and it is marked The beach has ten- to twelve-foot "Private" high dune lines and good vegetation cover. At low tide, the sand area is 150 feet HARTZOG, LADER & RiCHARDS 50 PUBLIC BEACH AOCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PartTwo South Carolina Beaches Pawleys Island guest cars. An amusement area on the ocean offers only a few more unpaved Pawleys Island traditionally attracts parking spaces. A four-story, 54-unit more affluent Carolinians for summer condominium project has been built near vacation than other Grand Strand areas. Pawleys Island's main entrance road, Access to the island is via a two-lane the only area currently zoned to such paved causeway from the mainland. Fronting development. the ocean are two-story beach houses built on piles. Because of the wind- Both parking and public beach access pruned oaks and pines, the ocean can on Pawleys Island are limited. Two to be seen only from a few points along four parked cars are common sights on the road paralleling the back of the most residential lots. There is no public island. Private docks on the back side parking on the island except along the of the island permit ocean access for shoulder of the main road; even then, boats only at high tide. The beach is parking on the pavement is prohibited 100-120 feet wide at low tide. by posted signs. Only three ocean accessways are easily found. Adjacent to an area The Island's substantial natural tree on the southern tip used by non-resident cover and dune structure encouraged the beachgoers is a small area which can development of a unique residential community.. accommodate 20 cars, but "No Parking" Although many homes have begun to deteriorate, signs are posted there. the Island has maintained its popularity because of tradition and the high demand for beach property. Lower rents are obtained here than at North Litchfield and Litchfield Beaches, but the rental Debidue Beach market on Pawleys Island is still strong. The approximately 160 homes available Debidue Beach, located directly south for rent are normally' rented by early of Pawleys Island, is an unincorporated April for the ten-week season. area of Georgetown County and is part of the 38,000-acre Waccamaw Neck. Approxi- Only a few commercial resorts, such mately seventy percent of Waccamaw Neck as the 100-room Sea Gull Inn on Highway is undeveloped, consisting of forest, 17, are located near the Island. That a small-amount of agricultural land, particular motel provides an 18-hole and extensive reaches of tidal marsh. golf course and paved parking for 110 The character of the region is rapidly PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 51 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 'South Carolina Beaches Part Two changing, however, due to the urban-industrial North Island influence of the City of Georgetown to the south and, to a greater extent, the North Island, also a part of Waccamaw expanding tourist-recreation economy Neck, is owned by the Yawkey family and of the Grand Strand in Horry County to used as a private wildlife preserve. the northeast. The island has no improved roads, and currently supports only a lighthouse With large expanses of relatively station manned by the U.S. Coast Guard. vacant land, Waccamaw Neck is attractive The island has some eight miles of ex- to developers. Condominiums, townhouses, cellent oceanfront beaches, 150 feet and spacious single-family dwellings wide at low tide. are springing up here, most as a part of a planned community which often centers around a marina, dredged canals, golf course, or combination of these accouterments. The destruction of marshland and valuable forest land is more of a problem here than in any other section of the Grand Strand. Debidue Beach is controlled by three major landholders: Arcadia Plantation, owned by the Vanderbilt family; DeBordieu Colony, a planned unit development; and Baruch Estate Property, now being used as a private wildlife preserve. Despite almost four miles of beach, there is no public recreation because of the private land tenure. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 52 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Repreo-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: CNI-oJ/ ^A Page Page #: PartTwo South Carolina Beaches a large part of which is the Francis I ~Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Region alrepr fwihi h rni Marion National Forest. Rural Dorchester County includes 549 square miles. The tri-county Charleston region has There are approximately 91 miles of a combined 1975 population of 364,160 Atlantic coastline in the Berkeley-Charleston- persons, Charleston County being the Dorchester Region, wholly located in population center (260,600 residents). Charleston County. This shoreline pro- Berkeley and Dorchester Counties have perty, increasing in value, contains 62,300 and 41,200 residents respectively. ideal areas for public parks and open By 1985, the Charleston metropolitan spaces. With escalating development area is projected to reach 445,000 costs, this part of the coast is likely persons. /10/ to evolve into higher density land uses. Charleston County's industrial and Charleston County beach areas include commercial facilities, including military Capers Island, Dewees Island, Isle of bases, ports, and several major medical Palms, Sullivans Island, Folly Beach, complexes, dominate the Region. As a Kiawah Island, Seabrook Island, and Edisto result, Charleston is the most affluent Beach. Exhibits II-6 and II-7 indicate of the three counties. 36.7 percent population, household size, and income of Charleston County households earn distribution of the Census tracts encompas- in excess of $15,000, compared to 31.3 sing these areas. Exhibits II-8 and percent and 25.0 percent for Berkeley TI-9 indicate housing inventory, building and Dorchester Counties respectively. permits, dollar value of construction, Because the Charleston population is and dollar value of real estate transactions more than six times greater than either in these same Census tracts. of the other two counties, the absolute number of residents is especially significant ,In Charleston County are concentrated for planning purposes. the Region's recreation facilities: 22 parks, 28 playgrounds and ball fields, Of Charleston County's approximately 20 boat ramps, 12 golf clubs, 11 campgrounds, 1,032 square miles, 710 square miles 6 ,public swimming pools, compared to are high land. /11/ Some 145,900 acres, Berkeley County's one park, five playgrounds, 22 percent of the total land area of and 10 boat ramps, and Dorchester County's the county, are marsh. In comparison, two parks and three playgrounds and ball Berkeley County covers 1,106 square miles, fields. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 53 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two EXHIBIT II-6 POPULATION OF SELECTED CENSUS TRACTS, CHARLESTON SMSA 1970 Percent of Percent of Census Total Total Tracts Population Population Households Households Total SMSA 303,849 100.0 82,643 100.0 Isle of Palms 49.00 2,657 .9 821 .9 Sullivans Island 48.00 1,426 .5 440.- .5 Folly Beach 20.04 1,157 .3 423 .5 Edisto Beach 23.00 1,374 .5 329 .4 e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Source: 1970 Census of Population and Housing, Census Tracts, Charleston SMSA, February, 1972. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 54 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 54 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches I EXHIBIT II-7 INCOME DISTRIBUTION, 1969 SELECTED CENSUS TRACTS, CHARLESTON SMSA Income in 1969 of Families and Unrelated Individuals Census Household $10,000- $15,000- $25,000- $50,000 Median Mean Tracts Base $0-9,999 14,999 24,999 49,999 and up Income Income Total SMSA 70,073 64.9 21.6 11.1 1.9 .5 7,818 8,885 Isle of Palms 49.00 715 43.2 34.4 20.7 1.7 -- 11,032 11,247 Sullivans Island 48.00 307 44.6 34.9 17.3 3.3 -- 10,917 11,247 Folly Beach 20.04 256 73.8 18.7 8.2 -- -- 7,129 7,531 Edisto Beach 23 234 91.7 5.6 2.7 -- -- 2,560 3,724 I I ., Source: 1970 Census of Population and Housing, Census Tracts, Charleston SMSA, February, 1972. I I I PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 55 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two EXHIBIT II-8 HOUSING INVENTORY FOR SELECTED CHARLESTON SMSA CENSUS TRACTS 1970 Median V alue Specified Owner- Census Total Seasonal/ Owner % Below $25,000- $35,000- $50,000 Occupied Tracts Units Year round Units $25,000 34,999 49,999 or More Units Total SMSA 40,354 82.0 11.3 4.4 2.3 $16,000 Isle of Palms 49.00 1,180 181/999 605 83.8 10.2 4.6 1.3 $18,500 Sullivans Island 48.00 735. 169/566 288 75.3 16.3 7.3 2.1 $17,400 Folly Island 20.04 1,329 359/970 206 95.1 3.4 1.5 -- -$11,700 Edisto Beach 23 725 352/373 161 95.7 2.5 1.8 -- -$ 5,000 Source: Charleston, S.C. SMSA, 1970 CenSus of Population and Housing, U.S. Department of Commerce, February, 1972. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 56 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT II-9 CHARLESTON COUNTY: SELECTED INCORPORATED AREAS DOLLAR VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED 1974 # % S.F. Repairs & Annual Total S.F. Annual Total Increase Residential Alterations Other 1974 Units 1973 (Decrease) Incorporated Areas Folly Beach $108,117 $172,738 $ 27,000 $307,855 7 $354,505 (13) Sullivans Island $335,000 $194,198 -- $529,198 11 $301,685 75 Isle of Palms $437,600 $182,849 $244,710 $865,159 16 $917,350 (6) Source: Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 57 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two The Region's unique attraction is South Island, Cedar Island, and Murphy its Revolutionary and Civil Wars history: Island for example, Fort Moultrie and the lighthouse on Sullivans Island, and Fort Sumter Between North Island and Folly Island and numerous residential and commercial is a series of small, low islands, most structures in Charleston. Other points of which are inappropriate for residential of interest -- such as Middleton Place, development because of the extensive Cypress and Magnolia Gardens, Patriots marshland and minimal developable acreage. Point, and The Citadel -- complement Recreational use, however, merits considera- the historic sites as tourism attractions, tion for South Island, Bull Island, Murphy but all benefit from Charleston's coastal Island, and Cedar Island. setting. South Island, Cedar Island, and Murphy Because Charleston's residents look Island lie to the south of Winyah Bay. to these island communities as coastal They have no road access and are separated parks, many residents of Sullivans Island, from the mainland by extensive salt marsh. Isle of Palms, and Folly Beach feel threatened These islands have only small amounts and oftentimes manifest their desire of buildable land and would pose difficulties to retain the exclusivity of their towns. in development for any but limited recrea- Weekend beach users en route to the Isle tional activity. of Palms so bottleneck the Sullivans Island bridge that both communities discourage More than 23,000 acres were donated such use. Although Folly Beach encourages to The Nature Conservancy by the Santee public use of its beach and four-block Gun Club and then deeded to the Wildlife commercial area, traffic along Highway and Marine Resources Department. More 171 is typically so congested that its than 18,000 acres of this property is residents, too, increasingly demand restraint marsh. Murphy has 5.5 miles of ocean, of such recreation. but not beach, frontage, and is in Charles- ton County. Cedar, with 4.25 miles of ocean frontage but minimal beach, is in Georgetown County. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 58 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH`CAROLINA * ~Part Two South Carolina Beaches. I ~~~Because of the extensive marshes, Adjacent to the Refuge are 30,000 acres the Preserve can accommodate little public of State-owned waters. recreation. The Wildlife and Marine I ~~Resources Department plans to provide The primary purpose of the Refuge, minimal campsite facilities 'and to preserve which is managed by the U.S. Fish and most of the area as a wilderness. Wildlife Service, is to preserve a habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and endangered species. It is especially important as a nesting area for water birds and Francis Marion National Forest loggerhead sea turtles. Although it is not located on the Cape Island and Bull Island are the coast, Francis Marion National Forest largest land masses of the Refuge. They ~~~fesaudn eraionlopr contain nearly 20 miles of undeveloped tunities to complement beach vacations, natural beaches on their seaward sides. Maintained by the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agiutrthe Forest Bull Island, a six-mile* long barrier offers hiking, hunting, wildlife and island, is 5,426 acres and is accessible vegetation observation, picnicking, only by boat from Moore's Landing in and camping. Awendaw. Because of existing unimproved roads, buildings and impoundments on the island, this part of the Refuge is unsuitable for wilderness designation. I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~It therefore has the potential of serving Bull Island and Bull Bay Islands beach park needs. Other than shell-collec- ting, bird-watching, and occasional fishing,, The coastal area stretching from Alligator there has been little public use in the Creek to Price Creek, nearly 20 miles past because of limited access. northeast of Charleston, includes a series of islands that comprise the Cape Romain In 1975, "wilderness" designation National Wildlife Refuge. One of-the was superimposed over Cape Romain's refuge East Coast's outstanding wildlife sanctuaries, status in some areas. Specific regulations * ~~the Refuge is a 34,196-acre tract of regarding access have not yet been determined, low-lying barrier islands and tidal marshlands, but these parts are the most isolated. of which 34,01& are Federal land, and Use of motor vehicles is prohibited within 180 acres are State land under lease. the Refuge except for emergencies and PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 59 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two authorized research. Swimming is banned Isle of Palms because of undertows and the lack of lifeguards. Sullivans Island, Isle of Palms, and Folly Island provide the nearest ocean beaches for Charleston residents and, as such, are popular day-use destination Capers Island and Dewees Island, areas. Capers Island and Dewees Island are Isle of Palms is located approximately located nearly 13 miles east of Charleston. 11 miles southeast of downtown Charleston. Capers Island covers more than four square It can be reached from the mainland via miles or 2,260 acres. Dewees Island a causeway and bridge across the marsh covers 3.1 square miles, but only 40 and then via a four-lane paved road across percent of this acreage is high ground. Sullivans Island. Isle of Palms contains The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine nearly seven miles of ocean frontage, Resources Commission has adopted a tentative with beaches that are wide and clear plan to make Capers Island a combined of debris, and that range between 200 wildlife and recreation area. and 250 feet at low tide. The island is well forested. Its some 3,000 residents There is no road access to eithe r occupy almost 1,000 of the island's 1,180 Capers or Dewees Island. The nearest housing units year-round. road, Route 855 off Route 17 from Charleston, is nearly three miles from either island. Approximately four miles of ocean If roads are utilized to provide public frontage on the Isle of Palms have been access, they would have to cross more developed, primarily with private beach than two and one-half miles of marshland houses and weekend cottages. The undeveloped and a major bridge would have to be built eastern two and one-half square mile over Clawson Creek. tip of the island consists of 40 percent low-lying marshland. The Sea Pines Company, through a local partnership, owns about 950 acres of the remaining developable land. The beach at this end is broad, flat, and attractive. Several rock groins control beach erosion. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 60 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches The waters off Charleston abound in Sullivans Island some 400 species of fish, 70 of which are considered game fish. Although residents Sullivans Island is an incorporated and vacationers frequently fish from community located at the entrance to both piers and.surf, the most popular Charleston Harbor to the west of Isle method is by boat. Piers on both the of Palms. A two-lane bridge connects Isle of Palms and Folly Beach attract it to the mainland., Because of the traffic as many as 200 fishermen daily. Sport to and from Sullivans Island and Isle fishing is available practically year- of Palms during peak use periods, this round, and charter fishing boats are bridge is inadequate. Current proposals an active business during the summer call for replacing it with a fixed span months. bridge. Public beach access at the Isle of Beach access exists at almost every Palms generally is not restricted. Houses block along the ocean on Sullivans Island, along Ocean Boulevard do not front directly but there is no central parking area. on the Atlantic, but have been built Most of the island's oceanfront property across the beachfront road. Although is fully devel-oped. 735 units house there is the appearance that the beaches its population~iof approximately 1,500. are openly accessible, easements have Beach houses are large, of high quality, never been dedicated to the Isle of Palms. and well maintained. Many oceanfront At present, a lawsuit is in process to homes are permanent residences, whose ascertain the ownership of accreted beach owners commute daily to Charleston. land in this area. The Sullivans Island beach is wide, Public parking is fragmented. A grass between 275 and'300 feet at low tide, municipal parking lot can accommodate and is adequate to accommodate day-use 350 cars. Diagonal parking in the four- visitors if public parking were provided. block commercial area at the beach provides Posted along the beach are numerous signs: 150 to 300 spaces. Parking is allowed "No Parking - Vehicle Will Be Towed Away". on the left-hand side of Pavilion-Drive On-street parallel parking is allowed and Harbor Oak Lane, and also on both on one side of most streets. sides of most avenues. However, "No Parking - Towing Zone" signs prohibit parking on Ocean Boulevard, Carolina Boulevard, and Palm Boulevard. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 61 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two Folly Island Folly Island has 5.2 miles of ocean beach frontage, but at low tide the beach Folly Island, a small, year-round is at most 150 to 175 feet wide. It community, is located.12.miles due south is only a 15-minute drive from downtown of Charleston on S.C. Routes 17 and 171. Charleston, and has the image, with Isle Folly Beach is fully developed, but much of Palms, of being a truly public beach. of the property is under-utilized. Many Its proximity to Charleston is the Island's beachfront properties are unattractive prime asset. and of low quality; 95 percent of the residential units are valued below $25,000, Commercial land uses occupy approximately and 1974-1975 new construction was even 19 acres of Folly Island and cover a lower. The township severely needs many four-block wide district in the island's facilities but lacks an adequate tax center. Vacant high ground accounts base to provide them. for 327 acres or 22 percent of the total township area of 1,486 acres. The township Folly Beach is experiencing problems does not own any public open space or caused by severe beach erosion and the parks. Four privately-owned lots near lack of a sewerage system. About a dozen the pavilion provide approximately 225 rock groins and wood pilings have been spaces for $1.00 all-day parking. Sixty constructed to retard beach erosion, additional metered parking spaces exist but these fragment the beach and are along the street adjacent to the pavilion particularly unattractive. The township area. lacks a community-wide sanitary sewerage system and, hence, intensive private' An aging beachfront pavilion, bathhouse, recreation development has been restricted. arcade, and several snack shops provide the only commercial facilities for the Fewer than 1,200 persons reside permanently concrete boardwalk and fishing pier located within Folly Island's corporate limits. in the center of Folly Beach. Surfers But its resident population increases congregate west of the commercial arcade. to 4,500 persons during the summer months This area attracts the most day visitors. and the peak daily visitor count is 30,000. The beach here, which disappears at high Of 1,329 housing units on Folly Island, tide, is a full flight of wooden steps only 32 percent are occupied year-round. from the boardwalk. Single-family dwelling units predominate, and most were built before 1960. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 62 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches There is an apparent need for improvement Kiawah Island of beach recreation facilities, like the boardwalk and additional new facilities, Kiawah Island, some 30 miles southwest such as parking, restrooms, and amusement of Charleston, is currently accessible activities. Long-range community plans from downtown and the Charleston Municipal call for the township to provide a beach- Airport by S.C. Routes 700 and 20. Long o/riented public activity center. a private summer playground for a few / families, the Island is now in the early /Public beach access is clearly posted stages of development as an exclusive /at each street ending at the beach in resort. the residential areas. There is, however, little or no public parking. "No Parking" Its 6,500 acres include only 4,100 and "Private Property - No Trespassing" acres of high ground above three feet signs are evident along at least one mean sea level, but it has nearly 8 miles side of most streets. To encourage and of ocean frontage as well as more than protect beach access, the Development 12 miles of river frontage. Heavily Plan recommends that public easements forested, the island has 300-foot wide be procured to protect the foredunes. white sandy beaches which, during the These would prevent any-new construction past 15 years, have experienced significant and revert the land back to the natural accretion. state after the existing building encroach- ment ceases to exist. (Recommended width, Kiawah is being developed by the Kiawah 200 feet from high water mark.) /12/ Beach Company under the direction of Implementation of the plan is still unsettled. Sea Pines Company and controlled by the Kuwait Investment Company. A security The Coast Guard's LORAN (long-range gate limits and registers guests, who aid to navigation) Station at the island's will share the beach principally with eastern end is part of a strategic communi- property owners. cations network used by both surface and aircraft units. The present system A 150-room inn is scheduled for a is to be replaced by 1980, and several 1976 opening. Its development is planned contingencies suggest the 14.3 acre site to be similar in design and cost to the as possible public recreational use. resorts on Hilton Head Island. The island has potential to become one of the largest new resorts on the East coast, and will PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 63 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two likely draw thousands more out-of-state Although the master plan proposes such visitors to South Carolina. recreational amenities as a cabana and beach club, a marina, two 18-hole golf Although the island is privately owned, courses, numerous tennis courts, and its developers have agreed to allow public a swimming pool, to date, only one 18- access to a portion of the beach. Two hole golf course, the beach clubhouse and one-half acres at the southern end and dining room, and two tennis courts of the island have been designated for have been built. About 350 single-family day use by non-guest beachgoers, and lots and 80 condominiums have been sold. the developers have agreed to provide public beach support facilities. Access to Seabrook Island is restricted to all but property owners and their To be known as Beachcomber Park, this guests. A state highway has been built area will have two open-air change facilities to the development's gate, but security with toilets, outside showers, drinking guards enforce the community's privacy. water, a covered shade area, and a boardwalk over the dunes to the beach. In addition, a small children's playground, a picnic area, paved parking for 150 cars, and Edisto Island and Botany Bay Island a limited food dispensing facility will be provided. Beachgoers will be charged Edisto Island and Botany Bay Island a parking fee to defray operating costs. are located 50 miles southwest of Charleston. Edisto, 25 miles from U.S. Highway 17 via S.C. Route 174, is relatively isolated. It covers 28,811 acres and is laced by Seabrook Island rivers, streams, and tidal creeks. Because of much low-lying land and the ocean's Seabrook Island, located 20 miles attraction, development has occurred south of Charleston via S.C. Route 20, primarily near the beach. Botany Bay is a 2,260-acre planned recreational/resif Island is a small, privately owned area dential community. Its three-mile Atlantic of single-family residential lots with frontage is being developed with 1,200 no recreational amenities. lots and 1,400 condominiums. There are only 1.8 miles of a relatively narrow The Town of Edisto Beach is a beachfront sand beach, averaging 100 feet wide. community with aging dwellings. More than ninety percent of some 1,600 residents HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 64 PUBUC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches earn less than $10,000 annually, and and picnic facilities, and 5 vacation the median income is only $2,560 annually. cottages. About 250 parking spaces accommo- A semi-private residential development date day-use visitors. The park is one known as Oristo occupies more than 300 of the State's most popular, drawing acres of land at Edisto Island's southern 175,000-200,000 persons annually. Several tip. It has an 18-hole golf course, major improvements are planned for the a clubhouse, and several tennis courts. park in the next two years, including the construction of several more vacation A four-lane, paved roadway parallels cottages and additional campsites. the ocean.. A restaurant and pavilion are joined by scattered houses. Unmarked, Primarily because of location, Edisto but apparent foot trails permit beach Island is currently under-utilized. access between every three to five lots. It is viewed as isolated by many Charleston Although there are no public parking residents. lots, on-street parking is available along the main road. More than two-and-a-half miles long, the beach is fairly narrow (160 feet) with rock groins and pilings from dilapidated fishing docks jutting out into the water. Beach maintenance is very poor, and litter is very much in evidence. Edisto Beach State Park covers 1,225 acres of Edisto Island and has more than one-and-one-half miles of sandy beach, 160 to 200 feet wide at low tide. A three-quarter mile portion is used for swimming. Throughout the park are salt water marshes and creeks. Much of it remains natural, and among the marsh and forest are several environmental observation areas, hiking trails, a playground, swimming PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 65 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two The Low Country Region Island, and Turtle Island contain Beaufort County's entire ocean frontage. The Low Country, South Carolina's southeast corner, consists of Beaufort, Jasper, Colleton, and Hampton Counties. An estimated 110,320 persons reside here. (Exhibit II-3) Hunting Island BeaUfort County is the most populous (52,700) and Jasper (12,800) the least. Jasper, Hunting Island, 17 miles east of the Hampton, and Colleton Counties are rela- City of Beaufort on Highway 21, is predomi- tively poor: 42.5, 40.7, and 36.3 percent nantly in public ownership. Hunting Island of their residents, respectively, earn State Park covers some 5,000 acres, and less than $5,000 an-nually. 58.7 percent there are only a few privately owned properties. of Beaufort County residents earn less than $10,000 annually. /13/ 1 Because the park contains almost four The Region's preponderancy of beaches miles of beachfront property and has TheRegio'preponderance of beaches 200 campsites, it 'is a favorite area and recreation facilities are in.Beaufort of swimmers and.campers. Besides 400 County since only small portions of Jasper day-use parking spaces, the park includes and Colleton Counties are along the ocean. 12 rental cabins, carpet golf, a 136- The Region's main public recreation facilities foot lighthouse built in 1873, four comfort are Hunting Island State Park, Colleton stations, a wildlife observation area Wayside State Park, and 30 public boat with nature trails, a boat launching landings which provide access to marshes ramp, and a playground. /14/ and creeks. Hilton Head Island and Fripp Island are major private vacation centers. The park is South Carolina's second most popular, drawing nearly one million Parris Island Marine Base, the U.S. visitors annually. Several major park Naval Air Station, and a Navy Hospital improvements are planned for 1976, including exert considerable influence over Beaufort the construction of 10 vacation cabins County's leisure activities, especially and two tennis courts. The U.S. Army evident at Hunting Island State Park. Corps of Engineers has begun a $1 million Hunting Island, Fripp Island, Pritchards beach re-nourishment project. These Island, St. Phillips Island, Bay Point efforts should increase the park's popular- Island, Hilton Head Island, Daufuskie ity with both military and civilian recreation seekers. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 66 PUBUC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Renren-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: P Page #: PartTwo South Carolina Beaches Fripp Island St. Phillips Island Fripp Island covers nearly 2,000 acres- St. Phillips Island is 12 miles southeast and measures approximately 3.5 miles of Beaufort. Access is limited to boats by 0.8 miles. Eighty percent of the by a ramp at the end of Route 447. Wide acreage is high ground, and the island salt marshes separate the island from has nearly four miles ocean frontage, the mainland. Routes 21, 45, 117, 77, although only 2.3 miles are of good white and 447 constitute the shortest, albeit sand beaches, averaging 150 to 200 feet circuitous, connection to downtown Beaufort. wide. It is located less than 20 miles southeast of Beaufort via S.C.Routes The natural, undisturbed island covers 21 and 406. nearly 7,700 acres, of which only 25 percent is high ground. Privately owned, The resort development of Fripp Island St. Phillips has one mile of good beach has been underway for 10 years. It -is and is heavily forested in many areas. estimated that 1,700 to 2,000 families will eventually live there. Access from the mainland, controlled by a privately- owned concrete bridge, is restricted Parris Island to owners, resort guests, and golfers. Parris Island does not have park or beach areas available for use by either military personnel or civilians. All Pritchards Island lands within the confines of the U.S. ilarine Corps base are considered as environ- Pritchards Island, 3,303 undeveloped mentally or security sensitive. acres southwest of Fripp Island, has no bridge access to the mainland. The Three 'sites outside the Base, declared best access, a bridge crossing Capers surplus by the Defense Department, have Creek, would likely be ecologically hazardous been dedicated to Beaufort County. A to the marsh. 313-acre wooded tract, known as Burton Wells, is located halfway between Parris The island's 537 acres of high ground are dwarfed by 2,763 acres of marshland. Island and Laurel Bay. Engineering drawings The heavily wooded inland fronts on nearly are now being d~veloped for recreational facilities on this site. In 1976 a baseball 3.5 miles of the ocean, and the 2.5 miles field will be constructed on a 5-acre of white sand beach are 150 feet wide. site within this property. Future plans PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 67 HARTZOG. LADER&RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches PartTwo call for a swimming pool, campsites to Hilton Head Island complement facilities at Hunting Island State Park, a picnic area, nature trails, Hilton Head is a 28,000-acre island several tennis courts, and three additional located 32 miles northwest of Savannah, baseball fields. A five-acre site outside Georgia, and 32 miles southwest of Beaufort. the Base gate is planned for the development Since 1964, it has been developed into of 2 tennis courts, restrooms, grills a high quality destination resort, with and picnic tables, picnic shelter, play four major planned resort communities area, and grassed parking for 50 cars. along its 13 oceanfront miles. Its growth since 1970 has paralleled that of Myrtle The'third site, an open field, is also Bah available for recreation. Hilton Head Island attracts much fewer, but far more affluent visitors than Myrtle Victoria Bluff and Calawassie Island Beach. Demand for its vacation use comes almost exclusively from families and individuals in the $25,000+ income category. The State Port Authority owns approximately 1,503 acres near the site of the proposed Its golf and tennis facilities have Chicago Bridge and Iron Company installation. attained national renown, and more than A current agreement requires that, if 900 hotel rooms and 4,000 rental condominia the CBI permit is granted, the Ports Authority will transfer 1,400 acres to the Wildlife and Marine Resources Department There remains significant undeveloped for use as a wildlife refuge or open acreage on Hilton Head to provide for space. A decision from the Army CorpsacegonHlnHadtprvefr future residential and resort development. of Engineers is expected in April, 1976. 10,000 single-family lots have been platted, and 4,000 have been sold. 11,000 condominium units are projected, but only 4,021 have acres of high ground that comprise Calawassie been completed. Each major "plantationfI Island, now owned by the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. The pla~i includpes to entice property buyers and resort a 27-hole golf course, a marina, and guests, and they all limit beach access other resort facilities, but no developmentgusanthyllimtbchces to residents and guests. is scheduled. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 68 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PartTwo South Carolina Beaches Sea Pines Plantation is a 5,200-acre major hotel will open in 1976, and the controlled-access private community. community is 40 percent complete. Along its four miles of wide white sand beaches are 161 oceanfront lots. Fifty- One of the first developments on Hilton foot wide walkway easements are spaced Head, Port Royal Plantation is the island's every 200 feet along the ocean to permit only large community characterized by beach access for purchasers of interior single-family dwellings. Developed by lots or condominiums. A beachfront fast- the Hilton Head Company, it covers 995 food and change facility serves resident acres, and 60 percent of its 800 lots and guest beach users. Four 18-hole have been sold. A clubhouse, 36 holes golf courses, two- marinas, 47 tennis of golf, and an inn cater to residents, courts, and playgrounds are scattered prospective purchasers, and their guests. through the development, which is 90 Of the community's 43 oceanfront lots, percent complete. 18 front on Port Royal Sound, and the beach is accessible at the inn. Hilton Head Plantation's 4,000 acres on the island's north end are being developed 850-acre Shipyard Plantation has less by the Company behind Sea Pines Plantation than 300 feet of ocean frontage. Another and Kiawah Island. It will be a permanent development of the Hilton Head Company, residential community with water frontage it has one 18-hole golf course, and a on Port Royal Sound. Compensating for large tennis complex. It is 50 percent a limited beach area are an equestrian - developed. center, an 18-hole golf course, several Iplaygrounds, and a recreation area with Other major Hilton Head developments, tennis, platform tennis, a swimming pool, such as Spanish Wells and Long Cove Planta- and a restuarant. tions, do not have ocean frontage. Moss Creek Plantation, a 1,061-acre new Being developed by the Phipps Land community, is located just off the island Company, the 1,800-acre Palmetto Dunes and has deep water access but no beach. Resort has nearly three miles of ocean 1,581 dwelling units are planned, but frontage. Between every five of the the project is in its initial stages. 81 oceanfront lots are beach access paths. A small changing facility and meeting pavilion is the ocean focal point. A PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 69 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two In the North Forest Beach subdivision, Five paved state-owned and maintained there are 19 streets ending at the beach, roads on Hilton Head Island lead to the and presumably provide public access. ocean, but only the road at Coligny Citcle While each street ending has a 26-foot is considered "public" because of established right-of-way, many have been encroached use. The parcel of sand between the street upon by adjacent lot owners, thereby re- ending and mean high tide is in private stricting access. Ownership of these ownership. rights-of-way is in question. Subdivision lot owners and the subdivision's developer, Development of a 6.5 acre park site however, claim the access points are easements in the North Forest Beach area is under for their exclusive use. There is no current consideration, for either a playground record of deeding and dedication of these and picnic area, or for a public parking parcels to Beaufort County although the area to serve beachgoers. As yet, however, County Department of Roads and Bridges no commitments have been made, and the has been maintaining the roads in the property still remains in private ownership area. Posted signs- near the access areas although efforts to secure a dedication warn that parked cars will be towed away. to the county are being actively pursued. These signs were placed by the developer. All other beach access points on Hilton The Lawton Beach Subdivision located Head Island are behind the security gates on the ocean between the Hilton Head Inn of the private communities and therefore and the Sea Pines Plantation Ocean Gate provide little day use access. The Island contains 24 oceanfront lots. The subdivision is used little by Beaufort beachgoers, plat indicates three-walkways to the beach, primarily because the 60-minute drive each with a 75-foot right-of-way. Six- through a circuitous marshland route makes streets in this area, each 50 feet in it less convenient than Hunting Island width, end at the beach and provide beach State Park. access for subdivision lot owners. As in North Forest Beach, these rights-of- way have not been deeded or dedicated to Beaufort County. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 70 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PartTwo South Carolina Beaches Daufuskie Island Eighteen miles north of Savannah are Daufuskie Island's 5,000 undeveloped acres on Calibogue Sound. It is separated from the mainland by the Intracoastal Waterway and the Cooper River. Access to this island, five miles long and three miles wide, is by boat. Along the southeastern side of the island are three miles of privately owned sandy beach. Turtle Island In late 1975, Turtle Island was donated to the State. Southernmost of the South Carolina sea islands, this 1,700-acre island has only 90 acres of high ground. Bounded on the north by the New River, on the west and southwest by the Wright River, Turtle Island will be used as a wildlife management area by the S.C. Depart- ment of Wildlife and Marine Resources. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 71 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two No effort was made in this ,$tudy to Coastal Recreation Facilities re-inventory or re-evaluate these facilities. Examination of existing inventories was the basis of the firm's conclusions regard- A detailed inventory of the State's ing sport fishing, boating, and swimming, existing recreational facilities was as discussed in subsequent parts of this conducted by PRT and local governments. report. Known as Title II, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Inventory, it has been incorpor- ated as an element of the South Carolina Comprehensive Overall Recreation Plan. Sport Fishing This extensive computer file of the Sport fishing is one of So' State's public and private recreational marolina's facilities was analysed as part of this major fis of rere issued. study. Its information on hotels, motels, Combing licent weresued. campgrundsgolf ourse, chuchesCombined resident and non-resident user- campgrounds, golf courses, churches, ocsosfrbaigadfsigi school recreation facilities, cemeteries, 1975 for estimand to historic houses, hunting preserves, and be 11,901,068. /15/ state parks were part of the data base South Carolina has 2,876 miles of from which this report was prepared. tidal shoreline and over 10,000 square miles of offshore water area accessible- This inventory is the best available inthiinentoryis Stathe but ainfatilab to sport fishing boats. /16/ The principal in the State; but not all information river b--asins provide excellent fishing has been collected, and no efficient waters: Waccamaw and Yadkin-Pee Dee means of continuous updating of the inven- Rivers emptying through Winyah Bay; tory has been instituted. It also suffers Santee-Cooper Rivers emptying through from its quantitative orientation: SCORP Charleston Harbor; Edisto, Ashepoo, summaries present "need" in terms of acreae raher han ualit or iverityand Combahee Rivers emptying through acreae rather than quality or diversity'. St. Helena Sound; and Broad Creek through Port Royal Sound. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 72 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Rep~rep-Insert "Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: soc~AL Page # Part Two South Carolina Beaches The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Development of the potential in salt the sheltered water route used by boats water sports fishing will require additional along the East Coast, is another valuable and improved facilities and access areas recreation resource. The Waterway through- throughout the South Carolina coast. out the State is a series of rivers, There is an existing major need for estuaries, sounds and inlets, linked more boat launching ramps, access canals by canals. It is maintained and managed for small boat users, and improved marina by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. and dockage facilities. Many of these Thousands of boaters annually cruise marina facilities offer profit potential the Waterway. to the private sector. The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department maintains numerous public boat landings for fishermen and Boating boaters in the coastal counties of Horry, Georgetown, Charleston, Berkeley, Colleton, In 1974, the coastal counties of South Beaufort, and Jasper. In addition there Carolina contained 30,548 registered are numerous privately-owned and operated boats compared to a State-wide total marinas, boat ramps, sport fishing boats of 141,881. (Exhibits 11-11 and 11-12) and ocean piers in the coastal area, a dozen fishing piers, 29 charter fishing boats and a number of salt-water inlet fishing facilities are available in the Grand Strand area from Little River to Georgetown. Charleston and Beauf(rt Counties, with an abundance of marshes and estuaries, offer many private fishing and boat-launching facilities and charter fishing boats. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 73 HARTZOG. LADER&RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two EXHIBIT 11-10 ]'"" .~,....,..~LOCATION OF COASTAL SPORTS FISHING AREAS r--, ) t. $Rm ArR_/--/ *1~~~~~~~~E COLLETON r. *JASPER |- ) ]BEAUFORT / B' � -E -- / *% -. ~BERKELEY _ --J I CHARLESTON j GEORGETOWN HORRY \ I ~~0 ':".-."". . \ 4," .. II ,7>,'.w;.,., WC>~ CHARLESTON -CI ~~~~~~~~~~~..:'m'5'-.:,.. . ',,J -'~.- .' ~''2...,:.. . ,,,,.. ,- ,,r^, ,;f^ : * :; .ARTZO,.. L &-RC..' :.;A. - -. . .... HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS' 74' PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT Il-11 EXHIBIT 11-12 NUMBER OF REGISTERED REGISTERED MOTOR BOATS MOTOR BOATS WITHIN IN SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNTIES 1971-1975 1974 Year Number of Boats Horry County 6,197 Georgetown County 3,603 1975 (Nov.) 151,000 Charleston County 15,042 1974 141,881 Colleton County 1,762 1973 128,578 Beaufort County 3,944 1972 87,587 30,548 1971 79,804 Source: South Carolina Division of Source: South Carolina Division of Boating, Charleston, S.C. /17/ Boating, Charleston, S.C. These totals include onregistered boats. If this projection is accurate, motor boats used for both pleasure or then the estimated number of boats in commercial purposes. They do not reflect South Carolina counties in 1974 would small non-power, non-registered boats be 38,185. like canoes, kyacks, Sunfish, Hobie Cats, and the like. The U.S. Coast Guard in While the demand for boating facilities a 1973 National Boating Survey has estimated is great, serious environmental damage that the actual number of boats within can occur from extensive alteration of a state or region may be as much as 25 the marine environment, especially dredging percent more than the number-of registered and filling of coastal wetlands for marinas PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 75 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two or boat launching sites. Recreational Carrying Capacity There are approximately 80 boat launching ramps having access to the State's salt Recommendations for allocating beach water. Many are in need of repair, and use demand and developing beach recreation additional ramps are needed. facilities must be-founded on the physical and aesthetic character of particular beach properties. "Recreational carrying capacity" is the concept employed in Surfing this study to compare these features.I It can be defined as the character of The State's most popular surfing beaches use which can be supported by an area are Ocean Drive and Cherry Grove, Ocean for'a specified duration without excessivelyI Plaza Pier, Pawleys Island Point, Folly damaging either the physical environment Island (south of the boardwalk), Dunes or the visitor's experience. Cove, Myrtle Beach State Park (south of the fishing pier), and several locations Recreational carrying capacity depends in Myrtle Beach. on the inter-relationship of several factors: (1) physical capacity as determined Generally, surfing is permitted unless by the use beyond which the natural resourceI posted. Because of the hazards of loose will be unacceptably altered; (2). social, boards to swimmers, the sport has become psychological, or visitor capacity, a controversial in many communities along subjective level beyond which individualsI the coast. feel the recreational experience is not fully satisfactory because of overcrowding, noise, or'loss of privacy; and (3) facility capacity, the maximum level of use whichI man-made facilities (e~g., parking lots, roads, trails, campsites) can accommo- date. Dispersion of recreational demandI requires, however, a quantification of optimal beach densities. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 76 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches Beach recreation demand can be best factor. Wisconsin's Conservation Department satisfied if coastal areas are planned recommends 200 square feet per person according to the seasonality and market in rural areas and 100 square feet in sensitivity of use. The availability urban areas, both with turnover rates of off-beach services and facilities of three. The Texas Parks and Wildlife greatly affects beach'use capacity. Department, in its State Comprehensive San Diego, for example, requires a square Outdoor Recreation Plan, recommends 300 foot of parking and other public facilities square feet per person. For the purposes for every square foot of beach. But of this study, 200 square feet per person recreation planning is principally dependent has been determined to be an arbitrarily upon the amount of sandy beach space optimal recreation density for South deemed necessary for each person's recrea- Carolina's beaches. tional use. To determine the physical carrying On Long Island, where annual beach capacity of individual beaches, the lengths attendance has exceeded 70 million, crowding and widths of major beaches are measured. can be so severe as to allow only 20 (Exhibit TI-13) The carrying capacity square feet of beach per person at some ratio (200 square feet/person) is then beaches. It is not uncommon for Coney applied. (Exhibit II-14) Island beachgoers to have only 56 square feet per person, or for their New Jersey Based on these calculations, the neighbors to have only 78 square feet State's total developed beaches have in Atlantic City. a daily recreational carrying capacity of 238,673 persons. (Exhibit II-14) The U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation The recreational carrying capacity of based its Lake Erie Basin recreation the State's presently undeveloped beaches planning on the measure of 75 square are noted in Exhi II-15. feet per person, with a 1.5 turnover P.T 7 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 77 H A T O . LER&ICRD South Carolina Beaches Part Two EXHIBIT II-13 SOUTH CAROLINA OCEAN BEACH DIMENSIONS .o. Width of Width at Beach Area Dry Sand Mean Tide Total Width Length Length WACCAMAW REGION Waties Island 10 feet 93 feet 100 feet 2.3 mi, 12,144 feet North Myrtle Beach 20 125 145 9.3 49,104 Atlantic Beach 20 125 145 0.3 1,584 Myrtle Beach 20 70 90 " 15.7 82,896 Myrtle Beach State Park 20 100 120 1.2 6,336 Surfside Beach 60 50 111 2.1 10,560 Garden City Beach 50 50 100 4.0 21,120 Huntington Beach State Park 20 70 95 3.0 15,840 North Litchfield Beach 50 75 125 1.5 7,920 Undeveloped IP Property -- -- 1.0 -- Litchfield Beach 75 75 1.50 1.5 7,920 Pawleys Island 50 50 100 2.5 13,200 Debidue Beach 50 50 100 3.3 17,424 North Island 50 50 100 8.0 42,240 CHARLESTON REGION South Island 10 100 110 1.0 5,280 Cedar Island 10 50 60 2.5 13,200 Murphy Island 10 50 60 4.2 22,176 Cape Romain Wildlife Refuge -- -- - - -- --- Bull Island 10 100 110 5.7 30,096 HARTZOG, LADER & RIlCHARDS 78 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT II-13 (con't.) SOUTH CAROLINA OCEAN BEACH DIMENSIONS Width of Width at Beach Area Dry Sand Mean Tide Total Width Length Length CHARLESTON REGION (con't.) Capers Island 0 50 50 1.8 9,504 Dewees Island 50 50 100 1.8 9,504 Isle of Palms 50 100 150 6.2 32,736 Sullivans Island 50 138 188 2.6 13,728 Polly Island 5 88 93 5.2 27,456 Kiawah Island 50 150 200 8.0 42,240 Seabrook Island 0 50 50 1.8 9,504 Edisto Island 25 80 115 2.5 13,200 Edisto Beach State Park 25 80 115 1.5 7,920 LOW COUNTRY REGION Hunting Island State Park 25 70 95 3.8 20,064 Fripp Island 50 75 125 2.3 15,144 Pritchards Island 10 75 85 2.5 13,200 St. Phillips Island 10 75 85 1.0 5,200 Hilton Head Island 50 150 200 11.4 60,192 Daufuskie Island -- -- 50 3.0 15,240 Turtle Island -- -- -- Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 79 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two EXHIBIT II-14 RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY OF DEVELOPED SOUTH CAROLINA OCEAN BEACHES Estimated Recreational Beach Area Beach Acreage Carrying Capacity North Myrtle Beach 163.5 acres 35,600 persons/day Atlantic Beach 5.3 1,148 Myrtle Beach 171.2 37,303 Myrtle Beach State Park 16.7 3,643 Surfside Beach 26.9 5,860 Garden City Beach 48.5 10,560 Huntington Beach State Park 35.5 7,524 North Litchfield Beach 22.7 4,950 Litchfield Beach 27.3 5,940 Pawleys Island 30.3 6,600 Bulls Island 76.0 16,552 Isle of Palms 72.7 15,840 Sullivans Island 43.5 9,472 Folly Island 58.6 12,767 Seabrook Island 10.9 2,376 Edisto Island 34.8 7,590 Edisto Beach State Park 20.9 4,554 Hunting Island State Park 43.8 9,530 Fripp Island 34.8 7,590 Hilton Head Island 276.4 60,192 Total 238,673 persons/day Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 80 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT II-15 RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY OF UNDEVELOPED SOUTH CAROLINA OCEAN BEACH AREAS Estimated Recreational Beach Area Beach Acreage Carrying Capacity Waties Island . 28.7 acres 6,254 persons/day Undeveloped IP Property NA NA Debidue Beach 40.0 8,712 North Island 96.7 21,120 South Island 13.3 2,904 Cedar Island 18.2 3,960 Murphy Island 30.5 6,653 Capers Island 10.9 2,376 Dewees Island 21.8 4,752 Isle of Palms (Eastern tip) 40.0 8,712 Kiawah Island 194.0 42,240 Pritchards Island 25.8 5,610 St. Phillips Island 10.3 2,244 Daufuskie Island 18.2 3,960 Turtle Island -- -- Total 119,497 persons/day Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 81 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches PartTwo From classifications derived from Non-Motorized Access Oregon, California, and Georgia, three classes of trails may be distinguished. beach at North vhiyrtle Beach in winterI Hiking/biking paths, separate roadways and occasional cars on Kiawah Island, for exclusive non-motorized access, are motor traffic is not a problem for South highly desirable along the South Carolina Carolina's beaches. Municipal and county coast, but may cost more than $20,000 per mile. Special lanes, with restricted ordinances generally ban such access. right-of-way, are hazardous by their right-of-way, are hazardous by their proximity to automotive travel, but may be set aside by signs and street markings Hiking, Biking, and Hosteling /18/ for less than $3,000 per mile. Shared roadways, distinguished by signs and As a consequence of America's energy markers costing less than $500 per mile, shortage and interest in physical fitness, channel hikers and bikers to less frequented hiking and bicycling have become major streets and are suitable for residential recreation interests. From 1972 to 1974, areas. sales of bicycles in.the United States surpassed those of automobiles for the All three of these roadways would firste toimsne s World War Is If South e benefit the State's beach users. Selection Carolina residents anWorld vacationers are If South of the appropriate form depends on present to hike and bike safely along the coast, uses, political and economic feasibility, to hike and bike safely along the coast,la there must be adequate, safe pedestrian local terrain, and site specific planning. thereand bicycle ways and accommodations for Certain support facilities -- rest areas athose whose access a nd aommodatio ns for with benches, bike security devices (e.g., racks), directional markers, rain shelters, Hiking and biking trails encourage and comfort stations -- should be included non-motorized access to beaches, ensure in any hiking/biking trail network. greater safety, and enhance the recreation to construct, sometimes similar to conven- experience. But these paths are expensive Although the financial requirements to construct, sometimes similar to conven- of planning, constructing, and maintaining tional roadways in cost. They require such paths have occasionally been met land which may be difficult to acquire, solely by Feder al sourcesprovide fundstate create right-of-way problems when they for multiple-use tral sources may provide funds intersect with other transportation modes, California, Illinois, and Oregon have and require costly maintenance. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 82 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA I ~Part Two South Carolina Beaches I ~~statutes providing for the mandatory Long-distance hiking/biking trails expenditure each year of one percent have been proposed for New England and of the State's highway funds for hiking/biking are under construction along the Pacific trails. coast. A-Southeast Regional or South Carolina Trail System has been advocated Such roadways are currently popular by hiking/biking enthusiasts. For the I ~~projects with the Bureau of Outdoor Recrea- purposes of beach access and recreation, tion, which can provide matching funds however, short- and medium-length trails to State and local governments for their near urban areas are more appropriate. /19/ planning and construction under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Approval of local beach access paths rests with the State-appointed of ficer I ~~and BOR and must be consistent with SCORP. Recent grants in other states have ranged from $750 to $425,000. I ~~~There are other federal sources of assistance in this regard. Through the State Highway Department, state agencies I ~~and local governments may obtain matching grants from the Federal Highway Administra- tion under the 1973 Federal Aid Highway I ~~Act. In areas of high unemployment, some hiking/biking trail development funds are available from the Economic Development Agency through the Public Works Impact Program. The Department of the Army has occasionally cooperated with local officials to construct trails I ~~on government land, and U.S. Army Reserve units have sometimes contributed labor to these projects. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA .83 HARTZOG, LADER-& RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches PartTwo plans to spend $215,000 for acquisition Public Park Acquisition and $3,814,000 for development of fishing facilities. The proposed 1976 park acquisition and development program is summarized A detailed acquisition and. park de- in Exhibit II-16. Only $515,700 is velopment plan for 1975-79 is indicated expected to be available to PRT for in Exhibits II-17 and II-18. Coastal acquisition of recreation lands throughout land acquisition includes Patriot's the State. No estimate has been made Point in Charleston (500 acres) in 1976, of what portion would be spent on acquisi- and a regional park on the Savannah tion of coastal parks. The State Compre- River (5,000 acres) in 1979. Four undeslg- hensive Outdoor Recreation Plan details nated parks have been proposed for ac- planned local government expenditures. quisition in 1978-79. From 1975 to 1979, PRT is expected By 1989, the exurban public park to spend $6,515,000 on acquisition of system along the coast region will include seven district parks, four regional 25 parks. Eleven of these have not parks, and one destination park. During been identified in Exhibit II-19. However, this period, the agency plans to spend map location indicates 500-acre parks $14,383,Q00 on development of existing on the mainland near Hilton Head Island, parks. The Wildlife and Marine Resources on John's Island near Kiawah Island, Department plans to spend $1,150,000 on the Isle of Palms, and in the Francis during this period on development of Marion National Forest. Parks developed boat access. /20/ During 1975-79, the on Waccamaw and Waties Island are also Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources included. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 84 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part-Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT 11-16 PROPOSED ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE PROGRAM 1976 Acquisition Development State Agency PRT $515,700 $3,030,000 Highway Dept. -0- -0- Wildlife & Marine Resources -0- 998,000 Forestry -0- 21,700 STATE TOTAL $515,000 $4,049,700 Federal Agency Forest Service $ 769,750 $ 16,000 Park.Service -0- -0- Fish & Wildlife Service -0- -0- Corps of Engineers -0- 533,000 Soil Conser. Service 424,500 56,600 FEDERAL TOTAL $1,194,250 $605,600 Local Agencies District #8 -0- $ 265,000 Waccamaw District #9 $400,000 2,353,000 Charleston-Berkeley District #10 50,000 222,000 Low Country 3LOCAL TOTAL $450,000 $2,840,000' TOTAL ALL SOURCES $2,159,950 $7,495,300 Source: South Carolina Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Implementation Plan, SCORP 1975, Title 6, pp. 8,9. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 85 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two EXHIBIT II-17 DETAILED 1975-1979 ACQUISITION PLAN Operating Acquisition Park Name Agency Acres Region Type Year New Parks Musgrove's Mill PRT 356 1 District 1975 Hanging Rock PRT 250 1 District 1975 Drayton Hall PRT 633 3 District 1975 Longbluff PRT 230 2 District 1975 I 85/Andersonville PRT 2,000 1 Destination 1976 Upper Coast PRT 750 3 Destination 1977 Grays Lake PRT 1,500 3 District 1977 Patriots Point P.P. Author. 500 3 District 1976 New Horizons N.H. Author. 2,500 2 Regional 1975 Savannah River PRT 5,000 1 Regional 1979 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 86 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT II-17 DETAILED 1975-1979 ACQUISITION PLAN Operating Acquisition Park Name Agency Acres Region Type Year New Parks John D. Long Wildlife 216 2 District 1975 Undesignated PRT 2,000 Regional 1979 Undesignated PRT 500 District i979 Undesignated- PRT 500 District 1978 Undesignated PRT 500 District 1978 Additions to- Existing Parks Table Rock PRT 208. 1 Regional 1975 Kings Mountain PRT 500 1 Destination 1977 Oconee PRT 209 1 Destination 1975 Source: SCORP, 1975, Title 6, p. 22. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 87 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two EXHIBIT II-18 DETAILED 1975-1979 PARX DEVELOPMENT PLAN Program Development Cost Park Name 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Total 33 Existing Parks 825,000 1,245,000 2,857,000 3,430,000 3,085,000 11,442,000 Hanging Rock 50,000 50,000 Long Bluff 125,000 125,000 Patriots Point 1,100,000 400,000 350,000 200,000 2,050,000 John D. Long 900,000 900,000 New Horizons 200,000 200,000 500,000 1,400,000 TOTALS 1,000,000 3,445,000 3,457,000 '.4,280,000 3,785,000 15,967,000 Source: SCORP, 1975, Title 6, p. 23. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 88 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT II-19 PROPOSED COASTAL REGION 1989 EXURBaN PUBLIC PARK SYSTEM Existing Proposed No.* Park Name Type Acreage Acreage 1. Mainland - near Hilton Head Island 1 500 2. Hunting Island 3 5,000 3. Edisto Beach 2 1,525 4. Johns Island - Stone River 1 500 S. Patriots Point 1 500 6. Charlestowne Landing 1 664 7. Mt. Pleasant 1 500 8. Francis i-arion Forest 1 500 9. Hampton Plantation 1 321 10. Waccamaw 1 500 11. Huntington Beach 2 2,500 12. Myrtle Beach 2 312 13. Waties Island 3 750 14. 1 50 15. 1 , 500 16. 1 500 17. 1 500 18. Lake loultrie 3 10,000 19. 1 500 20. 1 500 * Number refers to location of parks 21. Drayton Hall 1 633 on Exurban Park System Map in SCORP 22. Givhans Ferry 2 1,235 Plan. 23. 1 500 Type: - District Park; 24. Colleton Wayside I 35 2 - Regional Park; 25. Grays Lake 1 1,500 3 - Destination Park. TOTA LS 11,592 19,383 Source: SCORP, 1975, Title 6, p. 21. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 89 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two Specific Park Sites Although the facility will be located in Marion'County, it will be available A combination of funding sources was for use by residents of the Waccamaw employed by the State in its acquisition Region. program. Some $372,886 was made available through the State's Recreation Land - A 500-acre district park to be located Trust Fund for the purchase of land south of Georgetown, on Highway 701, with an estimated value of $4,535,113. and Of these eight projects, four -- Drayton I Hall Historic Park, Hampton Plantation - A 500-acre district park to be located State Park, Capers Island, and Turtle along the Black River in Williamsburg Island -- are located in the coastal County. zone. In November, 1975, Turtle Island was donated to the State for recreational Three district parks, 500 acres each, use. are recommended by PRT for Charleston County, three for Berkeley, and one PRT plans to develop four parks, for Dorchester. The proposed Charleston based on public and private investments, County parks are a 160-acre site on in the Waccamaw planning area: the Stone River on Johns Island, a 140- acre site in Mt. Pleasant with access i - A 500-acre district park to be located to deep water via the Wando River, and somewhere along the Waccamaw River 200 acres along Highway 61, that have in Horry County, no water access for recreational use. - A 500-acre regional park to be located No regional parks have been proposed in the vicinity of the confluence for Beaufort County. of the Great and Little Pee Dee Rivers. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 90 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches The State's 1980-1989 Development Plan calls for ten new parks during 1980-1985. First-phase public development costs are estimated to be $10,000,000. Ten new EXHIBIT II-20 parks are proposed for development during UN114PROVED BEACHFRONT PROPERTY COSTS 1985-1989 at an estimated public cost EASTERN UNITED STATES of an additional $10,000,000. In addition, there is proposed a system Average Cost of special public parks with a different recreation emphasis. These will provide per Front Foot combined recreational, environmental, East Hampton, Lon sland $1,000 cultural, and historic experiences. Their objectives are preserving and interpreting Fire Island, New York 200-500 significant examples of the State's natural and man-made heritage. Atlantic City, New Jersey 618-900 Ocean City, Maryland 1,Z00-1,600 Exhibit II-20 illustrates the high Ocean City, Maryland -1600 cost of beachfront property. Cursory Virginia Beach, Virginia 1,000 review of these figures emphasizes that the limited resources of public coffers Nags Head, N.C. 730 often preclude the use of beach acquisition as a simple solution to coastal recreation Surfside Beach, S.C. 1,000 problems. Pawleys Island, S.C. 1,000 Isle of Palms, S.C. 640 Folly Beach, S.C. 300 Hilton Head Island, S.C. 1,100-1,800 Source: HLR Survey, January, 1976. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 91 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South. Carolina Beaches Part Two Businesses who cater to travelers are not the only ones who profit from beach recreation. Travel and recreation South Carolina coastal businessmen revenues pass quickly to other individuals have a large stake in the United States and industries. The beach user's dollar, tourism and recreation market. One-sixth spent for food, lodging, entertainment, of the nation's travel is created by or supplies, flows through wholesale trips along the South Atlantic Coast. /21/ outlets, distributive services, financial In 1974, in addition to South Carolinians' institutions, manufacturing industries own beach recreation, 30.9 million non- and agriculture. In this commercial residents visited and spent $896.2 million process, the beach user's dollar is multiplied, in the State. /22/ These expenditures generates additional trade, creates jobs, account for eight percent of all retail and fosters community development. trade and service receipts 'in the State. /23/ A recent North Carolina study showed that income multipliers for the travel The economic impact of tourism and industry range from 1.10 to 1.24. Employment recreation upon beach communities, clearly multipliers in this industry range from significant, can be measured in many 1.04 to 1.76. Specific multipliers by different ways. Contributions to employment, type of expenditure are listed in Exhibit income, tax revenues, and non-travel- II- 21./24/ oriented businesses must all be considered in formulating an economic perspective For example, every $100,000 spent of public beach and recreation in South on food generates $110,000 total income. Carolina. As a result of these-,expenditures, approxi- mately 11 persons aaze employed directly by the food enterprise and eight more people are employed in other businesses. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 92 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches EXHIBIT II-21 INCOME AND EIPLOYIMENT MULTIPLIERS III TRAVEL INDUSTRY Employment Income Per $1,000 Multiple of Production Multiplier Type of 'Expenditure Food 1.10 .11 1.76 Lodging 1.24 .10 1.15 Admission Fees 1.24 .10 1.15 Gifts/Souvenirs 1.10 .11 1.76 Recreation 1.24 .10 1.15 Gas, Oil 1.14 .14 1.06 Vehicle Repairs 1.14 .14 1.06 Miscellaneous 1._1 .15 1.04 Source: Research Triangle Institute, An Input/Output Model of North Carolina Final Report FR-ou-490, January, 1971. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 93 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Pa,1 Two EXHIBIT II-22 TOTAL EXPENDITURES IN SOUTH CAROLINA OF NON-RESIDENT TRAVELERS WITH SOUTH CAROLINA DESTINATIONS SHOWN BY SOUTH CAROLINA DESTINATIONS 1974 Destination Expenditure Percent Destination Expenditure Percent Myrtle Beach $348,681,300 56.4 Darlington $3,091,146 0.5 Charleston 98,298,453 15.9 Orangeburg 3,091,146 0.5 Columbia 38,948,444 6.3 Allendale 2,472,917 0.4 Hilton Head 35,239,068 5.7 Georgetown 2;472,917 0.4 Florence 12,982,814 2.1 Clemson 2,472,917 0.4 Beaufort 9,891,668 1.6 Rock Hill 1,854,688 0.3 Spartanburg 9,891,668 1.6 Isle of Palms 1,854,688 0.3 Greenville 9,273,439 1.5 North Augusta 1,854,688 0.3 Santee 6,182,293 1.0 Greenwood 1,2 6,459 0.2 Sumter 5,564,063 0.9 Walterboro 1,236,459 0.2 Clark Hill 3,709,376 0.6 Anderson 1,236,459 0.2 Fripp Island 3,709,376 0.6 Lancaster 1,236,459 0.2 Aiken 3,091,146 0.5 Other 6,800,522 1.1 Dillon 3,091,146 0.5 Source: South Carolina PRT, 1974 South Carolina Travel Study: Summary Report, 1975, p. 9. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 94 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA I ~~Part Two South Carolina Beaches South Carolina tourism and recreation Statewide, nearly 16,000 retail and businesses retain about ten cents from service enterprises, which employ more each sales dollar as earnings for their than 68,000 workers, serve South Carolina labor and management. The remaining visitors. Approximately 20 percent of 90 cents is passed to other businesses all retail trade and service business and industries. operating ratios for in the state is recorded by firms in I ~~.several South Carolina tourism and recrea- the travel business. Their receipts tion establishments show sales receipts are growing at a rate of 7 percent per are spent approximately as follows; /25/ year, compared to 6 percent national average. /27/ If businesses typically Purchases of goods from serving beach day users were added to other industries 32~! these figures, the impact would appear Purchases of services from even greater. other industries 14~ Payrolls & other in- The economic importance of-tourism come paid out 34~ and recreation to beach communities and I. ~~State and local taxes the State as a whole cannot be overstated. paid 161~ South Carolina's beaches have been a Federal taxes and other primary foundation for tourism, the State's 1 ~~~expenses 4~second largest industry. Optimizing public beach access and recreation, there- fore, promises substantial benefits to Total expenditures of non-resident both the private and public sectors of I ~~travelers with South Carolina destinations the State's economy. in 1974 are shown in Exhibit 11- 22. To illustrate the economic impact of travel spending on beach communities, Isle of Palms may serve as an example. The estimated $1.9 million spent at Isle of Palms in 1974 generated more than $2.1 million income and was indirectly or directly responsible for the employment of approximately 250 people. /26/ PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 95 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches Part Two 1 Population data in this section was 4 Grand Strand Comprehensive Planning, obtained from "Resident Population Trends, 1973, North Myrtle Beach, S.C., Waccamaw Waccamaw Region, 1930-1970", Population Regional Planning and Development Council, and Economy, Waccamaw Regional Planning at 13. and Development Council, April, 1972, at 20. 5 Atlantic Beach - Reconnaissance Survey 2 and Program Design, Waccamaw Regional Interview: Mr. Harry Lockwood, Horry- Planning and Development Council, September Georgetown Technical Education Center, 1, 1973, at 1. - Conway, S.C. 6 Ilyrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce, Myrtle Waccamaw Regional planning and Develop- Beach, South Carolina. ment Council Housing Survey, 1972, in Public Improvements Capital Budget, North Myrtle 7 Beach, Waccamaw Regional Planning and Grand Strand Comprehensive Planning Development Council, June 1975, at 57. Study, August, 1973, at 14. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 96 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA W..~~~~~~ HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS -96 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches 8 1~ 8 Master Plan and Land Use Plan, Myrtle Sales Management, 1974, Survey of Beach State Park (South Carolina PRT, Buying Power, July 8, 1974. The Charleston January, 1971), updated by interviews. SMSA includes all three counties. 9 Community Facilities Plan, Surfside 12 Land Use Survey and Analysis, Charleston Beach, S.C., Waccamaw Regional Planning County, S.C. (Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester and Development Council, March, 1975, Planning Council, June, 1975) at 48+. * - ~~~~~~~~~13 13 Folly Island Development Plan, supra, 10 a 2 Land Use Survey and Analysis, Surfside at 12. Beach, S.C., Community Affairs Section, State Planning and Grants Division, Office 14 of the Governor, May, 1971, Table 3, at Initial Land Use Element, Low Country 24. Regional Planning Council, (June 22, 1972), at 2. PUB LIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREA~ON IN SOUTH CAROLINA 97 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 97 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS South Carolina Beaches PartTwo Part Two 15 Hunting Island State Park Development 19 "Bicycling and Hostels", Outdoor Plan, South Carolina PRT. Recreation Action, No. 34 (Winter, 1974) (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation). South Carolina Public Outdoor Recrea- tion Systems Implementation Program, 20 ch. 2, at 36. See "Charleston Area Bikeways Study", A Report Prepared by CFP Transportation Engineers and Planners, Inc., and Reynolds, 17 Ibid. Smith and Hills, Inc. for the Charleston County PRT and BCD Regional Planning � ~~~Council. 18 All boats including sailboats with motors are classified as "motor boats" 21 SCORP 1975, Table 6-5, at 87. by the State, and must be registered. Only those boats exceeding 14 feet in length (with or Without a motor) must 22 be titled. No statistics exist on the number of sailboats within the State. and South Carolina Business During 1972, all University of Tennessee, 1973, at ii. Many are utilized because of their small size, or registered as a "motor boat" because they are equipped with an auxiliary 23 engine. 23 South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, 1974 South Carolina Travel Study, Summary Report, 1975, at 1. HARTZOG, LADER &RICHARDS 98 PUBLIC BEACH ACCEss &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Two South Carolina Beaches 24 Copeland, Leona and Lewis, supra, at 8. 25 Research Triangle Institute, 1973 North Carolina Travel Survey, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1974, at 7. I26 Copeland, Leona and Lewis, supra, at 9-11. 27 South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, supra, at 10. 28 South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Orientation Report for Governor-Elect James B. Edwards, December 10, 1974, no page numbers. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 99 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis I zsaa HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 100 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROUNA Part Three Market Analysis Market Analysis a special area of concern. It was necessary, therefore, for this market Coastal pla~nning requires market analysis to employ a gravity model to determine current and projecte-d--dmand analysis which recognizes various kinds for current aches. of beach use, differentiates user characteristics, and contrasts markets This mathematical model relates for particular beach areas. This study consequently, ~~~~~such quantifiable factors as popula- tion, distance, and available facilities * analyzes South Carolina to projected demand for specific beach beach users as described areas. Specific numbers representing demand projections are estimates derived from the best available data. Such quantitative inputs and conclusions *estimates current and projected levels of demand for specific serve primarily as references for beach areas; and relative consideration of overload and underuse of particular beach areas. The numbers are not absolute and *describes trends which will likely impact future South should not be so interpreted for any Carolina tourism and recrea- purpose. tion markets. Although it is generally known Considered with the Beach User Survey, this market analysis raises significant used for vacations'or day-use, there issues for the proposed Beach Access Plan to address. beach users, demographics, their trip characteristics, or their residence The resources of $outh Carolina and of origin. To fill this gap, this Charleston PRT's, BOR, the Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce, and studies con- nine public beach areas. Data and ducted by private research firms are from the sampling of nearly the foundation for this market analysis. contributed to and 130rsuppondents cothisbutredto analss However, projections of beach use were supplements this market analysis. previously made on a regional basis and did not segment public beaches as PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 101 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis PartThree Certain market trends are central Market Overview to this analysis. Anticipated changes in economic and demographic character- istics which shape the family vacation South Carolina possesses a wealth market will greatly influence the of water- and land-based recreation State's tourism industry. Strongly areas. The favorable climate, various rising discretionary incomes, increases types of tourist attractions, and wide in the 25-34 and 35-44 age groups, range of facilities draw a large number and a decline in birth rates will of both South Carolina residents and combine to contribute to a growing, out-of-state visitors each year. more affluent family vacation market. Tourism has recently established itself as South Carolina's second largest Socio-cultural trends point to industry. /1/ additional leisure and travel expendi- tures, both in gross and as an increasing The 1974 South Carolina Travel portion of total personal consumption. Study showed that South Carolina was the Effects of the 1973-74 recession, the destination point of more than ten compressed work week, the energy crisis, million tourists in 1974. /2/ increased vacation time, and private Another twenty million passed through development strategies are additional the State on their way to various factors which this study considers. northern and southern destinations. Total tourist spending amounted to $896,244,000, with $618,229,000 being spent by tourists having South Carolina destinations. These figures represent an increase of 36% in total tourist expenditures from 1973 to 1974. Approximately one- third of this increase can be attributed to the effect of inflation, but expendi- tures were substantially higher in real terms. South Carolina tourist spending, graphically noted in Exhibit III-1, has tripled during the past ten years. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 102' PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis MnLLIONS TOTAL TOURIST SPENDIUSG I SB.C. The Tourism Industry 700 X | | | ; | I 8 � /( '! Tourism can be a major vehicle for I-| t | | { .*. statewide economic development. In q6~, | i i i | } @t - 1972, the U.S. Travel Data Center Exhibit I-II-1 / estimated that travel expenditures on 5 __ Exh i b i at III-lI __ trips 100 miles or more away from home -600 '1 I t ! produced expenditures topping $1 billion s575 I I | {| / ,oUtin eight states: California, Florida, 550 1 New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, 525 n 5 |25 I 2 | | Michigan and Ohio. /3/ 500 / ,*o-~ , I I , I Tourism is also a potent tool for '475 I I ! / increasing personal income. A recent 450 I/ study of family income patterns during 425 _) ! " I ' l /1i Ir";i-Urs"!.,.s.!:: two decades concluded that increases 4D0__) ; I j / I | I | 8 ^[�z|<w!{X%$were greater in tourism/recreation areas 400 ft~l tx I . CU-'w",eg!i:' :rea 375_~ I i ii/ i . . . Er. . ic than in those dominated by other .35..i | t. | Ii ,'s,'cs,;,, :S .or,. industries. Tourism development is 35 'l l63 T|/oi | I | ". X"To',flL&SS;;."'". particularly good for depressed rural .go .d) I 1 ~f ) III "'.;'sz":=: *'o:;o areas which cannot attract manufac- 300 X I :.i,. I.;:. turing, professional service, or public 275 l~ 1 //:,~-'~:'!':~'.'~c1i!!:,. administration employment. /4/ 3 1 7b' tS~l~lEA Zb .'. _t25s0 I Or I - . l'i1i;t Tourism development in South Carolina 225 _~_~ l l l I i z .,,,S1- r^ '.N thus provides the opportunity to 200 l) l l l l l increase employment and living standards 20 1 | ii 2 } # {'in low income areas while strengthening 150o M | I * I i l the State's economic base. 125_ 1 / ( i i { I : { Seventy-two percent of South '16466 67 8 670 1 7 Carolina-bound vacationers visited the State's coastal areas in 1974. Myrtle .lr !6iTT 1 _r _l I . .a Beach, Charleston, and Hilton Head Island together received 78% of the Source: South Carolina PRT, Orientation Report for Governor $618.2 million spent by South Carolina- Elect James B. Edwards, December 10, 1974. bound tourists. /5/ Recreational PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 03 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three use of the State's coastline is clearly vital to the State's tourism, and this industry presents further opportunities Exhibit IiI-2 for the State's economic growth and conservation of valuable natural DEMOGRAPHIC SUMARY OF resources. SOUTH CAROLINA BEACH USERS BY TYPE OF BEACH USE Tripmaker Characteristics Day Visitor Vacationer %% Tripmaker characteristics differ Age of Household Head according to the type of beach use. under 25 20.8 14.6 Exhibit 2 summarizes the demographic 25-34 240.8 14.6 characteristics of the two primary 35-44 23 7 26.2 groups of beach users: day visitors 45-54 23.2 23.7 and vacationers. 55-64 6.1 7.3 over 65 1.4 2.9 Thus, the demographic differences Median Age 37 39 of beach users vary only slightly by type of use. As the cost involved might suggest, vacationing families are slightly older, slightly more affluent than day visitors. Household Income under 5,000 9.2 3.5 5,000 999 21.1 19.2 10,000-14,999 27.6 25.8 15,000-24,999 22.8 27.9 25,000-49,999 7.8 11.6 50,000 + .7 .9 Median Income $12,600 $14,200 Source: HLR Beach Use Survey, August, 1975. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 104 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Three' Market Analysis The Auto Vacation Market plans en route, to remain mobile, and to Auto vaationes compise anenjoy various attractions along the way. I ~~upscale market. /6/ The typical auto The implications of the figures in vacationer is relatively well-educated, Exhibit II1-3 should be instructive to South has an above-average income, and is Carolina tourism and recreation planners. I ~~likely to be employed in a white-collar The typical auto vacationer's above- occupation. These demographic charac- average income permits him to be a "free teristics are compared with the national spender". He is willing to spend average in Exhibit 111-3. discretionary dollars when he knows he is receiving something of value in Approximately 54 percent of auto return. Generally, auto vacationers do vacationers have at least some college not budget their vacations in much I ~~education, compared to the national detail before leaving home. They percentage of 21 percent. The median generally utilize credit cards to a household income in the United States is significant extent. /7/ I ~~slightly above $~10,000, yet the average household income in the auto vacation The vacation is an escape from, the market is estimated to be more than family's normal living environment, one $16,000. More than one-half'of the dominated by clocksl calendars, and household heads of auto vacationing schedules. Althhough vacations may be families are employed in professional, tentatively planned, the automobile technical, and managerial positions, allows a family to deviate --to escape compared with the 24 percent nationally. the fixed schedule. Thus, a substantial portion of theThsauovctniganb auto acaton maket s notmotiatedexplained more in terms of psychology primarily by the economics of auto than economics. Because of relatively travel. Although a family of four may be high incomes, many auto travelers could able to take a long-distance vacation by choose other modes of transportation. I ~~car for less than the total cost of the In fact, the auto traveler is also a same trip by air, the car is chosen frequent user of air transportation. primarily because of the desire for Generally, however, the automobile is I ~~flexibility. Travel by any other mode chosen for vacation because of the reduces the faml' blt ocag reedom it provides families. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 105 H A T O , LER&ICRD Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-3 AUTO VACATION MARKET DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Auto Travelers National Auto Travelers National Family Head a) Average b) Family Head a) Average b) % % % % Educational Level - Head of Household Occupation - Head of Household Less than High Professional/ School 11 45 Technical 30 14 High School Managerial/Self- Graduate 35 34 Employed 25 11 1-3 years of Semi-skilled 14 36 college 18 10 Sales 7 7 College graduate 17 Clerical 4 18 Post-graduate 19 11 Others 20 14 100 100 100 100 Source: a) Mayo, Edward J., The Psychology Household Income of Choice in the Lodging Market. Under 7,000 5 31 7,000-9,999 12 20 b) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 10,000-14,999 32 27 U.S. Census of Population. 15,000-19,999 26 20,000-24,999 11 22 Over 25,000 14 100 100 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 106 P UBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Three Market Analysis I ~~~~The auto vacationer's life-style Activity Participation indicates that his psychological needs - change of pace and scenery, freedom Northeastern respondents have a I ~~from fixed schedules and itineraries -- substantially higher interest in golf, take precedence over the economics of tennis and sailing than the national vacation travel. Nevertheless, he is a average. Fifty-five percent and 42 I ~~rational decision-maker and is price- percent represent Northeasterners' conscious, if not price-sensitive. His participation rates in sightseeing and confidence in the familiar or well-known outdoor exhibits, such as historic- affects his travel decisions and partially areas. It is no wonder that South explains the high repeat business of Carolina's coast, rich in these recrea- beach communities like Myrtle Beach. tional opportunities enjoys a major portion of the Northeastern tourism I ~~~For South Carolina to maintain market. significant increases in tourist expen- ditures and to lengthen the average Swimming, fishing and picnicking length-of-stay, the State must take remain among the nation's most popular advantage of the flexibility of the auto recreational pursuits and show no traveler. Tourists should be made aware correlation with income. There is a of all the'activities available within a steady increase in overall participation short driving distance of one area. For with income levels up to $15,000, most example, the historical attractions of likely resulting from increased leisure Charleston could be combined with a and slightly higher. income. Above the I ~~beach vacation at Edisto Beach or Kiawah $15,000 level, however, the increase is island. Similarly, the auto vacationer noteworthy -- especially in tennis, golf may be diverted to unplanned destina- and sailing participation, a phenomenon tions where beach access is nearby and attributed to the higher fixed expenses evident. usually incurred in these sports. Exhibit I11-4 shows that as income increases, there is a corresponding I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~increase in the frequency of participation in activities associated with the South Carolina coast. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 107 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis The 1974 S.C. Travel Survey showed that North Carolina contributes more than 28% of South Carolina's visitors,. The next four states -- Ohio, Exhibit 111-4 Tennessee, Virginia, and Pennsylvania -- contribute 28%, and the remainder is'divided PARTIEFFECTS OANT ADULTI PARTICIPANT ACTIVITIES among numerous other states. Since more than one-third of North Carolina and Increasing With Decreases With Georgia visitors vacation at inland Increasing Increasing vacation sites, coastal areas seem to Income Flat Income be dominated by northern visitors./8/ Pool Swimming Cards and Games Bowling Recreational preferences of South Photography Walking Carolina's coastal tourists can be Golf Ocean, Lake inferred, consequently, from the North- Swimming east regional summary of a recent leisure Tennis Picnicking study./9/ Snow Skiing Gardening I Sailing Cooking Saicyling ookingMore than two-thirds of Northeastern Fishing vacationers travel to the same location each year; 78% regularly pursue the same vacation activity. Thirty-nine percent Source: Midwest Research Institute, cite the Atlantic Ocean as their favorite Unpublished Data,. 1974. vacation area. There are, consequently, long-term benefits of attracting this market. There is no doubt that coastal recreation, and particularly beach swimming, is America's favorite pastime. But important differences may be observed in national and state prefer- ences. As Exhibit III-5 illustrates, resi- dents are far more likely to swim at the coast while vacationing in-state. They HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 108 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Three Market Analysis prefer to swim in their home State and is apparent: summer has the longest leave other activities for their out-of- duration period (4.2 average days), state holidays. followed by spring (4.1 days), fall Non-resident participation rates (- asadwne 21dy) are not directly comparable to resi- South Carolina residents vacationing I ~~dent participation rates because the in-state spend an average of 6.4 nights rates shown for non-residents represent away from home on a vacation trip. The the percentage of total activities ~average number of nights away from home * ~~participated in rather than the on a weekend trip is 2.4 nights. percentage of visitors participating in that activity. The comparison, however The average party size for vaca- does serve to show that the most tioners in South Carolina is 3.9. Simi- I ~~popular South Carolina recreational larly, the typical auto vacation travel activities for non-residents are beach party was found to consist of four swimming, commercial attractions, persons -- usually two adults and two I ~~visiting historic places, and camping. children. The same four activities are very popular with resident vacationers with one "Pleasure and outdoor recreation" important addition - boating/fishing. is the major trip purpose of South Carolina vacati-oners, accounting for Thus, beach access and recreation 54.7 percent of the total trips. is crucial to the State's tourism indus- Although nationally, "visiting friends I ~~try. Moreover , the facility requirements and relatives" is the major reason for of resident and non-resident vacationers travel, that category ranks second in in South Carolina are quite similar. South Carolina and accounts for only 28.2 percent of the total person trips. The third major reason of travel, "business and convention," accounts for Trip Characteistics /i o/only 8.8 percent of the total person trips. The average length of stay in South Carolina by non-resident tourists is quite low (3.7 days) in comparison to other states. Seasonal variation PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 109 H A T O , LER&ICRD Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-5 SOUTH CAROLINA VACATION ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION Vacation Vacation Non- In-State Out-of-State Residents Activity % % % Visit to Historic Places 21.6 50.0 18.3 Swimming at Beaches 84.5 41.5 34.2 Commercial attractions 13.4 29.5 20.5 Golfing 8.2 6.8 3.2 Camping 33.0 16.5 12.3 Boating/Fishing 40.2 26.7 4.4 Watching Sports 6.2 8.5 4.4 Attending Shows/Events 7.2 26.1 -- Source: South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, Private Recreation Users Profile, p. 37. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 110 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit III-6 Exhibit III-7 PURPOSE OF TRAVEL PRIMARY TRIP PURPOSE AUTO VACATIONERS Purpose of Trip to National Travel South Carolina Classification Sightseeing 68% % % Personal Reasons 13% Pleasure/ Relaxation 6% Outdoor Recreation 4% Recreation 54.7 39.8 Education 2% Business & Pleasure 2% IVisiting 224.2Conventions, Conferences, Friends & etc. 2 Relatives 28.2 42.2 ess 2 % Company Business 1% Other 2% Business & Convention 8.8 16.0 TOTAL 100% Personal/ Moving 5.9 2.0 Source: Mayo, Edward J., The ~~~~~~~~~~Purpose ~Psychology of Choice in Unknown 2.5 0.0 the Lodging Market, 1974. Unknown 2.5 0o0 TOTAL 100.00 100.0 Source: South Carolina PRT, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Plan, Title 3, p. 36. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 111 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-7, presenting the primary trip purposes of auto vacationers,! demonstrates the popularity of sightseeing. The vacation, for most travelers, is an Exhibit III-8 opportunity to discover America, to explore and enjoy the country's landscape. DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURES OF People think less frequently in such spe- SOUTH CAROLINA VISITORS cific terms as educating children or seek- ing pure relaxation. Beach access and coastal recreation, therefore, can be Type of Spending Percent of Total significant factors in attracting more out-of-state tourists and in lengthening Lodging 35.06 their stay. Food 29.39 Auto-Gas 13.40 Entertainment 8.55 The daily travel pattern of Gift 13.60 vacationers begins with the travel party driving shortly before 9:00 a.m. TOTAL 100.00 and ends at approximately 8:00 p.m. Eating patterns and end-of-the-day recreation for travelers explain Source: South Carolina PRT, South adherence to this routine. Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, The greatest spending by travelers Title 3, p. 39. visiting South Carolina is for lodging; food is the second largest spending source, and automobile expenses and purchasing gifts rank third. Spending for entertainment ranks the lowest. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 112 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA IPartThree Market Analysis Average expenditures per party per Generally, the most important day in South Carolina is $29.06, considera- motivation for long-distance family bly lower, for example, than Pennsylvania pleasure travel is the perceived ($86.40); Oklahoma ($73.72); Hawaii educational benefits which the ($55.85); Florida ($55.50); Nebraska experience provides children. /12/ The ($50.00) and California ($49.77). South second in importance is a need for Carolina spending recorded only $106.93 new experiences. Other significant per party per visit in 1970. /11/ factors are bringing the family together, getting the most out of life South Carolina's travelers' expendi- while young enough to enjoy it, and tures are as follows: collecting pleasant memories. (Exhibit ITI-10) Three deterrents are perceived as most Average expenditure per party important: the costs of transportation, per visit in South Carolina $106.93 lodging and food; the need for privacy; and problems of family travel plan Average expenditure per party organization. (Exhibit III-11) per day in South Carolina $ 29.06 Average expenditure per person per visit in South Carolina $ 39.02 Average expenditure per person per day in South Carolina $ 10.60 South Carolina's winter visitors are likely to be slightly older and more affluent than summer family vacationers, spend more money per person than their counterparts in any other season. Many are convention or conference attendees or participate in golf and tennis parties. (Exhibit I-9) PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 113 HARTZOG, LADER&RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-9 AVERAGE DAILY TRIP EXPENDITURE PER PARTY IN SOUTH CAROLINA - 1970 Spring Summer Fall Winter *$ % $ % $ % $ % Lodging 9.54 34.40 11.72 37.47 7.95 28.60 20.13 35.43 Food 8.74 31.51 9.12 29.13 7.31 26.40 17.23 30.32 Auto/Gas 3.54 12.77 3.79 12.11 4.50 16.20 7.74 15.38 Entertain- ment 2.78 10.03 2.70 8.63 2.34 8.40 3.50 6.15 Gifts & Others 3.13 11.29 3.96 12.66 5.66 20.40 7.22 12.71 TOTAL 27.73 100.00 31.29 100.00 27.76 100.00 56.82 100.00 Source: South Carolina PRT, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Plan, Title 3, p. 40. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 114 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit III-10 EXIIBIT III-11 RATINGS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF RATINGS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY TRAVEL MOTIVATORS DETERRENTS TO FAMILY TRAVEL The educational exdperences travel can An opportanity to me and do new and _ __ offer you and your children different things -6 _- mot olewhleThe pleasant emories u have long after Cost of hotels/motels - - Cost of transwortation A chac to get hothe trip is over -7- YOU can enjoy it _ _ - _The way that travel brings the family An opportunity to vesax and unwind - toser together =6- Problem of finding destination for all family members _ _-= _ Cost of meals A nuep for a wile to be with herhusband . -- The fun and excitement of planning and Th f tun of getting there - preparing fora trip - Keeping children antertained on long trips - A chance for a htsbuand to do something nice Getting all of family on vacation at same time wfat his hie Jobs to do around the house - Concern about adequacy of accomodations wtt h safwtravesl epAtrferientes ' Care for children during evenings on trips spending enough time with their children Children don't want to leave frields a__rMaingrangemenuc for family pets --_t Time/effort gettingehildren ready foC trip Time and effort of preparations for trip F - - - Feeling uncomfortable in unfamiliar places Source: Behavior Science Corporation, Developing the Source: Behavior Science Corporation, Developing the Source: Behavior Science Corporlgtion, Developing the Source: Behavior Science Corporation, Developing the Family Travel Market, 1972, p. 33. Family Travel Market, p. 44. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 115 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Beach Recreation Response The South Carolina coast offers abundant educational opportunities if coastal planning purports to about fish, wildlife, and environmental sustain or increase South Carolina's travel processes. Vacations at the beach - revenues, therefore, its recreation compo- including swimming, picnicking, and nens mstaccomplish several objectives: beach walks -- are times for the entire nents must ~~~~~~~family to play together. (1) emphasize educational experiences as a long-lasting benefit that To most Americans, these activities travel provides for children; are a change-of-scenery and pace. If I costs are kept competitive and children's (2) develop themes relating to programs are expanded, the coast can bringing families closer continue to be the State's major tourism together; attraction. Where vacationers -- in-state and out-of-state alike -- can go and want (3) appeal to the need to see and to go, therefore, are central criteria do something different; for a public beach access plan.I (4) keep costs competitive for the average family; andI (5) provide planned activities for children in order to satisfy parents' fundamental need for privacy. .Beach recreation responds directly to these motivational requirements. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 116 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 3 ~Part Three Market Analysis U ~~The Gravity Model: can then be considered as an adjunct to Determining Market Demandthe numerical projections. Implicit in the gravity model is the assumption that a certain population center generates a given number of To identify the origins and targets beach user-occasions which will be of significant potential demand for distributed over several beach areas. beach access, existing beach use needs The number of user-occasions from any must be quantified and future demand one population center to be absorbed U ~~levels projected. This demand analysis, at a specific beach area is directly consequently, constitutes the quantita- proportional to the number of facili- tive base from which subjective considera- ties at the beach area, and inversely U ~~tions may be inferred. The numbers proportional to the distance between derived are estimates based upon the best the origin and destination. available data and thus serve as a reference for relative considerations This demand analysis methodology of pressure or underuse. requires: in this analysis, "demand" is (1) determination of likely areas defined as that quantity of use of origin of day-users, necessary to satisfy all potential resident vacation users, and participants. Potential demand, a non-resident vacation users; function of intent, may not necessarily be realized. The basic unit of measure, (2) determination of the number "beach user-occasion", is one instance of user-occasions generated of participation in ocean beach recrea- from each of the origin zones tion by one person. for each of these groups; and (3) distribution of beach user-' U ~~~A mathematical construct, the occasions by type across the "gravity model", can best relate South Carolina beaches which quantifiable factors, such as population, provide opportunities for distance, and available facilities, that type of use. to project demand for specific beach areas. Important unquantifiable factors PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH C AOA117 H A T O , LER&ICRD Market Analysis Part Three At the outset, demand is distributed according to this formula without regard to actual capacity. Subsequent capacity analysis and subjective considerations may then be applied. Exhibit III-12 outlines the methodology, criteria, and sources of data. Exhibit III-12 BEACH ACCESS DEMAND ANALYSIS Day Use Methodology Method/Criteria Sources /13/ 1. Determine origin zones. Population of origin American Automobile zone should not be Association; South more than l 1/2 hours Carolina Road Mans; driving time from HLR Descriptive Analysis beach area. of South Carolina Beach areas. 2. For each origin zone deter- Apply household income Marketing Economics Insti- mine 1975 population by distribution to popula- tute (MEI), Marketinq income class. tion projections for Economics Guide, 1974-75; county origin zones. S.C. State Demographic Office. 3. Determine annual Day Use Population X average Midwest Research Institute, Beach-user occasions annual per capita user Opportunities in the Leisure by income class. occasions = annual day Industry, Statistical Data use person beach days. Base, 1972, 1974; HLR South Carolina Beach Use Survey; [sic], South Carolina PRT, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, Title 3, Chapter 3. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 1 1 8 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit III-12 (con't.) BEACH ACCESS DEMAND NALYSiS Day Use Methodology Itethod/Criteria sources /13 / 4. Distribute total demand Proportion od demand from HLR Descriptive Analysis of (total beach-user occa- any origin zone for any South Carolina Beach Areas; sions) across currently particular beach is PRT Computer Inventory; available beach destina- assumed directly propor- Harvard University, Eco- tions. tional to i of public logic-Economic Analy-i-s parking spaces within for Regional Development. distance of the beach and inversely proportional to the distance between the origin and destination. 5. Discussion of income from Subjective - Characteristics Kiawah Beach Company, Myrtle which demand at particular of beach area accessibility. Beach Market Study; Sea beach area is likely to Pines Company, Resort Guest occur. Tracking Report; HLR Des- criptive Analysis of South -f'Resident Vacation U'e Carolina Beach Areas. 1. Determine origin zones. Assume statewide-use regional planning districts. 2. For each origin zone Apply household income distri- Marketing Economics Institute, determine 1975 popula- bution to population pro- Marketing Economics Guide tion by income class. jections by county - per- 1974-75; S.C. State Demo- form weighted averages to grapher's Office. derive income distribution for each planning district. 3. Determine annual Resident Population X average annual Midwest Research Institute, Vacation Use Beach-User per capita vacation beach Opportunities in the Leisure Occasions by income class. days = annual vacation use Industry Statistical Data person beach days. Base, 1972, 1974.; S.C. PRT, South Carolina Private Average annual per capita Outdoor Recreation Systems beach-user occasions by Plan, Title 3, Chapter 3. income =(% that take vacation X % of vacations in state X % of beach vaca- tions X average length of stay)+(% that take weekend vacations in state X % at beach X average length of stay.) PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 119 HARTZOG LADER & RICHARDS 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-12 (con't.) Resident Vacation Use Methodology Method/Criteria Sources /13/ 4. Distribute total demand Pioportion of demand from any HLR Descriptive Analysis of across available vaca- origin zone for any parti- South Carolina Beach Areas: tion destinations. cular beach is assumed di- PRT Computer Inventory; AAA; rectly proportional to # Harvard University, Eco- overnight accommodations logic-Economic Analysis for and inversely proportional Regional Development. to the distance between the origin and destination. 5. Discussion of income cell Subjective characteristics of Kiawah Beach Company, Myrtle from which demand at beach the area accommodation costs. Beach Market Study;. Sea Pines area is likely to come. Company Resort Guest Track- ingRep6rt; HLR Descriptive Analvsis of Soluh Carnlin, Beach Areas. Non-Resident Use Method/Crit.ria 1. Determine states of origin S.C. FRT, South Carolina Pri- of out-of-state visitors. vate Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, Title 3, Chapter 3. 2. Project future non-resident S.C. PRT, South Carolina Pri- beach vacation volume. vate Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, Title 3, Chapter 3. 3. Effects of income, private Subjective. Sea Pines Company, Resort Guest resort development. Trackina Report, HLR South Carolina Beach Use Survey HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 1 20 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Demand for Day Use There is a strong correlation between Exhibit III-13 recreational activity participation and income. /14/ Other demographic variables, DAY USE AVERAGE ANNUAL BEACH such as age, education, occupation, and USER-OCCASIONS BY INCOME CLASS household size, are also linked to activity patterns but play roles second- ary to income. Therefore, for each of income Occasions the South Carolina counties comprising the set of origin zones, income Under $5,000 3.3 distribution was used to determine the $5,000-$9,999 4.6 population by income class for each $10,000-$14,999 6.5 county. $15,000-$24,999 10.2 $25,000+ 12.9 Average annual per capita beach user-occasions by income class are then applied directly to the population Source: Midwest Research Institute, base for each income class. Average Opportunities in the annual beach user-occasions are Leisure Industry, 1972; determined from data generated by and HLR's South Carolina Midwest Research Institute, South Beach Use Survey, August, Carolina PRT, and this firm's Beach 1975. Survey. As Exhibit III-13 shows, they vary from 3.3 occasions for the "under $5,000" indome class to 12.9 for the "$25,000 and over" class. These figures are consistent with an overall average of 10.2 occasions per capita for all types of beach areas, fresh water as well as ocean, and an overall coastal average slightly greater than 5.0./15/ PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 21 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Projecting Population While it is recognized that many and Income out-of-state residents, especially North Carolinians, are day visitors 1980, 985, nd 199 popuationto South Carolina beaches, it was not figures are derived from projections for considered within the scope of this each county. /16/ Changes in income study to quantify that demand. ForI distribution are projected for each of this reason, day use demand at some these years by county. /17/ All pro- destinations is most likely understated. jections are made in constant dollars However, such a conservative approach (1975 dollars) so that the increase or thronsitentout that maitained decrease in each income class over timethogutheSdy is real, not a function of inflation. To clarify the methodology,I Day-use demand is assumed to come calculations pertaining to the first .only from those areas within reasonable origin zone, Horry County, appear in driving distance (less than 100 miles) Exhibit III-14.I from the coast. Thus, only seventeen counties are considered as origin zones for day use: Horry, Williamsburg, Georgetown, Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester, Colleton, Beaufort, Hampton, Jasper, Dillon, Marion, Florence, Clarendon, Orangeburg, Bamberg, Allen-I dale. only demand for ocean beaches is considered. Several counties (Darlington, Marlboro, Sumter, Calhoun) which mar- ginally meet the distance criteria have not been included as day use origin zones, as most of the day visitor demand generated by.these residents would be consumed at nearby fresh-water beaches. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 122 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis 1980 1980 1980 Income Population by Beach User Exhibit 111-14 Distribution Incae Class Cccasions Exhibit III-14 % (ooo) (000) ____ ___ ___ (000) (000) METHODOLOGY CALCULATIONS 28.3 21.5 71.0 29.2 22.2 102.1 16.5 12.5 81.3 16.5 12.5 127.5 9.5 7.2 92.8 76.0 494.7 Avg. Annual Per Capita Beach Cbunty User Occasions 1985 1985 1985 Zone 1 Hor (1975 dollars) Incne Population by Beach User Distribution Incoe Class ccasions Household income under 5,000 3.3 % (000) (000) 5,000-9,999 4.6 24.4 19.7 65.0 10,000-14,999 6.5 26.7 21.6 99.4 15,000-24,999 10.2 13 11 0 71 5 25,000 + 12.9 2015 166 169.3 14.8 12.0 154.8 80.8 560.0 1975 1975 1975 Income Population by Beach User Distribution Incae Class Occasions 1990 1990 1990 % (000) (000) Income Population by Beach User Distribution Inccae Class Occasions 32.7 26.9 88.8 % (000) (000) 31.5 26.0 119.6 17.6 14.5 94.3 21.3 18.3 60.4 12.0 9.9 101.0 24.4 21.0 96.6 6.2 5.1 65.8 11.0 9.5 61.8 21.1 18.1 184.6 82.4 469.5 22.2 19.1 246.4 86.0 649.8 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 23 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Applying Income Distribution and (2) more important, a shift in the to the Population Base income distributions. For each county, the income distri- For example,'inHorCunyth toteboultion base 197 dollars)ine apple d percentage of households earning less to th popuationbaseto deermin thethan $5,000 (in constant 1975 dollars)I approximate population in each income decreases from 32.7% in 1975 to 21.3% in inoeclass. isthen multpled by persninec 1990. The $25,000 and up income category caitabch-uer ccassios (rangmlinge b e comprises only 6.2% of households in capitabeachuser ccasins (rnging1975 compared with 22.2% in 1990. This from 3.3 for under $5,000 class to 12.9 dramatic increase in income ac o n tIo for the $25,000 and over class) to substantilncess inbacosr deterine bach-uer ocasios forthatparticipation. As a higher-.percentage projection year. of the population becomes more affluent, For each projection year, the leisure time and recreational activity incomedistriution s adjuted toparticipation will also increase. reflect the increase in affluence as projected by the U.S. Department of Two rather remarkable findings are Commerce, and the population base was illustrated in Exhibit 111-15. First, adjusted according to South Carolina more than 45% of the day-u-se demand is Demographic Office statistics. Average . generated by Berkeley, Charleston, and annual per capita beach-user occasions Dorchester counties (the CharlestonI are held constant and therefore not ISMSA). Second, although some changes in repeated in the table for each projection distribution occur throughout the year. projection years, neither the magnitude of demand from the Charleston area nor The total day use demand (Exhibit the percentage of the total it repre- 111-15) increases from 5.6 million sents diminishes over time. Thus, the occasions in 1975 to 5.9 million occasions Charleston beach areas will increasinglyI in 1980, to 7.2 million in 1985, to 8.1 become a focal point for day visitors. million in 1990. Since per capita occasions are assumed to be constant over time, the increase is generatedI by (1) modest increases in population HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 124 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit III-15 SOUTH CAROLINA DAY USE BEACH USER OCCASIONS 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 Day-Use Origin Zones 1975 % of 1980 % of 1985 % of 1990 % of County (000) Total (000) Total (000) Total (000) Total 1. Horry 469.5 8.3 494.7 8.4 560.0 7.8 649.8 8.0 2. Williamsburg 175.3 3.1 205.8 3.5 236.3 3.3 272.4 3.4 3. Georgetown 207.8 3.7 220.8 3.7 259.7 3.6 303.1 3.8 4. Berkeley 422.5 7.5 535.3 9.1 650.8 9.1 780.9 9.7 5. Charleston 1,866.6 33.1 2,038.4 34.3 2,314.3 32.3 2,598.9 32.2 6. Dorchester 258.2 4.6 266.6 4.5 358.7 5.0 390.9 4.8 7. Colleton 157.7 2.8 171.9 2.9 191.7 2.7 212.0 2.6 8. Beaufort 320.9 5.7 345.1 5.8 386.3 5.4 428.7 5.3 9. Hampton 85.1 1.5 84.8 1.4 97.5 1.4 107.9 1.3 10. Jasper 70.0 1.2 72.2 1.2 84.3 1.2 95.4 1.2 11. Dillion 159.2 2.8 183.7 3.1 224.8 3.1 238.5 3.0 12. Marion 174.1 3.1 191.2 3.2 223.3 3.1 262.0 3.2 13. Florence 597.8 10.6 665.3 11.3 766.4 10.7 873.7 10.8 14. Clarendon 125.4 2.2 125.9 2.1 144.3 2.0 162.2 2.0 15. Orangeburg 409.8 7.3 432.9 7.3 493.9 6.9 507.6 6.3 16. Bamberg 84.7 1.5 98.0 1.7 106.8 1.5 120.3 1.5 17. Allendale 51.4 .9 57.5 1.0 67.5 .9 73.6 .9 TOTALS 5,636.0 100.0 5,903.0 100.0 7,166.6 100.0 8,077.9 100.0 Source: Hartzog, Lader and Richards. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 25 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part ThreeI Distributing Day-Use Demand The final quantifiable factor is adequacy of beach facilities. Although To distribute the day-use demand arguments can be made concerning the displayed in Exhibit 111-15 across South importance of comfort stations or Carolina, the coast is divided into recreational facilities, this firm's major day-use beaches. Study of the experience dictates that the availa- coastline's natural features, shoreline bility of parking is the most importantI interruption, and public and private extrinsic determinant of a beach area's ownership patterns results in attractiveness. If the day visitor thirteen principal day-use beach des- cannot legally park nearby, then hisI tinations: access to the beach is theoretical. North Myrtle Beach Atlantic Beach Estimated public parking availableI Myrtle Beach State Park at each of the beach zones is shown in Myrtle Beach Exhibit 111-16. Parking spaces included Garden City - Surfside in these estimates meet the criteria ofI Huntington Beach State Park being legal public parking spaces, such isle of Palms as on-street or public lots. Parking Sullivans Island provided exclusively for the use of Folly Beach clientele of retail stores, hotels, and Kiawah Island motels is specifically excluded because Edisto Island day-use beachgoers, though possibly Hunting island State Park patronizing such establishments on a Hilton Head Island brief basis, would not be allowed to use these parking facilities for all day The distance between these beach parking. zones and population centers is de-I termined by measuring the distance For the population center of each between points on a map of the State origin zone, a parking-to-distance ratio primary highway system. Since virtually is calculated for the beach zone, andI all South Carolina day visitors drive the sum of these ratios is computed. family automobiles to the beach, this (See Exhibit 111-16) The proportion of method is valid. /18/ an origin zone's beach user-occasions HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 126 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * Part Three Market Analysis distributed at a particular beach is problems at both Isle of Palms and expressed as the ratio of that beach's Sullivans Island, and there is consi- parking-to-distance ratio to the sum of derable resident resentment of transient- all the ratios for that origin zone. use overcrowding. These conditions For example, the distance from. the cause a portion of the potential demand population center of Horry County to for each of these beach areas to be North Myrtle Beach is approximately 30 diverted to Folly Island and Edisto miles, and North Myrtle Beach has an Island. estimated 375 public parking spaces. Thus, the parking-to-distance ratio for Also, the tremendous demand Horry County to North Myrtle Beach is generated from Charleston County 375 - 30 or 12.5. Repeating this magnifies this problem as Charleston process for each of the destination broadens its economic base and as the beaches and adding the ratios, the interstate highway connecting Columbia sum is 75.5. The proportion of total and Charlotte to Charleston is completed. Horry County day-use resident occasions absorbed at North Myrtle Beach, therefore, is 12.5 ' 115.5 or 10.8%. (See Exhibit II-17) Exhibit TII-18 shows the numerical distribution of day visitor demand. Although potential day-use demand -is greatest at Sullivans Island, Isle of Palms, and Myrtle Beach, several other factors should be considered simultaneously. First, the Beach Use Survey documents that Sullivans Island and Isle of Palms are almost exclusively day visitor beaches, while Myrtle Beach experiences only a small proportion of day visitor traffic.. Day visitors have access PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 127 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-16 DAY USE DESTINATION RATIOS (# parking spaces/distance) Destination Beaches Spaces _ N. Myrtle Beach 375 12.5 - 6.8 - 5.8 5.8 4.4 - - - - Atlantic 50 1.7 - 1.0 - - .7 .8 .6 - - - - Myrtle Beach 950 63.3 12.7 27.1 11.2 10.0 - - - - - 12.7 21.1 14.6 - - - - Myrtle Beach State Park 400 20.0 5.3 13.3 5.0 4.4 - - - - - 5.0 8.0 5.7 - - - Garden City - Surfside 100 5.0 1.4 3.3 1.3 1.2 - - - - - 1.3 1.8 1.3 - - - - Huntington Beach State Park 325 13.0 5.0 13.0 4.3 3.8 - - - - - 3.8 5.4 4.1 - - - Isle of Palms 920 - - 14.2 20.4 61.3 14.2 15.3 10.8 - - - - - 10.2 10.2 9.6 - Sullivans Island 1,000 - - 17.0 25.5 102.0 17.0 17.0 12.8 - - - - - 12.0 12.0 11.3 - Folly Island 450 - - 6.4 10.0 45.0 7.5 7.5 5.6 - - - - - 5.3 5.3 5.0 - Kiawah Island 150 - - 1.9 3.0 7.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.9 - - - - 1.6 1.6 - Edisto Island 1,000 - - - 12.5 20.0 14.3 20.0 14.3 13.3 16.7 - - - - 10.5 11.1 11.1 Hunting Island State Park 600 - - - - 4.0 5.0 6.7 20.0 6.2 7.3 - - - - - 4.0 5.0 Hilton Head Island 100 - - - - - 1.0 1.3 2.9 1.7 2.5 - - - 1.1 Total 115.5 24.4 104.0 93.2 259.2 61.1 70.5 68.4 22.8 28.4 29.3 42.9 30.7 27.5 39.6 43.7 17.2 Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 128 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit 111-17 DAY USE DESTINATION RATIOS (Percentage of day use beach user occasions from each origin to each destination) rd 0 H 0 a)00 h Q~~~~~1 4j 4 .m *.- o4 4 N H 0 N Cd N H Cd Cd H. N 0 0d 0 , - 0)o w 0 -4 4 w Destination Beaches :3 u m o U 0 P9~~ ~ o O mr N. Myrtle Beach 10.8 - 6.5 19.8 13.5 14.3 -. Itlantic 1.5 - 1.0 2.4 1.9 2.0 -. Myrtle Beach 54.8 52.0 26.1 12.0 3.9 - 43.3 49.2 47.6 -. fyrtle Beach State Park 17.3 21.7 12.8 5.4 1.7 -. - 17.1 18.6 18.6 -. Garden City - Surfside 4.3 5.8 3.2 1.4 .5 - 4.4 4.2 4.2 -. Huntington Beach State Park 11.3 20.5 12.5 4.6 1.5 - - - - - 13.0 12.6 13.3 -. Isle of Palms - - 13.7 21.9 23.6 23.2 21.7 15.8 - - - - - 37.1 25.8 22.0 - Sullivans Island - - 16.3 27.4 39.4 27.8 24.1 18.7 - - - - - 43.6 30.3 25.9 - Folly Island - - 6.2 10.7 17.4 12.3 10.6 8.3 - - - - - 19.3 13.4 11.4 - Kiaivah Island - - 1.7 3.2 2.9 3.5 3.9 2.9 7.0 6.7 - - - - 4.0 3.7 - Edisto Islarnd - - - 13.4 7.7 23.4 28.4 20.9 58.3 58.8 - - - - 26.5 25.4 64.5 Hunting Islard State Park - - - - 1.4 8.2 9.5 29.2 27.2 25.7 - - - - - 9.2 29.1 Hilton Head Island 1.6 1.8 4.2 7.5 8.8 . .- - 2.4 6.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: fhartzog, xader & Richards. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 129 HARTZOG. LADER a RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Matrices displaying similar pro- jections for 1980, 1985, and 1990 appear in Exhibits III-18, III-19, III-20, and III-21. For the purposes of this day-use demand analysis, distribution proportions are based on current parking capacities and distances. Parking capacity may drastically change during the next fifteen years, but projections would be impractical. Moreover, it is the relative capacities which are important to this analysis. Review of Exhibits III-18, 111-19, III-20, and 111-21 establishes most clearly that the demand generated from the Charles- ton area for Charleston area beaches increases for each projection period. Increased facilities, particularly more parking, at any of the beach areas will re-distribute demand, but will not diminish the magnitude of demand. For example, the tremendous potential demand shown for Isle of Palms and Sullivans Island may perhaps be diverted to Folly Beach or Kiawah Island by the addition of large quantities of public parking at those beaches, but the total demand will not be altered. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 130 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit 111-18 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL DAY USE BEACH USER OCCASIONS, 1975 (thousands of beach user occasions) �~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~Total N. Myrtle Beach 50.7 - 13.5 - 31.5 23.5 85.5 - -204.7 Atlant/c 7.0 - 2.1 - - 3.8 3.3 12.0 - - - -28.2 FMstle Beach 257.3 91.2 54.2 50.7 72.8 - - - - - 68.9 85.7 284.5 - 965.3 Myrtle Beach State Park 81.2 38.0 26.6 22.8 31.7 - - - - - 27.2 32.4 111.2 - 371.1 Garden City - Surfside 20.2 10.2 6.7 5.9 9.3 - - - - - 7.1 7.3 25.1 - - - - 91.8 Huntington Beach State Park 53.1 35.9 26.0 19.4 28.0 - - 20.7 21.9 79.5 - - - 284.5 Sullivans Island - - 33.9 115.8 735.4 71.8 38.0 60.0 - 54.7 124.2 21.9 - 877.1 Isle of Palms - - 28.5 92.5 440.5 59.9 34.2 50.7 - - - - - 46.5 105.7 18.6 - 1,255.7 Folly Island - - 12.9 45.3 324.8 31.8 16.7 26.6 - - - - - 24.2 54.9 9.7 - 546.9 Kiawah Island - - 3.4 13.5 54.1 9.0 6.2 9.3 6.0 4.7 - - - - 16.4 3.1 - 125.7 Edisto Island - - - 56.6 143.7 60.4 44.8 67.1 49.6 41.2 - - - - 108.6 21.5 33.1 626.6 Hunting Island State Park - - - - 26.3 21.2 15.0 93.7 23.1 18.0 - - - - - 7.8 15.0 220.1 Hilton Head Island - - - - - 4.1 2.8 13.5 6.4 6.1 - - - - - 2.1 3.3 38.3 Total 469.5 175.3 207.8 422.5 1,866.6 258.2 157.7 320.9 85.1 70.0 159.2 174.1 597.8 125.4 409.8 84.7 51.4 5,636.0 Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 31 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-19 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL DAY USE BEACH USER OCCASIONS, 1980 (thousands of beach user occasions) H .$ 1 Q rrDTotal Destinatim Beaches 0 (000) N. Myrtle Beach 51.2 - 14.4 - - 31.5 23.5 95.1 - - - - 215.7 Atlantic 7.1 - 2.2 - - 3.8 3.3 13.3 - - - - 29.7 Myrtle Beach 260.0 107.0 57.6 54.2 72.8 - 68.9 85.7 316.7 - - - - 1,032.9 Myrtle Beach State Park 82.1 44.7 28.3 28.9 31.7 - 27.2 32.4 123.7 - - - - 399.0 Garden City - Surfside 20.4 11.9 7.1 7.5 9.3 - 7.1 7.3 27.9 - - - - 98.5 Huntington Beach State Park 53.6 42.2 27.6 24.6 28.0 - 20.7 21.9 88.4 - - - - 307.0 Isle of Palms - - 30.3 117.2 440.5 59.9 34.2 50.7 - - - - - 46.7 111.7 20.5 - 911.7 Sullivans Island - - 36.0 146.7 735.4 71.8 38.0 60.0 - - - - 54.9 131.2 24.1 - 1,298.1 Folly Island - - 13.6 57.3 324.8 31.8 16.7 26.6 - - - - - 24.3 58.0 10.6 - 563.7 Kiawah Island - - 3.7 17.2 54.1 9.0 6.2 9.3 6.0 4.7 - - - - 17.3 3.4 - 130.9 Edisto Island - - - 71.7 143.8 60.4 44.8 67.1 49.6 41.2 - - - - 114.7 23.6 37.1 654.0 Hunting Island State Park - 26.2 21.2 15.0 93.7 23.1 18.0 - - - - - 8.6 16.7 222.5 Hilton Head Island - - 4.1 2.8 13.5 6.4 6.1 - - - - - 2.2 3.7 38.8 Total 474.7 205.8 220.8 535.3 1,866.6 258.2 157.7 320.9 85.1 70.0 159.2 174.1 665.3 125.9 432.9 93.0 57.5 5,903.0 Source: Hartzog, ader & Richards. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 1 32 . PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit III-20 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL DAY USE BEACH USER OCCASIONS, 1985 (thousands of beach user occasions) iQc:~~~~~ II~~ ~~~1 r~~~tal DestinationBeaches A 1 * (000) N. Myrtle Beach 60.5 - 16.9 - 44.5 30.1 109.6 - - - - 261.6 Atlantic 8.4 - 2.6 - - - - - - - 5.4 4.2 15.3 - - - - 35.9 %yrtle Beach 306.8 122.9 67.8 78.1 90.3 - - - - - 97.3 109.9 364.8 - - - - 1,237.9 Myrtle Beach State Park 96.9 51.3 33.2 35.3 39.3 - - - - - 38.4 41.5 142.6 - - - - 478.5 Garden City - Surfside 24.1 13.7 8.3 9.1 11.6 - - - - - 9.9 9.4 32.2 - - - - 118.3 Huntington Beach State Park 63.3 48.4 32.5 29.9 34.7 - - - - - 29.3 28.2 101.9 - - - - 368.2 Isle of Palms - - 35.6 142.5 546.2 83.3 41.6 56.7 - - - - - 53.5 127.4 23.5 - 1,110.3 Sullivans Island - - 42.3 178.3 911.8 99.7 46.2 67.1 - - - - - 62.9 149.7 27.7 - 1,585.7 Folly Island - - 16.1 69.6 402.7 44.1 20.3 29.8 - - - - - 27.9 66.2 12.2 - 688.9 Kiawah Island - - 4.4 20.8 67.1 12.6 7.5 10.4 6.8 5.6 - - - - 19.8 4.0 - 159.0 Edisto Island - - - 87.2 178.2 83.9 54.4 75.0 56.8 49.6 - - - - 130.8 27.1 43.5 786.5 Hunting Island State Park - - - - 32.4 29.4 18.2 104.7 26.5 21.7 - - - - - 9.8 19.6 262.3 U Hilton Head Island - 5.7 3.5 15.0 7.4 7.4 - - - - - 2.5 4.4 45.9 Total 560.0 236.3 259.7 650.8 2,314.3 358.7 191.7 358.7 97.5 84.3 224.8 223.3 766.4 144.3 493.9 106.8 67.5 7,139.0 Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 33 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS I Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit 111-21 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL DAY USE BEACH USER OCCASIONS, 1990 (thousands of beach user occasions) 0 0 I~~~ Destinaticn Beaches .l CUa i-t0) N. Myrtle Beach 70.2 - 19.7 - - - - - - - 47.2 35.4 124.9 - - - - 297.4 Atlantic 9.7 - 3.0 - - - - - - - 5.7 5.0 17.5 - - - - 40.9 Myrtle Beach 356.1 141.6 79.1 93.7 101.4 - - - - - 103.3 128.9 415.9 - - - - 1,420.0 Myrtle Beach State Park 112.4 59.2 38.8 42.2 44.2 - - - - - 40.8 48.7 162.5 - - - - 548.8 Garden City - Surfside 27.9 15.8 9.7 10.9 13.0 - - - - - 10.5 11.0 36.7 - - - - 135.5 Huntington Beach State Park 73.5 55.8 37.9 35.9 39.0 - - - - - 31.0 33.0 116.2 - - - - 422.3 Isle of Palms - - 41.5 171.0 613.3 90.7 46.0 67.7 - - - - - 60.2 131.0 26.5 - 1,247.9 Sullivans Island - - 49.4 214.0 1,024.0 108.5 51.1 80.2 - - - - - 70.7 153.8 31.2 - 1,782.9 Folly Island - - 18.7 83.6 452.2 48.1 22.5 35.6 - - - - - 31.3 68.0 13.7 - 773.7 Kiawah Island - - 5.3 25.0 75.4 13.7 8.3 12.4 7.6 6.4 - - - - 20.3 4.5 - 178.9 Edisto Island - - - 104.6 200.1 9i.5 60.2 89.6 62.9 56.1 - - - - 134.5 30.4 47.5 877.4 Hunting Island State Park - - - - 36.3 32.1 20.1 125.2 29.3 24.5 - - - - - 11.1 21.4 300.0 Hilton Head Island - - - - - 6.3 3.8 18.0 8.1 8.4 - - - - - 2.9 4.7 52.2 Tbtal 649.8 272.4 303.1 780.9 2,598.9 390.9 212.0 428.7 107.9 95.4 238.5 262.0 873.7 162.2 507.6 120.3 73.6 8,077.9 Source: Hartzog, lader Richards. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 134 PUBUC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Demand for Resident Vacation/ EXHIBIT III-22 Weekend Use SCORP RECREATION PLANNING AREAS Resident vacation and weekend beach use include all user-occasions generated Three Regions and by residents who spend at least one Ten Planning Districts night in the beach area (i.e., occasions occurring on weekend or vacation trips). --. ....E The methodology used to determine .. resident vacation demand precisely : ,-" ' parallels that for day-use demand. Although the procedure is the same, ,_ definitions of variables are changed: .,, 5'-' (1) The origin zones are the ten ' \ regional planning districts whichE AE.CR, WOO, include all South Carolina counties. MCCP UD (See Exhibit III-22) EC (2) Average annual per capita 0t]I LALN CLA.D -'LIJAMSBURW vacation/weekend beach user-occa- sions are calculated using PRT and : ,' rX�nE Midwest Research Institute data, .I E./'.CLL ' ..,~ ... which for each income cell provides the percentage of instate vacations P IE,,N 10.. at an identified South Carolina beach location, the average number ta�'Wt ' l ChRLE of beach user-occasions utilized in this analysis are shown in Exhibit III-23. COAT ilPUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 135 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 135 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis PartThree (3) Nine vacation and weekend destination areas are designated: Exhibit III-23 Grand Strand /9/ Isle of Palms AVERAGE ANNUAL SOUTH CAROLINA RESIDENT Sullivans Island VACATION USE BEACH USER-OCCASIONS Folly Beach BY INCOME CLASS Kiawah island Edisto Island Hunting Island State Park Income Occasions Per Capita Fripp island Hilton Head Island Under $5,000 .5 $5,000-$9,999 .8 $15,000-$14,999 .9 (4) User-occasions are distributed, $10,000-$14,999 .9 using the number of overnight $15,000$24,999 1.0 accommodations as the key criteria instead of parking spaces. Over- night accommodations include hotel Source: Midwest Research Institute, rooms, cottages, rental homes, Opportunities in the Leisure condominia and campsites. Industry, Statistical Summary, Exhibit III-24 displays demand projections for resident vacation beach user occasions. As for day visitor occasions, the increase in Carolina Private Outdoor vacation beach user occasions for Recreation Systems Plan, p.3-70 each time increment is primarily HLR Beach Use Survey. due to population shifts to higher income groups (in 1975 constant dollars). These increases are especially important in projecting vacation demand because of vacation frequency and trip characteristics differ greatly by income class. /20/ The greatest propor- tion of vacation demand is generated HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 136 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit III-24 S.C. RESIDENT VA=QTICN BEACH USER OCCASIONS 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 South Carolina Regional Planning 1975 % of 1980 % of 1985 % of 1990 % of District (000) Total (000) Total (000) Total (000) Total Appalachia 581.5 35.6 658.5 28.3 735.8 27.7 818.7 30.8 Upper Savannah -128.3 7.8 142.1 6.1 157.3 5.9 173.6 6.5 Central Piedmont 153.8 9.4 169.3 7.3 184.6 6.9 210.5 7.9 Midlands 347.0 21.2 384.0 16.5 428.7 16.1 470.7 17.7 Lower Savannah 178.6 10.9 188.3 8.1 203.5 7.7 220.0 8.3 Santee Wateree 121.7 7.4 126.7 5.4 135.3 5.1 143.5 5.4 Pee Dee 202.0 12.4 214.3 9.2 234.4 8.8 255.0 9.6 Waccamaw 115.5 7.1 115.4 5.0 127.2 4.8 139.9 5.3 Charleston 304.0 18.6 336.4 14.4 360.1 13.6 395.4 14.9 Lower Coast 83.7 5.1 85.1 3.7 90.3 3.4 95.2 3.6 Totals 1,634.6 100.0 2,330.1 100.0 2,657.2 100.0 2,922.5 100.0 Source: HLR. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 37 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three from the Appalachia, Midlands, and Head Island visitors include high Charleston districts. These districts median incomes ($35,000) and median have the State's largest population age of household head (40 years). /2/I concentrations. Thus, the demand projections shown for Hilton Head Island will almost ex- As previously explained, the clusively be absorbed by the upper gravity model was used to distribute income class. this potential resident vacation demand across the various destination areas. Appendices of this Report show the It is assumed that the number driving distances, accommodation esti- of accommodations will remain constant mates, and destination ratios deter- over the fifteen-year projection mined for vacation use. Application period. For developed beach areas, of these ratios completes the distri- the relative proportion will likely bution of resident vacation beach not change drastically, but there are user occasions. possibilities of capacity expansion at several vacation destination areas. Exhibits III-25, III-26, 111-27, and 111-28 display the projected vacation Kiawah Island will probably beach use demand for each destination witness the largest increase, but Hilton from 1975 to 1990. As might be Head Island, Fripp Island, and Isle of expected, a substantial proportion Palms also have considerable expansion (88%) of the demand will be absorbed potential. Such expansions would affect in the Grand Strand area. Second resident vacation patterns, but the highest demand is projected for Hilton greatest effect, if present development Head Island. Substantial demand is strategies are followed, would be to also shown for Folly Beach and Edisto. greatly increase the number of non- Island. resident visitors to these areas. Although Myrtle Beach/Grand Strand provides vacation accommodations Total resident vacation beach to suit all tastes, budgets, and user occasions are estimated at 2.2 motivations, Hilton Head Island is a million in 1975, 2.3 million in 1980, relatively expensive resort area. 2.7-m-illion in 1985, and 2.9 million in Demographic characteristics of Hilton 1990, a growth rate of 4.5% from 1975 to HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 138 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit III-25 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL RESIDENT VACATION BEACH USER OCCASIONS, 1975 (thousands of beach user occasions) ,~ .5 .I mJ - O U Destination Beaches $ I 4 a) 4 H ~ P ) d (p $ _ t N O - Total % Grand Strand 519.9 113.2 140.1 309.8 153.7 111.3 191.5 113.9 237.4 53.4 1,944.2 87.7 Isle of Palms 2.3 .6 .6 1.7 1.1 .5 .4 .1 5.5 .7 13.5 .6 Sullivan's Island 2.3 .6 .6 1.4 .9 .4 .4 .1 5.2 .6 12.5 .6 Folly Beach 12.2 3.0 2.8 8.0 5.0 2.2 2.4 .3 26.7 3.2 65.8 3.0 Kiawah Island 2.3 .5 .5 1.4 .9 .4 .4 .1 4.5 -5 11.5 .5 Edisto Island 8.7 2.2 2.0 5.6 3.4 1.6 1.6 .2 8.2 2.3 35.8 1.6 Hunting Island State Park 2.4 .6 .6 1.7 1.1 .4 .4 .1 1.2 2.3 10.8 .5 Fripp Island 2.9 .9 .6 2.1 1.4 .5 .4 .2 1.5 2.9 13.4 .6 Hilton Head Island 28.5 6.7 6.0 15.3 11.1 4.4 4.5 .5 13.8 17.8 108.6 4.9 Total 581.5 128.3 153.8 347.0 178.6 121.7 202.0 115.5 304.0 83.7 2,216.1 Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 139 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-26 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL RESIDENT VACATION BEACH USER OCCASIONS, 1980 (thousands of beach user occasions) Destination Areas i- ' w U X0s x: w M 3 P U 0 Total Grand Strand 588.7 125.3 154.2 342.9 162.1 116.0 117.8 113.8 262.7 54.3 2,037.8 Isle of Palms 2.6 .7 .7 1.9 1.1 .5 .2 .1 6.1 .7 14.6 Sullivan's Island 2.6 .7 .7 1.5 .9 .4 .2 .1 5.7 .6 13.4 Folly Beach 13.8 3.3 3.0 8.8 5.3 2.3 1.6 .3 29.6 3.2 71.2 Kiawah Island 2.6 .6 .5 1.5 .9 .4 .2 .1 5.0 .5 12.3 Edisto Island 9.9 2.4 2.2 6.3 3.6 1.6 '1.0 .2 9.1 2.3 38.6 Hunting Island State Park 2.6 .7 .7 1.9 1.1 .4 .2 .1 1.3 2.4 11.4 Fripp Island 3.3 1.0 .7 2.3 1.5 .5 .2 .1 1.7 3.0 14.3 Hilton Head Island 32.4 7.4 6.6 16.9 11.8 4.6 2.9 .6 15.2 18.1 116.5 Total 658.5 142.1 169.3 384.0 188.3 126.7 124.3 115.4 336.4 85.1 2,330.1 Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1 40 PUBUC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit III-27 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL RESIDENT VACATION BEACH USER OCCASIONS, 1985 (thousands of beach user occasions) ( ,4 Destination Areas lu a) o rd 4 E � w u P4 C A x P. :3: o ~ Total Grand Strand 657.8 138.7 168.2 382.8 175.2 123.9 222.0 125.4 281.2 57.6 2,332.8 Isle of Palms 2.9 .8 .7 2.1 1.2 .5 .5 .1 6.5 .7 16.0 Sullivan's Island 2.9 .8 .7 1.7 1.0 .4 .5 .1 6.1 .6 14.8 Folly Beach 15.5 3.6 3.3 9.9 5.7 2.5 2.8 .4 31.7 3.4 78.8 Kiawah Island 2.9 .6 .6 1.7 1.1 .4 .5 .1 5.4 .5 13.8 Edisto Island 11.0 2.7 2.4 6.9 3.9 1.8 1.9 .3 9.7 2.4 43.0 Hunting Island State Park 2.9 .8 .7 2.1 1.2 .4 .5 .3. 1.4 2.5 12.6 Fripp Island 3.7 1.1 .7 2.6 1.6 .5 .5 .1 1.8 3.3 15.9 Hilton Head Island 36.2 8.2 7.3 18.9 12.6 4.9 5.2 .6 16.3 19.3 129.5 Total 735.3 157.3 184.6 428.7 203.5 135.3 234.4 127.2 360.1 90.3 2,657.2 Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 141 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-28 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL RESIDENT VACATION BEACH USER OCCASIONS, 1990 (thousands of beach user occasions) r, MO4 r. 9:, m m o t4 V e H a g 'U U Destination Areas o e I > o , G) -.4 .4 ~ ~ ~ -gl- -v-- -.0 Total Grand Strand 731.8 153.0 191.8 420.3 189.4 131.4 241.7 137.9 308.8 60.6 2,566.7 Isle of Palms 3.3 .9 .8 2.4 1.3 .6 .5 .1 7.1 .8 17.8 Sullivan's Island 3.3 .9 .8 1.9 1.1 .4 .5 .1 6.7 .7 16.4 Folly Beach 17.2 4.0 3.8 10.8 6.2 2.6 3.1 .4 34.8 3.6 86.5 Kiawah Island 3.3 .7 .6 1.9 1.1 .4 .5 .1 5.9 .6 15.1 Edisto Island 12.3 3.0 2.7 7.5 4.2 1.9 2.0 .3 10.7 2.6 47.2 Hunting Island State Park 3.3 .9 .8 2.4 1.3 .4 .5 .1 1.6 2.7 14.0 Fripp Island 4.1 1.2 .8 2.8 1.8 .6 .5 .1 2.0 3.3 17.2 Hilton Head Island 40.1 9.0 8.4 20.7 13.6 5.2 5.7 .8 17.8 20.3 141.6 Total 818.7 173.6 210.5 470.5 220.0 143.5 255.0 139.9 395.4 95.2 2,922.5 Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 142 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis 1980, 17.4% from 1980 to 1985, and 7.4% As shown in Exhibit III-29, from 1985 to 1990. Thus, a surge of demand generated by non-resident resident vacation beach user occasions vacationers is estimated at 13.2 million is expected from 1980-1985. occasions in 1975, 13.9 million in 1980, 14.6 million in 1985, and 15.4 million in 1990. Assuming that non-resident demand is distributed similarly to total resi- dent vacation demand, Exhibit III-30 Non-Resident Vacation Use illustrates the total vacation demand at each of the nine subject beach vaca- In addition to resident vacation tion destinations. demand, thousands of visitors from other states travel to South Carolina each Several interesting points year. In 1974, for example, more than surface from Exhibit III-30. First, non- 30 million non-South Carolina resi- vacation demand for South Carolina dents visited this state. South Carolina beaches, both current and projected, was the final destination for 11 million. is more than five times as great as /22/ resident demand, notwithstanding conservative projections. With The number of beach user-occasions additional resort and hotel/motel per non-resident visitor can be deter- development (e.g., Kiawah Island, Fripp mined from PRT projections of non- Island, Hilton Head Island), these resident visitors to South Carolina by figures may be surpassed. state of origin. Based upon the percent- age of such non-resident visitors who Second, resident occasions are shown are destined for beach areas, the to increase at a rate of 5.1% from 1975 average length-of-stay, and the average to 1980, 14.0% from 1980 to 1985, and number of occasions per day at the 10% from 1985 to 1990, as compared to a beach, the average annual per capita constant increase of approximately 5.1% ocean beach user-occasion rate is for the same time periods for non-resi- estimated to be 1.2. This figure dent occasions. Thus, although signifi- compares with 1.56 occasions for all cant demand increases are expected in beach areas. /23/ both categories throughout the projected PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 143 HARTZOG, LADER&RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-29 PROJECTED NON-RESIDENT BEACH USER OCCASIONS BY STATE 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 Non-Resident Visitors to S.C. Beach User Occasions (000's) (000's) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 197_ 1_ llYO __75 ITWO I'M tP__ Alabama 237.3 241.7 246.4 251.0 284.8 290.0 295.7 301.2 Alaska 7.0 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.4 9.1 9.6 10.1 Arizona 12.9 14.2 15.4 16.7 15.5 17.0 18.5 20.0 Arkansas 34.6 '35.7 37.0 38.3 41.5 42.8 44.4 46.0 California 103.1 113.1 123.4 134.6 123.7 135.7 148.1 161.5 Colorado 9.5 10.4 11.4 12.1 11.4 12.5 13.4 14.5 Connecticut 246.4 259.6 279.7 301.2 295.7 311.5 335.6 361.4 Delaware 63.9 69.6 75.'4 81.7 76.7 83.5 90.5 98.0 Florida 720.1 789.0 855.7 928.4 864.1 946.8 1,026.8 1,114.1 Georgia 1,463.1 1,554.0 1,644.8 1,740.1 1,755.7 1,864.8 1,973.8 2,088.1 Hawaii 10.9 11.5 11.9 12.3 13.1 13.8 14.3 14.8 Idaho 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6 Illinois 168.7 177.2 186.3 195.8 202.4 212.6 223.6 235.0 Indiana 238.5 251.5 265.0 279.3 286.2 301.8 318.0 335.2 Iowa 15.7 16.0 16.3 16.6 18.8 19.2 19.6 19.9 Kansas 15.8 16.1 16.4 16.7 19.0 19.3 19.7 20.0 Kentucky 161.5 165.6 169.9 174.3 193.8 198.7 203.9 209.2 Louisiana 66.9 69.8 72.7 75.8 80.3 83.8 87.2 91.0 Maine 48.2 48.9 49.5 50.3 57.8 58.7 59.5 60.4 Maryland 288.9 317.8 347.2 379.5 346.7 381.4 416.6 455.4 Massachusetts 230.1 241.7 253.6 266.0 276.1 290.0 304.3 319.2 Michigan 347.4 368.9 391.3 415.2 416.9 442.7 469.6 498.2 Minnesota 40.2 42.5 44.8 47.2 48.2 51.0 53.8 56.6 Mississippi 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.9 Missouri 65.4 68.2 71.1 74.2 78.5 81.8 85.3 89.0 Montana 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.1 Nebraska 7.6 7.9 8.1 8.3 9.1 9.5 9.7 10.0 Nevada 2.7 3.1 3.5 4.0 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.8 New Hampshire 11.7 12.7 13.8 15.0 14.0 15.2 16.6 18.0 New Jersey 517.0 555.4 596.0 639.5 620.4 666.5 715.2 767.4 New Mexico 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.3 8.0 8.3 8.5 8.8 New York 698.3 728.6 760.7 794.2 838.0 874.3 912.8 953.0 North Carolina 1,853.2 1,925.2 1,995.4 2,067.2 2,233.8 2,310.2 2,394.5 2,480.6 North Dakota 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS - 144 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA' Part Three Market Analysis Exhibit III-29 (con't.) PROJECTED NON-RESIDENT BEACH USER OCCASIONS BY STATE 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 Non-Resident Visitors to S.C. Beach User Occasions (000's) (000's) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1_ 0__ 1'q l18 IT57O __5 1' ___ __0 Ohio 797.7 835.1 874.0 915.0 957.2 1,002.1 1,048.8 1,098.0 Oklahoma 11.9 12.4 13.0 13.6 14.3 14.9 15.6 16.3 Oregon 7.9 8.5 9.1 9.7 9.5 10.2 10.9 11.6 Pennsylvania 719.9 731.5 743.9 756.5 863.9 877.8 892.7 907.8 Rhode Island 12.9 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.5 16.2 16.8 17.4 South Dakota 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Tennessee 333.5 347.4 361.4 375.8 400.2 416.9 433.7 451.0 Texas 39.6 42.3 45.0 47.9 47.5 50.8 54.0 57.5 Utah 7.8 8.4 9.0 9.6 9.4 10.1 10.8 11.5 Vermont 15.3 16.3 17.3 18.4 18.4 19.6 20.8 22.1 Virginia 756.4 801.3 844.6 890.2 907.7 961.6 1,013.5 1,068.2 Washington 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.5 5.4 5.9 6.2 6.6 West Virginia 241.1 234.4. 229.2 224.2 289.3 281.3 275.0 269.0 Wisconsin 62.2 65.7 69.4 73.3 74.6 78.8 83.3 88.0 Wyoming 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 D.C. 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 61.2 61.2 61.2 61.2 Canada 219.5 246.5 276.8 310.8 263.4 295.8 332.2 373.0 Other Countries 39.9 40.4 40.9 41.4 47.9 48.5 49.1 49.7 Total 11,025.0 11,606.7 12,198.7 12,825.8 13,230.00 13,928.0 14,638.4 15,391.0 Note: Items may not add to totals due to round-off error Source Notes: 1) 2) 3) S.C. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism 4) Assumption is made that 85 to 90 growth rate will equal 80 to 85 growth rate 5) - 8) Estimated at 3.0 user occasions per visitor - based on PRT sub region analysis. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 145 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis PartThree EXHIBIT III-30 VACATION BEACH USER OCCASIONS 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 1975 1980 1985 1990 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Resident Non-Resident Total Resident Non-Resident Total Resident Ncn-Resident Total Resident Non-Resident Total Grand Strand 1,944.2 11,602.7 13,545.9 2,037.8 12,214.9 14,252.7 2,332.8 12,837.9 15,270.7 13,497.9 13,497.9 16,064.6 Isle of Palms 13.5 79.4 92.9 14.6 83.6 98.2 16.0 87.9 103.9 17.8 92.3 110.1 Sullivan's Island 12.5 79.2 91.7 13.4 83.6 97.0 14.8 87.8 102.6 16.4 92.3 108.7 Folly Beach 65.8 396.9 462.7 71.2 417.8 489.0 78.8 439.2 518.0 86.5 461.7 548.2 Kiaiah Island* 11.5 66.2 77.7 12.3 69.6 81.9 13.0 73.2 87.0 15.1 77.0 92.1 Edisto Island 35.8 211.7 247.5 38.6 222.8 261.4 43.0 234.2 277.2 47.2 246.3 293.5 Runting Island State Park 10.8 66.2 77.0 11.4 69.6 81.0 12.6 73.2 85.8 14.0 77.0 91.0 Fripp Island 13.4 79.4 92.8 14.3 83.6 97.9 15.9 87.9 103.8 17.2 92.3 109.5 Hilton Head Island 108.6 648.3 756.9 116.5 682.5 799.0 129.5 717.4 846.9 141.6 254.2 895.8 Total 2,216.1 13,230.0 15,446.1 2,330.1 13,928.0 16,258.1 2,657.2 14,638.4 17,295.6 2,922.5 15,391.0 18,313.5 Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards. *Figures are shawn for 1975 though facilities will not be available to public until early 1976. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1 46 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Three, Market Analysis I ~~period, day-use from 1980 to 1985 will efforts. Additional demand can be created likely present the most critical problems. by market forces and further development of resort facilities on the coast. I. ~~~Although these figures represent a slight decline in the growth rate of out-of-state tourism, several factors bias these calculations toward that Future Vacation Markets: conclusion. First, both day visitor .demand and non-resident vacation demand Resident and Non-Resident are tied to the income distribution of I ~~the population. Much of the increase in demand for these segments results from Strong leisure market growth is projected growth in real income. Since expected through the 1980's. The key * ~~the consultant applied per capita activity indicators of this phenomenon are rates directly to PRT projections of non- economic and demographic characteris- resident visitors, the expected growth tics: in upper income groups (those groups with sufficient discretionary income to *strongly rising income, travel during leisure time) is not particularly after basic * ~~reflected in non-resident projections as expenses are satisfied; * ~~as it is for day visitors and resident vacationer segments. *increases in the 25-34 age group; I ~~~Furthermore, PRT projections were based upon historical growth rates *increases in the 35-4 4 to 1972 and, therefore, do not reflect age group; the strong growth period from 1972 to I ~~the pres ent. Thus, estimated non- *a decline in birth rates. resident demand may be significantly undestaedbut at :Lhis time no better Each of these trends is anticipated data up'on'which to base the projections in the next fifteen years. is available. Strong growth in real income of Third, vacation demand is extremely the $12,500� income class is expected sensitive to promotional and marketing through 1990. /23/ As show~%n in PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 147 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three EXHIBIT III-31 DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES PERCENTAGE GROWTH AND UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS YEAR TO YEAR BY INCOME LEVELS AND TOTAL (1971 Dollars) 1971 1980' 1985- 1990' 1971 1980 1985 1990 1971-1990 Below 12,499 '71.2 56.0 48.4 41.1 Below 12,499 Base (10) (6) (10)- (2) 12.500to 14.999 9.1 10.8 9.0 8.3 12,500 to 14,999 # 35 {10) (2) 19 15,000to17.499 6.6 8.6 9.4 7.8 15,000 to 17,499 48 18 (4) 55 17.500Io19,'999 4.3 6.5 7.6 8e3 17,500 to 19,999 " 72 25 14 151 20,000 to 24.099 4.5 8.7 10.9 12.4 20,000 to 24,999 " 119 36 21 260 25,000 to 34,999 2.9 6.3 9.5 13.6 25,000 to 34,999 " 153 63 34 524 35,000 to 49.999 .9 2.1 3.7 6.0 35,000 to 49,999 " 175 87 73 787 60.000 and over .5 1.0 1.5 2.5 50,000 + " -119 66 45 562 13.0% Projected Growths Rate. Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Popu- lation Reports, Series P-23, No. 47, "Illustra- tive Projections of Money Income Size Distribution for Families and Unrelated Individuals", U.S. Government Printing Office. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 148 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis EXHIBIT III-32 PROJECTED POPULATION OF PERCENTAGE GROWTH RATE FAMilILIES AND UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS FROM YEAR TO YEAR BY AGE AND TOTAL (000's) 1971 1975 1980 1985 1990 1971 1975 19S0 1985 1990 1971-1990 Under 25 6,367 6,363 7,045 6,863 6,233 Wder 25 Base 0 10% (2%) (9%) (2%) 25 - 34 13,402 15,448 18,730 20,982 21,663 25 - 34 " 15% 21% 12% 3% 62% 35 - 44 11,886 11,848 13,333 16,481 19,571 35 - 44 " 0 13% 24% 19% 65% 45 - 54 13,048 12,665 11,986 11,763 13,115 45 - 54 " (3%) (5%) (1%) 11% 0 55 - 64 11,366* 11,822 12,570 12,743 12,144 55 - 64 4% 6% 1% (5%) 7% 65 + 13,538 14,322 15,811 17,273 18,865 65 + 6% 10% 9% 9% 39% Source: U.S. Bureau of Cens:;us, Currclit lPopulation Reports, Series P-23, No. 47, U.S. Government Printing office. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 149 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Exhibits III-31-III-33, the greatest population growth will occur in households with household heads between the ages of 25-34 and 35-44. The entire population EXHIBIT III-33 will be shifting upward in terms of real income. Over time, there will AGE GROUP AS PERCENT OF be a clustering of consumer units from TOTAL POPULATION* the $12,000+ range into the $20,000- FAMILIES AND UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS $35,000 range in 1971 dollars. As these youthful age groups increase during the next fifteen years, they 1971 1975 1980 1985 1990 will simultaneously be growing more affluent. Under 25 9 9 9 8 7 25 - 34 19 21 24 24 24 This growth promises to have a 35 - 44 17 16 17 19 21 substantial impact on total travel spending: travel expenditures per 45 - 54 19 17 15 14 14 person-day increase dramatically 55 - 64 16 16 16 15 13 with increasing income. In terms of 65~ + 19 20 20 20 21 total 1972 spending, the $10,000- $24,999 income groups accounted for nearly 60 percent of travel spending while representing only 40 percent of consumer units. Thus, more families are moving into the income ranges with the highest per 'Columns may not equal 100% due to rounding capita travel expenditure history. This data in itself lends substantial support to a growing and more affluent Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Population Report support to a growing and more affluent Series P-23, No. 47, U.S. Government Printing OEfice. family vacation market in the next decade. For this reason, conservative projections, such as is study's demand analysis, may fall short of fact in the'years ahead. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 150 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis Social attitudes toward vacation In the present recessionary period, and weekend travel are expected to experience may be sought from the 1958 develop favorably, but only in line and 1970-71 recessions. In short, I ~~with the normal pattern of rising total consumer expenditures for recrea- income. /25,' The main limitations tion, as measured in constant dollars, on travel are income and inertia. continued during both of the prior People who do travel tend to spend sharp recessions. Aggregate consumer well within their incomes for travel; expenditures for leisure activities are and the proportion of income spent remarkably resistant to the effects for travel is increased continuously of short-term recession. /26/ up to very high income levels. moreover, more families than ever inertia is the second factor before are currently making vacation because a substantial proportion of plans. As Exhibit 111-34 indicates, consumers who could afford to travel Americans continue to travel. do so very little. The income factor * ~~is expected to develop favorably and The average full-time worker had encourage more travel; but after the 1.8 weeks of vacation in 1960 and 2.2 income growth is taken into account, weeks in 1969. By 1982, this average consumers in each income range are likely will probably be 3.0 weeks per employee, I ~~to maintain their inertia factor on about representing a growth rate of 2.4 percent the same scale as in the seventies. per year. Most of the gain in leisure time over the next decade will be in Aggregate consumer expenditures the form of vacation increases. ,/28 / for leisure-specific goods and services are expected to increase from $73.8 Similarly, the number of employees billion in 1973 to $119.4 billion in working on compressed work weeks is 1985 (1973 dollars). /26/ Further expected to increase from a present leisure-specific expenditures continue 1 1/2 to 2 million to approximately to form an increasing portion of total 16 million in 1980. Although this firm I ~~personal consumption spending. Now cannot appraise this projection, it is at just below 10 percent, leisure based on a continued evolutionary pace expenditures are forecast to reach of relatively small-scale conversions. I ~~12 percent by 1985. Should this occur, one result will be PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 151 H A T O . LDR&ICRS Market Analysis Part Three Exhibit III-34 VACATION INTENDED WITHIN SIX MONTHS: DESTINATION AND MEANS OF TRAVEL 1974 1975 March- May- July- September- November- January- March April June August October December February April Vacation Intended 38.7 44.2 42.8 42.9 38.3 38.8 43.7 Destination Home state 11.5 12.9 11.2 10.7 10.6 10.6 11.7 Other states 24.6 28.4 28.8 28.7 26.1 25.6 29.4 Foreign country 3.9 3.6 4.2 3.6 2.9 3.4 3.5 Means of Travel Automobile 28.6 33.8 32.9 32.7 30.9 30.4 33.6 Airplane 9.4 9.7 9.7 8.8 .6.8 7.3 9.8 Other 3.4 2.6 2.4 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.2 Source: Conference Board, "Consumer Attitudes and Buying Plans", May, 1975. HARTZOG,.LADER & RICHARDS 1 52 PuBuc BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1 52 PUBLIc BEACH ACCESS 8 RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis an incremental 1980 consumer spending of approximately $1.4 billion for goods and services employed in participant Exhibit III-35 recreation activities, especially those that are traditionally pursued on DISTRIBUTION OF THE STATE'S weekends. /29/ TOTAL OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES BY TYPE OF OPERATION One impact on South Carolina's beach use is clear. Adoption of Private Public compressed work weeks would be expected Facilities Sector Sector to increase tourism and hospitality Campgrounds 110 t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cmgoud10 68 markets, particularly those associated Riding Stables 21 2 with relatively short weekend trips. Fishing Piers 14 1 Compressed work weeks would stimulate Golf Courses 181 5 travel, while energy shortages and Marinas 36 1 increased fuel prices would tend to Hunting Areas 42 47 Fishing/Boating result in'shorter average trip distances. Fili ties Thus, beach areas near metropolitan (Boa t Ramps) III 225 centers will be in even greater demand. Amusement-, Theme Park,' Effects of Private Development FairgroundI, Gardens 78 1 Currently in South Carolina, Auto/Horse Racing Tracks 3 0 private enterprise provides the largest Accommodations 966 hotel/ 11 cabin de- percentage of outdoor recreation motel velopments facilities and services. More than 82 Charter Fishing percent of such facilities are operated Boats 29 0 by the private sector, while the public TOTALS 1,591 Enter-346 Facility sector provides only approximately 18 prise percent of such facilities. Exhibit III-35 shows the distribution of the State's (82.1%) (17.9%) facilities by type of operation. Source: South Carolina PRT, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, supra., p. 7. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 153 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HRZG AE ICAD Market Analysis Part Three In the past decade, extensive tourist trade, and the lack of public development of recreation facilities parkinfg at the beach facilities, make and destination areas by the private opportunities for residents to spend a sector has had the effect of greatly day at the beach increasingly difficult. increasing South Carolina's share of Further, in areas of large population the family vacation market,-providing concentration, especially Charleston, second home and recreational property traffic congestion to popular publicI opportunities for residents of states beach areas has increased to the extent with inclement weather, and developing that residents of the beach communities some of the finest golf, tennis, and are strongly opposed to additionalI beach facilities in the nation. development of facilities in their community. These factors will neces- In cocluson, he dmandfor eachsitate strong action by the public ncocusiote deand frbeach v ctoswlcniuesector to provide balance between to grow throughout the next fifteen pemaent rsdentand. t a s en ei years. Resort areas such as Myrtle detdead Beach and Hilton Head island will continue to attract the large majority of the South Carolina-vacation market. Addi- tionally, Kiawah Island has the potential to become a resort destination of the same magnitude as Hilton Head Island. The South Carolina coast currently MreCocuion provides accommodations and vacation Mre ocuin opportunities for families of nearly all income ranges and recreational in terms of market considerations, interests. These opportunities will south Carolina's tourism and recreation greatly increase in the future primarily growth potential is tremendous. The on Kiawah and Hilton Head Islands. facts that tourist expenditures increased 36 percent from 1973 to 1974, that tour- A major concern, however, is the ism is the State's second largest industry, availability of coastal recreation and that nearly 80 percent of this facilities for lower income classes spending occurred at coastal areasI and especially for resident day use indicate the importance of beaches to of the beach area. The ever increasing the state's economy. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1,54 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Three Market Analysis I ~~~South Carolina tourism's history has Day visitor access is a problem been marked by continued increases in for the entire coast, but is particularly the'number of visitors and their expendi- critical in the Charleston area. More I ~~tures. Tourist spending has tripled in than 45 percent of the State's beach-user the last decade. This remarkable record occasions are generated by residents of notwithstanding, demographic and the Charleston SMSA. Parking is, perhaps, psychographic characteristics of beach the most critical factor affecting day I ~~users, especially auto travelers, visitor opportunities, and legal evidence the significant untapped parking -- inadequate throughout potential which can-be realized by the coast -- is totally inadequate I ~~creative inducement of increased tourist near Charleston. For example, expenditures and lengthened average capacity analysis identifies conserva- visitor stays. tively, a need for three times as many * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~legal parking spaces as are currently Beach demand from both day visitors available at Sullivan s island and- and vacationers will continue to increase twice as many at Hunting Beach State in the next fifteen years. Total day-use Park, Isle of Palms, and Folly Island demand for South Carolina beaches is to merely accommodate 1975 level of conservatively estimated to be 5.6 demand. million beach-user occasions in 1975. I ~~This figure will grow to 5.9 million Total vacationer demand for beach occasions in 1980, 7.2 million occasions use, resident and non-resident, is in 1985, and 8.1 million occasions estimated to be 15.4 million user-occa- in 1990. The dramatic increase between sions in 1975, 16.3 million occasions in 1980 and 1985 can be ascribed to an' 1980, 17.3 million in 1985, and 18.3 million upward shift in projected real incomes. in 1990. Non-resident demand, current and projected, is more than five times as I. ~~~Although demand distribution may great as resident demand -- evidence of be effectively altered by provision or the fact that South Carolina's coast is expansion of additional beach access truly a regional resource. Expansion of points and recreation facilities, the the vacation market is projected to occur total potential demand'will not be at the greatest rate from 1980 to 1985. diminished, and the origin of the demand will not be significantly changed. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 5HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three3 Resort areas such as Myrtle Beach Strong leisure market growth, and Hilton Head Island will continue expected throughou-t-the 1980's due to to attract a majority of the South changing demographic characteristics Carolina vacation market. Additionally, and socio-economic trends, requires Kiawah island has the potential to that beach use demand be dispersed. become a resort destination of the The private sector will play an impor- same magnitude as Hilton Head island. tant role by developing facilities to accommodate vacationers and to service A major problem is the limit of certain day use needs. Whether by. available coastal recreation facilities acquisition, regulation, or other means, for resident day users. Ever-increasing however, State amd local governments tourism and inadequate public parking must expand public beach access and compound the constraints of most beaches' recreation opportunities to meet demand recreational carrying capacity. Even projections lest South Carolina loseI 1975 average summer weekend crowds strain the great natural, social, and economic capacity of Myrtle, Sullivans, Folly and benefits derived from its beaches. Edisto beaches. Beach communities-nearI large urban areas, principally Charleston, are threatened with traffic congestion and inordinate fiscal burdens because they will increasingly serve as metro- politan ocean playgrounds. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 156 PtJBUC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAI Part Three Market Analysis 1 1 South Carolina PRT, Orientation Report Midwest Research Institute, Oppor- for Governor-Elect James B. Edwards, tunities in the Leisure Industry: Statis- December 10, 1974, no page. tical Summary, February, 1972, no page. 2 South Carolina PRT, 1974 South 10 All trip characteristics data, except Carolina Travel Study-Summary Report, 1975, where otherwise noted, is extracted from no page. the South Carolina PRT, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, 3 U.S. Travel Data Center, 1972 National Title 3, Chapter 3. Expenditure Study: Summary Report, Washington, D.C., September, 1973, at 45. 11 South Carolina PRT, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan Supra, at 39. 4 Centaur Management Consultants, Inc., Family Income Patterns in Tourism/Recreation 12 Areas, Y.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, The following instructional data D.C., 1974, at 48. is derived from Behavior Science Corpora- tion, Developing the Family Travel Market, Los Angeles, CA, 1972, at 34-49. 1974 South Carolina Travel Study. Supra. 1 6 13 The major sources of data reflected Mayo, Edward J., The Psychology of in this demand analysis follow: Choice in the Lodging Market, University of Notre Dame, 1974, at 3-8. South Carolina PRT, South Carolina Private 7 Outdoor Recreation Systems Ibid., at 6. Plan, supra, Appendix 3, at 31-55. 8 1974 South Carolina Travel Study, American Automobile association supra. "Distances Between Cities," South Carolina State Map. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 157 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Market Analysis Part Three Marketing Economic's Institute, 15 South Carolina PRT, South Carolina Marketing Economics Guide 1974-1975, Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, 1974, at 2-15, 72-73. supra, at 3-70.1 Kiawah Beach Company, Myrtle Beach Market Study, 16 Population figures used are the most March 3, 1975. uniformly derived projections available at the time of this study and may be a Sea Pines Company, source of disagreement. More reliable Resort Guest Tracking Systems projections will only strengthen the Quarterly Reports, June, 1974; gravity model. The gravity model's value January, 1975; May, 1975. as a predictive device will increase if more~accurate information can be supplied'. Greater Myrtle Beach Chamber of South Carolina Demographer's Office supplied Commerce, Visitor Survey, September, the projections used here. 1974. Harvard University, 17 U.S. Department of Commerce, Current Ecologic-Economic Analysis for Population Reports, Series, P-23, No. 47, Regional Development; Regional "Illustrative Projections of Money Income Science and Landscape Analysis Size Distribution for Families and Unre- Project, Department of Landscape lated Individuals," U.S. Government Architecture, Graduate School of Printing Office, 1974, at 14, 20, 38, 56. Design, Harvard University Free Press, New York, New York, November, 1969, at 31-36. 8-eApndxI-B 14 See, e.g., South Carolina PRT, South 19 The Grand Strand includes Atlantic Carollna Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Beach, North Myrtle Beach, Myrtle Beach, Plan, Private Recreation User's Profile, Surfside Beach, Garden City Beach, op. cit., at 42; U.S. Travel Data Center, Huntington Beach State Park, Litchfield 1972 National Travel Expenditure Study, Beach, and Pawleys Island. Although it September, 1973; Midwest Research Institute, is highly desirable to determine demand Opportunities in the Leisure Industry: for-each of these areas separately, data Statistical Summary, 1972, no pages. was insufficient for doing so at the time of this study. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 158 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Three Market Analysis 20 Se2pedx5xiisII- oIIK I 20 See Appendix Exhibits II-C to II I-.25 Lionel D. Edie and Company, U.S. Travel Outlook Through 1982, May, 1972, at 81. 21 HLR Beach Use Survey, August, 1975. 26 22 Midwest Research Institute, unpublished I 22 South Carolina PRT, 1974 South data, 1974. Carolina Travel Study, supra, no pages. 27 Ibid. 23 South Carolina PRT, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan; 28 supra, at 3-70. Lionel D. Edie and Company, supra, at 83. 24 These projections appear in U.S. Department of Commerce, Current Population 29 Midwest Research Institute, Compressed Reports, Series P-23, No. 47, supra. Work Weeks - Impact for L/R Products and Services, 1974, at 3. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 159 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey Part FourI HARTZOG, LADER & R~~~~~~~~~~~~ICAD160PBIBECACES&RCETOINOUHAOLA Part Four Beach Use Survey every third or fourth group. Completed questionnaires were coded and computer- Currently available information processed for the following cross-tabu- concerning beach use, by income levels lations: (1) All respondents; (2) Respon- and driving distance to day-use beach dents by beach area; (3) Respondents by areas, was inadequate for this study. A type of beach use, i.e., overnight, survey of beach users at selected points vacation, or day only; and (4) Respondents along the South Carolina coast was therefore conducted. Its objectives were to describe the profile of beach users; to examine the distance traveled by beachgoers to the shore; and to determine the extent of demand for beach recreation in South Carolina. EXHIBIT IV-1 Nine public beach areas were selected to secure a representative BEACH DESTINATION AND SAMPLE SIZE sampling of beach users. Each site was monitored during three interview periods of - a week-end day, a week day,.and a Beach Area Respondents holiday week-end day -- between August 16 and September 1, 1975. A question- Atlantic Beach 210 naire -- inquiring about distance from Myrtle Beach Pavilion 120 home to beach, vacation or day use, Myrtle Beach State Park 224 camping, income, education, age, occu- Huntington Beach State Park 107 pation, residence, and composition of Isle of Palms 113 visitor group -- was administered Sullivans Island 66 through personal interviews. Folly Beach 184 (Appendix IV-A) Edisto Beach State Park 130 Hilton Head Island 119 The survey results, as noted in Exhibit IV-1 represent responses from Total Respondents 1,293 1,293 interviewees. Only one person from any group was questioned, and such persons were selected at random from PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 161 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey Part Four Summary ~~~~~~~~~~Hotels, motels, and campgrounds provide the most common overnight or The total sample, through no vacation accommodations. Relatively few technical manipulation, is comprised of persons stay in cottages or the homes of approximately equal numbers of South friends or relatives. Nearly all beach- Carolinians and out-of-state residents. goers, whether vacationers or day-users, Yet, there are significant differences drive automobiles to the beach. Most in homes-of-residence at each of the park between one and two blocks from the beaches. The most northern -- Atlantic shore in a free public parking lot or on Beach and Myrtle Beach -- were dominated the street. by non-residents, especially North Carolinians. Isle of Palms, Sullivans Island, and Polly Beach are almost exclusively used by Charleston residents. Demographically, beach visitors in all use categories --vacation, over- income, young households. Most are employed in professional/technical, business, or labor positions. Most beach visitors come in family groups,I and the average party size is four. Generally, vacationers and over- night visitors are unlikely to visit the .beach more than once a year, and they are not likely to use other South Carolina beaches in the same year. Most day visitors, on the other hand, make several trips to one particular beach each year, but also make visits to otherI South Carolina beaches. Day users generally do not make vacation or overnight trips to South Carolina beaches. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 162 PUBLIC BEACH4 ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Four Beach Use Survey I Beach Use Profile beach for a weekend trip at any other time during the year; two-thirds had The respondents are divided almost not vacationed at the particular beach equally between male and female. Their during the year. More than half of the median age is 28 years, and the median beachgoers interviewed did not visit the age of their head-of-household is 37 particular beach at other time just for years. Median household income is the day. These frequencies, it should $13,350, and the head-of-household is be noted, differed greatly by beach typically employed as professional/ area. Such differences will be addres- technical (20.9%), followed by business sed in the next section. A similar (13.3%) and laborer (10.8%). Only 3.8 pattern exists for total respondents percent of heads-of-households are when asked about their use of other retired. South Carolina beaches. After South Carolina (54%), North Most respondents (58%) come to the Carolina (15.7%.) is the most popular beach with their families. Approxi- permanent residence for the State's mately equal numbers come with friends beachpusers. Most are vacationint for (21.3%), or a combination of family and beach users. Most are vacationing for more than two days (44.6%) or are at friends (19.7%). The average party size is four. Nearly all drive automobiles the beach just for the day (45.5%).tohebah(14)anmstpr Fewer than 10 percent are on an over- twe be and mos par nightor wekend rip t the each.between one and two blocks away either night or weekend trip to the beach.inafeprkgloornthsre. in a free parking lot or on the street. Hotels and motels commonly accommodate thosewho ae on n ovenighttripLess than four percent of all beach althosegwho alm oneanfovernightofs trav- users park in parking facilities where although almost one-fourth of such traythyave-opy elers stay at campgrounds and an approximately equal number with friends important differences can be or relatives. Most of the vacationing discerned from the profiles of respon- respondents (56.1%) plan to stay less dents in the respective destination than a week and at a hotel/motel (34.2%). beach area. Exhibit IV-2 tabulates these Most respondents do not use the conclusions. particular beach at which they were interviewed at any other time. More than four-fifths have not visited the PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 63 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey PartFo'ur EXHIBIT IV-2I BEACH USER PROFILE BY BEACH AREA Total Ke- Atlantic myrtle D. l1yrtle B. Huntixgton Sullivan's 1610 of Volly Edisto Hillton Hecad apondent.6 Beach Pavi lion S t par B.S.Pr slan'd P1.1-I's Ucrich B. St. Park 19ltnd Overntaht 9.8 12.9 5.8 10.7 13.1 7.6 3.5 5.4 12.3 15.1 On Vacation 44.6 53.3 90.0 63.9 68.2 7.6 26.5 13.0 16.9 39.5 just for the day 45 33.3 4.2 25.4 18.7 84.6 170'.0 . 81.5 70.8 45.4 No answer .1 .5 (Respondents) (1.293) (210) (1.20) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) OVIENIIGHT ACCOHMiODATIONS Carp~round 26.0 3.7 -14.3 '57.8 57.2 - -20.0 31.2 5.6 Hatel/matel 33.1 59.2 85.7 19.2 21.4 20.0 - 10.0 6.3 33.3 Cottoge/vactitiod llama 12.6 .11. 2 - 3.8 14.3, - 50.0 10.0 31.2 16.6 Friendfrelative hown 23.6 25.9 - 9.2 7.1 80.0 25.0 30.0 12. 38.9 other ,4.7 - -- - - 25.0 30.0 12. 5.6 CRespondents) (127) (27) (7) (26) (14) (5) (4) (10 (6) (18) VACATION - LE:;CTH OF STAY 1-2 n4,hts 1 6.5 10.7 20.4 21.2 12.3 20.0 10.0 16.7 4.6 25.5 Less than a week 39.6 14.3 55.6 43.6 39.7 40.0 43.3 45.8 40.9 31.9 one week 27.0 51.8 16.7 17.9 31.5 - 36.7 25.0 31.8 17.1 fare than a week 15.4 23.2 6.4 14.7 16.5 40.9 100.0 4.2 22.7 25.5 No nntwer 1.5 - .9 2.6 - - - 8.3 - - (Res'Ondenta) (589) (112) (108) . (156) (73) (5) (30) (24) (22) (47) VACKTION. ACCOM'MUATIONS Ca-pground 26.4 3.6 1.8 53.2 64.4 - -12.5 50.0 6.4 Potel/mnotel 34.2 3D.4 88.9 15.4 13.7 - 23.3 8.3 18.2 48.9 Cottage/vacation ame 10.2 12.5 .9 6.6 11.0 20.0 20.0 12.5 45.4 23.4 Friend/relatLye home 12.8 17.8 - 10.9 8.2 80.0 36.7 29.2 9.1 17.0 Other .9 .9 - .1.9 - - 3.3 -- No answer 15.5 34.8 8.4 12.2 2.7. 16.7 37.5 27.3 4.3 (Fespondents) (579) (1112) (108) (156) (73) - 5 3)(24) (22) (47) HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 164 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~~~Part Four Beach Use Survey EXHIBIT IV-2 BEACH USER PROFILE BY BEACH AREA (con't.) I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Total Re- Atlantic Ityttle D. Myrtle B. Huntington Sullivan's Tlae of Folly Edisto Hil~ton Hiead spondento Beach Pavilion St. Park S. St. Park sland Poag~ Beitch 3. St. Park Island D3ISTANCE FROHi PERM10EINT 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~1-5 miles 7:6 6.2 2.5 5.3 4.7 18.2 9.7 12.5 1.5 1 3.6 31-60 mlesg 9.1 3.3 - 1.2 .9 1.5 7.1 2.2 59.2 14.3 61-90 miles 3.5 3.3 1.7 6.1 3.7 - -1.8 .5 7.7 3.4 -90+ 58.0 76.2 95.8 82.0 91.3 15.2 31.9 17.4 28.5 61.3 No answer .8 2.9 - .8 - - .5 .8- 3 (Ras~~~~~~~~~~~0POndenta) (1,293) (210) (120) - (244) (107) (661 (113) (164) (130) .(119 FREQUENCY OF 'WEEKEND VISITS 0 92.0 80.0 85.0 76.2 85.0 81.8 79.6 81.5 83.8 92.4 1 8.2 10.0 6.7 9.4 8.4 4.5 8.8 17.4 3.8 5.0 a 4.3 4.3 4.2 6.6 1.9 6.1 3.5 3.8 4.6 1.7 3 1.4 1 . 4 2.7 1.2 4.7 1.5 - .5 2 . 3 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~14 . 171. .715 5 . 4+ 4.0 3.8 2.5 6.6 - 6.1 8.1 2.2 4.6 .8 goamower .1 .3 - - - .3 .8 (Respondents) (1,293) (210) (120) . (244) (107) (66) (1,13) (184) (130) (119) FREQUENCY OF VACATION TRIPS TO THIS BEACH THIS YEAR 0 66.7 55.7 32.5 49.2 47.7 89.4 77.0 90.8 90.8 B B .2 1 20.5 27.1 35.8 32.0 31.8 6.1 20.4 6.0 5.4 6.7 2 7.4 10.0 16.7 11.5 15.0 3.0 2.6 .5 .8 3.4 3~podna 2.4 3.3 9.2 2.5 2.8 - .5 .8 1.7 (Reponent) .(,1.293) (210) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 165 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey Part Four EXHIBIT IV-2 BEACH USER PROFILE BY BEACH AREA (con't.) Total Rs- tlsantic Myrtle B. M yrtle B. Huntington Sullivan's Isle of folly Edisto Hilton Head FREQUEZICY OF DAY USE AT sponndents Beach Pavilion St. Park D. St. Park s1filand Palmwl Beach B. St. Park Iland THIS BEACHT'HIS YEAR Z 1 I z A A V A A A 0 55.5 61. 9 91.7 73.0 73.8 26.7 31.9 14.1 58.5 60.5 1-5 18.4 20.0 1.7 11.5 12.1 19.7 23.0 28.3 31.5 17.6 6-10 6.2 4.3 .8 4.5 2.8 16.7 7.1 13.6 2.3 7.7 11-20 5.8 1.4 .8 .4 4.7 15.2 11.5 16.3 1.5 8.4 20+ 13.9 11.9 5.0 10.7 6.5 31.8 26.5 27.2 6.2 5.9 Noanswer .2 .5 - - - - .5 - - (Respondents) (1,293) (210) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) - (130) (119) IREQUENCY OF WEEKEND TRIPS TO OTHER SC BEACHES IIIS YEAR 0 88.5 95.2 96.7 91.8 89.7 66.7 86.7 83.7 77.7 93.3 6.3 3.3 3.3 3.7 6.5 22.7 7.1 8.7 9.2 3.4 2 2.6 1.0 - 2.5 .9 3.0 3.5 4.9 4.6 3.4 3 *9 - .4 1.9 1.5 .9 2.2 2.3 - 4+ 1.5 1.6 .9 6.1 1.8 .5 6.2 Hi?.answer .2 .5 - - - - - - - (Respondents) (1,293) (210) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) FREQUENCY OF VACATION TRIPS TO OTHER SC BEACHES TIltS YEAR 0 91.9 92.9 93.3 90.6 86.9 83.8 92.0 95.7 93.8 92.4 1 5.0 4.3 3.3 4.9 8.4 12.1 5.3 3.8 3.8 4.2 1 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.0 .9 3.0 .9 .5 1.5 2.5 3 .a .5 :8 1.2 2.8 .8 .8 4+ .- 1.2 .9 1.5 1.8 - - No answer - - - - - - - (Respondents) (1,293) (210) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) FREQUENCY OF DAY-VSE AT OTHER SC BEACHES THIS YEAR 0175.9 93.3 98.3 89.8 90.7 34.8 53.1 48.4 61.5 84.0 1-5 13.8 3.8 1.7 4.5 2.8 27.3 31.9 31.0 23.8 10.9 6-10 4.4 1.9 - 1.6 - 12.1 8.0 11.4 6.9 -.7 11-20 1.7 - - .9 4.5 2.7 3.8 3.1 3.4 204. 4.0 .5 4.1 5.6 21.2 4.4 5.4 4.6 - oa asnswer .1 .5 - - - - - - - (Respondents) (1,293) (210) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 166 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Four Beach Use Survey EXHIBIT IV-2 BEACH USER PROFILE BY BEACH AREA (con't.) Total re- Atlantic myrtle B. Myrtle B. Huntiagton Sultivtl'a Isle ao Folly Edisto 8. Hilton Read spondents Beach Pavilion St. ark, D. St. Park Island Palms Beach St. Park Island I 1 1 2 2 2 2 PA~n size 'I 14. 3 3.3 6.1 9.3 3.0 8.0 7.6 4.7 21.0 * 26.4 24.3 26.7 29.1 27.1 16.7 27.4 29.3 24.0 26.1 14 8.9 14 .3 11.3 1 2 .1 93.0 12.4 20.1 17.1 12.6 4 19.0 15.2 17.5 20.9 16.8 30.3 17.7 17.4 27.1 14.3 10.0 7.1 12.5 9.8 14.0 9.1 13.3 8.7 7.8 10.9 6 8.0 8.1 10.8 9.4 5.6 12.1 8.0 4.3 7.8 7.6 7 4.4 2.9 5.8 4.9 6.5 6.1 4.4 3.8 3.1 4.2 8 1.9 4.8 .8 .8 .9 3.O 1.8 1.1 1.6 2.5 9g 6.8 12.9 6.7 4.5 6.5 6.1 7.1 7.6 6.2 .8 No answer :2 3 . --1. 1.6 (ReapondeQta) (1,293) (al0) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) PAM1� COHPOSITION Friends 21.3 15.2 16.7 14.8 19.6 30.3 19.5 40.2 17.1 23.5 Family 58.0 6i.1 64.2 68.4 59.6 36.4 53.1 40.2 62.8 52.1 Both 19.7 17.1 15.8 14.39 20.6 31.8 27.4 19.6 20.2 23.5 fn answer 1.0 .5 3.3 2.5 - 1.5 - - .8 .8 (Resparidents) (1,293) (210) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) IIVE TO R E ACH ye s 89.4 7 9.5 60.0 72.1 83.2 92.4 91.2 95.1 79.2 69.7 No 18.3 19.5 19.2 27.5 16.8 7.6 8.8 4.9 20.8 30.3 No asaver .3 110 .8 .4 . (Respondents) (1,293) (210) (120) (244) (897) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) DISTAN:CE PA\RKED FROM THE 1-2 blocks away 89.4 71.3 97.9 86.4 89.9 93.4 88.3 95.4 100.0 98. 6 3-5 7.8 21.0 2.1 , 9.7 1.a '4.9 1172.3 - 5+ 2.1 7. 7 3.9 - .6 1.2 No answe~r .7 - 1.7 1.7 (Resporldents) (1,057) (167) (96) (176) (89) (61) (103) (175) (103) (83) PUBLIC, BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 67 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDSS Beach Use Survey PartFour EXHIBIT IV-2 BEACH USER PROFILE BY BEACH AREA (can't.) Total re- Atlantic M yrtle B. Hyrtla a. Huntington Suljljvan's file o Folly Edisto'B. Hilton Head apondate Beach Pavilion St. Park B . St. Park Island Palms Beach St. Park Island VU1E I KEhhICLE WAS PAWIED It_ % IX - - - Free FL ,king 57.9 26.3 96.9 90.3 65.4 3.3 74.8 9.1 72.8 92.6 Oa the street 27.2 42.5 2.1 4.0 11.2 80.3 5.8 65.8 20.4 6.0 In a pay parking lot 3.5 9.6 - .6 - - - 11.4 - - Other 10.9 21.6 1.0 5.1 6.5 16.4 19.4 13.7 5.8 1.2 No answer .5 - - - 16.8 - - - 1.0 (Respondents) (1,059) (167) (96) (176) (107) (61) (103) (175) (103) (83) SEX OF RESPONUNT S ale 48.3 55.2 43.3 56.2 48.6 27.3 54.0 39.1 37.7 52.1 Female 51.7 44.8 56.7 43.5 51.4 72.7 46.0 60.9 62.3 47.9 (Respondents) (1,293) (210) (120) - (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) AGE OfRESPONDENT -18 8.4 6.2 3.3 7.4 6.5 9.1 9.7 13.0 3.8 16.8 1824 32.9 27.6 23.3 33.2 33.6 34.8 33.6 37.0 33.1 42.0 25-34 26.3 23.8 31.7 26.6 30.8 31.8 23.9 23.4 30.8 19.3 45-54 17.7 22.9 21.7 17.6 17.8 9.1 11.5 16.3 17.7 17.6 55-64 10.7 12.4 16.7 10.7 7.5 10.6 15.9 8.2 10.8 3.4 65+ 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.5 1.1 3.1 - No ansver .6 1.9 .8 .8 - - .9 - - - redian 28 yr.. 31 yr.. 32 yr.. 28 yr=. 28 yre. 27 yr.. 27 yr.. 25 yIre. 25 yr.. 23 yre. (IRepaPodent) (1,293) (210) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) AUE CP HEADOF HOUSEHOLD -25 17. :15.2 9.2 21.3 27.1 13.6 17.7 17.9 16.9 15.1 25-34 25.3 22.9 29.2 26.6 24.3 31.8 23.9 22.3 30.0 21.0 33-44 24.5 31.4 27.5 20.9 21.5 19.7 23.0 22.3 20.0 31.9 45-54 22.5 20.0 25.0 19.3 19.6 18.2 26.5 28.8 23.8 21.0 55-64 7.0 4.3 6.7 7.4 4.7 12.1 7.1 8.2 6.2 9.2 65+ 2.1 3.8 - 2.0 2.8 4.5 1.8 .5 3.1 .8 No answer 1.2 2.4 2.5 2.5 - - - - - .8 M.- dian 37 yre. 38 yr.. 38 yro. 35 yrm. 33 yrs. 37 yr.. 38 yr.. 39 yr.. 36 yra. 39 yrs. (Respondents) (1.293) (210) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 168 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Four Beach Use Survey EXHIBIT IV-2 Total Re- Atlantic Myrtle B. myrtle B. Huntington Sullivan's Isle of Folly Edisto B. Hilton Head 122apnLs Beach Pavilion S t. Ppar S . S. Frk Island Palms Bench St. Park Island HOUSE11aI~I INCO ME -5,003 6.1 9.0 6.6 4.7 3.0 6.2 8.7 6.9 4.2 5-10,000 20.4 32.4 18.3 20.5 21.5 16. 5.0 19.0 21.5 8 .4 10-15,000 27.1 32.4 22.5 32.8 28.0 15.2 26.5 28.8 30.0 41 1 15-25,000 25.2 15.2 35.0 24.2 26.2 40.9 25.7 32.6 20.8 18:5 25-50,00 0 9.6 3.8 15.8 5.3 15.0 15.2 12.4 9.2 15.4 5.9 50,03oi1 .9 - - 1.2 1.9 1.5 - - 4.6 - Ila answer 10.6 7.1 8.3 9.4 2.8 7.6 14.2 1.6 .8 51.3 3 Ldian $13,350.00 010,800.00 $16,400.00 :$13,000.00 $14,000.00 $1,800.0 A4l00.00 $13,700.00 $13,500.00 $15,000.00 (Respondent*) (1,293) (210) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) OCCUPA-11(- OF HeAD 0? PI'I.f./te~hnical 20.9 16.7 20.0 18.4 21.5 34.8 28.3 17.9 21.5 22.7 t! :2,-c"!ent 8.1 3.3 12.5 9.0 15.9 12.1 4.4 3.8 8.5 10.9 (G'vrnr-jnt 5.6 6.2 4.2 4.9 2.8 9.1 3.5 6.5 8.5 5.9 Siillied Craftsmen 7.4 6.7 10.8 10.7 8.4 7.1 7.1 3.8 6.7 S .Vice Worker 6.3 16.2 1.7 7.0 3.7 1.5 1.8 5.4 5.4 3.4 I 2rical 4.6 6.2 4.2 3.7 3.7 6.1 4.4 6.5 .8 5.9 Ju<.zd Forces 8.0 3.8 .8 7.0 10.3 10.6 18.6 11.4 12.3 .8 L.a-orer 10.8 21.9 12.5 13.1 7.5 1.5 6.2 6.0 7.7 8.4 Business 13.8 9.5 25.0 10.7 16.8 . 9.1 1k.5 15.2 14.6 16.0 Retired 3.8 2.9 3.3 3.3 2.8 4.5 5.3 6.5 3.1 2.5 Other 10.6 6.7 5.0 12.3 6.5 10,6 8.8 13.6 13.8 16.8 No answ e r ----- (Respondents) (1,293) (210) (120) (244) (107) (66) (113) (184) (130) (119) OCCPATION PRIOR To TIREEfMENT Professional/technical 22.4 33.2 50.0 25.0 - - - 25.0 50.0 Management 16.3 - - 12.5 33.3 33.3 - 16.7 50.0 33.3 Government 18.4 - - 66.7 - 66.6 8.3 - 33.3 Skilled Craftsman 2.1 25.0 - - - - Service Worker 4.0 16.7 25.0 Clerical 2.1 - - Armcd Forces 20.4 16.7 25.0 3363 50.0 Laborer 6.1 16.7 - - - - -- 33.4 Other 8.2 - 22. 33.4 16.7 Busine s s 6. 23.0 (Respondents) (49) (6) (4) (5) (3) (3) (6) (12) (4) (3) Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards, South Carolina Beach Use Survey, August, 1975. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 169 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey Part Four Atlantic Beach Myrtle Beach Pavilion Lower incomes are the principal Respondents interviewed on the1 demographic distinction between Atlantic beach near the Myrtle Beach Pavilion are Beach visitors and all other respon- typically from households where the dents. Atlantic Beach respondents have head-of-the household is 38 years,I a median income of $10,800, compared to earns a median income of $16,400, and is $13,350 for all respondents. Voca- e m ployed in a professional/technical or tionally, respondents are concentrated business occupation. These charac- in service worker or laborer positions. teristics represent a somewhat upscaleI profile in comparison with those inter- More than half of the sample are at viewed at other subject sites. Visitors the beach on a vacation of one week or here have the second highest median more. The most typical accommodation is income of the surveyed beach areas. a hotel or motel room. More than three- Myrtle Beach is used almost exclusively fourths of the visitors are 90 or more as a vacation destination: more than 90 miles from home. percent of the respondents are on vacation. Their primary accommodations Generally, slightly more than one- are hotels and motels. Campgrounds are third of the visitors to Atlantic Beach the second most frequented accommodation.I frequent it at other times during the year. Few indicate they visit other Although most respondents have not South Carolina beaches. More than 60 frequented other South Carolina beachesI percent of the sample are from out this year, more than two-thirds have of state, primarily North Carolina. made other vacation trips to Myrtle Beach this year. Few use the beach just Atlantic Beach, consequently, can for the day or for an overnight trip at be characterized as primarily serving other times during the year. The the lower income vacation market, and, length-of-stay is relatively short; secondarily, attracting the lower income more than half stay less than one week.I day-use market. Almost all the respondents (96%) come from more than 90 miles away, andI more than 80 percent were non-residents. As with Atlantic Beach, most respondents come from North Carolina.3 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1 70 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Four. Beach Use Survey 1 ~~~Myrtle Beach is thus a middle-class The typical Myrtle Beach state Park vacation destination characterized by visitor drove to the area and came from relatively short lengths-of-stay and more than 90 miles away. Nearly two- many North Carolina visitors. thirds were from other states, again predominately North Carolina. * ~~Myrtle Beach State Park Myrtle Beach State Park visitors Huntington Beach State Park are slightly younger and have lower I ~~incomes than those at the pavilion area The profile of the Huntington Beach of Myrtle Beach. The median age of State Park visitor is very similar to head-of-household is 35, and his median his counterpart at Myrtle Beach State 'income is $13,000. The most prevalent Park;~ The typical household head earns I ~~occupational types were professional/ $14,000,' is 33 years of age, and is technical (18%), laborer (13%), and employed in professional/technical, business (11%). business, management, or the Armed U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Forces. Although most of its visitors are on vacation (64%), nearly one-quarter Approximately 70 percent of the are day-use visitors (compared to four respondents are vacationing in the park, percent at the Myrtle Beach Pavilion). and 20 percent there for the day. More than half of those on an overnight Campground accommodations were most or vacation trip stay at the campgrounds. popular. Nearly half of the visitors I ~~Like the pavilion users, more than 60 stay for more than one week. percent of the respondents stay for less than a week. Most visitors do not make week-end U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~trips or come for the day, but more than Although three-fourths of the half have made at least one other visitors do not use Myrtle Beach State vacation trip to this beach this year. Park at other times during this year for Their use of other South Carolina either the weekend or a day, more than beaches is infrequent. Four-fifths of half have taken other vacation trips to the visitors' primary residences are this destination. in general, few of more than 90 miles away, 60 percent from I ~~these respondents have visited other out of state, particularly North Carolina South Carolina beaches. and Georgia. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 11HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey Part Four1 Charleston Area Beaches almost exclusively Charleston resident_ Becase o ther poximty, ulliansbeaches, experiencing relatively little Becase o ther poximty, ullianstourism traffic from elsewhere in theI Island, isle of Palms, and Folly Beach State or from out of state. may be considered simultaneously. Demographically, their beach users'U profiles are quite similar: median age, 37-39; median income, $13,700-$17,800 Edisto Beach State Park (Sullivans Island having the highest median income of the nine beaches The typical Edisto Beach State Park surveyed), and employment in profes- visitor is 36 years old, earns $13,500 sional/technical, business, or the Armed annually, and is employed in profes- Forces. All three of these beaches have sional/technical occupations, business,I slightly higher proportions of military or the military. Seventy-one percent of users than other surveyed beaches as a the respondents are at the beach just result of military installations located for the day. Most are between 30 and 60I in the Charleston area. miles from home. All three beaches are primarily day-use destinations for residents of Fewer than half of the respondents the Charleston Standard Metropolitan made day use of Edisto Beach State Park at Statistical Area (SMSA)-. Most respon- other times during the year, and fewer dents indicate that they are less than than ten percent visited the beach onI 30 miles from home. overnight or vacation trips. Trips to other South Carolina beaches, other Unlike the other beaches, there is than day use, were also infrequent.3 a high frequency of repeated day use, l with some 40 percent of the respondents Charlestonians comprise the visiting the beach more than ten times largest percentage of visitors (64%) this year. Also, they travel to other to Edisto, and only 14 percent ofI South Carolina beaches more frequently visitors are from out of state. The than other respondents, but primarily presence of so many Charleston for day use. residents at a beach location an hour's1 drive away is a strong indication of In sum, Sullivans island, Isle of the existing pressure on the local Palms, and Folly Beach currently are Charleston beaches for day-use access.3 HARTzOG. LADER & RICHARDS 172 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Four Beach Use Survey Hilton Head Island More than 60 percent of the visitors using this beach are more visitors interviewed on Hilton than 90 miles from home, and most Head Island at the public beach area did not use this or other South near Coligny Circle were from families Carolina beaches at other times whose head-of-household's median age this year. Only 30 percent of was 30. More than half of the respon- the respondents are from South dents declined to reveal their house- Carolina, 30 percent are -from hold income, but the median of those Georgia, and 40 percent are from who did is $15,000. It might be other states. assumed from their occupational dis- tribution that the actual median income of their households is much higher than those reported. Nearly 73% of these household heads were employed in professional/technical fields, 16% in business and 11% in management. Forty-five percent of the respondents come to the beach for the day only, 40 percent are on vacation, and 15 percent at the beach as part of an overnight trip. Most of the vacationers stay in a hotel or motel (49%), but many are accommodated in a vacation home (23%) or the home of a friend or relative (17%). Overnight accommodation patterns differ from vacation accommodations. The largest number of overnight visitors stay with friends or relatives (39%), but nearly the same proportion stayed in a hotel or motel (33%). PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 173 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey Part FourI Beach User Prof ile centage stay in hotels or motels (32%), followed by campgrounds (26%), homes of By Type Of Beach Use friends or relatives (24%), and cottagesI or vacation homes (12%). Most drive to the beach area and are more than 90 Respondents at each beach area were miles from their permanent residence. asked if their visits were for the day,I overnight, or vacation. A cross-tabula- Nearly half of all overnight tion of the data base for each beach visitors made other weekend trips to the area was run for all questions 'according same beach in 1975. Nearly 13 percent to these three categories of use. The had come four or more times. Most, sampling of nine beaches included however, did not vacation at that approximately equal numbers of vacationers particular beach area or use it as a and day-users, but only one-fourth as day-use destination area. More than 85I many respondents at the beach overnight. percent of overnight visitors did not Demographically the three groups use other South Carolina beaches for any are quite similar, with median age of purpose during the year. overnight visitor household heads the youngest at 33 years, and median age of Vaaionr vacationer household heads the oldest atVatinr 39 years. With respect to income, as might be expected, day-use household Nearly all vacationers drive to the median income was the lowest, $12,600, beach from homes more than 90 milesI as compared to overnight visitors away. During their visit, 34 percent ($13,100) and vacationers ($14,200). The stay with friends or relatives, and 10 average party size for all three groups percent at cottages or vacation homes.I was approximately four, and most groups Most vacationers (55%) are at the beach were composed of family members. for less than one week, but the average length of stay is 6.3 nights.I Overnight Visitors Most vacationers (62%) made other vacation trips to the same beach during the year, but they had not visited that1 For those visitors who stay in the beach or any other South Carolina beach beach area overnight, the largest per- ~ for a weekend trip or day-use.3 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 174 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAI I ~Part Four Beach Use Survey I ~~~Day Visitors 'Those visitors who are at the beach I ~ ~just for the day are much closer to their permanent residence. The average distance from home is 23 miles; more than 40% of day visitors are 15 miles or Day visitors are highly unlikely to use the same beach or other state beaches for vacations or overnight trips; however, they often visit the I ~~same beach for the day and frequent other South Carolina beaches for the day as well. More than one-fourth of the * ~~respondents visited the same beach 20 or more times in 1975, averaging 5 visits to the same beach. Nearly half of all dyvisitors indicate they make day * ~~visits to other South Carolina beaches as well. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 75 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey Part Four EXHIBIT IV-3 BEACH USER PROFILE BY TYPE OF BEACH USE OvcnitIit On Val-air on Just for tae day TYFE OP UJSE - overnieht 101.0 On Vacation 100.0 Just for the day 100.0 No answer (Rearondents) (127) (577) (587) OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS Campground 26.0 Hotel/motel 32.3 Cottage/vacation home 11.8 Friend/rulatIve home 23.6 Other 1.7 No answer 1.6 100.0 (Respondents) (127) (1) VACATION - LMICTH OF STAY 1-=2n C~hts 16.8 Less than a week 38.6 One week 2T.6 More than a week 15.8 No answer 100.0 1.2 (Respondents) (1) (577) VACATION ACCO I-fl0ATTONS Car.pground 26.5 Hotel/oeGLP 34.3 Cottaige/vacation home 10.2 Friend/relative home -1'2.8 Other .9 No answer 100.0 15.3 (Reapondents) (1) (577) HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 176 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Four Beach Use Survey EXHIBIT IV-3 BEACH USER PROFILE BY TYPE OF BEACH USE (con't.) 0O1 Va,:aI.1n Juut for the day DISTANCE PROM PFR14AIIENT RESIDENCE 1-5 mil~es . 15 6-15 miles 3.9 1.0 25.6 16-30 miles 3.9 .9 17.2 31-60 miles 17.3 .9 15.5 61-90 miles 6.3 3.1 3.2 90+ 65.4 92.9 22.3 No answer 1.6 .3 .7 (Respondents) (127) (577) (581) .FREQUEICY OF WFEKEND VISITS THIS YEAA 52.8 83.0 87.6 3. 18.9 8.5 5.6 a 2 11:8 4.3 2.6 3 3.�9 2.4( .9 4+12.6 2.8 3.2 no answer .2 (Respondents) (127) (577l (587) FREQUENCY OF VACATI011 TRIPS TO THIS BEACH THIS YEAH 0 82.7 37.4 92.2 1 9.4 39-3 4 .4 2 49.7 14.0 1.5 3 - -1 5.2 .2 4+ ~3.1 4.0 1.5 No answrer - . (Respondents) (127) (587) PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 177 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey Part Four EXHIBIT IV-3 BEACH USER PROFILE BY TYPE OF BEACH USE (con't.) �7crisi'It Oil Vai:ai.lun Just for the day FREQUJENCY OF DAY USE AT THIS BEACH THIS YEAR. 0- 70.1 92.2 1 . 1-5 18.9 2.4 34.1 6-10 3*9 1.0 11.8 11-20 .8 .7 11.9 20+ 6.3 3.6 25.7 No answer .2 (Respondents) (127) (577) (587) FREQUENCY OF WEEKEND TRIPS TISl l YEAR To OTHEP. SC BEACHES 0 85.8 92.2 85.7 1 . 8.7 4T.7 7.3 2 .3.1 2.1 3.1 3 23 1.7 4+ .4 .3 2.2 No answer (Respondents) (127). (577) (587) FREQUEFCY OF VACATION TRIPS TO OTHER Sc EACHRS THIS YEAR 0 89.8 91.0 1 ~~~ ~~~~6.3 49. 14:9, 2 3-1 2.4 .7 3 i1 .4 .2 .3 .9 No answer (Respondants) '(127) (577) (587) HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 178 PUB3LIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Four Beach Use Survey EXHIBIT IV-3 BEACH USER PROFILE BY TYPE OF BEACH USE (con't.) Overnight On W1lt ion Jurt fo.te day FREQUENCY OP DAY-USE AT OTHER - SC BEACHES THIS YEAR 0 86.6 93.9 56.2 1-5 7.9 3.8 24.9 6-10 .2.4 1.2 8.0 20+2: Wo answer (Respondent s (127) (577) (587) PARTY SIZE 12.6 7.1 9.9 31.5 2.2 28.5 14. 2 1 40 14.3 16.5 19.9 18.8 9.4 12.5 7.7 6.3 11.3 5.1 1.6 4.9 14.6 9+ .8 q.1 2.0 go answer 5.0 8.7 .3 (fespondents) (127) (577) (587) PARTY COV&OSITION Fameily 18.1 12.3 30.9 Both 66.9 67.9 46.4 No answer 14.2 18.5 2 2 .0 .8 1.2 .7 (flespondente) )127) (577) (587) PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 179 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey Part FourI EXHIBIT IV-3 BEACH USER PROFILE BY TYPE OF BEACH USE (can't.) Over, Ight On Vncation Juat oro the da AOE OF HOUSEHIOLD HEAD -25 15.7 14.6 20.8 25-34 35.4 24.1 24.2 35-44 21.3 26.2 23.7 45-54 14.2 23.7 23.2 55-64 9.4 7.3 6.. 65+ 1.6 2.9 1.4 No answer 2.4 1.2 .7 (Respondante) (127) (577) (587) HOUSEHOLD X11COM -5,000 3.9 3.5 9.2 5-10,000 22.8 19.2 21.1 10-15,000 30. 7 25.8 27.6 15-25,000 23.6 27.9 22.8 25-50,000 23. 11.6 7.8 50,000+ 2:1 .9 .7 No answrer 7.9 11. 1.7 (Respondents) (127) (577) (587) Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards, South Carolina Beach Use Survey, August, 1975. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 180 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Four Beach Use Survey Vacation accommodations are some- Beach User Profile what less affected by income than over- By Income Class night accommodations. The largest percentage of each income group, except for the lower and upper extremes, stay Surprisingly few differences are in a hotel or motel, and the second most apparent in the segmentation of beach common accommodation is campgrounds. use by income class. Most (81%) fall into income categories from $5,000 to Lower income groups tend to come $25,000. The $15,000 and up income from areas less distant from the beach. class, however, showed slightly longer Thus, there is a direct correlation lengths-of-stay and high frequencies of between distance-from-home, length- use. of-stay and income. Overnight accommodations used by respondents are noticeably affected by income. Although more than one quarter of the $5,000-to-$15,000 income group stay at campgrounds, not one respondent in the $15,000+ category stayed in a campground. This group is much more likely to be accommodated in a cottage or vacation home. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 181 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey Part Four EXHIBIT IV-4 BEACH USER PROFILE BY INCOME CLASS Under 5.000 5000-10,000 10,000-15,000 15,000-25,000 25,000-50,000 50,000+ TYPE OF USE uvarnight 6i3 11.0 11.0 9.2 8.9 25.0 On Vacation 25.3 42.0 42.5 49.4 54.0 41.7 Just for the day 68.4 47.0 46.2 41.1 37.1 33.3 No answer .3 .3 (Respondents) (79) (264) (351) (326) (124) (12) OVERNIGIT ACCO}IODATIONS 94~iJEjf-UUwu 4�10.0 24.2 27.5 - Hotel/motel 20.0 41.4 27.5 25.8 16.7 - Cottage/vacation home - 3.4 12.5 32.3 33.3 33.4 Friend/relative home 20.0 27.6 25.0 16.1 16.7 33.3 Other 20.0 3.4 2.5 25.8 8.3 - No answer - .5 25.0 33/3 Notahswer (Respondents) 2 3 .5 - 25.0 33/3 ((5) (29) (40) (31) (12) (3) VACATION -_I1FNGTH OF STAY -�_c u111'L 15.0 21.6 12.7 13.0 23.6 - Less than a week 30.0 39.6 44.7 37.9 33.8 40.0 One week 30.0 24.3 30.7 23.0 17.6 20.0 More than a week 15.0 13.6 10.7 20.5 20.6 40.0 No answer 10.0 .9 1.2 .6 4.4 - (Respondents) (20) (111) (150) (161) (68) (5) VACATION ACCO!0ODATIONS .".PKprGunu 25.0 27.0 30.7 26.7 26.5 20.0 Hotel/motel 15.0 28.8 32.7 37.9 35.3 20.0 Cottage/vacation home 15.0 5.5 8.7 8.7 13.2 40.0 Friend/relative home 15.0 15.3 10.6 14.9 7.3 - Other 5.0 .9 .6 .6 - - No answer 25.0 22.5 16.7 11.2 17.7 20.0 (Respondents) (20) ,(111) (150) (161) (68) (5) HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 1 82 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Four Beach Use Survey EXHIBIT IV-4 BE1ACH USER PROFILE BY INCOME CLASS (Con't.) tllpj,1I- 5,000 5 0""il oC0 I 0 1 3(1;~cl,,!,, DISTMCH F.101 PEMANCINT RESIDENCE 1 5 na.L~es 21.5 6.4 7.1 5.5 7. 3 8.3 6-15 16.5 3.5.9 12.0 12.3 922A i6-30 ii. 4 B . 0 8.0 11.0 4. 8 31-60 12.7 8.7 8.8 7.1 8. 8 4i.7 61-90 5.3 3.1 2.5 3.2 16.7 90+ 35.4 53.8 60.4 61.3 64.5 33.3 No answer 2.5 1.9 .6 .3 (Respondents) (79) (264) (351) (326) (124) (12) FREQLETHCY OP WEEK1END VISITS THIS YEAR I 0 86.1 80.7 80.6 81.6 79.8 66.7 7.6 8.3 8.8 8.9 9.7 2 - 4.5 5.1 4.0 4.0 16.7 3 - 1.5 1.1 1.8 3.2 4+ 6.3 4.9 4.0 3.4 2.4 1 6.7 No answer -- 3 .3 .8 (Respondents) (79) (264) (351) (326) (124) (12) FIUFQUIENC(f OF VACrI'TON TRIPS TO THIS BEACI THIS YEAR O al.d 69.-3 64i.4 63.8 60.5 50.0 1 13.9 17.8 23.4 22.7 22.6 25.0 2 - 8.3 7.1 8.6 8.1 3 2.7 1.7 2.5 6.5 - 4+ - 1.9 3.1 2.5 1.6 25.0 No answer 5.1 - .3 - .8 - (Respondents) (79) (264) (351) (326) (124) (12) PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 183 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Beach Use Survey PartFour EXHIBIT IV-4 BEACH USER PROFILE BY INCOME CLASS (con't.) Uaql ooo 'j90Qq Q0-1.0. q 0- 000 ~O ~O 0O-~0~0 O' F'QOlUENCY OF tAY-.US7 A THIIS AWAAII THIS YLAR 0 334.2 51.9 56.7 59.2 63.7 J1.7 1-5 15.2 22.3 19.1 16.6 12.9 25.0 6-10 12.7 6.4 6.0 6.7 2.4 11-20 11.4 7.6 4.0 6.4 3.2 20+ 26.6 11.7 14.0 11.0 16.9 33.3 No answer - - .3 .8 (Respondents) (79) (264) (351) (326) (124) (12) MqLT-Cy OF 'WEEKEND TRIPS THIS YFAr TO OTHER SC BEACHES 0 91.1 88.3 90.6 86.2 8 2.3 100.0 1 5.1 6.8 3.7 8.9 10.5 2 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.8 1.6 3 - .8 .9 .6 3.2 4+ .1.3 1.5 1.7 1.5 2.14 no answer - - .3 (Respondents) (7) (264) (351) (326) (124) (12) FPIEQUENCY OF VACATION TRIUS TO ORIME VC SOC UrlES TiltS YEAR 0 T:. 4 93.6 90.6 91.7 90.3 100.0 1 4.2 5.7 6.1 5.6 2 1.~3 2.3 1.7 1.2 1.6 3 1.1 .3 .8 14+ .6 .6 1.6 No answer - .3 (Respondents) (79) (264) (351) (326) (1214) (12) HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 184 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Four Beach Use Survey EXHIBIT IV-4 BEACH USER PROFILE BY INCOME CLASS (con't.) Und 000, 000-1015000 10q- 00 -00 25,000-; ,000 50,0 FREQUENCY OF DAY-USE AT OTHER SC BEACIES THIS YEAR 0 74.7 76.5 74.9 76.7 77.4 58.3 1-5 10.1 14:5 15.1 13.5 11.3 16.7 6-10 10.0 4.5 4.0 3.7 4.0 8.3 11-20 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.5 .8 8.3 20+ 3.8 3.4 3.7 4.6 6.5 8.3 No answer - - 3 - - - (Respondents) (79) (264) (351) (326) (124) (12) Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards, South Carolina Beach Use ervey, Auqust, 1975. -4, PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 185 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part FiveI HARTZOG, LADER & R~~~~~~~~~~ ~ICHRS16PBI EC CES&RCETO NSUHCRLN Part Five Environmental Review and Georgetown are potential sources Environmental Review of air pollution, predominant onshore winds protect beach areas most of the As part of this study, the firm's year. mandate was to synthesize existing, Pollution of tidal waters occurs and sometimes conflicting, data to deter- almost exclusively in the vicinity of mine environmental characteristics and the more highly populated areas and constraints of South Carolina beaches and adjacent waters. Sources includeisutohedmngftradad untreated municipal wastes into estuaries published and unpublished studies and and their tributaries. The Beaufort reports, site visits, aerial photo- River, Charleston Harbor and its tributaries, graphs /1/, and correspondence with and Winyah Bay are the three primary State and local experts. No original areas where pollution has already had scientific research or investigation detrimental effects on shell fishing was authorized. and sport fishing. The quality of beach sand is somewhat better in the southern part of the state. The comparative recreational suitability of the State's beaches, in terms of environmental factors, appears in Exhibit This environmental review compares V-1. the State's beaches in terms of their environmental suitability for increased Hilton Head Island, Kiawah Island, recreational use. Present development Litchfield Beach, and the area between was considered only insofar as it relates North Ocean Forest and Windy Hill in to environmental factors. Particular Myrtle Beach are most suitable for beach beaches, therefore, may be assigned access and recreation. The next most a high rating based on environmental suitable are Fripp Island, Hunting Island, factors although market, legal, or other Edisto Island, Seabrook Island, Sullivans considerations would suggest otherwise. Island, Isle of Palms, North Island,_ Debidue Beach, Huntington Beach State South Carolina has a relatively mild Park, Myrtle Beach to Ocean Forest, and climate and good air and water quality. Waties Island. Although the industrial areas of Charleston PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 187 HARTZOG. LADER&RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five Turtle Island, Bay Point Island, � Based on these criteria, ten environmental. St. Phillips Island, Edingsville Beach. factors were examined: and Botany Bay Island, Morris Island, I Cape Romain Migratory Bird Refuge, and erosion/accretion Murphy Island are not suitable for beach littoral currents access and recreation within this study's climate environmental criteria. near-shore profile water quality air quality beach morphology .* ~ fish and shellfish habitat , 'wetlands Methodology wildlife habitat 141 Review and analysis of environmental To determine the relative recreational f evies and inalatis rating features resulted in a relative rating suitability of the State's beaches, of each beach area. The suitability of the recreation activities offered * Environmental Characteristics - at each beach has been categorized from The decision to use a particular "least" to "most suitable". The composite, finally, has been summarized in an overall bea forminfluenedy therenvironmenl suitability assessment of the State's be~~ inlecdb. h niomna beaches. (Exhlibit V-l) characteristics of that area, b Available information is more complete * Adverse Environmental Impact - for some beaches than for others. Recrea- Increased access to beach areas tional suitability judgments are, therefore, may have an adverse environmental subject to refinement and updating. /2/ impact on that area. Four basic types of coastal recreation were considered: swimming/sunbathing, sport fishing, power boating, and sail boating. I HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 188 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-1 RELATIVE COMPARISON OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEACHES BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO RECREATIONAL USE ENVIRONMENTAL SUITABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL SUITABILITY FOR BEACH ACCESS FOR BEACH ACCESS EXCEL- EXCEL- LOCATION POOR FAIR GOOD LENT LOCATION POOR FAIR GOOD LENT Waties Island Folly Island Crescent Beach to Kiawah Island Cherry Grove N. Ocean Forest to Seabrook Island Windy Hill Myrtle Beach to Edingsville Beach & Ocean Forest Ednsil BecO Ocean Forest Botany Bay Island Garden City to Edisto Island Surfside Beach Huntington Beach State Pk. Harbor Island Litchfield Beach Hunting Island I~~~~~~ Pawleys Island Fripp Island Debidue Beach Capers & Pritchards Is. North Island St. Phillips Island South Island Bay Point Island Cedar & Murphy Islands Hilton Head Island Cape Romain Bird Refuge Daufuskie Island Dewees & Capers Islands Turtle Island Isle of Palms Sullivans Island Morris Island PUBIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 189 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 89 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review -Part Five South Carolina's Coastal Zone As EXHIBIT V-2 i EXHIBIT V-2 COASTAL ZONE STATISTICS Carolina's coast is 187 miles long, IN SOUTH CAROLINA and its shoreline includes 281 miles of beaches. Charleston County has the South Carolina longest coastline in the State (78.9 Coastline length (in miles): miles); Jasper County has less than Horry County ........................... 33.0 three miles of shorefront. The coast- Georgetown County ...................... 36.2 Charleston County ...................... 78.9 lines of Horry (33.0 miles), Georgetown Colleton County ........................ _ (36.2 miles), and Beaufort (36.1 miles) Beaufort County ........................ 36.1 Jasper County ..........................2. are of approximately equal length. JAL ..8 TOTAL ................................. 187 miles It can also be seen in EXHIBIT V-2 Beachfront shoreline length .............. 281 miles that South Carolina's coastal zone encom- Tidal shoreline length ...................2,879 miles passes 503,000 acres of tidal marsh. (ocean, bays & streams) Tidal streams and estuaries cover another Tidal Streams and estuaries ............450,000 acres 450,000 acres. The southern coastal counties -- Beaufort, Jasper, Colleton, Tidal marsh acreage: and Charleston -- have the greatest Horry County ........................... 1,355 acreage concentration of wetlands. Georgetown County ......................67,200 Berkeley County ........................17,600 Colleton County ........................60,160 Dorchester County ......... . 1,500 Charleston Count ................153,478 Beaufort Jasper Counties .............201,6 Climate ToT .................................. 502,893 acres The climate of South Carolina's coast, oriented southwest to northwest, is Sources: Office of the Governor, Division of Ad-ministration, strongly influenced by the ocean waters 1972, State Development Plan, Coastal Plains Area, and, particularly, the Gulf Stream. Fiscal Year 1972-73. Air over coastal waters is cooler in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971, National summer and warmer in winter than that Shoreline Study, Regional inventory Report, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, Georg.1a. over land, dampening coastal temperatures. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 190 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review For example, the daily temperature Severe weather along the coast comes range along the State's coast in July in the form of violent thunderstorms, is about 13 degrees, compared to 21 tornadoes, and hurricanes. Although degrees in the center of the State. thunderstorms are common in summer, In January the daily range along the the most violent accompany squall lines coast is about 16 degrees, versus 23 and active cold fronts in the spring. degrees inland. Tropical storms or hurricanes affect I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~the State about one of every two years. Overall, the coastal climate is extremely Most showers are tropical storms which mild. Temperatures range from monthly do little damage. averages of 47 to 80 degrees. Climatic summaries of four representative The coastal, zone is relatively wet. areas along the coast are shown in Exhibits Forty-eight to 53 inches of precipitation V-3 (Myrtle Beach), V-4 (Georgetown), I ~~fall annually. During October and November, V-5 (Charleston), and V-6 (Beaufort). the driest period, little cyclonic storm activity occurs. Rainfall then increases The weather throughout the coast I ~~gradually, reaching a peak in March is temperate and encourages outdoor when low pressure and cold front activity activity most of the year. The most are at a maximum. A general decrease pleasant meteorologic conditions occur in precipitation follows, the relative in April, May, June, September, and dry period occurring from late April October, when the air temperature is through early June. Late June through in the 70s and there is little precipitation. early September is wet. Thunderstorm 1 ~~and shower activity peaks in July, the wettest summer month. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 191 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part FiveU EXHIBIT V-3 EXHIBIT V-4 CL~tliIC MATIC ?1Y!,-JA L.F'CI1, S.C. CIJMATIC SUWvV-',RY S.C- 1,, C C-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 -- ___~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c __ _ __~~~4 c o CN1 0~7 -~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0i -- - tj ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~v- Z- Li4 : _ _ HATZO.LAEI C AD __ 92_ PUBLI BAH ACS ERAIN NSUHCRLN * ~Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-5 EXHIBIT V-6 CLIPUTIC SUY'4ARY "''~ JS.C. CLIMATIC SUI-IMAIY uSAJFrt, S.C. =A~~~~~~~~~A ' -----i 'j-*~~~~~~~~: ~ ~ ~ ~ 77 .4 -~~~~~~ 017...~~1 U.~~~~ -=j co! 'n > -4~ ~ ~ E, _ _ __0_ T-* M: Z5 E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ":,N~~I""N z rl Z.) '13 :~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~Tv~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~ __ PUBLIC BEACH ACES REEAINN S OUH C R L N 9 H RZG AE&RCAD Environmental Review Part Five Air Quality Water Quality Air pollution is not a serious problem The South Carolina Department of for any of the State's beaches at this Health and Environmental Control classifies time. The industrial areas of Charleston tidal waters within one of three categories: and Georgetown are potentially threatened (Maps 1 and 2), although predominant SA: Waters suitable for shellfishing onshore winds protect beach areas most for market purpose and any other of the year. uses. Suitable also for uses requiring water of lesser quality. Potentially, there are numerous sources (highest quality for saline of air pollutants. Motor vehicles are the waters) chief contributor of the nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxides, and organic gases. Industry, SB: Waters suitable for bathing including fossil-fueled electricity plants, and any other uses except shellfish- is the chief source of sulfur dioxide. ing for market purposes. Suitable Mining, agriculture, lumber operations, also for uses requiring water incinerators and the automobile contribute of lesser quality. most suspended particulates. most suspende parSC: Waters suitable for crabbing, Coastal air pollution is of special commercial fishing and other concern in that, in addition to damaging usages except bathing or shellfishing the recreational environment, it presents for market purposes. (lowest a unique health hazard. Sulfur dioxide quality for saline waters). pollution, mainly a product of fossil-fueled electric plants, is more dangerous in coastal As of 1970, shellfishing for marketing fog areas. Chemical reactions there can purposes was prohibited in 49,000 acres produce a weak solution of sulfuric acid, of the State's marshlands due to excessive a danger to humans, animals, and plants, concentrations of coliform bacteria. and a damaging corrosive agent to many Pollution of tidal waters occurs almost materials. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 194 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~Part Five Environmental Review I ~~exclusively in the vicinity of the more turbidity in surrounding waters for highly populated areas, such as Charleston, an 8-to-10 month period. /4/ Periodic and is due to the dumping of treated maintenance dredging in Charleston Harbor, I ~~and untreated municipal wastes into as well as in other harbors along the estuaries and their tributaries. The coast, will cause short-term turbidity Beaufort River, Charleston Harbor and problems. its tributaries, and Winyah Bay are the three primary areas where water pollution has already had detrimental Thermal pollution is also a potential effects on shellfishing and sport fishing. threat to coastal recreation. Power plant I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and industrial heat exchange systems may Dredging operations are another source result in either the heating or cooling of water degradation. 4.7 million cubic of coastal waters. Many biologic and physical I ~~yards of material will be dredged from characteristics of the discharge area can the Wando River as part of the proposed be affected. New currents and turbidity port development, and this will increase patterns may result. Periodic "hot cycle", biocide and chemical '~~~77. ~~~~ ~~ flushings of industrial coolant systems ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~are another problem. Their potential damage is a direct product of respecti'ie biocide or chemical toxicity levels, the severity of temperature variations, and the use ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o rcuionr esrs Such alterations are not necessarily harmful. There may be economic benefits of heated water which outweigh the costs of environmental change. But the risks are clear ... and significant to the coast's ~~.+ ~~~~~ ~recreational character. Oil, in all of its forms, threatens the recreational beach. As a biocide, I ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~it destroys plant and animal life either PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SO UTH C AOA195 H A T O . LER&ICRD Environmental Review Part Five I through the assimilation of its various constituent toxins or as a hydrophobic gel clogging pores and stomas. In crude form, it has an obnoxious smell and tenacious I stain. Oil finds its way into the coastal system I from the bilges of boats, tankers, automobile crankcases, refineries, and other sources. It may be introduced directly, by natural seepage and oil spills, or-indirectly by air pollution, sewerage disposal, or surface runoff. I Refined oil has a greater biocide impact than crude. Thus, the aggregate impact of small spills from automobile crankcases may be more dangerous than their volume suggest. Also, the use of various detergents in clean-up operations may have greater environmental consequences than oil spills therselvives. themselves. Sand Quality The most effective means of controlling The quality of sand on the State's I petroleum, heavy metal, and other toxic beaches is generally excellent for re- pollution is at the source. No clean-up creation purposes. Comparison of beach operation is thoroughly effective. The areas shows that sand in the southern accumulation of residue may ultimately part of the State is of the highest present a hazard of its own. quality for typical beach recreation. Exhibit V-7 illustrates the relative grain size, shell, and mineral content of the sand. South Carolina beaches, unlike those I of Maine and the Pacific Northwest, are typically beaches of "emergence". HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 196 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-7 SAND QUALITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEACH AREAS Relative Shell Heavy Mineral Area Grain Size Content Content North Carolina border I ~~~to Santee River medium appreciable 3% Santee River to Edisto River small little 7% Edisto River to Georgia border small little 9% Twhey depend on sand transported by long- The first attempts to retain existing soecurrents from n ihongbeaches. sand and to collect and save new material. Additional sand may be supplied by estuarine such a program is characterized by jetties, deposit or wave action. The net gain groins, or detached breakwaters placed or loss of sand at a given site is known to reduce longshore current velocity as the "sand budget". "Accretion" means or wave action. The second alternative a budget surplus; "erosion", a deficit. involves artificially changing the supply of sand. Sand acquired from offshore I ~~~There are two alternative approaches or inshore dredging projects is pumped to beach maintenance and reclamation, onto the beach. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 197 HARTZOG, LAOER & RICHARDS Environmental Review P art FiveI Sand replacement is a temporary solution Aeolian erosion and deposition also - and involves serious supply problems. affect beach recreational profiles. Jetties and breakwaters alter the beach's Light sands and silt are easily blownI visual qualities and marine life. Small and may be uncomfortable to sunbathers fish, oysters, barnacles, larvae, and and swimmers. Sand of this nature is various plant species often thrive in also apt to form "migrating" dunes. new niches, thereby providing forage for larger species. EXHIBIT V-8 cD~~~~~~Wne Srng HARTZOG. LAER&ICADS18PBIBECACES&RCETOINOUHAOLA I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Part Five Environmental Review Offshore Currents /6/ tendency. In autumn a strong, persistent southwesterly drift prevails inshore A northerly offshore current prevails of the northeasterly current over the off the South Carolina coast during outer part of the continental shelf. winter and spring. (Exhibit V-8) Summer is a period of transition, when the Undertows, littoral drifts, sea current drift has a predominant northerly cusps and upswellings affect both sand // / Summer PUBLIC BHER Fall PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 99 H A T O , L E R&RCRD Environmental Review Part Five budgets and recreation safety. An up- swelling may provide excellent fishing, but its cold water may be a bathing hazard. Areas near inlets with strong currents and eddies are fine prospects for lobstering, fishing, and surfing, but they may present a lethal hazard to the weak swimmer and careless boater. A flat bottom profile, absent strong currents, will be a haven for clammers and bathers, but may be home for sharks and rays during warm months. HARTZOG, LADER &RICHARDS 200 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Renren-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: :r At Ad (2�~ Page #: Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-9: Waties Island Waccamaw Region ENVIRONM4ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Waties Island (Exhibit V-9) /7/ RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY This northernmost island is pre- sently undeveloped. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Swimming/ Power Sail sently undeveloped. Its northern third, ENVIRONYE::TAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall as a result of exposure to Little River Least_- Least--i Least-4- Least--> Least-- Inlet, is eroding. The southern two- EROSION/A�CCRTION thirds, however, have a well-developed, EROSION/ACCRTION stable dune system. Erosion Ustab~.lel Stable| e| |13 Dunn Sound, between Waties Island AccretionI I I I and the mainland, is closed to shell- LITTORAL CURRENTS fishing. Hog Inlet to the south and Hazardous I I I I I adjacent offshore waters are listed Non-hazardous I I as prime sport fishing areas. /8/ NEARSHORE PROFILE Waties Island exhibits a high suita- Steep 1 n I bility for recreational use, so long as existing wetlands and wildlife Good QUAL ITY habitats are preserved., Potential Pollution I AIR QUALITY Good d I I I III Potential Pollution i BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes II Narrow Beach | I Stable Dunes I 11 | I WideBeach a 11 w H iI| FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality ', v | Average Quality I I [ l I I I WETLANDS Potential Impact jf II iI II I�11 WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact | PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 201 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-10: Crescent Beach - Cherry Grove Crescent Beach to Cherry Grove Beach (Exhibit V-10) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY This beach has been intensively .ECRATIO.NAL SUITABILITY developed. A series of groins evi- S ~wimin/ , Power Sail dences past erosion. Dunes, for the ENVIRON'ENTAL FACTORS Sunbaw hin Boathing Boating Fishing Overall most part, have been eliminated by Least- Least-- Least-) Least--> Least-- dry is some- :.ot 'st .'ost :Most :,OSt construction. The dry beach is some- EROSION/ACCRETION what narrow and, hence, is not as Eros I I I I I II Iot suitable for recreation as the beaches Unstable I I I between Myrtle Beach and Windy Hill Stable I III l Accretion II I I I I i I I i Beach. LITTORAL CURRENTS Hazardous :on-hazardous NEARSHORE PROFILE Stee I Gradual WATER QUALITY Good I I 1 I i I 1 1 Potential Pollution AIR QUALITY Potential Pollution BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes I I I ! , j I I Narrow Beach Wide Beach FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality I Average Q uality I I i I I I I I I i I I l WETLANDS Potential Impact I i WILDLIFE HABITAT Pcter.tial Impact I I I II I I I I I I I HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 202 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-ll: N. Ocean Forest-Windy Hill North Ocean Forest to Windy Hill Beach (Exhibit V-11l) ENVIRON!4ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY The beach and dunes in this area are more stable than those along the RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY more heavily developed regions to the Swimming/ Power Sail north and south. Existing roads ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall Least -4 Least.-- Least--, Least--> Least--> across the wetlands backing the dune Most : ost Most Most 'lost ridges will reduce the potential for EROSION/ACCRETION further impact on the marshes. Erosion I I Unstable ll I II Stable I~ ~ This beach offers some of the Accretion I best opportunity for additional public LITTORAL CURRENTS access in the northern part of the Hazardous I HazardousI state. It is most suitable for recrea- Non-hazardous I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I tional use. NEARSHORE PROFILE Steep Gradual WATER QUALITY Good l|e| I 1 Potential Polluti on AIR QUALITY Gcod I I I I I l| Potential Pollution BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable DunesI I Narrow Beach II Stable Dunes I| 'Wide BO. lea c h I FISH & SHELLFISH LHABITAT High Quality Average Quality j| WETLANDS Potential Impact | | III III| WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact | e I I II|I PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 203 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-12: Myrtle Beach - Ocean Forest Myrtle Beach to Ocean Forest (Exhibit V-12) ENVIRON:4ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Intensive resort development has eliminated the dune system along this .RECRATIONAL SUITABILITY shoreline. The beaches are wide, however, SwiM-ina/in I Power Sail and have a gradual slope. Erosion problems ENVIRON:IENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall exist primarily in areas where concrete loest- LeastMot Least-. east : Least walls or bulkheads have been constructed EROSION/ACCRETION to protect beachfront development. I 101 1 1 i I I I I I I 1 1 Erosion Unstable I I i I I I I This beach is most suitable for outdoor Stable{ Accretion 11 recreation. Little environmental impact is likely to occur with further intensive Hazardous i i t ( recreational use and development. Non-hazardous _ _on-hazardous | | Ir I I I' I I ^ NEARSHORE PROFILE radual I I I I I I I I I I WATER QUALITY | Potential Pol"lutio:n Good I IN I I I I I I I i I I I I Potential Pollution l i BLACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes I I I I I I i I Narrow Beach Il Stable Dunes Wide Beach i i I I FISH & SHELLFISH iABITAT j High Quality I i I i t I Average Quality I I I i I I I i i I 1 WETLANDS Potential Impact i i I WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact 1 f i i f f ii | e HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 204 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA *Part Five -Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-13: Garden City - Surfside Beach Garden City Beach to Surfside Beach (Exhibit V-13) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY This shoreline has a long history of erosion. Garden City's 13,500 feet RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY of beachfront has experienced critical swimming/ Power Sail erosion from storm waves and longshore ENVIRON:EN:TAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall Least -- Least--), Least--) Least--->t Least--> currents. Between 1872 and 1966, the 'Leastot SLeat MostL Leastost average annual rate of erosion was 3.3 EROSION/ACCRETION feet; from 1966 to 1972, erosion averaged Erosion X I I 4.4 feet per year. /9/ A series of Unstable I I I II II Stable I groins constructed by the State in the Accretion 1960s, each approximately 4,270 feet LITTORAL CURRENTS long and spaced 570 feet apart, has Hazardous :;nHazardous I I I I I I I only been partially effective in controlling :;on-hazardous I I I I I I I I I I I eros ion. *NEARSHORE PROFILE I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Srveeo To protect oceanfront homes, 9,000 Gradual 11 feet of bulkheading has also been constructed WATER QUALITY parallel to the beach. The effect has Good | C Tl I been to concentrate wave energy at the Potential Pollution foot of the bulkhead, increasing erosion AIR QUALITY and washout at that point. Good I Il Potential Pollution I I I These beaches are quite narrow due BEACE MORPHOLOGY to this erosional trend. The average Unstable Dunes 1 I 1 Narrw Bach011 I I IIII width of dry beach is 49 feet. The StNarrow Beach ble Dunes Widbe Bueacs predominant littoral current is southwest- Wide Beach ward. FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality I t I I l Nonetheless, they are generally suitable Average Quality I lei I 101 for recreation. Currents are non-hazardous WETLANDS to swimmers, and the nearshore profile Potential Impact I is gradual with good water quality. WILDLIFE HABITAT Fish and shellfish habitats are of average Potential Impact quality, so fishing is a likely activity. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 205 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HROGLAE&RICAD Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-14: Huntington Beach State Park Huntington Beach State Park (Exhibit V-14-)----- N:VIRON.:ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RiECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Due to the influence of Murrell's Inlet, the northern end of the park's RECEATIONAL SUITABILITY three-mile beach is presently eroding. Swimr.in/ Power Sail On a long-term basis, it is unstable. ENVIRONE:;XTAL FACTORS Sunbathng oating Boting Fishing Overall To the south, the beachfront is stable, Least-- Le-st- Least--) Least-- ) Least -- at :t easoost oLeast east i Leaost and the dune system is well established EROSION/ACCitTION I and undisturbed. Erosion I I I I UEosion to 1 i i I I I I I I i I I:J The predominant littoral current Stable I i Accretion in this area is southwestward. The LITTORA. CURRENTS annual littoral drift rate at Murrell's Hazarous ii iInlet is 100,000 cubic yards of sedi- :;on-hazardcus I I ment, moving north-to-south. /10/ Between N.ARS.ORE PR.FILE 1872 and 1966, the annual average rate steec , I i I I I of shoreline recession was 1.3 feet Gradual I i I I I I I I I I in the vicinity of the inlet. /11/ WATER QUALITY ' The park's beachfront will continue Good ' I i Iri I I . i i i I I Il-;-il I Il i to change in irregular cycles in response Potential I II , I II I I I to the dynamic nature of iMurrell's Inlet. AIR QUALITY Good I I I I Because of the inlet's proximity, Potential Pollution I I I I I I I I I I I 1ii I fishing and shellfishing are excellent B.ACH :ORPEHOLO'GY 1 in the area. Huntington Beach State Unstable Dunes l I I i Park, appropriately, is well suited Narrow Beach I I IiI Stable Dunes to recreation. Wide Beach FISH & SHEL;LFISH iHABITAT i High Quality jv I iIi|iI| Average Quality Potential I act i i i WILDLIFE HABIAT i it Potential Inpact i i i I i II HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 206 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-15: Litchfield Beach Litchfield Beach (Exhibit V-15) From an environmental viewpoint, ENVIRON'4ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Litchfield Beach is a transitional point between the Grand Strand and beaches RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY to the South. The shoreline is straight, Swimming/ Power Sail beaches are wide and stable, and the ENVIRON:IEmTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall Least-4 Least-4 Least-4 Least--- Least-), beach face has a gradual slope. The Most Lost L ost Most Lat spit forming the northern border of EROSION/ACCRETION Midway Inlet is migrating southward. Erosion l l l l Unstable I Stable ' _ i Its environmental attributes make Accretion 1 Litchfield Beach most suitable for recrea- TTORAL CURRENTS LITTORAL CURRENuS tional use. Hazardous Honhazardous | | NEARSHORE PROFILE Stee p I I Gradual I| WATER QUALITY Good Il l Ie I II He H| Potential Pollution j I i AIR QUALITY Good | l II I H| Potential Pollution BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes I Narrow Beach I Stable Dunes 1 j Wide Beach HI II I I I| FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality II II Average Quality I 1Il 1 11 WETLANDS Potential Impact I| WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact | I I I I I._ PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 207 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-16: Pawleys Island Pawleys Island (Exhibit V-16) - ENVIRONAENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Pawleys Island has a very dynamic shoreline due largely to the influence RECATIONAL SUITBILITY of Midway Inlet to the north and Pawleys SwmngPower sail Inlet to the south. It has received EN;IRON:AENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall a great deal of attention in past efforts Least ---> Least--) Least-- Least--> ILeast --- eastlot Least< LeaMst Leastj Leastt to protect oceanfront property. MOSt M-OSt Most Mos t MlOSt EROSION/ACCRETION ErosioI I I I Although the longshore current moves unstable I I I 11 I primarily in a southwesterly direction, ~~S~~cr~~~tabon ~le 1l it has a northerly tendency along the Accretion I I LITA island's northern end. After a groin L ITTOR-~L CURRENTS i HazardousL CURRENTS was constructed on the northern tip Hazardous I hazardous , I I I I , I , I I in 1952, this northerly drift produced 'on-hazardous | POIL @ | | | | |||||||accretion along the northern third of NEARSHORE PROFILE I -AstR PROIL I II the beach. The dunes in this area are Gradual { l now well stabilized by vegetation and ~ ,WATER QUALITY I reach heights over 18 feet above mean Good , i ie low water. Potential Pollution AIR QUALITY In an effort to stop erosion, 24 ~tGood |I IG< | | | | I$ I ; groins were constructed by the South Potential Pollution I I Carolina Highway Department between BEACH MORPHOLOGY 1949 and 1964 along the southern two- Unstable Dunes O I I I I I I1 thirds of oceanfront. In the middle Narrow Beach 1 1 11!, I I I !o 1 of the island, the groins have been stable Dunes Stable Dunes I I I I I I I I I fairly successful at stabilizing the FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT shoreline, and this beach, as at the IHigh Quality I I I IIIIIIII 11northern end, is fairly wide. Average Quality WETLANDS The southern third of the island, I~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Potential Impact I 1 however, is a very narrow, unstable otetia i atsand spit subject to breaching during WILDLIFE HABITATI storms. Efforts to stabilize this area IPotential Impact I I I l l I I I have been unsuccessful and the beach HARTZOG LADER & RICHARDS 208 PUBLIC BEACH AESS RECRTION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 208 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA ReDreD-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: Page #: Gu Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-17: Debidue Beach erodes 1.7 feet per year. To protect oceanfront homes that run the length of the spit, 2,650 feet of bulkheading ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY has been constructed. There is little dune structure along this section and RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY the narrow beach averages 15 feet in Swimming/ Power Sail Iwidth. ENVIRON1E:iNTAL FACTORS Sunbathina Boating Boating Fishing Overall Least--- Least-4 Least-4 Least-- - Least-- :!ost Most lost Most s 1ost Pawleys Island's recreational potential EROSION/ACCRETION use, therefore, is primarily limited Erosion I I I I I I by its narrow and eroding beach. Unstable I I i Stable I le III III II I ilei Accretion I I I I ill LITTORAL CURRENTS Hazardous Debidue Beach (Exihibit V-17) on-hazardous I .NEARSHORE PROFILE Except for some development at Steep its northern end, Debidue Beach is Gradual still in a natural state. Its un- WATER QUALITY disturbed beaches and dunes serve Good I I I d ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Potential Pollution as a rookery for numerous birds as Potential ollution well as for the Atlantic loggerhead .AIR QUALITY turtle. Good II II Potential Pollution ________~~~~~~~~~_ II II Generally, the shoreline is BEACH MORPHOLOGY stable, but some minor erosion is Unstable DuBes I a I I i II II I Il occurring, and the spit at North Stable Duns I i i i Inlet is migrating southward. WieBach 11 I1 I I l Id l Debidue Beach is highly suitaDle for FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT recreation. High Quality I I I II Average Quality | 11 11 WETLANDS Potential Impact II III II II 1 11 WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact t | PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 209 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-18: Norh Island North Island (Exhibit V-1&) ENVIRONA:ENTAL CO:'STRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY North Island also is still in a natural state and is an important RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY wildlife habitat. The littoral EiSVRSiwimraning/ Power Sail current is predominantly southwest- ENVIRON:'IEMTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall ward, and the island builds to the Least -- Least-4 Least-- Least--> I Least -- :.ost :Cost Most Most :Iost south. In the vicinity of North EROSION/ACCRETION 'Inlet the beachfront is eroding. Erosion I I I I North Inlet and the surrounding wet- Unstable I N lands serve as a field laboratory StAccretion I N 0 for the Baruch Institute. LITTORAL CURRENTS Hazardous $I I t 5 | $ | � | | |; | | tWinyah Bay has become polluted Non-hazardous I from treated and untreated municipal NEARSHORE PROFILE - wastes that enter its waters daily Steep i I II I iNI I I from the city of Georgetown. Gradual I 11 I I II I l l I | l WATER QUAL:T'I North Island is suitable for re- Good I I I I i I I I I i I I I creational use. Winyah Bay's poor Potential Pollution 1 t I I 101 I water quality is offset by the wide, AIR QUALITY stable beach. The potential impact Good II I I I I I I I I of recreational use on wildlife may Potential Pollution I I I I I I I I I I I I I I be moderated by control of access. BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes Narrow Beach III I i i i Stable Dunes |1 IjI I I II 'Side Beach i1 1 FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT I High Quality I I I Average Quality I 1 I I I I e I I I I101 WETLANDS i! Potential Impact I I I . I |U I TH |IN WILDLIFE HABITAT 1 Potential Impact 6 II I I I I I I I|eI| HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 21 0 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-19: South Island Charleston Region ENVIRONM14ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY South Island (Exhibit V-19) /12/ RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Swimming/ Power Sail The proximity of Winyah Bay immediately EasIRO:1EmTAL FACTORS Su bathinatg BoatingL to the north has a strong influence ltost : Mos st MLost "lost on South Island. Unlike the southwestward EROSION/ACCRETION currents along most of the State's coast, Erosion I I I 1 flood tides entering the Bay produce nstable i Stable~~~~~II Il I II IlI northerly currents along the shoreline. Accretion As a result, the beach is building on LITTORAL CURRENTS its northern end, while its southern Hazardous end is generally unstable. The island's :on-hazardous suitability for recreational use is NEARSHORE PROFILE average. Steep I ll v 1 ' Gradual I 1 1 WATER QUALITY Good I I III Potential Pollution I I I I I I I ll I AIR QUALITY Good I II Potential Pollution I BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes I Narrow Beach Stable Dunes Wide Beach t FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality I Average Quality I l II I I I 11l WETLANDS Potential Impact t I Ill Il I Ie!~ WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact l PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 211 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA21HAZO.LDR&ICRS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~21 AROGLAE&RICAD Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-20: Cedar Island and Murphy Island Cedar Island (Exhibit V-20) ]NVIRON:ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY As part of the Santee Coastal Preserve and accessible only by boat, Cedar Island RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY should only be considered for limited recreational use. Swimming/ I Power Sail recreational use. ENVIRON:MENTAL FACTORS Sunbathin| Boating Boating Fishing Overall Least--> Least-) Least-) Least--> Least->- :.o st ,ost '40st M:ost ;lost Characteristic of many South Carolina EROSION/ACCRETION shorelines bordering inlets, the beach, I I I I I 11 which is narrow and backed by marsh, Unstable I I I I I I I I is eroding at the north end and growing Stable I | I Ie I II Accretion jI I j to the south. LITTORAL CURRENTS Hazardous I ll II I :;on-hazardous I I I j NEARSHORE PROFILE Murphy Island (Lxhlibit V-20) Steep 'l iI I iiii|| Gradual I The South Santee River has a major iATER QUALITY influence on the shoreline of Murphy ~Good I i I I| I| It 0 Island lying to the southwest. Erosion Good ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I l I 1 l Potential Pollution j fi I I I I I I I I I |has been evident, particularly along . AIR QUALITY the northern end, since diversion of Good I I H l the Santee River. Potential Pollution ll 1 1 1 BEACH MORPHOLOGY il Use of Murphy Island for more than Unstable Dunes I limited recreation will have a detrimental SNarroblue Beach I I I I ' I I I I i I I I environmental impact. Stable Dunes Wide Beach I ji FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality j j & R j 'S i C L I Average Quality I I I i I I I I i I 1011 I jQ WETLANDS I j li Potential Impact j j i I I I | ||i i WILDLIFE HABITAT j j i Potential Impact. I I i I I I I | | | | | HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 21 2 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-21: Cape Romain Migratory Bird Refuge Cape Romain Migratory Bird Refuge (Exhibit V-21) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Almost the entire length of ocean shoreline within the wildlife refuge RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY is suffering from long-term erosion. Swimming/ Power Sail The prominent position of Bull Island ENVIRON:IE:TAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall Least ---) Least--) Least-4 Least--- Least-* at the south end of Bull Bay has exposed lost Lea t :,oat Mos t ,ost it to severe erosion from ocean waves EROSION/ACCRETION and currents. lErosion ll l OII UnstableI StableI Only isolated recreational use would Sabcretion i be compatible with the Refuge's present LITTORAL CURRENTS use. *Hazardous "on-hazardous NEARSHORE PROFILE Steep Gradual WATER QUALITY Good 11 Potential Pollution AIR QUALITY Good I l i e I 1| Potential Pollution j BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes Il I Narrow Beach ii Wide Beach Stable 3unes ii i II I I FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality I l f 1 1 Average Quality i i WETLANDS Potential Impact l I lit III II 1It el l WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact 1 . 1 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 213 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HRZG AE ICAD Environmental Review . Part Five EXHIBIT V-22: Capers Island and Dewees Island Capers Island and Dewees Island - (Exhibit V-22) ENVIRON,'ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY The beachfront on both these islands RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY evidences rapid erosion. There is no Swimming/ Power Sail 11dune structure on either island. At ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Ftide the tree line is at the watOverall ~~~Least-) es-) Least--) Least--) ILeast--* Leat > eat- Las--, eat-~,J1Lest->high tide the tree line is at the water's Most :ost :Most Mo5til Most edge. Remains of partially uprooted EROSION/ACCRETION II trees are numerous on Capers Island ~~CIEros I 1 I I I I 'O n beach. The very unstable nature of nstablen the northern half of Dewees Island results .Accretion ~~~Accretion I I i I I I primarily from the constant migration-- LITTORAL CURRENTS north and south -- of Capers Inlet. Hazardous b Non-hazardous Both islands are surrounded by extensive NEARSHORE PROFILE saltmarsh, waterways, and sounds. Their Steep il good air and water quality and fish Gradual I I i H II and shellfish habitats suggest recreational W.TER QUALITY potential diminished primarily by narrow, GoodI |III I o I I I I o eroding beachfronts. Potential Pollutionl jjl ll! ll AIR QUALITY Good li II IIIII Potential Pollution i BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes 1[ 0 IIIIII Narrow Beach 1 . I I Stable Dunes II I Wide Beach I I FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT ' High Quality i ii I| Average Quality j1 i WETLANDS PotentialImpact jl III II f Im| c| WILDLIFE HABITAT I HRPotential IN Oact LIN HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 214 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-23: Isleof Palms Isle of Palms (Exhibit V-23) ~~The shore along Isle of Palms' north- ~ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY The shore along Isle of Palms' north-- eastern two-thirds has experienced signi- ficant, short-term changes during the RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY past hundred years, but there has been Swirmming/ Power Sail ENVIRON:IE:NTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall little net change overall. Due to fre- Least Lost--- st Lst- Lost .Least- Least- Leaat 2- as t- Least- quent alterations in tidal currents through Dewees Inlet to the north, as EROSION:ACCRETIO: well as the effects of major storms, Erosion 10 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I UnsatbleI II1 I Iii periods of rapid accretion have been Stable followed by equally major occurrences Accretion of erosion on the northern end. The LITTORAL CURRENTS island's southern third has been Hazardous I building seaward as Breach Inlet Non-hazardous I I migrates to the southwest. NEARSHORE PROFILE SteeD Ill I Grad-ual On the island's undeveloped northern Gradual I I end, the dune fields are wide and well- ATER QUALIY established with vegetation, except PotentilPollution i I o I I in the most recently eroded areas. i AIR QUALITY " .Recreational use of the Isle of Palms Potential Polltion I Io is highly suitable. BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes t J I i Narrow' Beach Stable Dunes lei I I I I I I I I I I 101 Wide Beach I 11l I I I I I I I I FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality ll Average Quality ll 11 WETLANDS Potential Impact 1 1 1 11 WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact 0 _ PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 215 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-24: Sullivans Island Sullivans island (ExIhibit V-214) EVIRONENTAL CSTRAINTS RECREATIONAL SUTABILIY The southwestern half of Sullivans Island has been building out over the RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY last 25 to 35 years, probably due largely Swii ~nai/pa Po/er Sail lpto the Charleston Harbor jetties. The ENVIRON:MENTAL FACTORS SbthrgBaig otig isingtIh hretnHro h ENVIRNTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall northeastern half of the island is unstable, Least--4 Least-). Least-- Least--- Least-+ .Most :Most Llost Most :lost except for the extreme northern end, EROSION/ACCRETION which is retreating as Breach Inlet �EroIsio11 11 111 I11 11migrates westward. Erosion Unstable Ill { { IIl Stable I t I ae 1 Accretion y for swimmers is an important concern at both ends of the island be- LITTORAL CURRENTS Hazardous ol i{ ii i cause of the strong tidal currents in Non-hazardous I | | I 8 0||e I the vicinity. Nearshore fishing is __________~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~ NEARSHORE PROFILE especially good around the Charleston Steeo I | j Harbor jetties. Thus, Sullivans Island Gradual llllllll is highly suitable for recreation. W.ATER QUALITY i Good i | Potential Pollution 1l1 11! I I i AIR QUALITY ~~~IGood I i Potential Pollution jjj jjj iii ii BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes } Illllll Narrow Beachs I ii Stable Dunes i i Wide Beach I ll l l l 'l I FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality Ij Il l {I t lei I I le Average Quality ll WETLANDS Potential Impact WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact l i HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 21 6 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five r Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-25: Morris Island Morris Island (Exhibit V-25) Except for the extreme northern tip, ENVIRONMHENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY the shoreline of Mlorris Island has retreated more than 1,600 feet since 1939. /13/ R.ECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Swirming.g/ Power Sail The possible effects of strong tidalTA FACTOR S unbathing Boati st Lea Least Least-- Least--) Least--) Least-- Least-- currents and polluted waters associated :.lost :-ost Most Most U .Lost with Charleston Harbor detract from EROS IO.ACCRCTION the potential use of this beach for Erosion I I I I I I i swimming. The island is presently uninha- unstable I I I I I bited. Providing road access would Accretion require filling an extensive area of LITTORAL CURRENTS salt marsh. Environmental constraints Hazardous 191 I i i i l therefore make Morris Island unsuitable ion-hazardous for recreation. NEARSHORE PROFILE Steep Gradual IATER QUALITY Good iI Ii Potential Pollution li I ! I I I I I I 1lo I AIR U-ALITY Good I I I i I I I I I I I I l Potential Pollution BEACH MORPHOLOGY Er.stable Dunes l i III III [ 1 0 Narrow Beach I I I I I i I 1 1 l Stable Dunes i Wide Beach FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Qualityi j I I i i i i@ Average Quality WETLANDS Potential Impact I I I I I | | 1 WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact f I I I I 1 1 . . PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 21 7 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-26: Folly Island Folly Island (Exhibit V-26) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Folly Island s entire beachfront has suffered from almost continuous RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY erosion during the last few decades. Swiisming/ Power Sail A series of groins, 275 feet long and ENVIRONZIE'TAL FACTORS Sunbathinc Boating Boating Fishing 1Overall Least --- Least--) Least.-- Least--) Leat-*sic FATOS Least )Least- Least - Least- I Least spaced 500 feet apart, constructed since 'lost 1ost M:ost :.los lost 1947, have been only partially successful. EROSION/ACCRETION The entire shoreline is still unstable, Erosion I I I I I and the northern end, unprotected by Unstable I I I I 10 1 stable I I I I groins, continues to erode rapidly. Accretion j i i1 1 LITTORAL CURRENTS Cottages are located at the top of Hazardous I I i i I the beach face along most of the island, Non-hazardous I ~101 1111ff f Ll 10 and except for the extreme southern NEARSHORE PROFILE end, there are no sand dunes. The beach Steep 1i 11 { i i at high tide is narrow to non-existent. Gradual | [H H -I 10 WA.TER QUALITY , However, good air and water quality Good I I 0 I I I, ll 011 I o and little potential impact on wetlands Potential Pollution I I I I I I I f I f I or wildlife habitats make Folly Island, .IR QUALITY I however limited its sandy beach, reasonably Good I I suitable for recreational use. Potential Pollution j BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes tI i i i I I i I I Narrow Beach 11 I l!lO1 II I Il IIII ?II Stable Dunes Wide Beach I FISH & SHELLFISH }LABIT.AT High Quality Average Quality WETLANDS Potential Impact ll ll WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 218 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-27: Kiawah Island Kiawah Island (Exhibit V-27) Kiawah Island's shoreline is generally BiiENVIRONM.ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Kiawah Island' s shoreline is generally stable. A six-mile stretch of beach in the island's center has experienced RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY gradual, long-term accretion. The eastern I Swirrinc,' Power Sail Iand western extremes are unstable and ENVIRON:MENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall Least --- Least-4 Least-4 Least--, Least-- undergo alternate periods of rapid erosiont t :,So~t : :oSt :os. : ost :lost and accretion. A wide, well-stabilized EROSION/ACCRETION dune system extends the length of the Erosion I I I I III I Ij Ilad. .nstable I I I I I I I Stable 11 t t l1e :,ooretio~. l l | | l ll. Kiawah is one of the primary nesting LITTORAL CURRENTS areas for the Atlantic loggerhead turtle Hazardu s in South Carolina. /14/ Also, the upper :;Non-hazardous l reaches of Captain Sam's inlet are one NEARSHORE PROFILE of the best areas in the State for oyster Stee i l ll gathering. /15/ Gradual Ii WATE R QUALITY Kiawah Island has one of the most Gcod I -- lo 1 110o appealing island beaches in South Carolina. Pote:tial Pollution : l I I Its recreational suitability for swimming, .IR U'ALITY boating, sailing, and fishing is very II I I I 1 high. Potential Pollution j BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes l l ll l 1 Narrow Beach jj| Stable Dunes 1111 i0 * Wide Baach | { i 1 iieich FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT Hiah Quality ll Ill I hO | 10 Average Quality l WETLANDS Potential Impact || WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 219 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 219HRTO.AER&RCRD ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HRZG AE&RICAD Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-28: Seabrook Island Seabrook Island (Exhibit V-28) .. ENVIRONM:ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY The entire coast of Seabrook Island is unstable. In the past few years, RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY the southern end has eroded significantly Sw-ir=.ing/j Power Sail and will likely continue to undergo ENVIRO:MENTAL FACTORS Snbathing Boatirng Boating Fishing Overall rapid cycles of erosion and accretion Leas -- Least-- Least-- Least-- I Least -- ERost :soat .ost :Aostl :Most due to the strong influence of the North EROSO_/ACcTIO._ |Edisto River inlet. The flat, sparsely Erosion II I II I I I vegetated dunes along the southern half Sntablae 101 I i 1! 1of the island attest to this instability. stable I I I I I Accretion jj j Ii LITTORAL CURRENTS , Both ends of the island could be Hazardous !1 i I I I I I l hazardous for swimmers because of strong Non-hazardous I I I I I II currents in the North Edisto River inlet NEARSHORE PROFILE . | to the south and Captain Sam's inlet Steep { I to the north. Gradual { | i WAT..ER QUALITY Fishing in offshore waters near Seabrook Good i ~{e101 I I I I 'I II I ! Island is a particularly outstanding Potential Pollution: j I I I I I I I I ! Ili I { { recreational opportunity. AIR QUALITY Good j j j ii Potential Pollution BREACH MORPHOLOGY { ! Unstable Dunes e I I I | i i ! - Narrow Beach l i Stable Dunes I Wide Beach i{ I I FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT Hiah Quality I lei I I le Average Quality j WETLANDS { Potential Impact I I I IIIIII I WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact l I I I I I I I - I HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS ..220 PUBLIC.BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-29: Edingsville Beach and Botany Bay Island Edingsville Beach and Botany Bay Island (;xnibit V-29) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY This entire shoreline has experienced long-term erosion. From 1856 to 1954 RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY the average rate of recession on Botany Swiioing/ Power Sail Bay Island was 35.2 feet per year. ENVIRO:;:IE:;TAL FACTORS Sanhathingl Boatnr.g Boating Fishing Overall During the same period, Edingsville Ieast I eaost Leost Last least- Beach eroded at about 13.8 feet per IEROSIOX/ACCR.TTIO: year. /16/ Ersion1 II i I I I I I ieI I ':nstable Stable i I i I ' At many points, erosion has occurred --retion to such an extent that the beach is ILITTORL CURRENTS backed directly by marsh. Small inlets !adou have formed and intersect with the marsh :;on-hazar;ous at locations that have been breached. NEARSHORE PROF-IE Because of erosion, beach morphology, Steeo i and potential impact on wetlands, these Gradual il areas are not suited for recreational : ATER QUALITY use. GCo ! I H I I II iI Ii IIIIo A1IR QUALITY i I I oo I I I I I I I I I I I II i I I o Potential FclP.tlonj -BEACH :ORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes 1 I I I I I I I I i I I I i Sarrow Beach 01 I I I I I I I i I I 1 i i Stable Dunes j Wide Beach FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT Hiah Quality Average Quality I I i I I I ii 1 le WETLANDS Potential ImpactI I I eI WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact IIi PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 221 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 221 ~~~~~HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-30: Edisto Island and Edisto Beach State Park ~EXHIBI~T V-3D0~: ~Edisto Island and Edisto Beach State Park Edisto Island and Edisto Beach State Park (Exnibit V-30) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY The northern end of Edisto Island, RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY primarily the State Park shoreline, Swimming/ Power Sail has undergone long-term erosion. The ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall two-mile section of beach imImediately Least--- Least-4 Least--f Least--) Least-), :ost M-oat Most Most 'lost to the south, however, is very stable, EROSION/ACCRTION while the extreme southern end is generally QII I I I I I I I GII I unstable. Erosion unstable. Unstable ll III III II 1 1 StableI I I I I I I I I ~~~~~~~Accretion t The beaches are fairly wide, averaging LITTORAL CURRENTS 20-30 feet at high tide even along the Hazardous il I I II I II State Park, probably due in part to Non-hazardous I I IS | I to I I Is I I I I I t the 830,000 cubic yards of sand used NEARSHORE PROFILE to nourish the beach in 1954. The sand Steep I dunes appear well stabilized, although Gradual I t|o I I III I I CO south of the State Park, encroachment WATER QUALITY by oceanfront cottages and pedestrian Good lo l I II le I Ile traffic is having a disruptive effect. Potential Pollution I I I I I I II I I I From an environmental perspective, Edisto AIR QUALITY Island is highly suited for recreational Good 1I Il ll t l ll use. Potential Pollution III l lit l|| BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes II III III I I I I Narrow Beach I I I I i i ll l l Stable Dunes I ll 11 Wide Beach i l I I I i i I I 1 14~) I 1 l i l 1 % I I 1~ FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality I ll Ill I I|| Average Quality |i i WETLANDS Potential Impact j Ill I I l | WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 222 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Renren-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: Page SC Page #: Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-31i Harbor Island The Low Country Region ENVIRONM14ENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Harbor Island (Exhibit V-31) /17/ RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Swimming/ Power Sail EN"IROX:MENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall Between 1933 and 1955, the southern L- Least-- Least - - Least- ) Least-- Least- :.o st :,o st ,Most Most rMost half of Harbor Island eroded at an annual ost ost st Most ost rate of 23 feet. The northern half EROSION/ACCRETION I accreted during the same period at an Erosion It II l Unstable 0 average rate of 12 feet per year. /18/ Stable I I I I I I Accretion I I I I I I Although fishing and shellfishing LITTORAL CURRENTS are good in the area, Harbor River is Hazardous illl| I 1 polluted. /19/ Non-hazardous lI Ill ll NEARSHORE PROFILE Steep l I 101 Gradual I WATER QUALITY Good I I Potential Pollution 101 | leool t � | iD AIR QUALITY Good II I tl 1 I. Potential Pollution I I BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes I Narrow Beach I I| Stable Dunes I i Wide Beach III III III II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I II FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality i i i0 Average Quality WETLANDS Potential Impact H 1 - |l WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact ll 1.1 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 223 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-32: Hunting'Island Hunting Island (Exhibit V-32) - . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY The 4.3 miles of ocean shoreline on Hunting Island have a long, well- RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY documented history of erosion. During Swimmning/ Power Sail the period 1859-1962, the beachfront ENVIRONMIENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall on the northern one-third of the island Least---> Least-) Least-4 Least-v Least-+ :ot ost Mos t Most Mt ost retreated 6,500 feet at an annual rate EROSION/ACCRrTION of 22.7 feet. The average rate of erosion ol I I I I I I I I ol I on the southern two-thirds of the island Unstable during the same period was 9.2 feet Stable Accretion l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l per year. /20/ LITTORAL CURRENTS Hazardous I | I I I l As part of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ________ ~ ~ I O t I I Non-hazardous I I I � project to halt the rapid erosion, a NEARSHORE PROFILE 700-foot terminal groin was constructed Steep lI lI l lI lllll lllll at the northern end of the island in Gradual i t 1 1968. 750,000 cubic yards of sand were WATER QUALITY used to nourish 10,000 feet of shoreline Good H| HX 1 1 i| at the island's north end. A portion Potential Pollution fi||| | I }1 lll of this sediment was transported by AIR QUALITY the southwesterly littoral currents Good II II II II HIO and deposited along the beach on the Potential Pollution I I | I I I I I & & {south end. Between 1969 and 1971, 200,000 BEACH MORPHOLOGY cubic yards of sand were lost per year Unstable Dunes I I I I I | I from erosion, requiring another 761,000 Narrow Beach | | { I & I I i I I { I | I | cubic yards of nourishment in August, Stable Dunes l Wide Beach I I I I /21/ FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality I I I I I I [ I I The northern 40 percent of the island Average Quality I lo tI { 1 01 is now relatively stable. The remainder WETLANDS to the south will probably continue Potential Impact I I I I I I I I I I I I |I to erode. The island may require annual nourishment of 470,000 cubic yards of WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact sand. /22/ HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 224 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA .HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 224 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-33: Fripp Island Except for the southern end, there are no sand dunes on the island, and the beach ends abruptly at the tree ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY line, clear evidence of major erosion. Because of the nourishment program, RECREATIoNAL SUITABILITY however, the beaches on the northern Swimming/ Power Sail half of the island are as much as 100- EM'IRONMENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall Least-+ Least--) Least-- Least--), Least--+ 250 feet wide. Mlost Mlost Most Most Most EROS ION/ACCRETION Much of the inshore waters surrounding Erosion I I I I I I I I I I e1 I Hunting Island, Fripp Inlet and Harbor Unstable I1 I I l Stable River are polluted. /23/ Accretion LITTORAL CURRENTS Notwithstanding these qualifications, Hazardous CRE Hazardous Hunting Island's recreational suitability 'Jon-hazardous is good. NEARSHORE PROFILE Steep I l II I I Gradual I 1 WATER QUALITY Fripp Island (Exhibit V-33) Good l Potential Pollution loi I I I I I I I 1 11 I Erosion has occurred along the entire AIR QUALITY beachfront of Fripp Island during the Good } | I [ 1 last century. Groins were constructed Potential Pollution I recently at the island's northern tip, BEACH MORPHOLOGY and the beach has been stabilized in Unstable Dunes I I I I I the immediate vicinity to some degree. Stable Dunes 0 I I - I | Wide Beach II I I II II Its sand dunes are low but stable, FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT and vary in width from 10 to 50 feet. High Quality I Due to erosion, the dry beach is only Average Quality 1101 1 01 five to 10 feet in width. WETLANDS Potential Impact l 11l A significant number of Atlantic WILDLIFE HABITAT loggerhead turtles nest on Fripp Island. Potential Impact .| PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 225 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-34: Capers Island and Pritchards Island The possible pollution of- Fripp Inlet could affect the island's beaches because ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY of southwesterly littoral currents. /24/ RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Because of these environmental conditions, Swimming/ Power Sail the overall recreational suitability ENVIRONIMENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall of this beach is good, but considerably Least--+ Least-4 Least-- Least--) Least-_- Most :4ost Most Most l:ost less than ideal. EROSION/ACCRETION Erosion Unstable I I II II II Stable I I [ II Capers Island (Beaufort County) and Accretion ll ll ll lll I I I Pritchards Island (Exhibit V-34) LITTORAL CURRENTS Hazardous I III Both Capers Island (in Beaufort County) Non-hazardous I and Pritchards Island have long suffered NEARSHORE PROFILE from erosion. From 1855 to 1955, Capers Steeno I I eroded 1,800 feet, and Pritchards, 1,250 SeGradual I II I j jjfeet. /25/ WATER QUALITY -Good I 10 III Ill I Ie I Both islands contain extensive marshlands Potential Pollution I I I I I I and have no road access to high ground. ~~~~AIR QOUALITY ~Because of the marsh and erosion, the Good Potential Pollution II I IIislands are not especially suitable BEACH MORPHOLOGY III for recreational activity. BEACH M:ORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes I I Il II Narrow Beach I II II Stable Dunes wideBeach i IIb iI i|| FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality Average Quality II II ji lj l II I I I WETLAMDS Potential Impact I I l I | WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact HARTZOG LADER & RICHARDS I I II IN SOUTH CAROLINAIIII HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 226 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA3 Part Five Environmental Review St.PhllipsIsl and (Exhib 4 t EXHIBIT V-35: St. Phillips Island St. Phillips Island (Exhibit V-35) This low, presently undisturbed island, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY almost completely surrounded by marsh, has only one mile of ocean shoreline. RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY It consists of parallel dune ridges Swimming/ Power Sail dissected by salt marsh. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall Least--4 Least-- Least-4 Least--) Least-- h:unrost fs!ost Most Most ' lost The ocean floor extending several EROSION/ACCRETION hundred feet from the shoreline consists Erosion of very soft, muddy sediment. Thus, Unstable I1 I I I I StableI swimming is inappropriate. Fishing Accretion I I i is the only suitable form of recreation. LITTORAL CURRENTS Hazardous III III III III~~~ I 'Jon-hazardous NEARSHORE PROFILE Steep l l Gradual II I I I l I WATER QUALITY Good |I 11 11I Potential Pollution AIR QUALITY Good H III Potential Pollution BEACH MORPHOLOGY Utnstable Dunes I II I I Narrow Beach j Stable Dunes I I I Wide Beach I I I FI.SH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality || Average Quality I II I II I | WETLANDS Potential Impact e j I I H e | WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact 1 1| PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 227 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-36: Bay Point Island Bay Point Island (Exhibit V-36) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY During the past century, Bay Point Island has had a cycle of alternating RECRATIONAL SUITABILITY erosion and accretion. The island's Swimming/ Power Sail prominent position in the mouth of Port ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boatin g Fishing Overall Royal Sound is a major factor contributing Least-~ Least- - Least-- Least--> Least-isa t Most :-ost Most MosI host to its unstable character. EROSION/ACCRETION ~Erosion i I I It I H Bay Point Island is accessible only Stable I IIby boat. Road access to the island Accretion I I I It would require crossing a wide expanse LITTORAL CURRENTS of marshland. HazardousI i llll Non-hazardous I I I I I I t This relatively remote island is NEARSHORE PROFILE valued for a variety of wildlife, including steeo 11 111I 11 { I t lthe osprey. Because of its position Gradual II:I Ii I li IIf |}X I at the mouth of the Beaufort River, WATER QUALITY the waters of Bay Point Island are suscep- Good i I I I I I I I ll I tible to pollution. Potential Pollution 11 I I I I I I 1 I proximity AIR QUALITYo Despite good air quality and proximity Good I III I I I I I I I I I I 1to abundant fish and shellfish habitats, Potential Pollution I I I I I I I I I I I I Bay Point Island has little beach use BEACH MORPHOLOGY ! potential. Unstable Dunes I I I II I I I I I Narrow Beach ll I Stable Dunes Wide Beach Ilt III FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT Average Quality Nigh Quality I I II 1 1 1I1 lo I I Ie I I WETLANDS Potential Impact III III I Ii iell WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact il | HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 228 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-37: Hilton Head Island Hilton Head Island (Lxnibit V-37) The 12 miles of ocean shoreline on ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY Hilton Head Island exhibit a diversity of morphological characteristics. Although RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY the northern shore fronting on Port SO;i=.1nT CO Power Sail Royal Sound is eroding, the northern- ENVIRoX:_EmTAL FACTORS SunbathincI Bting I Boating Fishing jiOverall ~~~LeastLat-~, Least--) Least-- II Least --> most two and a half miles is very wide I.t ! Lest, Lost *cstl! IL--I and well stabilized with vegetation. IEROSION/ACCTION. Erosion J lilt Il I The four miles of beach southward -:ntabe I l ei I1 I to North Forest Beach have experienced Actetion i I1 a long period of erosion. The dunes LITTORL CURRENS and dry beach are very narrow or non- azarous I t existent. This section of beachfront .on.-hazardous I I ! i I I retreated 750 feet between 1860 and NEARSHORE PROFILE 1952 /26/ I Gradual t -TR~~~~~~~o Oradoal I I | ie ! I I I I ! I I { I ie The southern half of Hilton Head WATER QUALITY | , I , Island, with the exception of the extreme I e! I I I I I I e southern tip, is stable. The dunes Potential Pollut:io:n I I I I I I I I I I are well-established and undisturbed, .. R_.AT_ and the beach face has a gradual slope. I I The naturally unstable southern tip Potential Pollution I has been stabilized with several groins. BEACE M'ORPHOLOGY - Hazardous tidal currents in this area, Unstable Dunes Narrow~~~~~each III II~~~~~~I II iI IlI however, make it unsuitable for swimming. Narrow Beach 1 1 I i 1 1I Stable Dunes Wide Beach t J } J Ii| I�t Il II Il 1Ii� The annual littoral drift rate off' FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT the beaches of Hilton Head Island is Hiah Quality Ill 72,000 cubic yards of sediment, moving Average Quality I in a southerly direction. WETLANDS Potential Impact Ij Hilton Head Island affords excellent WILDLIFE HABITAT access to noted fishing and shellfishing Potential Impact in Calibogue and Port Royal Sounds. | PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 229 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~29HRZG AE ICAD Environmental Review Part Five EXHIBIT V-38: Daufuskie Island Except for erosion problems, Hilton . Head's recreational suitability is among NVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECEATIOlAL SUITABILITY the best of the State's beaches. Fishing, boating, and sailing offer excellent RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY recreational opportunities, and wide, SmSl gradually sloping beaches and non-hazardous ENVIRONiIENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishi oeng Overall littoral currents make swimming and Least --> Least-) Least-) Least--) Least -)- :ost :LOst ::oat L.ost leost sunbathing safe. EROSION/ACCRETION cI; 1I I I I I 11 1 Erosion Unstable I I I I I I I StableI I I I I I cStcabretion Daufuskie Island (Exhibit V-3P) Accretion~~~~~~~~~ Ii I t I I I1 1 LITTORAL CUeRRENTS l1 LITTaardous RAL I I Although Daufuskie Island has an hazardous Non-hazardous i I I I I I ocean shoreline, it is not as prominent -NEARSHeRE PROFILE as the land masses immediately to the Steep A iS PROFIL northeast and southwest. As a result, teGradual i I I I i191 1 1111 the island is partially sheltered from WA.TER QUALITY I the direct influence of ocean currents Good i jIIIIIIII10.1 I 1 liand waves and is affected more significantly Potential Pollution 1 1 1111|}|t |i111 i by the tides and currents of Calibogue AIR QUALITY i i | Sound. The northeastern shore borders Good I I i li I I the Intracoastal Waterway. Potential Pollution Iiill SBEACH ORPHOLOGY i Between 1860 and 1920, the beachfront Unstable Dunes Ci I I ! I I I i I retreated 40 feet. /27/ Strong tidal Sarrow Beach CI I I I I ! I I1 1!currents could make these waters hazardous Stable Dunes SWide Bes ~ ! .I I for swimming. Fishing and shellfishing I~~~~~~~~~~~~ FISH H SHEISH ABITAT are excellent in Calibogue Sound. High Quality A~veraae Quality l l l l l l l l l l l l l lDaufuskie Island's recreational potential WETI.U4DS !{ is only fair because of dangerous currents Potential Impact I and erosion. WILDLIFE HABITAT 11 Potential Impact HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 230 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review EXHIBIT V-39: Turtle Island Turtle Island (Lxiibit V-39) Turtle Island is undergoing slight ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS - RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY erosion while Jones Island to the southwest is accreting gradually. /28/ Both islands RECREATIONAL SUITABILITY are predominantly marshlands, and neither Swimming/ Power Sail has road access. Because of its proximity ENVIRON:MENTAL FACTORS Sunbathing Boating Boating Fishing Overall Least -- Least-4 Least-_ Least--) Least---, to the Savannah River, which is not 'lost 'ost ,ost Most 'lost suitable for bathing or shellfishing, EROSION/ACCRETION this area is subject to water pollu- Erosion area ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ErosionIII1I tion. /29/ Thus, the island is not Unstable I I I I I I1 Stable suitable for recreation. Accretion I Ac~~~retion ~~~III II l IlI LITTORAL CURRENTS Hazardous ' III~~~~~~ I I Non-hazardous NEARSHORE PROFILE Steep i Gradual WATER QUALITY Good ll ll II 1I Potential Pollution * | | li e I I AIR QUALITY Good J I l Il I Potential Pollution ll | BEACH MORPHOLOGY Unstable Dunes Narrow Beach Stable Dunes Wide Beach FISH & SHELLFISH HABITAT High Quality Average Quality i l 1 WETLANDS Potential Impact I I II I| l| WILDLIFE HABITAT Potential Impact 1 . - PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 231 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~21 H R Z G LAE&RICAD Environmental Review Part Five .Aerial photographs were reviewed A list of coastal areas under consideration in the office of S.C. Department of as critical or unique natural-areas Wildlife and Marine Resources, James by the South Carolina Department ofI Island, S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources was also consulted for this report. 2 Two valuable sources of informationNalWetrSrvcEnioetl were not completed and available in3NalWetrSrvcEniomtl time for use as input to this environmental Detachment, Station Climatic Summary, review: Charleston, SC. 1945-1972. Asheville,I Coastal Research Division, Geology Naval Weather Service Environmental Department, University of South Carolina? Detachment, Station Climatic Summary, Beach Erosion Inventory for the South Beaufort, SC. 1957-1972. Asheville, Carolina Coast INC Neiheisel, James, 1959, Littoral Hayes Mils 0. t~al, Beah ErsionDrift in Vicinity of Charleston Harbor,I Inventory of Charleston County, South D iison.uroedngs of the WAmerwaysandabr Carolina: A Preliminary Report, South DvSio.Pocietyng of CiilEnieAers.a Carolina Sea Grant Technical ReportSoitofCvlEgnes No. 4. This preliminary report for Weather Bureau, U.S. Department ofI ChalesonCouty asreviewed by Commerce, Climatological Summary, George- the consultant. twS,12-94 A preliminary report for the remainder of the State will be released in early 1976. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 232 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review 4 Arthur D. Little, Inc., Analysis of 8 Bearden, Charles M. and Michael D. Environmental Impact of Port Development McKenzie, 1974, A Guide to Saltwater Sport in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, 1974. Fishing in South Carolina, S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, SC. Neiheisel, supra. 9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971, 6 Garden City Beach: Detailed Project Report Bumpus, Dean F. and Louis M. Lauzier, on Beach Erosion Control. 1965, Surface Circulation on the Continental Shelf Off Eastern North America Between Newfoundland and'Florida. Serial Atlas 10 of the Marine Environment, Folio 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971, National Shoreline Study, Regional Inventory Report, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, 7 Ga., at b5. For reference to Georgetown and Horry Counties, see Map. The Exhibits indicated refer to the charts in this section which compare environmental constraints with recrea- U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, 1970, tional suitability for each of the islands Survey Report on Navigation, Murrells Inlet, listed. Georgetown County, SC. Charleston, SC., at C-3. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 233 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Environmental Review Part Five 12 For reference to Charleston County, 18 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Survey see Map. Report on Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Study at Hunting Island Beach, South Carolina, 1963. 13 Hayes, supra. 19 Office of the Governor, Division of Administration, Beaufort County Land Use Talbert, 0. Rhett, Jr., 1975, The Atlantic Survey and Analysis, 1973, at 24. Loggerhead Caretta caretta caretta, on Kiawah Island, S.C. 20 Berg, Dennis W. and Morrison G. Essick, 15 1972, Case Study - Hunting Island Beach, S.C., Bearden, supra. In: Proceedings of Seminar on Planning and Engineering in the Coastal Zone. Coastal .Plains Center for Marine Development, Charles- ton, SC. 16 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study, supra, at b17. 21 Ibid. 17 For reference to Jasper, Beaufort, and Colleton Counties, see Map. HARTZOG, LADER &RICHARDS 234 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Five Environmental Review I22 Beaufort County Land Use Survey and 26 Ibid., at b21. Analysis, supra, at 24. 27 23 Ibid., at b21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Survey Report on Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Study at Hunting Island Beach, supra. 28 Ibid., at b21. 24 24 Beaufort County Land Use Survey and 29 Analysis , supra, at 24. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, 1970, South Carolina Tidelands Report, Columbia, SC. I25 National Shoreline Study, supra, at b20. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 235 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six Fiji~~~~~~~~~~~ ,XV~~~~~~~ HARTZOG. LADER & R~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ICHRS26PBI EC CES&RCETO NSUHCRLN Part Six Legal Aspects Legal Aspects Of Public Beach allocation and access devices which are less dependent on market factors. Access And Recreation This report purports to be neither a judicial nor a legislative brief. It simply examines, in the context of protecting public rights to the use of doctrines and precedents, current beaches has been recognized since Greco- udi Roman times. /1/ From this nation's trative attempts to increa se the public's earliest history, public recreation at acces s to coastal recreation. Review of access to coastal recreation. Review of the seashore has been encouraged as a their effectiveness and possible alter- matter of public policy. /2/ The nate approaches suggest specific appli- expanding demand for beach recreation, cations by South Carolina's State and however, exacerbates traditional con- flicts concerning ownership and use of coastal lands. The scholarly literature pertaining to this subject, and even most primary legal sources, are broad in scope. Thorough inquiry requires reference to a variety of issues. But this study focuses on one question: How can South Carolina expand its recreational oppor- tunities by ensuring the public's rights of access to its beaches? Traditionally, beaches, and access thereto, have been acquired by gift or condemnation. /3/ But escalating demands for coastal property have resulted in gyrating prices, gifts are less frequent, and condemnation or purchase is beyond the financial capabilities of public agencies. It is necessary, therefore, to explore PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 237 HARTZOG. LADER&RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Sixj Physical Boundaries And J uris~diction tidelands as an inherent attribute of its sovereignty. /6/ Today, these lands "Beaches" generally refers, in the aeete ntesaesonrhpo law, to areas which border the sea and ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~subject to a public trust for commerce, lare sbetor adjascwhic tore the sebb and navigation, and, in some jurisdictions, aresubec of dailyaies. For the purposes recreation. /7/ The United States flwof thily studesyFo the purollwnsesi ga Supreme Court established that theI ofthios suythae beeowng accepted- common law rule puts the tidelands tions have been accepted: boundary at the mean high tide line. /8/ But there are several state variations Ocean Waters from this principle. /9/ Current Georgia litigation seeks Mean low tide /4/ to determine ownership of that State's foreshore and tidal marshes. /10/ The controversy, centered on 13 acres of Foreshore beach, dunes, and accreted land at St.I Simon's Island, arose because of drastic changes in the shoreline during the past Mean high tide thirty years. As the beach advanced,I paths were extended to the ocean, and vegetation covered the accreted lands. Dry Sand Area By 1973, developers claimed the land and were issued a building permit to construct 200 condominium units and a Vegetation line /5/ recreation center there. The State of Georgia, relying in Uplands part on the public trust doctrine, con- tends that its right to ownership of theI beaches to the high water mark dates The "beach" consists of both the fore- back to the feudal system of land tenure. shoe ndthe dry sand area. Throughout Even subdivision development in 1911 most of this country, the public has ddntedpbi s ftebah property rights in the foreshore because Four different claims of ownership each state originally owned the ocean complicate the case, but the legalI HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 238 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Six Legal Aspects I ~~arguments are based on disputed State the purpose of sale, but to be constitutional and statutory provisions. held in trust f or public Since the Georgia Supreme Court is purposes. /15/ I ~~likely to base its decision on these, the conclusion of this controversy may Some commentators have contended that have little impact on South Carolina this statement is dicta and should not beaches. be read to prevent private parties from I. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~obtaining title to marshlands. /16/ But South Carolina's foreshore includes the State Attorney General has con- extensive lands. There are approximately sistently held that the statement is I ~~1,088,968 acres from the mean high tide part of the case's holding and precludes to the three-mile State ocean boundary. sale except by legislative act, /17/ /11/ in estuarine areas alone, i.e., where fresh water from the land meets The principal compromise position the salt water of the sea with a daily is that the State owns the tidelands in tidal flux, some 660,808 acres lie trust for the public and any grant landward from the mean low water mark. purporting to convey such land will be I ~~/12/ Thus, an area slightly less than strictly construed. /18/ in a defini- the size of Rhode island is twice daily tive report, the South Carolina Water uncovered by tidal waters to constitute, Resources Commission declared the I ~~with-the dry sand area and the uplands, State's prima facie claim of title in the State's remarkable beaches. its tidelands, which are "held in trust for and subject to the public purposes The ownership and legal status of and rights of navigation, commerce, South Carolina's tidelands, particularly fishing, bathing, recreation or enjoy- its marshes, has long been a subject of ment, and other public and useful academic scrutiny and public furor. /13/ purposes ."/19/ In its 1928 landmark decision in Cape Romain Land & Improvement Co v. Georgia- South Carolina has title to all Caroli-na Canning Co., /14/ thevState's lands below the mean high tide mark out Supreme Court remarked that to the three-mile jurisdictional limit, The only exception is when there can be (t)he title to land below high- proved a clear, unbroken title emanating water marks on tidal navigable from a grant by the King of England, one I ~~~streams,under the well-settled of the Eight Lords Proprietors, or the rule, is in the State, not for State Legislature. Hence, the courts PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 239 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part SixI have'fioi_ fully resolved the Second, many beaches are isolated, State's title to all beaches. Generally being inaccessible, de facto private the State allows alteration of its beaches, by natural barriers, or uplands public lands in certain instances, but access restrictions imposed by private not the filling of marsh which would owners. In this way, coastal subdivi- alienate the tidelands and effectively sions and property owners can virtually create private lands from the publicmopliebahsmnfstdn domain. "Private Beach, No Trespassing" signs. /21/ The exact location of the highI water mark frequently is a matter of Public rights to the foreshore controversy. Surveyors rely on tidal notwithstanding, citizens ordinarily are benchmarks as the base for their mea- not entitled to traverse privately owned surements, but South Carolina does not lands bordering the sea. /22/ This rule have enough of these concrete posts to was early recognized in South Carolina, gauge accurately the demarcation line. when a landing on a navigable river was When the line between benchmarks must be found not to be public since there wasI interpolated., inaccuracies can include no access thereto by' a public road. /23/ hundreds of acres. In response to these Evidence that a road had been used by problems, the Water Resources Commission, the public by more than twenty years,I with the assistance of the Coastal Zone the South Carolina period of prescrip- Planning and Management Council, is tion, was found insufficient to estab- placing additional benchmarks. lish a prescriptive right in the public since such use would be presumed to beI Even unchallenged recognition of with the landowner's permission. /24/ the public's rights in the tidelands does not alleviate the nation's critical A recent case had upheld this3 beach recreation problems. With the principle. /25/ For more than fifty dry-sand portion of the beach and the years, a recreation area near a river- uplands subject to private control, bank had been used for swimming, fishing, public enjoyment of the beaches is and picnicking with and without the seriously threatened in two ways. owner's permission. Both the recreation First, private littoral owners /20/ area and an access road leading from it often restrict use of the dry-sand area, to the public highway were owned by the and only on the foreshore can the public defendant, who sought to deny such use. sunbathe, picnic, and spread towels. The Court held that the public had not. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 240 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAI * ~~Part Six Legal Aspects 3 ~~acquired a Prescriptive right. Nor was TeCmo a rdto the landowner's intent to dedicate a TeCmo a rdto second road to public use established by proof that the county had cut the road Throughout the centuries, there has I ~~at his request and with his assistance, developed a doctrinal core of rights since such county aid to private citizens pertaining to public beach access. was customary. /26/ Lawmakers, nevertheles's, have re-defined allegedly "immutable" rules of property This report, therefore, addresses law to accon-modate contemporary social the two issues central to public rights needs. Often courts fashion the initial I ~~in the seashore: (1) what are the institutional response to social pro- nature and extent of public rights in blemns only to frame political and legal both the foreshore and dry-sand area, theories for subsequent legislative whether derived from state ownership or action. To understand the inherited I ~~protected by public trusteeship, and (2) legal tradition, to evaluate current how can public access to beaches be practices, and to recommend alterna- ensured in light of private ownership of tives, a historical analysis of I ~~the uplands? alternative legal doctrines is first required. I ~~~~~~~~~~~~The Inherited Tradition The concept of public rights in the shore was established in Greek and Roman law. /27/ Roman jurisprudence -- developed in a commercial, urbanized I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~society, with a conspicuous heritage from the sea-dependent Greeks -- held that, by " natural law,"1 the "1ai r, I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~running water, the sea, and consequently the seashore" were "common to all". /28/ PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 241 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six Ownership of the beach was thought to be In part a reaction to the king's in the arms of the adjoining land . . . proliferating private landholdings, the Magna Charta signalled a shift back in in the owner of the adjoining the direction of public rights in the land . . . (But) the public seashore. Yet it was only grains of use of the seashore, as of public interest protection which per- the sea itself, is part of mitted the document to be a source of the law of nations . . . . adaptation for the law of the foreshore. (Consequently, the beach) cannot be said to belong toI With the commercial and industrial anyone as private property, revolutions, unrestricted access to the but rather are subject to the same law as the sea foreshore and riverbanks were necessary itself, with the sail or for shipping and fishing. The courts, sand which lies beneath while not entirely abandoning the Roman it! /29/ conception of common ownership, spoke in terms of particular guaranteed public Thus, the Mediterranean's shores were rights. Although this "easement" common to all citizens. Subsequent approach presumed private ownership, its commentators draw extensively from this flexibility saved the state the great foundation. /30/ expense of acquisition and the political hazards of re-claiming private coastal With the Roman Empire's decline, property, including the king's. More- public ownership of tidal areas gen- over, by the gradual expansion of erally was usurped by feudal lords. In existing easements and addition of new the Dark Ages, the English King's ones, the law could effectively expro- sovereign claim to the beach became priate the beaches. /33/ confused with his personal private property claim. /31/ By 1066, the The idea that the foreshore had absolute ownership of all English lands been omitted from the scope of royal was vested in the Crown. Saxon grants, coastal grants was first advanced in the extended by the Norman kings, vested 1560's and was judicially accepted in most of the English foreshore in partic- 1632. /34/ This retained royal title, ular subjects or in the Crown. /32/ HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 242 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects the jus privatum or king's personal American Application right, originally encompassed complete ownership of the foreshore. But politi- This seeming re-emergence of the cal pressure forced the Crown to stipu- late that its title was held for public le an to tiglts was applied at least to tidelands was a significant purposes, thereby transforming the jus purposesinto thereby transformn thinfluence on property law in the United privatum into the jus publicum, or public right. /35/_ States. Since the King's title to lands discovered in America was limited by seventeenth century English common law, The Crown's interest evolved to be the foreshore was thought to be not his I ~~perceived as the-people's. This theory piaepoetbta adi rs was ratified, in response to economic prite protecty, bl ic ust and political pressures, during the and pliticl presures durig thefor the protection of public uses. /38/ Elizabethan era. Lawyers successfully With the American Revolution, this asserted in foreshore disputes that there was to be a presumption that title proprietorship of both the personal and was vested in the Crown for the people's representative portions of the royal benefit: title passed from Parliament to the citizens of each state. This position, Maximum benefits are not the basis for the "public trust" theory, obtained from a resource is not far removed in theory from the unless (1) conflicting concept of Roman common ownership. claims are given priorities that accurately reflect their Despite the influence of the Roman I relative importance and model, commercial development after the (2) provision is made for Dark Ages made untenable the pure concept of common ownership of tidal multipless pressing clas eent resources. Laissez-faire theorists beallowedithout sessressigla creplaced the concept of public trustees damgin allowed higho eriosl with the interplay of the "invisible Hand", private owners, and easements./39/ priority uses. /36/ By the Glorious Revolution, Parliament had assumed the trusteeship. /37/ PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 243 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six Each American state originally The Public Trust Doctrine- held complete legal and equitable title in the foreshore as a representativeA oegnrlzdvsinfthI right (jus publicum). Portions of that A u moreicueeralizedeverblic truth complete ownership for which public jsprincipe , holds thasoe pubirusety purposs wer deemd unneessar wererights in certain lands can never be transferred to the Jus privatum as aintdfo h eea ulc h sinregrigtel realienabed sta igte.Cnu doctrine is supported by several ra- sinterestandin the getanera pulcstwate tionales with a common theme: propertyI inteevitandtegnrlpble.sa rights in certain natural resources inevitable. ~~~~~~~essential to society must be vested in The principle of public interest the general public. /41/ Its pastI in the tidelands was derived, however, applications illustrate the doctrine's from he sustanial dmandfor acessresponsiveness to public pressures. from the subsantrishin deand for accessU Athoug the seCommnra dfishngesn crpublc Its historical growth suggests two Although therm Commo precedefnes pblicpo alternative lines of development for the righ in ermsof pecednts aseduponpublic trust doctrine: trusteeship of a past uses and demands, the principle wide range of rights (an expanded ease-I itself requires adaptation in accordance mn hoy rtutehpi h with changing views of the general publi itrs(thecommon orwnuseeship i h welfare. Upon this basis, alternative modelic ineesothe comnoweversev hip common law theories can be employed to m odsel) Both, theuyofwevern lav e th litigate publi beach rights.variables to accomplish and maximize the trust's intent. Judicial intervention would be appropriate when the state, asI active trustee, fails to maximize the beneficiaries', the public's, interests. Citizens and their lawmakers are themselves subject to these trust restrictions. In its most decisive public trust decision, Illinois v. Illinois Central Railroad, /42/ the HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 244 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part SixLeaAsct United States Supreme Court articulated defined in trust terms, the doctrine has broad constraints imposed by the trust: been applied in a quasi-cost/benefit manner. In fact, there is a significant I ~~~~The State can no more correlation between (1) the supply and abdicate its trust over demand of recreational beaches and (2) property in which the the legal rights of public access. /45/ whole people are interested, I ~~~~like navigable waters and Why, then, in view of the unpre- soils under them, so as to cedented demand for coastal recreation, leave them entirely under does the public trust doctrine not I ~~~~the use and control of provide a sufficient mechanism for private parties, except in esrn ulcacs obahs the instance of parcels esrn ulcacs obahs can be disposed of without The answer is part historical, ipintrment of that publics economic, and political. /46/ Before interest in hat remainsthe reversion to the concept of sovereign then it can abdicate its trust in the thirteenth century, the U ~~~~police powers in the Crown had already granted private titles administration of govern- to much of England's coastal lands. ment and the preservation Anglo-American property law, never fully of peace. /43/ embracing the Roman common ownership Thus thestats, ad thir curts areconcept, therefore, cast the public indviuall thestatesiadltei fourts are f ng interest in the foreshore as a dominant thedextentloy reponsblic frightsining u s public easement. The economic forces of thproereties, ofsublch aihs thidlnds Ands the private real, estate market, reacting poethes state as trusteidelands.t onl y t to intensified competition for coastal imroe state, pstusteeca rigt. only4t recreation sites, have ignored public improvethe pubic righ. /44/recreation needs. Furthermore, coastal The pblictrus litratue idnti-municipalities often subordinate regional fies the protected interests as those or general public interests to local 1 ~~which were socially or politically planning and political pressures. important at the time legal protection Bcueteoiia rnswr was extended to public uses. Although made to the different colonies, the particular interests', such as fishing Illinois Central decision indicated that and navigation, have been specificallythtilishednertfote PUBIC EAH ACES &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 24iHARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six people of the State". /47/ But numerous Until recently, purely environ-I constitutional arguments may persuasively mental and recreational considerations extend the interests generally, to all had never been embraced by the public United States citizens. /48/ trust doctrine because the scope of the police power, delineating the "general if a state's lands, having been welfare," was not adequate to do so. passed directly from the king, are held /53/ At its inception, the states' as jus privatum, then interests in them police power was thought to be properly are con~strai~ned by traditional limits on concerned only with "the public peace, the Crown. On the other hand, if the safety, morals, and health". Today, the state holds them as representative of concept of the "general welfare" the citizens, then all actions must be justified both in terms of the state's is broad and inclusive .I citizens general welfare and the nation- The values it represents are al populace's "easement" interests. /49/ spiritual as well as physical, Thus,-both the state and affected aesthetic as well as monetary. citizens can assert public rights under It is within the power of theI this theory. legislature to determine that the community should With the emergence of environmental be beautiful as well as clean,I l~aw, the public trust has been employed well-balanced as well as 'in the protection of public parks. /50/ carefully patrolled. /54/ Three clear limitations have been placed on the authority of government as The potential scope of permissible uses trustee: (1) the property cannot be under the public trust doctrine is sold; (2) the property must be main- therefore limited solely by the scope of tained for particular types of public contemporary perceptions of the general uses impressed with the trust; and (3) welfare. the property must be available for' general public use. /51/' The minimumI limitation on the state's power of regulation should, therefore, be that it must keep its trust lands available to the general public. /52/ HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 246 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Six Legal Aspects I ~~Custom To be enforceable, the custom must be (1) "#ancient," (2).reasonable and Other traditional common law peaceable, (3) exercised without concepts have been recently employed by interruption, (4) of certain boundaries, state courts to respond to the erosion and (5) obligatory and not inconsistent of public recreational opportunities in with other customs or laws. /58/ Long the nation's shoreline. Several ap- ignored in this country, a recent beach proaches have significant potential for access case breathed life in this preserving existing beach uses and doctrine. /59/ designating new public accessways. /55/ The Oregon Supreme Court, in State "Custom" -- originated in medieval ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, /60/ preserved English feudal villages where inhabi- t-hat -state's dry-sand beaches for public tants enjoyed land rights long before recreation with a new application of the evolution of recording systems -- is this theory. The State sought to enjoin founded on the belief that century-old the defendant motel owners from creating uses must be founded on legal rights a private beach by constructing fences conferred in the past and should be and making improvements in the dry-sand recognized even though never formally area to which they had title. recorded. To be enforced, the custom I ~~had to have existed so long that "the memory of man runneth not to the The Supreme Court, affirming contrary". /56/ a lower court's decision, found * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~that throughout the State's A custom is defined as a history, the beach-had been usage or practice of the enjoyed by the public under claim of people which, by common right as an adjunct of the tidelands. I ~ ~~adoption and acquiescence, It held, selecting this theory rather any by long and unvarying than other specifically addressed common habit, has become compulsory, law doctrines, that this usage amounted I ~~~and has acquired the force to a valid custom which established of law with respect to the public recreational rights in the beach place'or subject-matter to regardless of the title of record held which it relates.,57 by private landowners. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 247 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six3 The Court asserted that a public that an entire state's beaches belong to use is sufficiently immemorial if it can the public. It promises most help when-,- be traced to the beginning of an area's as in Thornton, littoral owners have political history. /61/ But the deci- been u-naware of their title in the sins scope may be read in different beaches and the state can demonstrate ways: either as a binding declaration long public enjoyment of the site. of the rights of all littoral owners orI as applying only to the litigated beach area. Since no evidence of other beach Prescription property was offered, the Court couldI have found a statewide custom only by judicial notice. if read broadly, Prescription has supplanted custom consequently, the holding may violate to be the principal legal theory govern-I fundamental due process principles ing the creation of public easements in because it declares ex parte a new privately-owned lands. When the public public right absent supporting evidence acquires such an easement, title to the and without giving interested property land remains in the owner, but use ofI owners a chance to be heard. /62/ the land for-recreational purposes must now be shared with the public. Under The narrow interpretation, free of this doctrine, such an easement can beI these constitutional and evidentiary created through open, continuous, and difficulties, allows that the doctrine adverse use of the land without the applies to individual beaches only if owner's permission. /63/ the state can prove long public beachI usage in addition to the other elements Prescriptive rights are acquired of a valid custom. Complex litigation is a practical prerequisite, therefore, only by actual, continuous,I to the opening of many beaches to the uninterrupted use by the public, under this theory. claimant of the lands of another, for a prescribed Custom -- applied with the narrow, period. //64/ In addition, more tenable interpretation -- essen- -the use must be adverse-under tially permits the state to claim an the claim of right and must easement by public use on particular either be with the knowledge access ways. It cannot, by single of the owner or so open, claim, serve as the basis for declaring notorious and visible that HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 248 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAI Part SixLeaAsct * ~~~~knowledge of the use by and The doctrine was also discussed, adverse claim of the claim- although not relied upon, in the Oregon ant is imputed to the Thornton decision. The Court acknow- owner . . The use or ledged that actions in ejectment or possession must be consis- trespass cannot be brought to determine tent with the owner's use beach rights, but noted that public and must not be a permissive exclusion is possible, a requisite of use, for the use must be such prescription, by posting and fencing that the owner has a right lands. to legal action to stop it, such as an action for trespass A Florida Court, in City of Daytona or ejectment. /65/ Beach v. Tony-Rama, Inc. /69/ applied th-eprescription theory to bar grants of Uses not meeting these criteria are a building permit to the defendant to I ~~generally characterized as permissive construct an observation tower on the uses pursuant to an express or implied dry-sand area adjacent to the recrea- license. tional pier it operated on beach it owned. The Court found all the theory's in Seaway Co. v. Attorney General, prerequisites and ruled that, for the /166/ 'the Texas Supreme Court relied on general welfare, the city could exercise * ~~this prescription theory to establish supervisory jurisdiction over the area * ~~public access to the beach. Prior to and construct needed facilities not this decision, fee ownership of the dry- inconsistent with the public easement. * ~~sand beach was generally in private * ~~ownership. /67/ Seaway Company owned a There are several problems in portion of the Galveston Island beach applying prescription to meet the and, as a common practice there., erected demand for beach access. it is ques- barriers to exclude the public from the tionable, Seaway notwithstanding, I ~~uplands below the vegetation line. The whether the common law recognizes Court, ruling against the Company, found prescription by the public, apart from that the public had cniusluedthe exception of public highways, as I ~~the beach throughout cotheoul reuisiedtn distinguished from the prescription of year statutory period and that adverse private easements. use for access to the water and recrea- Scnlarceto ae I ~~tional purposes had been established.- /68/ Secndl, aprecluigrteraitefriong ease- PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 249 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six of the land, could unfairly fix the To establish common law implied land's uses forever. Finally, the dedication, declaration of. public prescription in certain beaches could result in the (n)o formalities are necessary; closing of other privately-owned beaches conduct showing an intent by the to the public. /70/ owner to dedicate land and anI acceptance by the public completes the dedication. Both Dedication intent to dedicate and accept- ance may be implied from public use and thus of his intent to Dedication,'like prescription, donate the land. The public use refers to rights in particular land itself may be taken as evidenceI parcels, but relates only to public of acceptance. uses. /71/ To be enforceable, the theory depends on both the owner' s once the implicit offer intention to offer specific land or has been accepted, the ownerI interests therein and acceptance by the cannot revoke his dedication. public, and both can be either expressed The public cannot lose its or implied. rights through non-use or adverse possession. The public Its most common context is roadway normally takes only an ease - easements, but dedication of recreation ment by implied dedication,I lands has been implied when owners made with the owner retaining the appropriate references on recorded underlying fee; a few courts, subdivision maps or advertisements. however, have found dedication Because of the doctrine's controversial of a fee simple title in application to California's beaches, circumstances indicating an implied dedication merits close intent to give such a title. /73/ scrutiny. /72/I Until the 1960's, courts, refusing to find these requisites in beach access cases, held that long, unobstructedI public use of beaches, like forests and prairies, was presumed to be under a revocable license from the owner. /74/ HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 250, PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &RECREATVION IN SOUTH CAROUNA * ~Part Six Legal Aspects In 1964, the Texas Court in the occasional posting of "Private Seaway /75/ first applied the dedica- Property" signs, which were quickly torn tion doctrine to beaches. By relying on or blown away, but nobody was ever asked the same evidence of adverse use that to leave and when requested, permission established a prescriptive easement, the to use the access way was never denied. ~Court found an intent to dedicate, but Since 1900 the city had maintained the it did not discuss the suitability of land to improve parking conditions. The I ~~roadway precedents to beaches. /76/ owner brought a quiet-title action to It ws let tothe rego Cout indetermine his right to develop the land. I ~~Thornton /77/ to reject the open-lands Dietz brought a class suit on limitations of earlier cases. Citing bhl ftepbi oeji h Seaway, the Court held that undisturbed private property oiwner, King, from public enjoyment of the beach for more blocking public use of a beach-access I ~~than sixty years had established an dirt road, which crossed King's land. implied dedication of a recreational The road and the sandy beach had been easement. Substantial recreational use used by the public "for at least 100 I ~~distinguished beaches from open lands. years". /80/ Prior owners' efforts to /78/ ~~~~~~~~~~collect tolls were sporadic and inef- fectual. The most important application of I ~ ~implied dedication to beach access is in both cases, the Court held that found in the California Supreme Court's there had been an implied dedication of single opinion in two similar beach an easement for recreational purposes access cases, Gion v. City of Santa Cruz because the public had used the land for and Dietz v. King. /79/ Their signifi- more than five years. Since adverse use cance warrant close study of their was well established in both cases, the * ~~facts. Court looked not to the interest and activities of the owner, but to those of Gion owned an irregular strip of the public. The distinction between an unimproved land, between the ocean and a easement acquired by implied dedication I ~~city street, which had been used pri- and one acquired by prescription was marly s aparking area by citizens who made academic. Thus, in California, the proceeded to the water to swim or fish. burden of proof is on the landowner to The only objections from the owners was PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 251 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six overcome a prima facie showing that the Jus Publicum public has established a right to the use of the shoreline. /81/ The public trust and the jus Dedication has also been used to publicum doctrines may be distin-guished for specific application to municipally enforce public rights against particular owned beaches. In Borough of Neptune claims by local residents. In Gerietz City v. Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea, /84/ v. City of Long Beach, /82/ the New the New Jersey Supreme Court held that York court invalidated an ordinance the jus publicum makes impermissible not which restricted to local residents the only the closing of access to the fore- use of a municipally-owned beach which shore to nonresidents, but also the had been enjoyed by the public at-large charging of different fees to residents for some thirty years. Such use, in the and non-residents for use of the beach. court's opinion, created a complete /85/ dedication of the park to general public use: the offer was comprised of the city's supervision, maintenance, and In Avon-by-the-Sea the dry-sand collection of admission fees; and the area of the beach had concededly been long, public use constituted the accep dedicated to the public, but the court found that the jus publicum must include the rights of bathing and recreation. Thus, municipalities "may not discrimi- city dedicated the property, it sub- nate in any respect between their jected itself to a public trust for the residents and non-residents". /86/ benefit of the general public, so that the land could not be diverted to other uses or sold without express legislative The New Jersey case significantly authority. Dedication, therefore, is an characterized public beaches, like park important theory in cases concerning lands, governed by the public trust in public beach land since rights in public assuring equal access to all citizens, land may not typically be acquired by regardless of residency, at least where prescriptive use. /83/ the uplands are owned by a political subdivision of the state and is used for not inconsistent with public access. But, HARTZOG, LADER &RICHARDS 252 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects the effect of the jus publicurn is unclear when the uplands are privately owned or used by the municipality for purposes inconsistent with public usage. /87/ The aforementioned beach access Avon-by-the-Sea held that, by cases and historical background provide virtue of the jus publicum the foreshore traditional concepts to meet the chal- lediinge cofncreptseddmn tor beattechal must be equally accessible to all. lenge of increased demand for beach Rights in the foreshore, though, are recreation. These approaches have meaningless unless access on the dry- considerable potential in public beach sand area is provided. In that case, it rights litigation, but they pose no was not necessary to expand the theory complete resolution of the problem. to prevent full recreational use of the dry-sand area because it had already The right of public access to been dedicated by the municipality. In beaches under Common Law is clouded. the case of some private lands, this may But, collectively and individually, they be accomplished through use of the Gion- offer little broad assistance to South Dietz dedication theory. Carolina advocates of expanded public beach access. The cited cases share certain important elements: (1) They recognize access to beaches as an essential public right; (2) They acknowledge the special character of beaches as recreation lands and the public interest therein; and (3) They all rest, in one fashion or another, on public use and expectations PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 253 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part SixU which asired ino a rigt stateCustom has rarely been applied by whic aspiedsst andgh ustae. courts and offers the possibility to access and use. ~~of broad application only in later- Ad hoc adjudication, nevertheless, does settled, non-urbanized states in which no0t7-constitute effective resource the coastline is primarily open land. planning. In addition, .most of the /89/ Since custom must be proved inI rulings, their geographic application, fact, it is unlikely, except with regard and their doctrinal parameters are to particular parcels of land, that the unclear, and each has particular short- doctrine has potential significance in comings. South Carolina, where the coast has been long-settled and greatly used for .The public trust and jus publicurn commercial purposes. /90/3 concepts, to be effectively applied to Smlry ohpecito n beach access cases, need development Seimailnapply, bonyth sprescription sites further than the dicta in the New Jersey d ediction permits algeneralizediapproach case and scholarly treatises. /88/ Nithrprisagnrlzdapoc Moreover, restricted municipal beaches to satisfying the demand for beach are not the problem in South Carolina. access. Although these doctrines may be Neither do its courts enjoy the benefit peiul usedfopublic thecrecaationo ece of a beach access statute, as did those theyiofferlitl asmean for epubi erandiong in Texas and Oregon, which reflect p u b ffrlictleac aces mandse oportexpndities legislative approval of the expansion of pbi ec cesadueopruiis traditional legal concepts. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 254 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Six Legal Aspects Beach Acquisition Courts have long held that parks and other recreational facilities are legitimate objectives of public land Since the private market has not u se /93/ provided adequate public access to South Carolina's beaches, there is need There is neither a statute nor a for collective, ailocative decision- judicial decision in South Carolina making by private interests and -~which expressly authorizes the con- government. Public agencies at the demnation of access roads to public local, State, regional, and Federal waters. The State Development Board, levels can induce, compel, or otherwise which has the power of eminent domain, influence landuse determinations which /94/ is empowered to "establish parks can expand the State's coastal recrea- or playgrounds for the use, benefit, tion opportunities. recreation and amusement of the-people of this State . . . with all necessary Public beaches, their ecological or proper opportunities, roadways, lakes vulnerability notwithstanding, have . which it may .. . deem desirable bendealt with as parks. The appli- /95/ and to acquire by purchase, gift., cable law, therefore, is that which has condemnation or in any other matter been formulated in open space andla d ,wtr,.igsofay recreation planning. Principally easmndwtes, . or an rights poperty, through acquisition and exercise of the o fasmnys kin . as necessay othr usoeful police power, public agencies have in carrying out any of its powers". /96/ ~~alctdcatlrsurc s But like the Federal Constitution, the Acquisition -- the securing by a South Carolina Constitution provides public agency, for compensation, of the that "private property shall not be fee simple interest /91/ or an easementtaefoprveuswihtte U ~~through purchase or condemnation -- is consent of the owner, nor for public use the ost irec appoachto te exan-without just compensation being first the ost irec app oach to t e ex an-made therefor"'. /97/ sion of public beach facilities. There I ~~is no question that the Federal govern- Direct Federal acquisition has ment, the states, and authorized resulted in coastal national parks /98/ municipalities can constitutionally and National Seashores. /99/ The bas�c purchase or condemn land for faueo ainlsahr eilto recreational purposes. /92/ faueo ainlsahr eilto PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 255 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six3 is the federal government's acquisition makes the entire area more attractive, of large tracts of beach and open land but the construction generated by which thereafter are kept open, subject - increased tourism is forced-into a to minimum development to accommodate greatly reduced land area. The in- I tourists. /100/ creased need for municipal services results in higher taxes on unrestricted At Cape Cod, for example, Congress land, and resident homeowners bear theseI attempted to preserve, through zoning hrsis and eminent domain, the historic charac- hrsis ter of town centers. The Secretary of Two conflicting voices in opposi- the interior is directed to issue tion would come from the private sector. standards for his approval of municipal Those coastal residents and developers zoning regulations. He may not there- who have enjoyed the'economic benefits after acquire by condemnation, without a of the demand for beach recreationI variance, any property covered by an opportunities would oppose any action approved regulation. /101/ which might undermine potential con- struction. Others would oppose the This technique, called "encouraged flood of tourists, perhaps greater to a zoning," leaves the zoning power to the National Seashore than to private'and states. A local advisory commission municipal beaches, that would tax the must be consulted by the Secretary service capacities of the local com- before he can issue any permits for munities. commercial use or establish any public recreation areas within the Seashore. Another federal acquisitionI program is within the jurisdiction of objections to the National Sea- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shore approach are several. -The most Department of interior. obvious is expense: even the Federal Although some recreational facilities government cannot afford to purchase are occasionally included on these large areas of semi-developed and lands, they generally do no contribute commercially valuable South Carolina to the available supply of publicI shoreline. beaches. Also, Interior, under the Surplus Property Program, is authorized Economic tension is inevitable to turn over surplus federal real estateI under this mechanism. Open spade to localities for recreational purposes preservation and expanded public beaches at minimal or no cost. /102/ HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 256 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects Federal Assistance Federal Assistance The Open-Space program, serving Congress has also provided for both recreation and other purposes, Cogrants to states, countiesandcities authorizes matching grants of up to grants to states, counties, and citiesfftpecntosasadlcl for the acquisition of recreational govercent to tes and lands. /103/ The most important oflitedvlomnofaogohr lands./103/ he mos imporant ofgovernments for the acquisition and theseare te Lad andWate Consrva-limited development of, among other thes arethe and nd Wter onseva-things, parks. Projects must be urban tion Fund, managed by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, /104/ and the Open in character, and priority is given to Space Land Program, administered by the those which are especially accessible to Department of Housing and Urban D evel- minority low-income and moderate-income Department of H uigand Urban Devel-cizes/1/ opment. /105/ opment. /105/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~citizens. /107/ The Fund is financed through Particularly in the densely revenues from user fees at federal populated Charleston area, the HUD .outdoor recreational areas, sale of program may offer some potential for surplus federal property, the federal federal assistance in acquiring beaches motorboaand off-shore oil and accessways. The availability of motorboat fuel tax, ~~suitable land, however, is a prere- and gas leases. These funds can be supplemented by Congressional appro- quisite that may be difficult to meet priations. To qualify for grants, a because of the effect of HUD priorities as to location and the fact that not all state must have theorea'slateronlads ar suitable hens ive outdoor recreation plan, as hensie outoor rcreaton pln, asthe area's waterfront lands are suitable South Carolina has done, and the project for beach use. must be consistent with the plan, as beach acess acqusitions ould be.Unfortunately, the program's level of funding, lower than the Land and /106/ Water Conservation Fund's, and competing BOR cannot fund merely parking non-recreational projects make this a facilities or similar recreation support difficult approach to beach acquisition. items. The State or local community Less-than-fee simple acquisition under can receive funds, however, as part of the program,- nevertheless, merits a park project and use them for comfort exploration. stations or the like. The only current BOR-funded State park project is Under the Federal Surplus Property Hunting Island. Act, /108/ the General Sources Adminis- PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 257 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Legcal Aspects Part Six traionis authorized to. dispose of The program's goods include research and. excess or "surplus"' government property. education, inventory and preservation of The responsible agency must first sites, and promotion of conservation and determine that the property is no longer recreation consistent with their natural necessary to its program. other Federal faue.Isaqiiin r rmr -agencies are then informed of the land's lyforathpurpoes. Its acquservtions are pimr availability and may apply to GSA forprtcinadmsbenpreuty it. State-and local governments usually U efesaepermitecinad, bust the inperpetuity are not informed of these proceedings. is essentially a conservation trust.I But such property is available to state For that reason, and for its reliance on and local governments for public park - external funding or donations, it offers and recreation purposes. Application little relief to the State's public for the Folly island Coast Guard Station, beach access and recreation problems.I ,should its present use be discontinued, Whatever access measures are adopted, would be appropriate. however, should be coordinated with this program insofar as their site-specificI objectives are consistent. State Programs Some states have authorized municipal conservation commissions. /110/ These designate, request, and States have, in recent years, spend the municipal government's-~funds, initiated noteworthy large-scale pro- in coordination with the state and1 grams, including acquisition and grants- Federal agencies, for resource planning in-aid to local government. /109/- Bond and acquisition of open space and issues have been the mechanism for rceto adicuigbahs generating revenues; and with matching grants, local governments have multi- plied every dollar they have committed by three or four state and federalI dollars. ~~~~~~~~~~~~Acquistion Potential South Carolina's Heritage Trust Program provides for the dedication and Inter-governmental funding of management of areas with outstanding acquisition of public beaches and natural and cultural characteristics. accessways promises a realistic oppor- HARTZOG. LADER & FRICHARDS 258 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects tunity for expansion of coastal recrea- tion opportunities. South Carolina's completion of most of the program's planning prerequisites makes this approach promising, despite the limited ihyrare easemess plar funds available relative to public iprac oabahacs lh funds available relative to public First, the responsible State or local agency has no need to own the entire fee To avoid price escalations in the if its objective is solely to guarantee typically long delay between enactment public access to the beach at market- of a park activity and its execution, responsive intervals. In today's authorization and acquisition should be economy, acquisition becomes most simultaneous by use of a legislative feasible only when the public agency is taking.sa drastic procedure to required to acquire and manage only some, the legislative taking is best suited for halting speculation and accomplish its objective. Furthermore, further, accelerated development. This to be most consistent with South can be avoided by the government's Carolina's philosophical emphasis on taking title to all land upon authori- private property ownership, a beach zation, payment bearing interest to access plan must leave intact much of follow. /111/ the present private land tenure along the coast and disturb as few of those Federal acquisition measures have owners' rights as possible. /114/ been proposed for the nation's- undevel- oped islands, but they do not directly address the problem most acute in South Carolina: conservation and preservation Advantagesand Hazards in areas which are already partially developed. /112/ Less-than-fee tech- Easements are merely one way to niques are necessary if governmental separate the beach access component from acquisition costs are to be kept favora- residual rights. A private or public ble and local economies kept intact. agency could, for example, acquire the /113/ whole fee from an owner of beachfront property and transfer it back subject to a "restrictive covenant" that the owner will not interfere with public passage PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 259 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part six over his, land to the beach. But disputes Natchez Trace Parkways. /1181/ Historic about enforcement and future application Charleston Foundation has been among the are inevitable under this, and other, many private organizations which have related approaches. Thus, easements are pursued active easement programs through the most well-established non-zoning gifts, purchase, and transfer of options. means of accomplishing the desired objective. The theoretical advantages ofI easements, whatever their objective, Apart from its comprehensive have not always been borne out by application, there is little that is experience. Not always are they signifi- known about this approach. As long ago cantly. less expensive than the entire as 1893, the Boston Metropolitan Park fee, nor do they necessarily impose Commission was authorized to acquire insignificant management responsi-I such rights for park purposes. /115/ bilities on the holder. Programs have been initiated to preserve land through easements acquired by both If public beach access through a public agencies and private organiza- recreational subdivision requires the tions. /116/ An important model fordelor/wrtosrnerhecm innovtive asemets i the uthorzingmunity's existing character and long- legislation for the British National enjoyed resident rights, then a very Trust. /117/ large percentage of the rights in "the bundle" have been affected, and the cost Since this study treats "access" of such an easement may approximate theI as more than mere overland passage, it value of the entire fee. Also, it is must be noted that "scenic easements" nearly impossible to predict the have been recognized as offering more specific local tax consequences of durable benefits than conventional acquiring beach access easements in aI zoning. They were acquired in California coastal community. upon the advocacy of Frederick Law Olmsted, the pre-eminent recreation There is an acute awareness in theI planner whose work included New York's state legislatures of the usefulness of Central Park. less-than-fee controls for conservation and public access purposes. Although Since the 1930's, the National many states have authorized acquisition Park Service has acquired easements for programs, few have addressed the scenic purposes along the Blue Ridge and HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 260 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects pertinent common law imeietsuch Conservation Easements as assignability and enforcement. Tax benefits may create induce- An increasingly important legal 3~~~,insfrte outr oaino device in conservation and recreation beachacces easment. Thee inludeprograms are conservation easements. beachacces easment. Thee inludeEssentially, these constitute limita- deductions by the property owner against tions which a property owner places on I ~~his taxable income if the donation is teue owihh a u i made while he is alive or from his proeruesty. whchhey may rang frisom estate's value if it is made in his poet.Te a ag rmcm will. prehensive restrictions requiring that the property be left as a wilderness to There may also be an opportunity those which permit certain forms of to reduce the local property tax. But development and recreation. The grantor special rules regarding partial *of such a restriction may receive federal I ~~interests in the Tax Reform Act of 1969 tax benefits and be eligible for a may not alter universal deductions. reduction in the assessed value of the I ~~Whether such a South Carolina donation property. /119/ qualifies under the Act as an "undivided interest" where the easement is in Because such easements have been -perpetuity is one of several questions specifically authorized by the South requiring opinion of tax counsel. Carolina legislature, they merit close scrutiny. Under the statute, conserva- To assume that an easement acqui- tion easements, as other interests in I ~~sition program would be relatively simple is land, may be acquired by any govern- entirely inaccurate. All the normal : mental body or The Nature Conservancy step invlvedin lnd aquistionareand are enforceable. They may be stprsent.vGivedn lh andoe acquisistion a ecreated by a will, deed, or other preselnt. acqisitin, the maproweramiisi written instrument and may be stated in might best be accomplished by contract. c oeathe form ofndrstiction. aeet But in any case, the program would becoeatoronio. costly and by no means self-executing. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 261 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legcal Aspects Part Six An appurtenant easement is an But courts have implemented the interest in land which one landowner has policy in other ways: by holding that a in adjoining property belonging to purchaser of the restricted land with another. it may consist of the privi- knowledge of the easement, which may be .lege of doing a certain act on the provided simply by recording, takes other's land -- an affirmative easement --title subject to the easement rights of or a right against the other that he the original grantee, /122/ or byI refrain from doing something on the land finding that an easement is appurtenant that otherwise would be his right -- a rather than in gross. /123/ Courts have negative easement. The easement is said generally held that such easements mayI to "run with the land," meaning suc- be assignable by the terms of the grant. ceeding owners are accordingly entitled /124/ to the benefits or subject to the restrictions. /120/ Conservation easements are notI necessarily categorized as negative. It The most common example of an may be argued that their restrictions appurtenant easement is a right-of-way are necessary to the affirmative purpose through another's land, an affirmative of conservation. This ground is easement. These less-than-fee acquisi- strengthened when the grant includes a tions offer one alternative to providing right of entry for protection of theI public access to the ocean where exces- natural habitat and for observation and sive land costs preclude public study. These cautions notwithstanding, acquisition of a beachfront tract. conservation easements, especially those granted pursuant to the statute, are If the easement is granted to a likely to be held enforceable and party who owns no adjacent land, it is assignable. termed "in gross." Thus, conservationI easements generally are negative and in A type of easement that has long gross. Although the legal relationship been recognized as an assignable is recognized, there is virtually no property right, even if in gross, is theI case law on negative easements in gross, right to take part of the soil or and restrictive covenants in gross are produce of land: a profit a pendre. not binding. /121/ Consequently, minerals, tiiiiber, and even. wild game hunting rights are severableI from the fee simple. /125/ HARTZOG. LADE-R & RICHARDS 262 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects The rights, privileges, and recreation versus the free alienability restrictions of a conservation easement of real estate. are in the nature of a profit a pendre. if the rights to cut timber an~d_ to hunt Donation of conservation or -- I ~~wildlife may be severed from the fee, it should the legislature sanction a re- follows that the right to conserve creational easement approach -- recrea- timber and wildlife may also be con- tion easements allows the property owner I ~~veyed. And if restrictive cov 'nants as to retain the beneficial, though quali- to use of the soil are implied in timber fied, use of his land while contributing deeds, which are generally in gross, the to the State's conservation and recrea- restrictions of a conservation easement tion efforts. When these easements are should similarly be enforceable. donated to a qualified charitable Recreation Easements? ~organization~ such as The Nature Consevancythe donor may receive consderbletaxadvantages not only Recreation Easemets? for the yearwhen the gift is made, but als fo fuureyears. Why, then, cannot a recreation easement be fashioned? ConservationFisfrtxaesmn easements themselves were novel a few p u rpses, the land' valuessment years ago. There is some authority that d ecreasesy the ladsvalue ofthillee * ~~novel interests in land may not be rights. /128/ Second, the gift may created; but in this century, courts qualify the donor for a charitable have recognized many new types of contribution deduction from his I ~~easements, such as clearance easements Federal income tax. /129/ around .airports and scenic easements along highways. The value of the gift will vary * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~with the extent of the donor's rights Such unusual conveyances as the which have been relinquished. A quali- rights to take seaweed /126/ and to fied deduction (including the Heritage place a billboard on another's Trust Program and The Nature Conservancy) I ~~land /127/ have been enforced as for any one year may be thirty percent easements. Indeed, the very novelty of o eso h oo' noe n the easement may enable a court to weigh orxcess of the doorsincomabe. carie I the equties -- he value f publicforward by the individual for the next PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 263 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects. Part Six succeeding five years. /130/ To deter- Tax Considerations mine the conservation easement's value, the Internal Revenue Service suggests that qualified appraisers employ a Throughout this report, reference "before-and-after" approach, comparing has frequently been made to the tax the property's fair market value before consequences of beach access measures. and after the gift was made. /131/ Significant incentives for gifts of land or interests therein may be promoted by. Special easements -- conservation, the State as a means of increasing the certainly, and recreation, possibly -- number of beach accessways and recrea- are practical means of ensuring public tion areas. /133/ interests in conservation and recreation. The tax incentives for property owners and the lesser acquisition costs for public agencies suggest considerable potential for application of this device Gifts in South Carolina coastal areas. Although specifically authorized by the Heritage Trust and Scenic Rivers programs, U nderiThe Inter nal denue C conservation easements have not yet been fuls and oratir martdeduct obtained under either for beach access to .purposes. /132/ to publicly supported non-profit organi- zations-such as The Nature Conservancy. Unappreciated property, like cash contributions, is fully deductible up to 50 percent of the donor's adjusted gross income. If the gift is larger, the balance may be carried forward for five succeeding years, subject to the same 50 percent income limitation. Long-term capital gain property (owned more than six months) is de- ductible at its fair market value up to 30 percent of the donor's adjusted gross income. Any excess may be carried. HARTZOG. LADER &RICHARDS 264 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects forward for five years, subject to the the remainder interest for purposes of 30 percent limit. Also, additional tax the income tax deduction. savings are realized by gift because there is no capital gains tax on the Other tax mechanisms are also I ~~alternative sale. available as an impetus to donation of beach accessways. if land or easements Under a special election permitted are given by will, estate and inheri- I ~~to donors, the 50 percent limitation may tance taxes may be reduced, and the be utilized instead of 30 percent for donor retains ownership-during his capital gains property. To qualify, the lifetime. Also, land may be traded. donor must reduce his deduction for all gifts of capital gain property by an amount equal to one-half of the un- realized appreciation with respect to Tax Abatement I ~~that property. The alternate tax may be advantageous when the value of the The power to levy or abate taxes donated property exceeds the six-year may be instrumental in expanding public carryover limitations at 30 percent and beach access and recreation opportunities. when it is desirable to deduct larger Apart from the incentives in the Federal amounts immediately, such as the case of income tax laws authorizing deductions an executive nearing retirement. for charitable contributions, special property tax concessions by State and An individual may wish to donate local governments have proved to be property or easements for beach access, effective land-use management tools. I ~~but desire to retain full possession and use of it for his own lifetime and/or Normally, land is assessed at the lifetimes of other members of-his "market value," with the standard being I ~~immediate family. This type of gift, a its "highest and best" potential use. "rmidr gfwl iv iet It may be found that, to prevent the tax deduction only if the property i~s a conversion of scarce coastal open space personal residence or farm. The income :to intensive uses, tax relief is tax deduction is decreased by the value justified by the public interest in of the life estate, as determined by conservation and recreation. Local IRS actuarial tables. Reservation of planning commissions could designate I ~~more than one life estate may cause a priority sites, and owners could then, substantial reduction in the value of apply for the classification.. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 265 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects PartSix Similar tax concessions, however, would be included in the contract. But have not generally succeeded in accom- how large need the financial incentives plishing these objectives. In Con- be? Conceivably, it might be less necticut, for example, the practical expensive for the government units to effect of open space tax relief has been acquire rights-of-way through condemna- simply to lower the holding costs of tion or compensable regulations. land speculators waiting for development opportunities to mature. /134/ This Notwithstanding these problems, distortion may be corrected by a sales tax abatements for public beach access tax on subject property which decreases should be considered by local govern- each year the land is held so as to ments along the coast. This approach absorb the tax advantages which short- - eases the political sting of zoning term speculators may derive from regulations, and its cost may not be as concessions created to encourage land high as direct purchase. banking. Connecticut's tax, nonetheless, is not expected to have significant effect. /135/ Because equivalent tax concessions can be secured without abandoning development rights, it is Regulation questionable whether any beach access tax abatement scheme could have a TheTaking Issue significant effect. /136/ significant effect. /136/ ~To weigh the applicability ofI The most promising concept forTowihteapcbltyf The mos promisng concpt foralternative land use regulations to land use control through tax abatement is the California model relying on problems of beach access, the institu- tional limitations of the police power contractual arrangements. /137/ Local planning commissions would designate the state uthoris powr ithe potential open space and accessways and a tes authorityeto pulic would valuae preent ues oftheseactivities in the interests of public wolandsevalutermine ifpagreesent uto! thealth, safety, morals, and the general lands to determine if an agreement to wlae 18 abandon development rights were welfare. /138/ feasible. A contract would then be Since the early zoning cases of sought with the owner, and it could not the 1920's, the doctrine's application be abridged withott community consent. Specific conditions and high penalties HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 266 PUBUC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspe~cts conErol and preservation of property consequential damage, no matter how values, but also aesthetic, historic,se iuwratdcmnaton scenic, and architectural objectives./139/ sros arne opnain It is today generally accepted, there- fore, that land-use regulations for Justice Holmes altered this recreational purposes are a valid tradition in Pennsylvania Coal Company exercise of the police power. /140/ v. Mahon: /144/ The constitutional refer- While property may be ence, as the police power constrains regulated to a certain beach access mechanisms, is the Fifth extent, if regulation Amendment to the United States Consti- goes too far it will be tuton:"nor shall private property be recognized as a taking. /145/ taken for public use, without just compensation". By the Fourteenth Since that decision, the courts,- Amendment, this prohibition has been confronted with "taking" allegations, applied to the states. /141/ have employed a balancing test: weighing the regulation's public benefits against This clause was derived from the the loss of property values. /146/ English nobles' fear of the King's seizures of land for his own The distinction between two dif- purposes. /142/ While colonial regula-= ferent types of private economic loss tions provided compensation for physical resulting from government activity has takings of developed property, many been asserted as the basis for a test of * ~~land-use constraints were exercised land-use regulation's validity: without any compensation to landowners. /143/ when economic loss is incurred as Whenever Americ~~~~~angvrmtsed result of government enhancement Whenevr Amercan goernmens needof its resource position in its land for some public purpose, they have enterprise capacity, the compen- either purchased the land in the private sation is constitutionally market place or exercised condemnation required; it is that result powers, paying the owner the fair market which is to be characterized value of his land. Yet throughout this as a taking. But losses, however country's early history, no indirect or severe, incurred as a consequence of government acting in its arbi- H ~~PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 267 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six tral capacity are to be viewed The ordinance now under as a non-compensable exercise review, and all similar of the police power. /147/ laws and regulations, must find their justifica- Acquisition of beaches and public tion in some aspect of the accessways do not neatly fit either of police power, asserted for these classifications. Nonetheless, the public welfare. The line regulations with these objectives are which in this field separates "less likely subject to constitutional the legitimate from the illegi- attack if they simultaneously permit timate assumptions of power private landowners some economic uses is not capable of precise for their lands and yet considerably delimination . . . If the restrict uses in order to achieve validity of the legislative public objectives". /148/ classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, The most comprehensive study of the legislative judgment must "the taking issue" notes cases going be allowed to control. /151/ both ways on very similar facts, but found a general tendency to uphold State courts must consider, therefore, regulations with underpinnings of public three factors in determining whether a need, especially if the objective is regulatory measure constitutes a taking statewide or regional, rather than without due process of law: (1) the simply local. Thus, "the fear of the regulation's objectives or basic phil' taking issue is stronger than the taking osophy; (2) its reasonableness; and (3) clause itself". /149/ its impact on private interests. /152/ Strong deference is generally made Apartfrom he cmpenstion ues-in favor of the legislative power to tion, broad guidelines regarding the make flexible use of the police power in constitutionsahave bn wllad-e ished. r response to changing economic and social tions have been well-established. Inco d tns 13wihmuigpr- Eucli v. ~inblr, /50/ te Suremeconditions. /153/ With mounting pres- Couclidv. Amblers zonin thest Supremsures for additional beach recreation opportunities, certain land-use regula- standing standard was asserted: tions may, as partial solutions, be reviewed as proper exercises of the HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 268 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS&RECREATIONINSOUTHCAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects police power and within due process The rationale of McCarthy v. bounds. City of Manhattan Beach, /158/ _____a California beach recreation case, suggests that, given certain conditions, beach recreation districts, or easements therein, may satisfy exclusive zoning Exclusive Use Zoning requirements. In McCarthy, the Court sustained a zoning ordinance which Certain land use regulatory tools restricted oceanfront property to recreation purposes. Plaintiffs owned a in such a way asto increatic sandy beach, bordered by the Pacific I in ~~~~~~~~~~~~suhanday bash toinrdeasepulcOenad ay state Parkifichadbe access. Each requires a trade-offcotnusysebyheplifr access Each equire a trae-offOcean and a state park, which had been between public and private rights so contion sic for attention must be focused on the factual situations of illustrative cases./154/ The City sought in 1924 to estab- lish the tract's dedication to public Special zoning districts may be use; and having failed, it cooperated created to allow for only recreational and open-space uses. Such regulations, unsuccessfully with the plaintiffs to when imposed near urban centers, have persuade the county or state to acquire been declared invalid if they deprive the property. In 1940, plaintiffs the private shore owner of any attempted to erect a fence that would beneficial use. Diminution of the permit the charging of admission fees land's value is the deciding factor. /155/ and requested, claiming no residential development value, rezoning from Yet "a very high degree of diminu- "single-family residential" to "commercial". tion of value of property through restriction of allowable uses may be tolerated if the public necessity is great". /156/ The determinative factors fence destroyed by the public, the City are (1) the appropriateness of the land adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance for the allowed uses; (2) the degree of that designated the subject property as rsrcinsand (3) a "beach recreation district", per- restriction of reasonable uses;mitting enclosure and admission fees. * ~~the court's perception of the publicFrm14 ni.50noeftswe necessity. /157/ From 1941 until.1950, no efforts were made to implement the permitted beach PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 269 HARTZOG. LADER&RICHARDS LegGal Aspects Part Six program, and plaintiffs then sought their regulations. /161/ Permitted rezonng bak to"resientil". /,99/flood plain uses may include parks, Their application denied, they attacked p a gons n aia;adrcetoa the recreation classification as an access modes may be explicitly included unreasonable "taking" by depressing the in the enabling ordinance.3 property's value. The ordinance, nevertheless, mu-St The Court, upholding the ordinance be supported by valid public welfare though not dealing directly with the conditions. /162/ If beach recreation beach recreation zone concept, relied on can be tied to more established general these arguments: deference to legisla- welfare provisions, flood plain zoning tive judgments, strict enforcement of t he can regulate shoreline development in rule that the-landowner bears the burden ways which can expand public access. of proof regarding the unreasonableness of regulations, and reliance on conven- tional police power objectives. /160/ Yet the decision encourages legislative correction of market imper- Building Setbacks and Official Mapping fections regarding coastal uses. It might be possible, for example, to zone only the dry-sand areas of beaches or Another narrow approach, effec- narrow access swaths so that the pri- tively designating recreation as one of, vately owned uplands are still useful several permissible land uses, is the for residential and other private use. setting of building setback lines, which has been recognized as a valid exercise of the police power. /-163/ Setbacks meet all the traditional zoning objec- tives and may result in the expansion of5 beach area. /164/ Flood.Plain Zoning Ofca asmnfs uii off~~~~~~~icamasmnfsamui- Although the primary purpose of pality's express interest to locate flood plain districts is protection of recreation areas at places actually the public- from flood hazards, outdoor , marked on a registered map. ThereI recreation objectives may be included in appears to be no reason why a govern- HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 270 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAI Part Six Legal Aspects mental agency planning to acquire, or building sites and thus have acquired, a beach area cannot apply realizing a greater price this technique. Because such designa- than could be obtained if he tions have been invalidated on grounds had sold his property of excessive duration, the map must be as unplotted lands. In designed to preserve the beach only for return for this benefit, near-term acquisition. the municipality may require him to meet a demand to which the municipality would not have been put but for the influx of people into Subdivision ExactionsorBonuses /165/ the community to occupy the subdivision lots. /167/ It is common for municipalities to require that developers obtain local It has been suggested that similar planning board approval prior to subdivi- requirements regarding the dedication of sion of property. Similarly, the local public easements for shore access be .government can require, as a condition appplied to coastal planned unit of plat approval, that the landowner developers. /168/ dedicate to public use roads, sewers, or land for parks or schools. /166/ A Wisconsin platting statute Developers may thereby be forced to bear prescribes that subdivisons abutting on part of the cost of providing streets, a lake or stream must provide public parks, and schools for new residents; access to the water at not more than but when the need cannot be attributed one-half mile intervals. /169/ There is principally to the subdivision, the city further authorized condemnation of generally bears the cost. rights-of-way "for any public highway to any navigable stream, lake, or other The rationale for this requirement navigable waters". /170/ Although is that Florida has legislation authorizing the State Road Board to establish access the municipality by approval roads leading to public waters, the of a proposed subdivision plat statute further provides that such enables the subdivider to " profitefinancally the seliv r trights-of-way may be acquired only by profit financially by selling gift or purchase, and not by condemna- the subdivision lots as hometin/7/ tion. /171/ PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 271 HARTZOG, LADER &.RICHARDS LegaI Aspects Part Six most of the demand for If the only open-space contribu- moss om es for access comes from areasI tions required were contiguous to each outside the subdivision, individual subdivision, a community the existence of the sub- might find itself with a number of small, scattered parcels. These would beach-acces the i at least partially be responsive to macut oblex ist, beach access needs, but the combining of. accesy t the beaches; individual donations into one area would seconeven towher noeaccess; substantially enhance their utility as a second, even whe new recreational resource. Municipal .ordinances could establish common funds valuent will patternd to which developers would be required to donate money, in lieu of subdivision of land use that will make it more difficult and land exactions, and the fund, in con- it pure beach junction with the eminent domain power, expensin to pur e bea 3/ could be used to acquire appropriate sites. /172/ Ideally, South Carolina's coast can be Density bonuses are a variation on developed in a manner that both increases this legitimate form of "blackmail". its shoreline's value and allows public. Where larger parcels of land or several recreational use. lots appropriate for development are held by a single developer, an increase But local boards are not required in density can be offered as an incen- to enact beach access ordinances, and tive to dedication of beach accessways. they are generally more susceptible to The approach can be extended to achieve developers' pressures than are state other possible local government objec- legislatures. For these reasons, new tives, such as the provision of low- and statutes requiring beach-access ease- moderate-income housing or restoration ments as a prerequisite for subdivision of degraded wetlands. approval have been recommended. /174/ The theory, as applied to coastal Developers have argued that the residential or resort communities, is need for beaches is a regional demand that, while HARTZOG, LADER &RICHARDS 272 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA I ~~Part Six Legal Aspects independent of subdivision development. they do not require prior public use of /175/ it is impossible to deny that the the area. But they apply only pros- I ~~greatest demand for the beaches within pectively, so that access patterns the gates of South Carolina's coastal depend on private development activity resorts come from outside those sub- rather than on a comprehensive'statewide divisions. Unfortunately, there has access plan. Their application in been established no constitutional other than prospective situations would doctrine responsive to this argument. have little constitutional support. I ~~~~The narrowest test for the Also, the brokers in the exaction process, namely local governments, may existence of a valid exaction requires a take parochial views of the alternatives showing that it is for a public expense and exploit this power for maximum I ~~specifically attributable to the devel- advantage of local residents outside oper's project. /176/ But this formula the development. Since much of the -has'not been universally followed. A South Carolina areas in greatest demand Montana court found, for example, that a have already been developed, subdivision statute authorizing exactions for parks exactions or bonuses can be, at best, and playgrounds had foreclosed any ol ata ouint h tt' question of whether the need for the c onyaspatial recretion probthemSaes. * ~~facility was uniquely attributable to catlrceto rbes the subdivision. /177/ Similarly, California courts, having adopted a less restrictive test Tase fDvlpetRgt in street-dedication cases, have devel- Tase fDvlpetRgt ped a rationale easily adaptable to I ~~beach-access situations. It reasoned An innovative technique recently that a plann ing board may properly developed to preserve historic landmarks project total, regional potential and areas of critical environmental traffic flow in determining what must concern is transfer of development be dedicated. /178/ rights (TDR's). By shifting the right to develop from an -area which could These methods of securing addi- be used for pubric beach access to I ~ ~tional access to beaches are inexpensive; another place where private development they can address the problem before is sought, a local government can immediate development intensifies; and accomplish general land-use planning as PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 273 H A T O . LER&ICRD Legal Aspects Part Six well as recreation objectives. TDR What are the advantages of this separates the right to develop from the method compared to acquisition of the other rights of land ownership. The fee simple of other interests, such asI landowner who is not allowed to develop easements? can sell his development rights to a landowner in an area specified for In the first place, development, and the latter can then fud edntb build at a higher density. Thus, expended unless and until limiting coastal construction is made a court finds that the possible without excessive losses to regulations would constituteI individuals. /179/ a taking in the absence of compensation. And when expenditures are necessary,. the initial cost is relativelyI low since landowners do-not recoup lost development Compensable Regulations ~~value until the property is actually sold; and subsequent Compensable regulations, which increases in the value of the have been applied in other open space and do not affect the ultimate contexts, consist of the regulations of cost to government, which is particular lands and the provision of based on the value prior to compensation to the landowners for regulation. /182/ losses'suffered. /180/ -Under the mostI widely accepted version of this approach, Further, this system is a means of a parcel's full market value prior to constitutionally validating land use the imposition of regulations is guaran- regulations which would, in the absenceI teed to the landowner if the regulation of some compensation to the property is found to be an invalid taking; to the owner, constitute a taking. Essentially, extent that the restrictions impair the they are a hybrid of regulations under value of the land for present uses, the police power and a taking under compensation is immediately due; and to eminent domain. the extent that the property's potential f .development value is reduced, the owner This technique has not yet been is awarded damages at the time of the tested in the context of shoreline sale. /18.1/ recreation. Although their potential HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 274 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA3 I Part Six Part'Six ~~~Legal Aspects application in South Carolina merits accomplish the objectives without consideration, compensable regulations extensive litigation. Careful drafts- I may prove to generate more adminis- manship, articulated police power trative problems than simple acquisition objectives, varied permitted uses, of easements. Moreover, courts have potential for reasonable private been very wary of regulations which can economic return, and detailed technical I be construed to be designed to depress evidence are essential criteria for this land values to lower possible future method. /186/ condemnation costs. /183/ Regulation Opportunities Regulatory Agencies To varying degrees, each of the Access to the beaches is fre- aforementioned land use regulations quently determined by residential and might be employed to expand South Caro- commercial construction along the coast. lina's shoreline recreational oppor- In South Carolina, the individual, I tunities. Their application may result whether developer or single lot owner, in substantial diminution of coastal must subject his proposed project to property values, but the most authori- scrutiny by State and Federal agencies. tative study of the taking issue concludes Although adequate public access that the popular belief that land value appears not to be a criteria for cannot be severely reduced through approval, review of their procedures regulation is unjustified by analysis of suggests impact points for advocates judicial decisions. /184/ As one observer of beach access. /187/ has remarked, "There is nothing in the nature of American constitutional law Most of the South Carolina coast i which should provoke timidity or the is flood-prone and flood control agencies, palsying of effort for fear. of constitu- insurance services aside, also impact tional difficulties". /185/ beach access issues. Comprehensive flood management programs may be seen, Even when regulations may consti- essentially, as a quasi-zoning scheme tute a taking, compensation may serve to since they are designed to encourage I PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROUiNA 275 HARTZOG, LADER &RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six development appropriate to flood hazards, The regulatory impact of most social needs, and economic uses of the state agencies is limited to the coastal land. ~~~~~~~~~marshes. A number of these bodies have limited jurisdictional influence on land The State's local development use above the mean high tide line, but agencies are mainly interested in none has comprehensive controls. LikeI promoting tourism and re-location of the Department of Parks, Recreation and industries. Both the industrial Tourism, many Estate agencies control activity and the persons who move to the specific land areas or exercise indirectU coast for this reason stimulate the influence, but only a few departments local economies, but also aggravate the directly affect land use throughout the need for public access to the beaches. coast. These agencies' leaders have been especially active in other organizations' The Department of Health and consideration of the beach access Environmental Control is one of several question. State agencies which review requests forI Corps of Engineers permits for alterna- The State's local realtors exert tive of marshlands and other matters of. considerable, and generally enlightened, potential environmental effects. ItI influence on land-use decisions along also influences coastal land use by the coast. But citizens groups, such as issuing water and sewer permits for all Myrtle Beach's Citizens for Progress construction. in this sense, the Health with Protection, have occasionally been Department ranks with financial con-I formed to secure measures, like density straints as the most important limiting controls, either consistent with or factors regarding the rate and density contrary to realtors' and developers' of coastal land-development.I interests. Many residential communities also have formed property owners associa- The State agency most involved in tions both to perform quasi-municipal overseeing use of coastal wetlands is .services and to influence, through the Wildlife and Marine Resources lobbying and litigation, particular land- Department, specifically its Marine use decisions. Similarly, several Resources Division. Through the Corps individual corporate and personal of Engineers' permit system, the Marine I -landholders have great impact on land-use Resources Division impacts, perhaps with decisions because of the sheer quantity greater persuasion than any other single of acres under their control. reviewing body, coastal development. ItI HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 276 PUBL IC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA3 * ~~Part Six Legal'Aspects I ~~also provides the administrative staff Services Administration of the State fornthemn Coastal, Zone organningatin d Budget and Control Board after receiving ~~Mngmn onilteognzto the recommendations of the Attorney established in response to the federal General and the Water Resources Comn- Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. mission, issues the requested permits with appropriate conditions. Contro- The State Water Resources Corn- versial permits are often-reviewed by mission summarizes the comments of all the Budget and Control Board itself. state agencies involved in the I ~~Corps of Engineers permitting process, Other State departments frequently sometimes resolving conflicts among are involved in this process. The State them, and prepares a single recommenda- Ports Authority, Highway Department, tion for the State budget and Control Forestry Commission, Department of I ~~Board. This Board then decides whether Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Land or not to grant a state permit for the Resources Commission, and Development -proposed activity. Thus, in addition to Board make recommendations when the review by the Corps, the Coast Guard, proposed activity would affect their and other federal agencies, a State respective interests. permit must be obtained before any modifying activity can legally be Under the Public Works Eminent undertaken ~below the mean high tide mark Domain Law, /188/ eminent domain is odn the State'si-beaches, authorized for any project, including conservation and recreation, in which Upon receipt of a notice of permit public monies are involved. This power application to the Corps or other agency, has been granted in most state agencies the Water Resources Commission requires in their enabling legislation. Also, that the applicant advertise the proposed the State Highway Department can acquire activity in a newspaper of general lnsajcn ohgwy orsoe circulation in the pertinent area. It p rsrvands enanceacenic baty hihandt esoe d~sos o l iits ommets fom apropiaterecreation. /189/ The Budget and Control state agencies and may elect to hold Board can grant easements and rights-of- public hearings. way over state-owned vacant lands and 5 ~~~The State Attorney General'smasln./9/ off-ice examines the legal implications The Federal government is involved of all proposed encroachments upon the in coastal land-use decisions mainly. 3 ~~public's coastal rights. The General PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 277 H A T O . LDR&ICRS Legcal Aspects Part Six concerning coattal zone management, but reviews Corps permit applications. This also in water and sewer projects, pollu- agency enjoys significant stature in tion control, housing, transportation, coastal land-use decisions; and when and countless other areas. With regard its objections are not resolved by the to beach access, the decisions of four applicant, Interior officials enter into executive departments are most relevant: arbitration efforts. The Department of the Army, Department of Interior, Department of Commerce, and Interior's Bureau of outdoor the Environmental Protection Agency. 19/Recreation is particularly interested in /191/ recreation-oriented areas, including The Army Corps of Engineers has most of South Carolina's coast. BOR extensive real and potential power over determines if adequate consideration has the State's shoreline. /192/ The afore- been given to alternatives to actions I mentioned permit process is the chief which might adversely impact rivers, means of the Corps' involvement in all parklands, and other recreational decisions regarding navigable waters and resources. Also, through its national areas below the mean high tide mark. and state comprehensive outdoor re-I Occasionally, when the proposed activi- creation plans, BOR influences land use ty' s environmental consequences are in along the coast. doubt, the Corps will require prepara- tion of an Environmental Impact State- The National Oceanic and Atmos- ment. pheric Administration, Department of Commerce, is involved in coastal land- use decisions principally through two of The Corps normally requires state its subagencies. The National Marine approval before it issues a federal Fisheries Service reviews Corps permit- permit. When the Environmental Protec- applications for the activities' poten-I tion Agency or another federal office tial efforts on marine life. NOAA's lodges an objection, the final decision Office of Coastal Environment, charged is made at the regional or national with the responsibility of administering3 level, apart from local pressures. the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act, Occasionally, the Secretary of the Army conducts -a variety of research, educa- makes the ruling. -tional, and service activities.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi1ce, Public access to beaches is a Department of interior, regularly particular issue addressed, through this HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 278 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA3 I ~Part Six Legal Aspects, study, by the State Coastal Zone Planning Relevant Legislation and Management Council under the Federal I ~~Act. Although NOAA must ensure that maximum public input and the national interest have been accounted for, it has Recognizing the limitations of no veto power over detailed features of case-by-case judicial expansion of I ~~the plan. coastal recreation opportunities, Congress has enacted or entertained a importantly, after development of variety of laws pertaining to public theStae'scoatalplan, all applicants beach access. Together with acquisition forhedea permits corasteal fnigand development programs, they offer must comply with the State management ameliortional federa Calteinativs forc program. Thus, provisions for beachamlotigSuhCrin'bec access included in the plan will be recreation problems. recognized and enforced by the federal I ~~permitting process. The Environmental ProtectionCosaZneMagmtAc Agency impacts coastal land-use deci-CosaZneMagmtAc I ~~sions in at least two important ways. Under the Water Pollution Control Act The Coastal Zone Management Act of Amendments of 1972, /193/ EPA directs 1972, /194/ founded upon the need for regional planning of water and sewerage rational shoreline use policies, has development. It also is involved, as initiated a comprehensive approach to previously discussed, in the Corps coastal allocation through the develop- permitting process. Its particular ment of policies, standards, mechanisms, I ~~concern is protection of water quality and processes for dealing with land and and the marine environment, and its water use decisions. Although it pro- comments carry weight comparable to the vides no funds for beach acquisition, it Interior Department's. has permitted South Carolina to under- take a coastal planning effort which includes this subject. /195/ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, introduced by South Carolina 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Senator Ernest R. Hollings to provide PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 279 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part SixI federal funding for state development of Transportation Act coastal planning programs, emphasizes the need for land and water resouc' Under the Department of Transpor- planning for resolution of intense tation Act, /199/- the Secretary of demands for coastal resources. Guide- Transportation must cooperate with the lines for the state program, promul- Interior, Agriculture, and Housing and gated in 1973 and 1974, /196/ stress Urban Development Secretaries and with the need for public access and recrea- the states in ensuring that transpor- tion uses along the nation's coast. tation plans maintain or enhance the nation's natural beauty. No project is of specific interest is the permitted which requires use or distur- regulations'I inclusion of coastal bance of public parks or recreation recreation in the list of specifically areas, unless there is no feasible mentioned uses of national interest alternative and the activity minimizes which may not be automatically subor- the possible harm to recreation. dinated to strong, local interests. /197/ Local regulations which exclude or unreasonably restrict recreational uses of at least interstate significance are prohibited. /198/ National Environmental Policy Act The statte, unlke mostfederalThe Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, planning legislation, conditions its une haionlEvrnetlPlc funding upon the implementation of theunethNaialEvrmnalPic proposed plans. Through affirmative Act of 1970, /200/ prepares and reviews planning, it reqiaires classification of statements on the impact of proposed permissible uses and the establishment federal actions on outdoor recreational of prioities mong cmpetin uses.alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the mainten- ance and enhancement of its long-term productivity, and any irreversible commitments of resources which would be incurred by implementation of the proposed action. HARTZOG, LADE R & RIC0HARDS 280 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAI * ~~Part Six Legal Aspects Water Pollu tion Control Act Provisions are helpful in determining Amendments of 1972 legislative mechanisms appropriate to South Carolina. U ~~~~The objective of the 1972 amend- The Bill declares that there is a ments to the Water Pollution Control Act "1national interest'! in beaches of the is "zero discharge" of pollutants by United States.. To protect that interest to reduce water pollution interferring with, among other actilvi- (the public shall have free ties, recreation opportunities, theanuretiedigto amendments establish effluent standards adunres(triced beahes aso as part of a point-source system of commo tothe fuleaches)nst water-quality management. The controls that such public right may I ~ ~are more stringent where recreation may be extended consistent with be affected by pollution. /202/suhpoetritsf littoral owners as may be Cosiuin 0protected absolutely by the When private owners hold fee simple National Open Beaches Bill title to littoral land, public.rights of access and recreational use may still * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~exist and can be affirmed through The bill which would have the most judicial application of traditional- affect on the public access issue and legal doctrines. which might serve as a model for state I ~~legislation is The National Open Beaches The Bill's activating mechanism is Act. /203' Introduced by the author of its authorization of the U.S. Attorney The Texas Open Beaches Act, /204/it General or a U.S. attorney to sue in purports to facilitate the application federal court to determine beachfront by state courts of any common law device property's title and control to prevent which might expand public access to the unjustifiable obstructions of public beaches. /205/ The bill was first rights which may be found to exist: ~~i n troduced in 1969 and has never been reported out of committee, but its PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 281 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part SixI an action shall be cognizable I I utaieSteApproaches in the district courts of the Ilsrtv tt United States without ref er-I ence to jurisdictional amount. As a result of research and To: (1) establish and protec~t correspondence, /209/ this study has the public right to beaches, concluded that no coastal state has (2) determine the existing enacted innovative, effective legislatureI status of title, ownership, addressing public access to the beaches and control, and (3) condemn which can simply be replicated in South such easements as may reasonably Carolina. General coastal zone manage-I be necessary to accomplish the ment programs, fee simple acquisition purpose of this title. /207-/' mechanisms, and coastal regulations have been adopted, however, by a variety of in addition to declaring a national jurisdictions. Several of these warrant policy and establishing federal mnachin- scrutiny. ery regarding open beaches, this Bill specifies evidentiary rules which shiftI the burden of proof to the littoral proprietor to refute the presumption that the public has established recrea-I tional use rights in the uplands. /208/ Texas The proposed law would not Texas, having enacted an Open extinguish property owners' rights. Beaches Act in 1959, was the leader in Those whose titles provide the right to this field. The.Legislature there -restrict or deny public access would not declared the State's policy that the be affected. The Bill aims to encourage public has superior rights to beaches itI the clarifications of existing state 'has used regularly, and the Attorney laws through litigation. General is authorized to litigate to protect those rights. Having won its No action has been taken on this first court test, the Act triggered a Bill by the current Congress, and there series of state measures directed at is no indication of strong political coastal zone problems. /210/ interest in the measure. It provides, nonetheless, a useful model for state A legislative Beach Study Coin- adaptation. mittee successfully proposed in 1969 a3 HARTZOGi LADER & RICHARDS 282- PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA3 * ~~Part Six Legal Aspects 5 ~~package of recommendations designed to maintenance program: increasing the preserve the beach for public recrea- ratio of state to local funds from 1:1 tion. State matching funds were author- to 2:1; authorizing matching funds for ized and appropriated to help local beach patrols; and permitting the Parks governments clean and maintain their Department to iitilize a portion of the beaches. Commercial activity on the appropriated funds for an emergency pool beach itself was banned, except for to be used in response to major threats I ~~licensed mobile businesses. Beach sand to public recreation, such as oil spills excavations were prohibited, and permits or hurricanes. Consistent with Seaway, were required for any excavation on /213/ the legislature also established, I ~~barrier islands. The erection of signs in the context of boundary disputes, designed to exclude the public from the that public rights are presumed to beach was declared a criminal offense. extend over the entire beach landward to 5 ~~/211/ the line of-vegetation. /214~/ These measures, nevertheless, were found to be no substitute for acquisi- I ~~tion of additional public beaches. Beach parks were developed by the State .Department of Parks and Wildlife as an California A ntegral part of the comprehensive beach program, so that today almost one-fourth California's coastal controls have of the state's 400 miles of seashore has been heralded as the "wave of the been set aside as public parks. /212/ future". /215/ With the 1972 passage of a citizen-sponsored initiative called Texas owns and holds in public "Proposition 20", the California Coastal trust the entire foreshore. The remaining Zone Conservation Act (1) established I ~~300 miles of beaches between the mean a coastal protection policy, (2) created high tide mark and the vegetation line a commission system to exercise are privately owned; but under the Open interim development controls through an Beaches Act, these beaches, where long elaborate permit system; and (3) man- used by the public for recreation, are dated a comprehensive longterm coastal open to free public use. Recognizing management plan. /2-16/ Permanent the importance of these beaches'U attrac- government controls were not established, tiveness, the State Legislature has and the legislature's final measures augmented the 1969-beach cleaning and will likely depend primarily upon the PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 283 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six experience acquired with statewide cases, but under the aegis of parking or control under the complex, interim other issues affecting the convenience, bureaucracy, which has acted on more rather than legality, of public access. /219/ than 5,000 permits. It is the combina- tion of temporary regulatory controls Aong the commissions' beach with the planning process that is the hallmark of the California approach./217/acesdiioshvbenrqrmnt access decisions have been requirements that homebuilders open from three to Although existing data and studies twenty-five feet of their private beach are the basis for their planning, frontage to the public and five-foot the commissions have developed addi- wide easements over private property tional information bases and have from the highway to the beach. Yet in emphasized policies, rather than Santa Barbara county, where the access specific land uses. Because the plan problem is acute, the regional commis- must be approved by the 1976 Legisla- sion has consistently rejected its staff recommendation that permits for beach- generalize inmay order toempted togis- front homes be conditioned on provision generalize in order to secure legisla- of pbi cswys/20 tive support. Particularly sensitive is the division of regulatory responsibili- To meet parking needs, an ties between state and local govern- acknowledged determinant of beach use, ments. Though initially applauded in planning circles, the California approach the famissin has only has been the subject of serious criticism. mulope fami ded ts only Its overall impact, for better or worse, where the per uni t and has been to halt development along the off-street parking spaces per unit and coast. /218/ one guest parking space for every ten units. Several coastal cities have Beach access has proved to be much followed suit and changed their ordi- less important an element of the Calif- nances accordingly. /221/ Unfortun- ornia program than the Proposition 20 ately, these provisions have a touch of campaign seemed to indicate. Perhaps exclusivity because, as developers are because of the coastal initiative, required to provide additional parking however, few developers have proposed spaces, the units usually are more actually fencing off portions of the expensive. beach. Beach access has been invoked in some-third of the controversial permit HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS "-28-4---PuBLIC-BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Six Legal Aspects 3 ~~~~The beach access issue has been along the coast. identified as "the question whether the But in transitional beach should be a place where a fairly neighborhoods . . ., the limited number of people can have homes, commissions have approved primarily a place for public recreation, expensive condominiums or primarily a place where a natural that would drastically change environment is preserved and protected". the neighborhood's income I /~~22 2/ The commissions have not yet composition .... formulated an answer, but some implicit Bahietalrprs policies are evident: Bahietalrprs I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~restaurants, or campgrounds The commissions have certainly may be more unsightly than approved their share of condo- low-density, luxury residences, miniums, but they have hinted yet they make the beach that, if given a choice, they available to a greater number would prefer hotels to apart- of people and to people of more ments, reasoning that hotels varied incomes . . . . The South I ~~~~and other commercial Coast commission (considered facilities serve a greater two recreational vehicle camp- number of people with the ground cases with similar facts) same amount of construction * *and approved the state's project and turned down the Malibu project." /223/_ "A use that would provide the most opportunity for the public I ~~~to enjoy the benefits of being near the water (small water- The state commission, however, has been front amusement park) ought strict with developments using state or to take precedence over a use, federal funds to subsidize projects housing, that would limit -designed for the affluent. the waterfront to a smaller"Vsaace"hsbenaoue number of people.". . of much of the commissions' controversy. The commissions have had a Developers have been required to revise wavering commitment to existing subdivisions to permit highway I ~~~preserve the dwindling views of the ocean, and application supply of low-cost housing for rows of beachfront buildings with PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 285 HARTZOIG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six' little space between them have been The Department of Public Works and rejected. /224/ Highways is specifically authorized to acquire lands, easements, and rights, by California has insufficient funds purchase, lease, or otherwise, for beach for significant beach acquisitions. The accessways approved by the board. Board commission, consequently, has occasionally recommendations must be subjected to denied permits for housing subdivisions public hearing and be approved by the on the grounds-that the areas are Governor. Acquisition and maintenance designated by the State Parks Department costs are defrayed by charges against as priority acquisition areas for the the waterways fund and road and water- future. /225/ Once the state plan is ways tolls are imposed. completed, however, the state must either acquire these properties or No public access area may be allow some development to proceed. /226/ constructed to any public waters which For this reason, the State Commission serve as a municipal water supply has supported several beach acquisition without the local government's consent. bills. No action may be maintained against any town or the state for any injury to persons or property on accessways created under the Act. Before any state agency can acquire or dispose of any New Hampshire land or interest therein which leads to or is adjacent to a waterway, it must New Hampshire's principal contribution provide for the acquisition or retention to the management of beach access is an of a recreation right-of-way if recom- act establishing a program for the mended by the public access advisory development of access to public waters. board and the governor. /227/ Its goal is the construction and maintenance of new public access areas The Act provides a practical model and for the improvement and expansion of for coordination of state efforts existing accessways. An advisory board, regarding public access to waterways. charged with program coordination and It establishes a right-of-first-refusal implementation, consists of the heads of for public acquisition or accessways in pertinent state agencies /228/ and is any state transaction involving potential chaired by a member of the public water recreation sites. Although much appointed by the governor. of South Carolina's coast is in private HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 286 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part SixLeaAsct I ~~ownership, similar legislation would The trust's objectives have been make public access to beaches a priority described as follows: of record and ensure its primacy in future public coast land-use decisions~. (1) take into account and U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~not disturb areas already * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~under some form of protection; (2) allow for expansion of residential and commercial Island Trust Concept ~~~areas in developed "centers of gravity," but only in accordance with a compre- Because many of South Carolina's hensive plan; I ~~private beaches are on islands, the experimental concept of an islands trust (3) preserve in a forever may be an appropriate vehicle for the wild or natural state provision of additional coastal recrea- certain unique areas such tion opportunities. This approach was as dunes and wetlands; first suggested in the Interior Depart- ment's islands of America study /229/ (4) restrict but not prevent and has been proposed in various Nan- development in those areas tucket Sound Island Trust measures. either not needed for resi- /230/ ~~~~~~~~~~~dential and commercial The trustcommissio, heavilyexpansion or forever wild, The trustcommissio, heavilywhile continuing present weighted with local residents,-but with ownership patterns and state and federal representatives, is maintaining the integrity I ~~directed to develop a comprehensive plan of local control; and for preservation and utilization of the - ~~islands, and its expenses are shared by (5) ensure public access to the state and federal governments. The beaches and inland recreation trust land is classified according to areas. /232/ its existing uses and natural values, * ~~and development controls are imposed Since the high price tags for outright * ~~through a system of compensable regula- acquisition deter all levels of govern- tioiis and acquisition. /231/ ment from attacking the problem, this PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 287 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects. Part SixI coordinated approach may be appropriate. and street parking policies to discourage,I Moreover, the unique qualities and if not preclude, non-resident use of their- regional use patterns of South Carolina's beaches. /236/ beaches may be found to transcend the scope of state parks. in Babylon, New York, one of five Suffolk county communities that do not The trust commission is empowered exclude non-residents entirely, resi-I to acquire the entire beach or pedestrian dents may purchase seasonal parking rights of passage. As one element of stickers for five dollars; non-residents the trust plan, this comprehensive must pay three dollars each day onI approach raises difficult political weekends. Westport, Connecticut, issues,./233/ but it responds to the residents can obtain a season-long essential problem of beach access: Camper parking sticker for forty dollars, "1reliance upon regulations finding their while non-residents must pay fifteen wellspring in the police power cannot dollars per day. Deal, New Jersey, preserve the islands, but the federal excluded non-residents entirely, Powers and funds essential for preserva- including resident guests, and a $200I tion raise the specter of loss of local fine was imposed upon violations. /237/ control". /234/ Application of this legal mechanism, consequently, requires None of these measures have been a careful accounting of the particular adopted by South Carolina communities, characteristics of distinct communities. but the validity of these approaches must be examined to determine the validity of resident and non-residentI user fees. /238/ Fees And Restricitons The facts of Avon-by-the Sea /235/UsrFeI are symptomatic of municipal beach policies which either exclude non-Becusrfshaeirainl resident beach use or impose restrictions beacom poular fehaeincnrteastcmuities or fees discouraging such use. Through-beoepulrinrtascmuiisI out the country local communities seeking to offset the high costs of increasingly employ permit, user feel, beach maintenance, including policing, HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 288 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PatSix Legal Aspects security, and lifeguards. A local -Tags are sold at the government's experience is of interest. Borough Hall and can be reserved by mail, but none Stone Harbor, Delaware, serves as are sent by mail to avail a beach playground for the 19 campgrounds their being lost or stolen. and trailer parks within a 10-mile Checks in payment are radius of the town center and for day- encouraged. Reserved tags trippers from much further away. It has are numbered, recorded, 1 2/10 miles of beach, a winter popula- and available when called tion of 2,000, a summer population of for in person; 25,000, and an annual budget of $1,500,000. In 1971, the following program was -Campgrounds, trailer courts, adopted: and motels (not within the corporate limits) are major -Tags (badges) must be purchasers of tags in bulk displayed by everyone 12 for use of their patrons, years or older who is on and they employ a deposit the beach during hours system to ensure return of lifeguards are on duty; the tags; -Tags can be purchased -Lifeguards do not handle prior to May 31 of each sale or distribution or check year at a seasonal fee of tags. Inspectors paid $2.50 $3.00. After this date, per hour handle all phases of the cost is $5.00. They the tag operation. The are transferable; inspectors patrol a four-to- six block area, 40 blocks are -Daily and weekly tags patrolled by foot, and can be purchased for $1.50 surrounding areas by car. each Friday afternoon and are valid from one Saturday The town realized $212,800 in fees in morning to the following 1975, and inspectors' salaries and Saturday evening; related costs were less than $20,000. Only a handful of letters of opposition -Tag color denote seasonal were reported after the first year of and weekly validity; operation. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 289 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six One New Jersey town official, when Subsequent restriction to use by resi- asked what was his response to the claim dents and their guests only indicates that "God made the beach -- it should be the irrevocable character of dedication.I free," noted that "God doesn't pay the Imposition of parking fees and restric- lifeguards and trashmen". /239/ tions, if resultant in analogous use limitations, are likely also to be -improper. Constitutional arguments may also Non-Resient Accss Restictionsprovide the broad applicability andI Non-Resient Accss Restictionssubstantive content necessary to invalidate non-resident restrictions and Taken together, the New Jersey fees. The right of public access to decision and Gerwitz /240,/ Provide shoreline recreation resources is strong authority for the position that fundamental to the Equal Protection municipal closure of beaches to non- Clause. /244/ The constitutionality of residents or imposition of access classifications, such as residency,I restrictions limiting non-resident use depends on "whether it promotes a violate the "prior public use" doctrine compelling state interest". /245/ And, unless such restrictions are legisla- when essential human rights, notI tively authorized. Another dimension of specifically enumerated in the first the public trust, this principle holds eight Amendments to the United States that "land appropriated to one public Constitution, are infringed upon by some use cannot be diverted to an inconsis- governmental action, the Ninth Amendment . tent public use without plain and provides a flexible instrument for explicit legislation to that end". protecting those rights. /24B/ /241/ The change in use of public beaches from at-large access to limited A South Carolina case well illus- resident use is subject to these trates this principle. in Toomey v. conditions. /242/ Witsell, /247/ a State statute set license fees for resident com~mercial Similarly, under the Gerwitz shrimp boats at $25 per boat and non- rationale, /243/ the maintenance of a resident fees at $2,500 per boat. The town beach for unres-tricted use may United States Supreme Court, basing itsI constitute a completed dedication of the decision on the privileges and immunities beach to use by the general public. clause, /24.8/ explained that the HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 290 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Six Legal Aspects 3 ~~Constitution outlaws classifications right, inherent in their police power, based on citizenship "unless there is to prevent obnoxious behavior and keep something to indicate that non-citizens out bad influences. /252/ constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed". /249/ The restrictive fee was therefore Objections to these premises are impermis sible. obvious: (1) Beach towns enjoy great I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~economic benefits through the tourism The Court noted, however, that a and recreation industry; (2) Residents, sta'lte does have the power to impose a as well as outsiders, cause the crowding 3 ~~higher fee upon a nonresident of beaches; (3) increased fees for all for the use-of facilities or resources users could provide for additional supported by resident tax revenues, but parking spaces; and (4) There is rarely only if such a differential bears a a factual basis for the assumption that I ~~substantial relationship to the tax evil lurks only outside the city's allocations. /25D/ It is clear that, boundaries. regarding beach use, municipalities can I ~~make such a-claim. Such arguments must User fees can therefore be imposed account, nevertheless, for residents' to offset the acquisition and maintenance actual tax expenditures for beach costs of public beaches, but such acquisition and maintenance, federal and measures cannot distinguish between state grants to beach towns, and the residents and non-residents without a economic benefits accruing to the cities rational basis for the classification. 3 ~~by this fortuitous location. /251/ What are the legal justifications for the imposition of non-resident fees or use distincticons? First, since non- U ~~residents do not pay local taxes that provide the purchase and maintenance Permissible Access Limitations costs, they impose a greater financial binder on the beach community. Second, The principal focus of this study ,masses may likely cause deterioration of is alternative methods of expanding the the beach. Third, there may simply not public's access to South Carolina's I ~~be enough automobile parking space for beaches. But it must be noted that, in everyone. Finally, the towns have a some local contexts, access limitations PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 291 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects. Part Six may be desired. The previously dis- local governments'to treat non-residents cussed cases involving municipal beach on a different basis. access restr ictions constitute a consistent" evolving principle barring such exclu- In a recent decision concerning the sions./253 But if current demand Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in levtls continue to increase and if the Virginia Beach, Virginia, the U.S. Court State is to preserve its beaches' of Appeals (Fourth Circuit) upheld theI environmental attributes, some limita- Interior Department's right to place tions on access are a virtual necessity. severe restrictions on public access to national wildlife refuges when theI This may be accomplished through Department believes the public is sound planning techniques, such as the destroying the area's ecology. The prohibition of vehicular access from the Department alleged that the rules, mainland, to islands, and implementation banning vehicular-passage on the beachI of ferry transport. /254/ But legisla- to all but a handful of year-round tively authorized restrictions which-'are beach residents, were necessary to reasonably related 'to the preservation poetterfg' odcan of a unique resource, like South Carolina's poetterfg' odcan beaches, and which do not totally The Virginia decision, the exclude non-residents should be immnune highest court opinion to date affirmingI to constitutional attack. such access regulations pertaining to coastal parks and refuges, is a clear The Department of interior assertion of the public interest in restricts both the number of visitors beach preservation as well as access;I to, and the length of stay at, national and when these two objectives may conflict, parks and seashores. /255/ Restrictions the holding indicates that, at least in the upon off-road vehicles in National context of wildlife refuges, recreational Wilderness Areas have been upheld, even interests may be subordinated to. environ- when imposed upon plaintiffs owning land mental priorities. .within the area's boundaries. /256/ Access to Wildlife Refuges is tightly controlled. /257/ Thus, the restriction must be based on an articulated public purpose, directly related to the beachI resource itself, and not be a unilateral or self-serving attempt by the state or HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 22PUBLIC BEACH AGCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part SixLeaAsct Legal Conclusions U ~~~~To the extent that the demand for additional public access to South Carolina's beaches can be met by I ~~government acquisition and traditional -exercise of the police power, no extra- ordinary remedies are needed. But since I ~~the State and local treasuries cannot meet the needs created by national use of the State's-coast, the expansion of beach recreation opportunities will likely require the use of historic legal doctrines and innovative legal mechanisms. I ~~~~These novel approaches mnust' withstand the challenges of the consti- tutional prescription against uncompen- sated takings and traditional under- U ~~standings of the police power. Parcel- by-parcel claims, however, cannot be expected to provide adequate relief to the problem. Because the public beach. shortage will be aggravated by increases in population and the demand ~for outdoor I ~~recreation, combinations of acquisition, regulation, and common law evolution are required. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 293 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six 1 See, for general historical review, 5 The vegetation line may be defined "The-Public Trust in Tidal Areas: A as the extreme seaward visible boundary Sometime Submerged Traditional Doctrine", of this natural vegetation that spreads 79 Yale L. Jrnl. 762, (1970) (hereinafter continuously inland. referred as "Submerged Doctrine"). 6 1 R. Clark, Waters and Water Rights Sec. 2 See, e.g., Jackvony v. Powel, 21 36.4(A) (1967). A.2n-554, 558 (1941), for discussion of an early state constitutional provision protecting the "common law rights of the 7 Ibid., note 5, Sec. 36.4 (B). people" in the shore. 8 Borax Consol., supra, at 26. R. Powell, The Law of Real Property, Sec. 159, at 634 (1969) (hereinafter cited as Powell). 9 For example, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire follow colonial ordinances in drawing their line between public and The mean low and high tide lines are private ownership at low water or 100 engineer's lines, not invisible marks. rods seaward from high water, whichever For example, mean high water at any is less. Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, place is the average height of all the and Pennsylvania recognize private high waters at that place over a consid- interests to low water. In Florida, erable period of time. From astronomical Alabama, and California, when the law is considerations, it has been determined affected by Spanish and Mexican grants, that there should be a periodic variation the tidelands boundary is set at mean in the use of high water every 18.6 years. high tide, as with the common law rule. To ascertain this line with legal certainty, In Texas, grants made before January 20, therefore, an average for 18.6 years 1840, are good only to mean high tide; must be determined. See City of Los subsequent grants of littoral land by Angeles v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd., Texas follows the common law principle. 74 F.2d 901, 906. 1 R. Clark, supra, note 5, Sec. 36.3(c). HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 294 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects 10 See Briefs of the Parties in the 16 See, e.g., Horlbeck, supra at 353; Supreme Court of Georgia, State v. Logan & Williams, supra at 667. Ashmore; See also Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 85-410.o 11 Latimer, "Tidelands, Submerged 17 See, for most comprehensive discus- 11 Latimer, "Tidelands, Submerged sion,1956-1957 Op. 7ttny. Gen. 291. Lands, and Navigable Waters of South Carolina" 16 (Unpublished memorandum prepared for the State Attorney General's 18 Clineburg & Krahmer supra at 23. office, 1967) (hereinafter referred to as Latimer). 19 South Carolina Water Resources 12 Commission, South Carolina Tidelands Latimer, 16. Report (January, 1970); see Porro, "Invisible Boundary - Private and Sovereign 13 Marshland Interests", 3 Nat. Res. Lawyer See, e.g., Horlbeck, "Titles to 512, 519 (1970) Marshes in South Carolina", 14 S.C. Law Quarterly 288 (1962); Clineburg and Krahmer, "The Law Pertaining to Estuarine 20 Littoral owners may be defined as Lands in South Carolina" 23 S.C. Law any who hold title to lands along the Review, (1971); Logan and Williams, seacoast. "Tidelands in South Carolina: A Study in the Law of Real Property", 15 S.C. Law Review, 657-(1963). See also Middle- 21 See, Wiel, "Natural Communism: Air, ton, "A Review of the Law Pertaining to Water, Oil, Sea, and Seashore", 47 Harv. the Private Ownership of South Carolina L. Rev. 425, 452 (1934). Marshland" (Unpublished Paper Prepared for the Committee for Preservation of Privately-Owned Marshlands, Summerville, 22 See 1 Waters and Water Rights, Sec. S.C., 1975) . Seo aesadWtrRgtSc ~~S.C.*~, 1975). ~38 (Clark ed. 1967) and cases cited therino 14 148 S.C. 428, 146 S.E. 434 (1928). 23 State v. Randall, 1 Strob. 110, 47 15 146 S.C. 434, 437 (1928). Am. Dec.548 I PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 295 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six 24 Savannah River Lumber Co. v. Bray, 31 "(T)he territorial water became Supervisor, 189 S.C. 237, 200 S.E. 760 embedded in history and law as a tangible (1939). asset to be enumerated in every king's list of riches. Report of the State Interim Committee on Tidelands, Senate 25 Tyler v. Guerry, 251 S.C. 120, 160 of the State of California 21 (1953). S.E. 2d 889 ~1968). 32 "Submerged Doctrine", supra. See 26 A landowner who permits the public, "California's Tidelands Trust for as a matter of right, to use his land Modifiable Public Purposes", 6 Loyola for some purpose has made a dedication of Los Angeles Law Review 485 (1973) for that purpose and cannot thereafter (hereinafter cited as "Loyola Tidelands withdraw his permission to so use the Trust"). land. See 4 Tiffany, Law of Real Property, ch. 24 (-3-d ed. 1939); see also Town of 33 Estill v. Clark, 179 S.C. 359, 184 S.E. "Submerged Doctrine", supra. 89 (1936). 27 Sax, "The Public Trust in Natural34 Attorney General v. Philpott, 8 27Sax, "The Public Trust in Natural Resources Law: Effective Judicial Chan. 1 (1632), discussed in "Loyola Tidelands Trust", supra at 490. Intervention", 68-Mich. L. Rev. 473, 475 Tidelands Trust", supra at 490. (1970) (hereinafter referred to as Sax). 35 "Public Access to Beaches: Common 28 Justinian, Institutes 2.1.1 (4th ed. Law Doctrines and Constitutional Challenges", J.B. Moyle transl. 1889). 48 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 369 (1973) (hereinafter cited as "Common Law Doctrines"). 29 Ibid, at 2.1.1 - 2.1.6. 36 Ibid at 2.1.1 - 2 .1.6.~36 "Submerged Doctrines", supra, at 762. 30 "The Public Trust in Tidal Areas: A Sometime Submerged Traditional Doctrine", 79 Yale L. Jrnl. 762, (1970) (hereinafter referred to as "Submerged Doctrine"). HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 296 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects 37 See "State Citizen Rights Respecting 47 146 U.S. 387, 452 (1892). Greatwater Resource Allocation: From Rome to New Jersey", 25 Rutgers L. Rev. 571 (1971) (hereinafter cited as "Greatwater 48 For example, the Privileges and Resource"). Immunities Clause. U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 2. 38 See, e.g., Martin v. Waddell's Lessee, 41 U.S. (6 Pet.) 367, 412-13 49 (1842); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 "Submerged Doctrine", supra at 783_ 57 (1893). See Citizens to Preserve Overton 39 "Submerged Doctrine", supra at 771-3. Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971). 40 "Common Law Doctrines", supra at 51 See Sax. 385. 52 Ibid., note 114, at 477. 41 See Sax, supra note 114 at 484-5. 53 See, e.g., East New York Sav. Bank 42 Ii t43 4Ibid at 453. v. Hahn, 3-26U.S. 230 (1945). 43 4 Id. at 453. 54 Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954). 44 Id. at 452. 55 Adverse possession has little rele- 45 vance to beach access because the public See "Submerged Doctrine", supra. rarely is in continuous, actual possession of beach lands. 46 See Ducsik, Shoreline for the Public, Ch. 4 (1974). PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 297 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six 56 This phrase was understood to reger 60 254 Ore. 584, 402 p.2nd 671 (1969). to a usage begun before the coronation of Richard I in 1189. See "Constitutional Challenges", supra at 37--et seq. 61 Thornton, supra at 597-98, 462 p.2d 671, 677-7W. 57 Blacks Law Dictionary, 461 (4th ed. 62 rev. 1968). See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950). 58 The requisite elements are found in 63 2 erican Law of Property, Sec. 8.4 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 76-78. See et seq. (A.J. Casner ed. 1952); see "Public Access to Beaches", 22 Stanford- Degnan, "Public Rights in oean Bahes: L. Re. 564 581-4 (170) (ereinfterDegnan, "Public Rights in Ocean Beaches: L. Rev. 564, 581-84 (1970) (hereinafter A Theory of Prescription", 24 Syracuse cited as "Beach Access"); "Constitution L. Rev. 935 (1973) (hereinafter citedas Challenges", supra at 375-77; "Californians "Prescription Theory"). Need Beaches - Maybe Yours!", 7 San Diego L. Rev. 605, 606, 618-2) (T-70) (hereinafter cited as "California Beaches"); 64 Usually fixed by statute. and Ducsik, supra at 110-12. 65 Dwigv 59 The doctrine had been applied in a (FDownin968g v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57, 64-65 The dotrine ad bee applid in a(Fla~.196~8) few New Hampshire cases, See, e.g., Knowles v. Dow, 22 N.H. 387 (1851); Nudd v. Hobbs, 17 N.H. 524 (1845). Courts in 66 2d 923 (Tex. Civ. App. other states had rejected the theory on 1964) (hereinafter cited as Seaway). the bais of he argments hat no1964) (hereinafter cited as Seaway). the basis of the arguments that no American custom could be old enough to be "immemorial"; see, e.g., Delaplane v. 67 See Lattes . State, 159 Tex. 500, Crenshaw 56 Va. (1-Graitt.) 4 5 T 7075 324 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. Sup. 1959). (1860), and that recording systems have been in use since the formation of this country; see, e.g., Gillies v. Orienta 68 The Court was able to rely heavily Beach Club, 159 Misc. 675, 681, 289 The Court was able to rely heavily NYS 733, 739-40 (Sup. Ct. 1935). on several roadway cases because the N.Y.So 733, 739-40 (Sup. Ct. 1935). HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS.- 298 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects beach had long been used as a public Supra. highway. This controversial case prompted enactment of the Texas Open Beaches Act of 1959, discussed infra. 76 A 1959 statute prohibited obstructing access to state-owned tidelands. Tex. ~~~~~~69 ~~~~Rev. Cir. Stat. Ann., Art. 5415d (1962). 69 2 ELR 20511 (Dist. Ct. App. Fla., August 31, 1972). S Supra. 70 "Prescription Theory", supra at 78 936-937. 78 The Court was acting pursuant to a beach-access statute similar to Texas'; Ore. Rev. Stat. Sec. 390.610-690 (1968). 71 See McQuillan, 11 The Law of Municipal Ore. Rev. Stat. Sec. 390.610-690 (1968). Corporations (3rd ed. rev.) Sec. 302, at 627-630. 97 2 Cal. 3rd 29, 465 po2d 50 (1970) at627-630� (both cases hereinafter referred to and cited as Gion-Dietz). 72 See "Beach Access", supra at 573-81. 80 Ibid. at 36, 465, p.2d at 54. 73 Ibid. at 537. 81 See Comment, "Public Rights and the 74 See, e.g., City of Manhattan Beach Natioinrs Shoreline", 2 ELR 10179, at v. Cortelyon, 10 Col.2d 653, 76 p. 2d 10188 (September, 1972). 483 (1938); F.A. Hihn Co. v. City of Santa Cruz, 170 Col. 436, 150 at 20-62 (1915). 82 330 N.Y.S. 2d 495 (1972). (1915). 83 See, also, State Highway Commission v. Bauman, 3 ELR Sec. 20290 (Ore. Cir. Ct., Feb. 23, 177). PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 299 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six 84 61 N.J. 296, 294 A-26-47 (1972). 91 I.e., the entire "bundle of rights" 91I.e., the entire "bundle of rights" associated with the land. 85 The Court spoke in terms of the public trust, but it is clear 92 See cases cited in Williams, Land from the historical background that it Acquisition for Outdoor Recreation - referred to the jus publicum. See Analysis of Selected Legal Problems, "Constitutional Challenges", supra. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report No. 16, at 2-7 ~~~~~~~86 ~~~(1963). This discussion of acquisition 86 61 N.J. at 309, 294 A.2d at 55. relies heavily upon Ducsik, supra, at 137-52; Massachusetts Report, supra, at 95-115; and cases cited therein. 87 See "Constitutional Challenges", supra at 382. - See, e.g., Yosemite Park & Curry Co. ~~~~~~~88 ~~~v. Collins, 20 F. Supp. Cal. 1937). E.g., Sax, supra. 94 S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 9-310(4)(r) 89 See Del. Code Ann., title 7, Sec. (1962). 7001 et seq. See, also, Mich. Laws Ann. 281.631; Minn. sat. Ann. 105-485; Wis. Stat. Ann. Sec. 59.971. 95 Ibid., at Sec. 9-310(4)(h). Ibid., at Sec. 9-310(4)(h). 90 Documentation of such claims is an 96 Ibid., at Sec. 9-310(4)(o). arduous process. Seaway, for example, required five weeks of jury trial and massive preparation. Newman, "The 97 Article I, section 17. State's View of Public Rights to the Beaches", The Beaches: Public Rights and Private Uses, Proceedings of a 98 E.g., Acadia, Main (acquired in 1919); Conferece Sponored b the Teas LawE.g., Acadia, Main (acquired in 1919); Conference Sponsored by the Texas Law Olymp7c, Washington (1938); and the Virgin Institute of Coastal and Marine Resources, Islands (1956). Univ. of Houston, at 11 (1972). HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 300 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects See 16 U.S.C. Sec. 4596-99 (1970). 107 1952 P.L. 152, as amended. E.g., Cape Hatteras National Seashore; Cape Cod; Point Reyes; Fire Island; Cape od; Pint Ryes; ire Iland;108 E.G., New Jersey's Green Acres Land Assateague Island; Gulf Islands (Florida- 108 E.G., New Jersey's Green Acres Land Mississippi), Cumberland Island; and Acquisition (1961), Oregon's authoriza- Cape Lookout. The House Appropriations tion of Highway Department puchase of Committee approved funds for land acqui- shoreline for recreational purposes sition that would constitute the Cape (1971), and Massachusetts' acquisition Canaveral National Seashore. Orlando of Boston's Harbor Islands (1970). See Sentinel-Star, (July 19, 1975). Whyte, The Last Landscape at 62-63 (1968), and Eveleth, "An Appraisal of Techniques ~~~~~~~~100 ~to Preserve Open Space," 9 Villanova L. 100 See, e.g., 16 U.S.C.A. Sec. 459b Rev. 559 (1964). (1961-TTCape Cod). 109 See Ellis, "Massachusetts Open 101 16 U.S.C.S. Sec. 459b-4(d) (1961). Space Law", Open Space and Recreation Program for Metropolitan Boston (1969), at 15, 91-93. 102 See U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Federal 110 The Conservation Foundation, Outdoor Recreation Programs and Recrea- Nati onal Parks for the Future 41-42 tion Related Environmental Programs (1972). (1970)o (1970) e ~~~~~~~~(1972). 111 103 161 US.C. Sec. 406 (1). See, e.g., Senator Henry Jackson's 161 �.SC Sec. 406National Islands Conservation and Recreation Act, S. 2622, 93rd Cong. 1st 104 162 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1500. Sess. (1973); 119 Cong. Rec. 519,607-10 (Oct. 30, 1972). 105 16 Y.S.C. Sec. 460 (1-5). 112 See The Conservation Foundation, National- Parks for the Future 44 (1972). 106 106 24 C.F.S. Sec. 4.203(b). PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 301 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six 113 See Note, "Techniques for Preserving 119 See Int. Rev. Code of 1954, Sec. Open Spaces," 75 Harv. L. Rev. 1622 170(f) (3) (B) (i) and (ii). (1962); Comment, "Easements to Preserve Open Space Land," 1 Ecology L. Q. 728 (1972) (hereinafter cited as "Open Space 120 Footnotes 106 & 107 in Legal Section. Easements"). See also Brenneman, "Should Easements Be Used to Protect National Historic Landmarks", (prepared for the See generally 2 American Law of National Park Service, 1975). Property Sec. 8.1-8 (Casner ed. 1952), and 3 Tiffany, Real Property, Sec. 756- 828 (3rd. ed. 1939). 114 114 W. Whyte, "Securing Open Space for Urban America! Conservation Easements," 122 Urban Land Inst. Bull. No. 36 (1959). Clark, Real Covenants (2nd ed. 1947), at 69 and cases cited therein. 115 E.q., easements acquired by The Nature Conservancy along the Bantam Nature Conservancy along the Bantam 123 3 Tiffany, Real Property, Sec. 762 River in Litchfield County, Connecticut. and cases cited therein. (Note that, in See Open Space Action Committee, South Carolina, the right-of-way must Stewardship 33 (1965). terminate in the dominant tenement.) 116 National Trust Act of 1937, I Edw. 124 Restatement of Property, Sec. 491; 8 & I Geo. 6c. lvii, Sections 4,8. 2 American Law of Property, Sec. 8.82. 117 W. Whyte, The Last Landscape 95 125 See, e.g., Wiggins v. Lykes Bros., (1968). 97 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1957); North Georgia v. Beebee, 128 Ga. 563 (1907); and Hanson v. Fergus Falls National Bank 11 Williams, "Land Acquisition for & Trust Co., 242 Minn. 498 (1954). Outdoor Recreation -- Analysis of Selected Legal Problems," Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study No. 126 Phillips v. Rhodes, 48 Mass. 322 16, 44n. 42 (1962). (1843). HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 302 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects 127 Cusack Co. v. Meyers, 189 Iowa 190 134 See Wagenseil, "Property Taxation ~~~~(1920). ~of Agricultural and Open Space Land," 8 Harvo J. on Leg. 158, 160-162 (1972), 1~~~~28~~~ ~ ~where it is noted that 18 states have 18 But any reservation in the deed tax abatement programs. causing doubt on the perpetuity of the grant might enable the tax assessor to 135 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~135_ disregard the easement in valuing the - See Tyler and Valentine, "The 1972 property. See Whyte, Conservation Open Space Conveyance Tax -- Recapture or Easements. Reaction?", 47 Conn. Bar. Jo 332 (1974)o 129 See Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 136 See Hagman, "Open Space Planning and Section 170C; see I.R.S. Document No. Property- Taxation," 1964 Wis. L. R. 628. 5551 (10-64). 137 Cal. Gov't. Code Sec. 51200 et.seq. 130 Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 170(b) (5). 138 For discussion of the police power and its constitutional limits in land 131 Internal Revenue Service Regulations use cases, see generally Bosselman, The Sec. 1.170A-l(c); Revenue Rulings 73-341 Taking Issue (1973) (hereinafter cited and 74-583. as Bosselman); see also Ducsik, supra at 152-71. 132 Letter, September 22, 1975, to Mr. 139 Lader from W. C. Moser, Staff Attorney, See Broesche, "Land Use Regulation S.C. Water Resources Commission. for th-eProtection of Public Parks and Recreation Areas", 45 Texas Lo Rev. (1966) (hereinafter cited as Broesche)o 133 See Pamphlet, "Gift of Land," publishe--d by The Nature Conservancy 140 140 Broesche, supra at 110; "Preserving Open Spaces", supra at 1623. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 303 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects Part Six 141 Chicago B & Q RR v. Chicago, 166 151 Ibid., at 365. U.S. 226, 235-41 (1897). 52 See Anderson, "A Comment on the Fine -ine Between 'Regulation' and 142 Article 39, Magna Charta. 'Taking"', The New Zoning: Legal, Administrative, and Economic Concepts 143 and Techniques (Marcus and Groves, ed., Bosselman, supra at 319-21. 1970). 144 260 U.S. at 415. 153 See Johnson, "Constitutional Law and Community Planning", 20 Law & Contem- ~145 ~~i~bid., 415. porary Problems 199 (1955). 15Ibid., 415. 146 -154 See Management and Control of See Bosselman, supra. Growth--Vol. I-III (Scott ed. 1975). 147 1 Sax, "Taking and the Police Power", 155 See Ducsik, at 172-85. 74 Yale L. J. 36, at 62-65. Professor Sax disavowed this view in part in "Takings, Private Property, and Public 156 Waite, "The Dilemma of Water Recrea- Rights", 81 Yale L. J. (1971). atTeDlm oWtrRce- -Rights", 81 Yale L. J. (1971). tion and A Suggested Solution", 1958 Wisc. L. Rev. 542, at 608. 148 Kusler, "Open Space Zoning", 57 Minn. L. Rev. 1, 65 (1971). 157 Ducsik, supra. 149 149 Bosselman, supra at 318. 158 Cal. 2d 879, 264 p.2d 932 (1953); cert. denied 348 U.S. 817 (1954). 150 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114 (1926). HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 304 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects 159 Condemnation proceedings had been 165 For discussions of subdivision initiated so this was probably an effort control, see Heyman and Gilholl, to increase the property's "fair compen- "The Constitutionality of Imposing sation" value. Increased Community Costs on New Subur- ban Residents Through Subdivision Exactions", 72 Yale L. J. 1119 (1964); Strine, "The 160 It must be noted that plaintiffs Use of Conditions in Land Use Control", produced no evidence regarding the 67 Dick. L. Rev. 109 (1962); and Note, ordinance's effect on property values "Techniques for Preserving Open Spaces", and had themselves previously requested 75 Harv. L. Rev. 1622 (1962) (hereinafter a re-classification to commercial use. cited as "Preserving Open Spaces!'); and Platt and Moloney-Merkle, "Municipal Improvisation: Open Space Exactions," 161 See Dunham, "Flood Control via the 5 Urban Lawyer 706 (1973). Police Power", 107 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1098 (1959). 166 ~~~(1959).-~~ 166 ~See ibid. at 188-93, and cases 162I~~~~~~~~ ~cited therein. See, e.g., Dooley v. Town Plan and Zone Commission of Fairfield, 151 Conno. 167 304, 197A.2d 770 (1964), and Morris County 167 Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls, Land Improvement Co. v. Parsippany - 28 Wis. 2d 608, 137 N.W.2d 442 (1965). Troy Hills Township, 40 N.J. 539, 193A.2d See also Johnston, "Constitutionality of 232 (1963). Subdivision Control Exactions: The Quest for a Rationale", 52 Cornell L. Rev. 163 Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603 (1927). 168 "Beach Access", supra at 568-69. 164 See Note, "Zoning: Setback Line: A Re-appraisal", 10 William and Mary L. _Re-pril,1Wlima Mayv. 739(6).169 Wis. Stat. Sec. 236.16(3) (1957), as amended Wis. Laws 1957 ch. 88, Sec. 6; See Waite, Public Rights to Use and Have Access to Navigable Waters, 1958 Wis. L. Rev. 335, 368-71. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 305 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legsl Aspects Part Six 170 178 170 Wis. Stat. Sec. 23.09(14) (1957). Aynes, supra. 171 Fla. Stat. Sec. 335.16 (1959). 17 TDR has been the subject of considerable study in recent planning literature. For further discussion, see 172 This procedure was upheld in Jenad, Management and Control of Growth, supra. Inc. v. Village of Scarsdale, 28 Wis. 2d 608. 180 See Krasnowiecki and Paul, "The Preservation of Open Space in Metropolitan 173 Ibid., at 571. Areas", 110 U. Pa. L. Rev. 179 (1961); and Krasnowiecki and Strong, "Compensable Regulations for Open Spaces", 24 174 Id. at 569. J. of the Amer. Inst. of Planning 87 (1963). 175 See, e.g., Aures v. City Council, 34 Col. 2d 31, 207 p.2d 1 (1949); Pioneer 181 Tentative Draft #3, Amer. Law Inst. Trust & Savy. Bank v. Village of Mount Model Land Dev't Code, Sec. 9-111(3). Prospect, 22 Ill. 2d 375, 176 N.E. 2d 799 (1961): Brous v. Smith, 304 N.Y. 164, 106 N.E. 2d 503 (1952); Ducsik, supra at 191. Menomonee Falls, supra. 183 See "Preserving Open Spaces", supra 176 Pioneer Trust, supra; Menomonee Falls, at 1622-(1962). supra. 184 Bosselman et al, The Taking Issue 177 Billings Properties, Inc. v. (1953) at 328 Yellowstone County, 144 Mont. 25, 394 p02d 182 (1964). HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 30 . PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects 185 Alfred Betleman, as quoted in 192 Its authority stems from Section 10 Sussna, "The Status of American Land- of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Use Control," 45 Conn. Bar Jrnl.281,284 Section 103 of the Marine Protection, (1971). Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and Section 404 of the Federal Waters Pollution Control Act Amendments of 186 See id. at 294 et seq. 1972. 187 This section is a condensation of 193 P.L. 92-500. two studies and related public information materials: South Carolina Tidelands Report, S.C. Water Resources Commission, 194 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1451, 86 Stat. 1280 (July, 1970), and "The Institutional (1972). Framework for Land Use, Planning, and Regulation on South Carolina's Grand Strand", Clemson University Misc. Ext. 195 This report has, in fact, been Pub. (Sept., 1974), Ch. VI. partially sponsored by the South Carolina agency administering funds available under this federal law. 188~ S.C. Stat. 25-101. 196 15 C.F.R. Sec. 920 and 923. 189 S.C. Stat. 33-74. 197 197 15 C.F.R. Sec. 923.15. 190 S.C. Stat. 1-357.1-.2. 198 15 C.F.R. Sec. 923-15 and 923.17. 191 191 Among the many other federal agencies with coastal interests in South 199 P.L. 87-670, Sec. 4(f). Carolina are the National Parks Service, the Coast Guard, the Federal Powers Commission, and the Forest Services. 200 P.L. 91-190, Sec. 102(c). PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 307 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS LegaEll Aspects Part Six 201 20 01 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a) (1), 86 09 Letters of inquiry were sent by Stat. 816 (1972). Hartzog, Lader & Richards to the governors, legislative speakers, and pertinent federal agencies in every coastal state. 202 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1312. 210 Texas Coastal Legislation, (Prepared 203 H.R. 10394, S.2691, 93rd Cong., 1st by the General Land Office and the Texas Sess., (1973), and subsequently re-intro- Coastal and Marine Council; May, 1974) duced in various forms. See Appendix A. (hereinafter cited as "Texas Coastal Legislation"). 204 Rep. Robert C. Eckhardt (Democrat, 211 Texas). Id. at 8-16. 205 See Eckhardt, "A Rational National 212 See "The Beaches - Public Rights Policy on Public Use of the Beaches", 24 and Private Uses", Conference sponsored Syracuse L. Rev. 967 (1973). by Texas Law Institute of Coastal and Marine Resources and Senate Interim ~~~~~206~~ ~ ~~Coastal Zone Committee (1972); Footprints 6 HoR. 10394, Sec. 202. in the Sands of Time: An Evaluation of the Texas Seashore, Report of Texas Interim Beach Study Committee (1970; 207 Ibid. Sec. 204(a). Testimony of Texas State Senator A. R. Schwartz, Committee on Merchant Marine & Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives 208 See Black, "Constitutionality of (1972). the Eck-hardt Open Beaches Bill", 74 Colum. L. Rev. (1974), which asserts that there are no valid constitutional 213 objections to this Bill. Supra. 214 214 Texas Coastal Legislation. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 308 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects' 215 See Statutory Comment, "Coastal 219 Healy, "Saving California's Coast: Control-s in California: Wave of the The Coastal Zone Initiative and Its Future?", 11 Harv. J. on Leg. 463 (1974) Aftermath", Coastal Zone Management J., (hereinafter cited as "California Vol. 1, No. 4, 365 (1974) (hereinafter Controls"). cited as Healy). 216 Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. 27000- 220 Healy, supra at 372, n.20. 650 (West Supp. 1974). For discussion of the politics behind this legislation, see Adams, "Proposition 20 - A Citizen's 221 Campaign", 24 Syracuse L. Rev. 1019 Ibid. at 373. (1973). 222 Id. at 373. 217 The temporary permit system with simultaneous planning was successfully 223 adopted beforehand in San Francisco with Id.. at 373-74. the Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 224 Id. at 376. See Comment, "Shoreline 218 -Development Controls and Public Access 28See, e.g. "California Controls", to the Ocean's Edge," Coastal Zone Mgmt. supra; See also Doolittle, "Land Use J. Vol. 1, No. 4, 451 (1974). Planning and Regulation on the California Coast" (Unpublished- Institute of Governmental Affairs University of 225 The State Parks Department was California, Davis, May (1972); Douglas, given a specific period of time (in one "Coastal Zone ManagementA New Approach case, one year) to pardon the land. Ibid. in California", Coastal Zone Management), at 378. Vol. 1, No. 1, 1 (1973); Bodoritz, "The coastal Zone: Problems, Priorities, and 2a People", Unpublished Paper presented Art 26 Id. at 378 Conference on Organizing and Managing the Coastal Zone, Annapolis, Md., June 227 13-14, 1973. N.H.R.S.A., Ch. 258-B, 158-C (1967). PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 309 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Legal Aspects -Part Six 228 Department of Fish and Gare, Division 234 Gifford, supra at 460. of State Parks, Division of Resources Development, Water Resources Board, Department of Public Works and Highways, 235 Supra. Division of Safety Services, and Office of Planning and Research of the Division 2 of Economic Development. 36 See, e.g., Darnton, "Suburbs Stiffening Beach -Clubs," New York Times, July 10, 1972, at 1, Col. 1. 229 U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (GPO, 1970). 237 Ibid. 230 See Gifford, "An Islands Trust: Leading E dge s in Land Use Laws," 11 238 See,e.g., "Third Interim Report of the Leadin-g--Edges in Land Use Laws," 11 Harv. J. On Leg. 417 (1974) (hereinafter Special Commission Relative to the Management, cited as "Gifford"); and Rabinowitz, Operation, and Accessibility of Public "Martha's Vineyard: The Development of Beaches," The Commonwealth of Massachusetts a Legislative Strategy for Preservation," (August 21, 1975). Environmental Affairs (hereinafter cited as "Rabinowitz"). 239 Letter dated November 21, 1975 to Mr. Lader from Lawrence J. Turner, City Manager, Rehoboth 231 See, e.g., 118 Cong. Rec. 12.033 (1972), Beach, Delaware. 232 Gifford, supra at 428. 240 Supra. 233 See Gifford supra, and Rabinowitz, 241 Higginson v. Treasurer and School House supra. Commissioners of Boston, 212 Mass. 583,591 (1912)o The doctrine has been particularly well established in Massachusetts. See, e.g., Nickolos v. Commissioners of MTi-lesex County, 341 Mass. 13 (1960) (reservation)- HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 310 PUBLICBEACH ACCESS & RECREATIONINSOUTH CAROLINA Part Six Legal Aspects Inhabitants of Marblehead v. Commissioners 248 Application of the Equal Protection of Essex County, 71 Mass. 451 (1851) (shore- Clause could be possible in analogous land). situations. 242 "Massachusetts Commission," supra 249 Id, at 334 U.S. at 398. at 69-75. 250 Ibid. at 339. 243 Supra. i See "Public Municipal Beaches". 244 Note, "Access to Public Municipal Beaches: The Formulation of a Comprehensive Legal Approach," 4 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev. 936 (1973) 252 Ibid. (hereinafter referred to as "Public Municipal Beaches"). Although constitutional equal 2 protection arguments are relevant, the general 253 See, e.g., Avon-by-the-Sea, and failure of courts to establish recreation as a GerwiEtz; see also Public Rights and the "fundamental right" reduces this ground to one Nation's Shoreline, 2 ELR 10.184 (1972). of last resort. 254 This method is currently being 245 Shapiro v. Thompson 394 U.S. 618, implemented at Cumberland Island 638 (1969). National Seashore. 246 See Justice Goldberg's Opinion in 255 See, for extended discussion, Griswold v. Connecticut. National Parks for the Future. 247 334 U.S. 385 (1948). 256 E.g., McMichael v. United States, 335 F.2d 283 (9th Cir. 1965). 2.57 50 C.F.R. Sec. 28 (1974). PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 311 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 312 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Public Beach Access Par Seven And Recreation Plan Public Beach Access And Recreation hostility between beach community residents .... and their neighbors on holiday, and * Plan the exclusivity of prime beach areas all point to one conclusion: State and local governments must act! Beach recreation is a major use of South Carolina's coast. It is a State or local government acquisition source of immense economic and intangible of shoreline is the simplest solution, benefits to State and local governments but the sites and quantities necessary as well as private citizens. It is to meet projected recreation demand o~e f th Stae's chief distinguishing or-e of the State's chief distjnauishir are prohibitively expensive. In this characteristics. time of economic austerity and doubts about government programs and spending, South Carolina provides its resi- new alternatives must be sought. dents and visitors disproportionately great opportunities for beach access in No solution to the problems of comparison with other Atlantic states. public beach access and recreation Admittedly, economic motives underlie are likely to emanate from Washington. this fact: the State's businesses earn Nor would Federal mandates be desired a significant share of the lucrative by most South Carolinians. Their situation seashore recreation/vacation market. today is not so severe that solutions Whatever its reasons, however, the State are impossible. is a pacesetter in public access to beaches. To the contrary, the State has ample resources to remedy its coastal But leisure tre'nds and demand pro- recreation ills. This report's findings jectionsBshould alert South Carolinians and policies, site planning recommendations, hjections should alert South Carli and proposed implementation mechanisms today'sconcers aboutpubliccomprise a rudimentary beach access access may rapidly develop into crisis plan that is practical and effective. proportions. The paucity of accessways and beach parks, the inadequacy of What is now imperative is the existing parking and public facilities, public awareness, on the part of both traffic congestion and litter, the public officials and citizens, of the strains on beaches near urban centers, need to act swiftly. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 313 HARTZOG, LADER&RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven Premises Throughout this study, considerable differences of opinion were expressed by South Carolinians about methods of increasingI public access to the beaches. Yet there emerged a consensus regarding certain premises upon which this coastal plan has been developed.. A7~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HARTZOG, LADER & R~~~~~~~~~~~ICHRS34PBI EC CES&RCETO NSUHCRLN Public Beach Access Part Sever. And Recreation Plan The National Interest South Carolina's beaches are a resource The national interest in the of national significance. In 1974, more conservation of critical environmental than 10 million visitors sought refuge from areas and the expansion of public beach their daily pressures on the State's coast. access are the major points pertaining Industrial, defense, and commercial facilities, to recreation. Recognition of these serving the entire country, make irmportant interestS �y State and local 4overnments claims to the coastal zone. The shoreline is of paramount importance to the entire is home for an abundance of wildlife and East Coast of the United States and is Vegetation that have disappeared from other in their own economic self-interest. parts of the nation. Public agencies -- Federal, State, and local -- and private enterprise must The United States Congress, in the cooperatively establish the priority Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, declared of public recreation on the coast insofar the national policy "to preserve, protect, as it does not jeopardize irreplaceable develop, and where possible, to restore natural resources. or enhance, the resources of the nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations." Under this Act, South Carolina has received financial assistance for planning, and this study has been sponsored, iLn -art, as an element of the State's coastal zone management program. The Act's policy, therefore, has been a foundation of this beach recreation rplan. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 315 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven State and Local Prerogatives Since many local communities serve as State playgrounds during beach-going months, the State must relieve them of excessive fiscal burdens. Both State and local governments must conceive new funding Notwithstanding the national interest, mechanisms to provide for the costs of beach acquisition, maintenance, and safety. South Carolina's State and local govern-Conygvrmtshulpoidfnacl ments have long-established and well- ments ave lng-esablishd andwell-County governments should provide financial founded prerogatives regarding the coastal and peak-season man-power assistance to zone. Modest public expenditures can beach communities. A major share of these augment the recreational character ofcotshudbalctetoiizn costs should be allocated to citizens beaches. Public planning, if responsive statewide and amortized so that future to market preferences, can both affectthyrcie to maket peferncescan oth afectgenerations share the costs of benefits and satisfy demand. State government, with the counsel of Land-use deions cano bsthe manda he regional planning agencies, can lend an comuiy thoest whoca knowvterlndmendthe - community best: local government, overview to the coastal planning process. vested with an array of regulatory devices New coastal parks and a system of beach under the police power, can employ these accessways can only be achieved by a State commitment to expanded public access. to expand public beach recreation oppor- tunities while protecting residents' rights. Toge The variety of local responses can demon- strate the different values and conditions can greatly influence the direction of of coastal communities. and innovations in the leisure industry. Citizens' day and weekend use cannot be subordinated to tourism, and its economic benefits should be directed, in part, to general expansion and maintenance of recreation centers. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 316 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Public Beach Access Part Seven And Recreation Plan I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Environmental Policies The coastal ecosystem is an Beach conservation in South Carolina can integrated network of air, water, soil,, be accomplished only after these carrying light, vegatation, fish and wildlife, capacities have been determined, areas of People are a part, too. For untold critical environmental concern have reasons, they thrive near the sea, but been identified, and policymakers rest their development activities often have their land-use decisions on sound nndesirable consequences. Preservation environmental analysis. of some coastal areas is warranted by the need for scientific investigation and natural fish and wildlife habitats. Conservation of the entire coast's natural features is required by their The ownership and use of private irreplaceable character. property are fundamental concepts of both the Common Law and Federal Constitution. Both human development and Coastal recreation in South Carolina conservation, nevertheless, can oc- has been primarily the product of private casionally be subordinated to human initiative. It would be foolhardy for recreational needs. Neither pro- public beach access measures to dero- fligate, destructive use nor the ab- gate these rights or frustrate this in- solute prohibition of public access itiative. are alternatives. The land's and water's natural characteristics are Just compensation, under the the best parameters for balancing these Fifth Amendment mandate, must be paid interests when they conflict. for all coastal properties taken by State or local governments for conser- have limited carrying capacities in the CapaC-4-_ ~~vation or recreation use. Alternatives have limited crryiag in theto acquisition -- less'er interests than environmental as well as recreational f e toml andreuisition, folesr inexapessta sense. The coast's bountiful harvests sense.The cast'sbountiul havestsfee simple and regulation, for example -- I ~~and abundant recreational opportunities myb mlydfrfnnilraos may be employed for financial reasons, and aundan recratioal oportuntiesbut these mst also meet the Constitu- should not be lost to future gener- mu ations by straining these capacities. tional "taking" test. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 317 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven But private property rights are not- Private Enterprise absolute. In past decades, courts haveI upheld many restrictions on real property. many facilities for-.beach recreation, There is much reason for local communities especially vacation use, can most efficiently e to exercise their police power in innovative be developed and maintained by private enterprise ways. G.overizqrent -- through taxes, permits, i~ncentives,t and regulations -- can order the business It is not property owners' rights, environment of the tourism and recreation but their expectations which most frequently industry so that its pursuit of profitsI are affected by land use regulations. There prompts wehat public priorities demand. is nio right to guaranteed appreciation in land values. But neither can Government A healthy and prosperous private sectorI responsibly diminish values where significant is essential to South Carolina's economic investments, corporate or personal, have and recreational climates. Public/private- been made in reliance on existing regulations. cooperation can achieve objectives unattainable* to either sector. Although compromise on some issues, particularly those of environmental quality and social justice, are impossible, government must seek to foster and assistI private initiative. Similarly, the State's business community progressively views government as an arbiter and guardian of individual rights, personal and-' commercial. The provision of pub! ic beach access can be consistent with and complement commercial beach uses. What is most urgently needed are new mechanisms by which businessmen can profit -- and State I and local governments can participate in these profits -- by beach day-use and vacation by lower- and middle-income residents and visitors. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 318 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA3 Public Beach Access Part Seven And Recreation Plan Ii~ii~iii:'ii~i! IIIN O U H iARLIA!19Z !I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iii~B 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii~!!i~~ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii~iiii!1 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii~iii I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iiii~111iiil11i I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii~iiiiii I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~!i1i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~iiiiiiiii PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 31 9 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part SevenI Policies Economic Development Findings. South Carolina's second largest industry, tourism, is based, to a great extent, on the Coast's attractions. Beach recreation generates millions of dollars and creates thousands of jobs. Th~e Public Beach Access and Beach erosion and maintenance, air Recreation Plan merely summarizes and water pollution, and other evidence and reflects the extensive market, of inadequate beach management are costlyI environmental, and legal analysis to taxpayers and imperil maximum economic found in the study's Technical Re- development. Expansion and enhancement port. The Plan, based on these of beach access is critical to realization findings and the articulated pre- of the State's leisure industry potential. mises, consists of general policies, site planning recommendations, and Policy. Short-term economic benefits, proposed implementation mechanisms. resulting from piecemeal degradation ofI The policies purport to establish beach areas, must be subordinated to the a framework for States and local long-term values of coastal conservation. government decisionmaking regarding Well-planned, concentrated development - public beach access and recreation. commercial, residential, and industrial - can be economical to the public. Further residential and commercialI development will and should occur. But their planning should be provided by and conditioned on public beach recreation objectives. I By capitalizing upon the economic benefits of tourism and recreation, the State can underwrite environmental measures that Protect and enhance both natural and economic resources. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 320 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Public Beach Access PartSeven And Recreation Plan Natural Conservation Areas Coastal Zone Mamagement Findings. Important natural conservation areas are located on or near South Carolina's Findings. Under the Federal beaches. Dunes, wetlands, and tidepools, Coastal Zone Management Act, coastal among other places, are ecosystems in themselves. states are undertaking diverse ex- They are valued for recreation, food production, periments in regional planning. scientific study, and education. In response to popular initiative, California has one of the nation's Although burgeoning coastal development most comprehensive planning and threatens these areas, South Carolina has regulatory frameworks. Other states set aside many as wildlife refuges and parks, have preferred narrow scientific managed by Federal and State agencies. investigations of shoreline problems. In some regions, such as Charleston County, Although recreation is mentioned in recreational lands are dwarfed by conservation all of these programs, it is receiv- areas. ing greatly different emphasis among the states. Policy. Environmentally significant natural areas and rare wildlife species Policy. South Carolina's should be preserved. Even when development coastal zone management program is is permitted, damage to natural beach features not to be one primarily of land-use must be minimized. control. Its orientation will be toward environmental concerns and Environmental protection measures, the control of broad growth patterns, nevertheless, must be founded on scientific rather than comprehensive site- analysis and not merely on rhetoric. Oftentimes, specific planning. Public beach recreational use is compatible with nature access, nevertheless, shall be a conservation. Wherever limited recreation major focus of the program. Fur- would not endanger a specific beach tract, ther study and implementation of including current Ti!dlife refuges and nature the State's beach recreation demand preserves, such use should be permitted. an catin de Without compromise on critical environmental based upon this Plan and be an issues, land-use decision-making must include integral part of the coastal plan. reference to pressing demands for beach recreation. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 321. HARTZOG. LADER&RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seve'n Air and Water Quality ~~~Major projects --such as airports, highways, refineries, power plants, and manufacturing plants -- should not only Findings. Clean air and water are comply with all applicable Federal, State, valuble conmic esorcesand re ssenialand local environmental protection measuresl vaubeeonoi residrens' and viitrs'essenteal t but also be required to be sited, designed,I to reident' andvisiors' ood halthconstructed, and operated according to tech- and aesthetic enjoyment. The State's beaches nlgclpoeue hc iiiepluin presently suffer from little air and water nlgclpoeue hc iiiepluin pollution. But proposed developments and Such facilities and new residential pressures for increased industrial use of developments should be required to contribute the coastal zone may introduce pollutants.topbitrntsyemad/ropove ample parking spaces for beach users. OpenI Meteorological and littoral phenomena space and architectural circulation systems along the coast would exacerbate any suchshudbenorg. damage to coastal air and water. Intensiveshudbenorg. transportation corridors leading to the beaches and automobile parking centers may introduce additional pollution. High-rise Beach Appearance buildings and concentrated development alsoI increase pollution by changing natural wind patterns. Policy. All potential pollut'ion-generating Findings. Residents and. visitors alike developments -- residential, commercial, cherish South Carolina's beaches for their and industrial -- should be planned, designed, scenic beauty. At some points, public and and operated to maintain and improve the commercial beach access and recreation have coast's air and water quality. Particular been provided with respect for the coast's concern should be placed on existing and aesthetic quality. In other places, however, proposed facilities which impact recreation new developments have injured the coast'sI areas. visual resources. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 322 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA3 U ~~~~~~~~~Public Beach Acces's * ~~Part Seve'n And Recreation Plan Amongst the eyesores are litter; billboards; cutting and grading of natural landf arms; With State assistance, local inappropriate scale, height, materials, government s should reduce litter along and towers; and man-made structures blocking beach maintenance. State legislation 3 ~~natural views. to this end should be enacted. There is great variety in the characters No development or traffic that of coastal communities, and South Carolinians would conflict with the visual form I ~~differ greatly in their social values and of dune ridgelines or destroy their =3i-cepts of beauty. But under the police vegetation should be permitted. The power, local beach communities can apply natural silhouette of dunes should be I ~~~general design guidelines to restore or preserved. preserve their appearances. Local governments should restrict Policy. Visual access to beaches and or ban oceanfront construction that I ~~the ocean should be considered an essential would hamper another oceanfront building's part of the State's tourism and recreational visual access of the beach unless no appeal. Local governments should ensure alternative is economically or phy- I ~~~that new developments do not degrade the sically feasible. scenic quality of their beaches. Commercial facilities near the Design standards and permit procedures beach -- including, but not limited should be a part of every beach community's to hotels, motels, and restaurants -- and county's general plan. Sign ordinances should be required to utilize natural should designate scenic accessways and generally Iandscaping to reduce their visual I ~~~reduce the visual impact of highway and impact on the natural environment. street advertising. County and city plans Residential developments should be en- should maximize open spaces, protect view couraged to protect existing vegatation corridors and natcvral lndf orms, and m;,-inmize and complement it with landscaping the effect of visually intrusive structures. that minimizes the appearance of in- When existing mrechanisms are ineffective, tense development. design review processes should be established by local governments. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 323 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven3 Signs Community Planning Findings. Throughout the State,5 signs and billboards block coastal views, Findings. As a result of clutter the appearance of beach corn- Federal and State incentives and ur- munities, and detract from the coast's ban growth, regional planning agencies natural beauty. Some local governments and municipalities throughout the have not adopted sign ordinances; and coast are developing or revising comn- where they have, design criteria and prehensive community plans. in few enforceme nar inadequate. of these is public beach access emphasized. Policy. Local governments should Fo-nsid~er adoption of ordinances Policy. Public planning agen-3 containing at least the following pro- cies areT capaible of directing urban visions: New off-premise commercial, growth and promoting public objectives. signs should be prohibited, and existing Public beach access and recreation ones should be removed after a reason- should be among their chief socio- able amnortization period. on-premise economic concerns. The specific re- commercial signs should be permitted commendations of this Plan should beI for identification and promotional pur- incorporated into existing and future poses, but only if they are designed as comprehensive local plans. Incon- an integral part of the structure. sistencies should -be reconciled after Public information and directional signs maximum public discussion and input.j should-harm~onize with surroundings. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS324 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Public Beach Access Part Seven And Recreation Plan Distinctive Beach Communities Transporation Planning Findings. Beach recreation -- day use and vacation -- derives special advantages from the particular architectural, historical, and scenic qualities of individual communities. Findings. New roads, although necessary Their distinctiveness results in loyal leisure to increase beach access, may effectively markets. impede access in two ways: by decreasing the amount of potential recreational land But in many places high-rise condominiums, available while increasing recreational shopping centers, hotels and motels have demand in the area; and by increasing traffic replaced architecturally interesting or loads on local beach comm unity roads and distinctive neighborhoods. Lower-income compounding their parking problems. New residents have been priced out of increasingly highways, however, may effectively disperse affluent communities. Traffic congestion beach use demand and may relieve the Ocean from summer day users has diminished the Highway of traffic. recreational experience for many visitors and plagued residents. Policy. State and local officials should be mindful of the effects of transporta- Policy. Beach communities and neighbor- tion planning on beach access and recreation. hoods should be protected from intense urbani- Recreation demand should not be exacerbated zation, and their unique characteristics by road siting, but neither should repairs preserved and enhanced. Community advisory be neglected to discourage access. The committees should assist local governments need for additional recreation space near in determining how new development can be beaches should be reflected in remote parking compatible with earmarks of their respective areas, easily accessible from major arteries beach communities. Inappropriate development and connected by mass transit to beach areas. should be prohibited, and incentives should encourage restoration of existing structures. Care should be taken to ant'i opportunities for residence and retirement by persons of all income levels. PUBLICHSRIT PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA32HRZO.LDR&ICAS I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 ATOLDRRCAD Public Beach Access Pr ee And Recreation Plan Pr ee Park~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~in Finding s Beach-use surveys demonstrate Policy. State and local governments1 thd critical need for additional parking must establish the provision of additional at every public beach area along the coast. parking space as a chief priority of their3 Even conservative projections indicate tremen- recreation planning. Remote sites, connectedU dous increases in demand during the next to the beach by mini-buses or other public fifteen years, resulting in a magnification transportation, should be developed wherever of the present parking problems. A major possible. Off-island parking should heI limitation on public access is likely to provided for coastal state parks. Authorized be the shortage of automobile parking space. weekend and holiday use of private, commercial parking spaces should be sought.I HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 326 P~~~~~UBIBAHACES&RRATOINOUHAOLA I ~~~~~~~~~Public Beach Access I ~~Part Seven And Recreation Plan Surfing Law Enforcement Findings. Surfing is an increasingly Findings. Law enforcement and the popular type of coastal recreation. maintenance of order at recreation centers Several South Carolina beaches enjoy surf generally require police officers with special coraci-16ions which attract enthusiasts from training and temperaments. Particularly all parts of the State and its neighibors. at beaches, police patrol is necessary for But careless surfers and loose boards reasons of public safety, traffic control, pose genuine safety threats to swimmers. and citizen assistance. Those beaches which are not located within municipal police Policy. Surfing should be recog- jurisdictions, however, generally lack police I ~~nized by coastal communities as a legi- attention. timate beach sport. Restrictions may be appropriate if their objective is swimmer Policy. Law enforcement at public safety and not the frustration of surfers. beach recreation areas must be provided Their access should not be confined to jointly by municipal, county, and State limited beach areas or hours if such patrolmen. County sheriffs' departments regulations substantially diminish surfing should bear primary responsibility for attend- I ~~opportunities. ing to beach areas outside municipalities' corporate limits. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 327 HARTZOG. LAIDER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven3 Assistance to Communities ~~~Erosion Prevention/Abatement Findings. Coastal communities, constrained Findings. Neither publicly nor privately by relatively small tax bases, must service owned beach areas are imamune from erosion. large numbers of seasonal residents and Federal and State programs attempt to prevent visitors. Their operating budgets are dependent or abate this loss of beach because it di- upon financial assistance from the State minishes both economic values and recreational and Fedcral governments. Yet State priorities opportunities. for local grant applications -- such as Plc.Npubifudorastnc those for highway safety, law enforcement,Poiy Nopbcfudorastne and rad imrovemnts - arefrequntlyfor erosion control should be made available deemned byerround, iperovenents popuatiorquntl to beaches which have no public access. deerinegyyerrunprmaentpouato Erosion prevention/abatement priorities fig~~~~~~~~~~~~hulds be generally consistent with the im- U Policy. Grants to local governments portance of each site to the State .Beach from State and Federal agencies should be Access and Recreation Plan. allocated not on permanent, but on peak season population. Consideration should be given to the extreme burdens imposed on beach communities by citizens throughoutI the State and tourists from elsewhere. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 328 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA3 I ~~~~~~~~Public Beach Access I ~~Part Seven And Recreation Plan Site Planning Recommendations To raise these policies from the the product of market, environmental, level of abstraction, specific site and legal analysis. Their objective is I ~~planning recommendations are necessary. the practical maximization of South They were formed within the context of Carolina' s public beach recreation this study's express premises and are opportunities. ~~~PBIC EC CES&RCETO NSUHCRLN 2 ATO.LDR&RCAD Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven3 Waccamaw Region Waties Island ~~~~~~both recreational and educational Waties Island ~~~~~~interests. Its proximity to North Wa~ies sland teming wth fishCarolina promises extensive use from Wa~iesIsland-- teeing wih fishboth Carolinas. and wildlife, its ocean beach beautiful - is the only unspoiled sea island on the All or most of the island, the State'-s northern coast. It should be causeway, and property on the western acquired for use as a state park. side of the mainland at Little River Neck should be acquired. For enhancement Although its use should not be of both the visitor's natural experienceI intensive, the Island can support and the market value of land retained by recreation. To allow it to fall victim the present owners, a buffer zone should to development pressures would be to be maintained. At a minimum, parkingI lose the Waccamaw Region's last oppor- areas for 150 cars and 150 campsites tunity to punctuate Grand Strand with parking spaces should be located commercialism with a natural setting. on the mainland. Motor access to the To designate it as a wilderness area Island should be limited to maintenance would be an environmentally unnecessary and emergency vehicles. loss of potential beach recreation. Current negotiations between theI An innovative use for the Island State Department of Parks, Recreation would be to develop an environmental and Tourism and the owners should be interpretation/recreation center. encouraged and expedited. Sale, preferably, I island trails, overlooks, and displays, or long-term lease terms could be structured with mai~nland cabins and campgrounds, to provide significant tax advantages to could make it a living, playing museum the owners. Federal funds would be of coastal ecology. It could be a available for acquisition; developmentI layman's nature study center amidst and maintenance assistance should be swinaming, fishing, and picnicking sought from North Carolina. Relinquishing facilities. Conservation easements would this property for general public recreation I ~ensure that its recreational use would would be a noteworthy, civic-minded act. not precipitate development or intensive -on the part of the owners. uses. As a hybrid between a refuge and recreation center, it would appeal to HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 330 PUBLIC B3EACH ACCESS & RECRETO NSUHCRLN ReDren-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: iA/d Page #: Wa Public Beach Access Part Seven And Recreation Plan The Grand Strand There is ample public access to The Grand Strand is a prime example Grand Strand beaches, but these are al- of how private enterprise, and public most entirely commercial in nature. By coffers in turn, benefit from use of enforcing design and construction beaches as a public resource. Continued regulations, local governments should intensive commercial use will be of maintain this zone as one of North great economic benefit to the entire America's favorite beach playgrounds. State. Part of the revenues earned by private establishments here and through- The Grand Strand should be recog- out the coast should be tapped, or an nized as providing only moderate, at add-on tourism tax imposed, to sustain best, day-use recreation. It can day-use beach parks. absorb even more intensive commercial vacation use so long as facilities To support the beach maintenance are not dominated by day users. Demand and safety precautions occasioned by for beach recreation here will largely such intense, commercial use, the be determined and allocated by pri- existing concession program should be vate promotion, accommodations, and continued. This self-sustaining entertainment, their quality and quantity. program, obliging private concessions to bear beach maintenance responsi- In North Myrtle Beach and Atlantic bilities, should be a model for other Beach, remote parking areas should be commercial beach areas. built and connected by mini-bus, with County assistance, to dedicated pedes- trian beach accessways. Provision of such parking should relieve Myrtle Beach of some non-commercial day-use conges- tion. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 331 HARTZOG. LADER&RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven Myrtle Beach State Park A major reason for the need to develop additional state parks in the Waccamaw Region is that the intense pressures on Myrtle Beach State Park's Surfside Beach recreational carrying capacity cannotI otherwise be abated. This park, never- To relieve local visitation congestion theless, will continue to absorb major in Myrtle Beach and Surfside Beach, the day-use beach demand because of its full latter's municipal government should complement of recreation facilities, dedicate at least twenty beach access good swimming, and surf ing. easements under its police power. Remote parking and mini-bus transpor- Intensive day use of this park tation should be provided with County, should be continued, vacation use State, and Federal assistance. should be held at a moderate level so that middle and lower income vacationersI can have easy access to Myrtle Beach's commercial recreation facilities. Development of Waties island andI Waccamaw Neck as parks would draw away some North Carolina visitors, but those who are attracted by Myrtle Beach's Garden City BeachI recreation facilities will likely continue to vacation here. Provision Under Georgetown County jurisdiction, of parking at North Myrtle Beach would Garden City Beach should serve the mitigae dayuse dmand ere t helprecreation needs of local residents.I iiallo forus vacanheetion uselp Beach access for those whose property does not front the ocean should be ,Higher .user fees s~hould be int-provided through regulation or acquisi- tuted here rather than at the new parks tintacess stroglests.ta-e in an attempt to re-distribute existing itrss demand. User-fee levels must be deter- mined as a means of offsetting all the regional parks' development and main- .tenantce costs. . 'HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 332 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA U ~~~~~~~~~Public -Beach Access * ~~Part Seven -And Recreation Plan Huntington Beach State Park Litchfield' Beach Like Myrtle Beach State PrNorth Litchfield Beach is a recognized Huntington Beach State Park's recreational private community, its beach access carrying-capacity will continue to be limited to residents. Before the undeveloped I ~~~strained even if additional coastal parcel to the south is developed, however, parks and accessways are developed, the County should endeavor to purchase, under the- Beaufort County subdivision Lower user fees than at Myrtle regulations plan, several accessways. Beach State Park should be instituted Moderate day use would thereby be permitted. here to induce dispersal of beach-goers unti newrecreation patterns are established. The Litchfield Beach area is a Such fees, nevertheless, should under- popular residential/commercial summer write development and maintenance destination. There are insufficient costs'generally, and not on a pro-rata, parking spaces and inadequate natural I ~~~individual park basis. activity buffers to warrant introduction of day recreation to present land uses. This State park can and must Its vacation use will be exclusively absorb intensive day use from the entire commercial, and day use will be limited region. its facilities and distance to residents and guests. from Myrtle Beach suggaest that its vacation use will be limited. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 333 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven Pawleys Island Waccamaw Neck Similarly, Pawleys Island should The land adjacent to Waccamaw continue to serve as a residential/ River, commonly known as Waccamaw commercial community. Several beach Neck, should be acquired by the State accessways should be legally estab- or Georgetown County� It is potentially lished for residents of interior homes, an important regional park with fishing, but more-generalized recreational use picnicking, and boat-launching facilities. would be inconsistent with the Island's present uses. Beach access could be provided by ferry to North Island. Day parking should be available at the mainland for 250 automobiles. One hundred fifty campsites, with parking and attendant facilities, Debidue Beach should also be developed there. The establishment of such a park The private community at Debidue would significantly relieve recreation pressures on Huntington Beach State Park, privatessntl as the mos aches. especially, and Myrtle Beach State Park. Acooperativae pulccessrvallthe arangembea . The foundation which presently owns this A cooperative public/private arrangement tathsbe eycoeaiewt h similar to that between Charleston County tat h as an vegotiative for t and the developers of Kiawah Island should thin trast an d ne gorons for be sought. be sought. ~~~~~~~this tract should be vigorously pursued. One access point at the edge of the property, with a 50-car parking area, would make the beach far more accessible to Georgetown residents. Such dedication would only moderately increase overall public access, but merits negotiation. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 334 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1 ~~~~~~~~Public Beach Access * ~~Part Seven And Recreation Plan H ~~~North and South Islands I ~~~Although ferry access to North Island is recommended, its ecosystem is too fragile to support intense recreational I ~~use. It is currently a privately-owned wildlife preserve and perpetuation of that use should be guaranteed by public acquisition of all or part of the Island through the Heritage Trust Program. Moderate day-use beach access should be permitted on the southern one mile of North island or the northern mile of South Island. Cat Island Since it is primarily a waterfowl I ~~area, has little beach, and lacks road access, Cat Island is best left as a remote, primitive camping area. To cross the Intercoastal Waterway -- a recurring problem in the formulation of this beach access plan -- a 65-foot bridge would be required. That great an I ~~expense can be marginally justified only by moderately intense recreation, which Cat Island cannot support. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 335 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Part Seven Public Beach Access Pr ee And Recreation PlanI Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Region Cedar Island and Murphy Island Francis Marion National Forest Cedar and Murphy islands, as part Although Francis Marion National of the Santee Coastal Reserve, have Forest has no ocean frontage, it can been appropriated to conservation purposes. facilitate low-cost beach access for But some limited areas on both islands vacationers by serving as a dormitoryI could sustain primitive camping, particu- for beach day-~use. larly along the Intracoastal Waterway. These should be developed in conjunction Itself an attraction, the ForestI with the Reserve's interpretive nature has ample space for, at least, an additional program. 50 ~~~~~~~to 100 campsites. Tourism promotional Thphlo n rahrouswtrsm materials could alert vacationers toI ofthe Souhalo Sandtreeacherouskebater the twofold benefits, relative ease, aces the Sourphy slande difivecmuebot. and budgetary advantages of combiniiig accesh oMurpy lad beilftfs icldenssae. a national forest camping trip with It shuld b leftas awildeness rea.afternoon drives to the beach. Some additional recreational use, however, could be made of Cedar Island. A pier, wildlife observation blinds, and canoe trails would greatly enhanceBulaynBtIIsnd its recreation appeal. B u l a y n d BIIsns For reasons similar to those applicable I Two state ferries should leave to Murphy Island, Bull Bay Island should from Moore's Landing: one could stop be left primarily to conservation use. at Hampton Plantation, beach- access A beach access point for limited dayI points on Bull Bay, Murphy, and Cedar use should be designated and linked Islands. The other would go to beach by ferry to Moore's Landing and Cedar access points on Bull and Capers Islands. Island. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 336 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Renren-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: IS g Page #: U ~~Part Seven Public Beach Access I ~~~~~~~~~And Recreation Plan U ~~~~Bull Island could sustain natureCaesIlnadDwessad photgrahy, irdwatching, and similarCaessanadDwesIad recreational activities and thereby permit limited access to the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge. Limited beach Already State-owned, Capers Island day-use would be consistent with the should be developed as a major recreation I ~~~area's conservation objectives, area to attract Charleston area beachgoers By including Capers Island as a fritniedyue I ~~~stop on a state ferry from Moore's Landing Principal access would be via State- to Bull Island, both increased ferry owned toll ferry service from the Isle traffic and dispersion of Charleston of Palms marina, to which would be added metropolitan day-use beach demand can additional paved parking spaces at State be accomplished. Since there is inadequate and Charleston'County expense. Secondary recreation and support facilities on access would be via the Moore's Landing Bull Island to entertain most people ferry. Ferry service and the provision I ~~~for an entire day, the existing ferry of parking constitute minor costs relative service is under-utilized. By linking to beach site acquisition. Bull to Capers and developing Capers Island, more frequent ferry service State-licensed concessions should would be justified and limited beach be developed at distinct activity centers recreation on Bull Island'would become throughout Capers Island. Bicycles, electric more popular. vehicles, beach equipment, food, and beverages I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~should be available. Fifty primitive Additional paved parking at Moore's campsites and no fewer than four comfort Landing would increase thAfe appeal of stations should he built. I ~~this ferry access and draw some potential Isle of Palms marina-users. State and The State's profit percentage from County authorities must cooperate to concessions and user fees should offset, make Moore 's Landing an attractive alter- at least in part, beach maintenance. native to the Isle of Palms marina lest Provision should be made for the elderly this beach access plan result in increased and handicapped as well as back-island I ~~~burdens on that community. campers. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTI-t CAROLINA 337O. AE RCAD Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven The sale of development rights by Intensive public recreational de- Dewees Island's owners has resulted in velopment of Capers Island would alleviate significant diminution of its market value. this pressure. Provision of parkingI Although it should consequently be available at and expansion of the Isle of Palms for public acquisition on reasonable terms, marina would mitigate Capers access Dewees is not essential to this beach Pressures on Isle of Palms. Although access plan if Capers is developed as secondary ferry service to Capers Island recommended. from Moore's Landing would divert some Charleston residents to that route, Charleston County might acquire Dewees the Isle of Palms marina would still and maintain its natural state. Primitive be the principal means of access. camping should then be provided. Isle of Palms South Carolina's most crucial beach access problem is the provision of day- use recreation areas in the CharlestonI metropolitan region. Isle of Palms presently bears a major portion of this burden, and its problems will inevitablyI be exacerbated by beach recreation trends and projections. only dispersion of Charleston residents to other beach access points recommended in this plan and development of new commercial beach vacation facilitiesI can avoid severe problems for the Isle of Palms and neighboring beach communities.i HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 338 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Public Beach Access * ~Part Seven And Recreation Plan The classic solution to much of Although most of the Island's oceanfront the Charleston day-use demand problem property is developed, there are-many is pulcaqiiinof the undeveloped potential public accessways which can northern end of Isle of Palms for park be acquired by local government purchase purposes. This alternative, however, or regulation. Moderate day use would would likely be too costly to be realis- thereby be encouraged. I ~~tic and would distress-many Isle of Palms residents who do not welcome massive The most evident need is for parking, infusion of day-users along the beaches and County assistance should be made available of their residential community. to purchase and pave a site for beach- I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~use parking. The County, nevertheless, should acquire accessways in this undeveloped Both Sullivans Island and Isle of northern part of the island before it Palms should explore mechanisms which is subdivided. Lest additional public could make day-use of their beaches more access to Isle of Palms' beaches result economically advantageous to the local in greater traffic congestion through community and private enterprise. The the heart of the city, this area should Myrtle Beach concession/maintenance system not be developed into a major public could be applied on a smaller scale., recreation center without causeway access. State assistance for beach maintenance, I ~~Since a bridge spanning the marsh and in addition or in the alternative, is waterway would be prohibitively expensive, also necessary. moderate public beach use and government I ~~incentives for development of a middle- class, low-cost private beach club are Morris Island recommended. Although the tip of Morris Island Sullivans Island ~~~~could serve as a public beach area, access sullivans Island ~~~would be extremely difficult. The Charleston * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Harbor is too dangerous for small craft, Sullivans Island shares the Isle and the run from Folly Island requires of Palms' problems in nearly equal dimensions. a difficult oceanfront run. Its traffic congestion potential is not I ~~so great, bait local residents fear intensive The Island should be maintained, day-use pressures just as much. therefore, as a conservation area. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access Pr ee And Recreation Plan Pr ee Folly Island Folly Island is widely regarded as A small beach park should also be a public beach, and its proximity to Charles- established for moderate use. The prime ton makes it a prime recreation area, location would be the present Coast GuardI despite an eroding beach. in the near- -Station site. If the present tracking term, existing facilities should be improved, system is revised or replaced, it should parking and comfort stations added, and be acquired under the Federal Surplus3 beach access easements acquired by the Property Act and dedicated to public recrea - State and County. tional use. Federal Icommunity improvement funds Perhaps because of the limited existing should be secured as seed money to encourage access, Charleston has not maximized its upgrading of the oceanfront commercial tourism industry by emphasizing the nearby district. 'Through concessions, local beaches which can complement an Historic government should provide more recreation Charleston vacation. Public acquisition opportunities and an improved beach maintenance of additional accessways and provision program. of limited beach facilities would permit promotion of far more attractive vacation The municipality, with State, County, packages. Each of the recommended day- and Federal assistance, should develop, use areas -- especially Capers, Folly, over the long-term,, a beach-oriented public and Kiawah Islands -- should be planned activity center. Because of the Island's as destinations for vacationers staying narrow configuration and erosion problems, in hotels and motels elsewhere in the the Envi1ronmental Protection Algency or metropolitan area. another authority may effectively prohibit further commercial or residential development. Accessways should be acquired by regulation or Purchase to open this beach to trulyI public use. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS340 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Public Beach Access Part Seven And Recreation Plan Kiawah Island Kiawah Island has the potential The 150 parking spaces, nonetheless, of becoming a commercial vacation center will be grossly inadequate to accommodate of the same magnitude and character public demand. The County, with State as Hilton Head Island. Much of this assistance, should acquire an off-island tourism will be incremental, rather parking site and provide shuttle trans- than drawn from other State resort areas. portation to Kiawah island ing the In this way, the economically up-scale super mionths. Kn weekend and vacation demand for Charleston beaches will be largely satisfied. 3"' The Island, therefore, will have a significant, beneficial impact on the State and local ecojiomies. But ( the provision of additional commercial beach access, however important economically, is no substitution for addition of accessways for day-users and vacationers of low- SeabrookIsland and middle-income levels. Kiawah's developers have agreed Seabrook Island is another private to permit public access to the western community. Its beach access is restricted portion of the Island and to provide to property owners and their guests. public beach facilities, supported by Although the development has one beach parking fees. Regardless of whether parcel that could be made available this park is the result of public black- for public acquisition, it is not essential mail for zonina approval, private benevo- to this beach access plan. lence, or some mixture thereof, it is a noteworthy example of public-private cooperation. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 341 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access Part Seven And Recreation Plan Botany Bay and Edisto Islands Bear Island Notwithstanding its state park? The Bear Island game management Edisto Island is under-utilized as a area, operated by the State Wildlife Resources Department, should include beach recreation site. More than Botany Resor D easonl ide Bay, which is exclusively residential, cilitie s it souldewlef Edisto Island offers accessway opportunities to which can be acquired by local govern -its present conservation use. ment through purchase or regulation. Promotion is needed to convey its proximity. But existing images and recreation patterns suggest that to Charleston, Edisto Beach offers minimal relief to the region's day-use recreation pressures. Hunting island State Park Hunting Island State Park's natural Edisto Beach State Park features compare favorably with other beach areas, and it is within easy driving distance of most Beaufort County residents Edisto Beach State Park is a more and military personnel. Facilities natural setting for intensive day-use must be added to make it a more interesting than Folly Island. It should be promoted place to visit, and its image needs as an intensive day-use beach. to be highlighted by Low Country promotion. Development of additional campsites The park can sustain moderate vacation and vacation cabins would allow Edisto use and should continue to absorb very Beach State Park to support more vacationers intensive day use. Beaufort County, of low- and middle-incomes. Because consequently, should acquire neighboring of Edisto's distance from Charleston, Harbor Island for park development. its use will consist primarily of day- Harbor Island parking and camping facilities users and vacationers from other parts would alleviate the pressure on Hunting of the State. Island.' HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 342 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS& RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Do Not Scan Renren-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: 5~ ~ L/Page #: Page #t: - Public Beach Access * Part Seven And Recreation Plan Fripp Island Fripp Island is another private Parris Island community, its beach access restricted to property owners and their guests. Its exclusive character and logistical difficulty suggest that public access could not be realistically secured. Several small, inland parks are planned and should be developed near Parris Island. All lands within the confines Pritchards Island of the U.S. Marine Corps base are considered environmentally or security sensitive. Most of Pritchards Island is marshland. Recreational use would therefore be Since any bridge access to the mainland inappropriate. would endanger the marsh, the Island should be left as a wildlife area. Current plans-for private development of an international conference center would not conflict with this beach access Callawassielsland plan. I St. Phillips Island Calawassie Island, presently owned by the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, should be purchased by the Access to St. Phillips Island is State and used as a tidewater camping confined to boats, and the highway route area. Current plans for resort development from Beaufort to the ramp nearest the should be revised in light of this study's Island is quite circuitous. Principally market projections. because of these access problems, its private ownership and development plans, and its relatively small beach, St. Phillips is of minor importance to public beach access planning. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 343 HARTZOG. LADER &RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven *Hilton Head island Hilton Head Island is the region's primary commercial vacation destination. Amidst its private communities, hotels, rental condominia, and cottages provide coinmarcial access to thirteen miles of beach. There is, however, no clearly established public beach area. The right-of-way at Coligny Circle The crowding of the Coligny Circle adjacent to the Holiday Inn, popularly beach area by summer day visitors could regarded as a public accessway, should be alleviated by encouraging access be acquired by the State. But by itself, through the 19 streets in North Forest this area is not sufficient to satisfy Beach. This area, known as Hilton Head public day-use demand. Beach Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2, fronts 4,900 feet of wide sand beach. Beach A two-block interior park being access advocates contend that the Hilton considered for North Forest Beach, once Head Company dedicated 36-feet rights- clear title has been established, should of-way at the end of each of these roads be developed as a parking area for the for general ocean access. But the developer Coligny Circle accessway and other nearby and residents, claiming otherwise, claim accessways which litigation may establish that these easements were reserved solely as having been dedicated by the developer. for owners of subdivision lots. The Beaufort County Recreation Commission should develop and maintain these areas. There is no record of formal dedi- cation of these accessways to public use. Whether they have been reserved to property owners' use or are open to general public access is an issue that must be determined by litigation. The market and environmental findings of this study could appropriately be incorporated into an amicus curiae brief to demonstrate the public need for addi- tional beach access points. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 344 PUBLICBEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Public Beach Access Part Seven And Recreation Plan Daufuskie Island Also disputed as public beach access A public toll ferry to Daufuskie points are the streets between the Hilton Island from Palmetto Bay Marina on Hilton Head Inn and the Sea Pines Plantation Head Island would enhance the Island's ocean gate. Six streets with 50-feet property values. In return, the State rights-of-way and three walkways with should exact public beach access rights 75-feet rights-of-way are frequently from the owners. Limited day use would used by the public. The public's right thereby be available. Public costs cf passage, nonetheless, has never been would be limited to ferry service and clearly established. provision of 50 additional parking spaces at the marina. Even these actions, however, would not satisfy demand for non-commercial day-use of the beaches. The need for a separate public beach site can best be met by State acquisition of the Ashmore property near Port Royal Plantation. Parking for 150 cars, changing rooms, and comfort stations should be developed. Traffic congestion at the southern end of the Island would thereby be relieved. At each of these public access Because of its natural inaccessibility points, licensed concessionaires should and environmental conditions, Turtle provide food, beverages, and beach items Island should be left as a conservation and, under the adoption of the Myrtle area. Beach system, be required to maintain the beach. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 345 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven3 Implementation Mechanisms To implement the Beach Access and Recrea- tion Plan's policies and site planning recommend- ations, several innovativeI government mechanisms must be fashioned. Gen- erally, these implementa-I tion tools are modest in design and have been proved successful in other contexts. No massive Cali-I fornia-like coastal bur- ~~ ~~~': ~~~eaucracy is needed in V ~~~~ ~South Carolina. The pro-I posed implementation mech- anisms offer, individ- ually and as combinations,I a variety of ways local governments and the State can contribute to real- ization of this Plan. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 346 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA1 U ~~~~~~~~~Public Beach Access I ~~Part Seven And Recreation Plan Common Law Devices South Carolina courts should employ "Dedication", like prescription, traditional common law concepts in liti- refers to rights in particular land gation seeking to retard the erosion of Jarcels. To be enforceable, -the theory public recreational opportunities in the depends on both the owner's intention State's shoreline. to offer specific land or interests I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~therein and acceptance by the public. ."Custom" would permit the St-ate Both can be either expressed or im- to claim an easement by public use on plied. I ~~particular accessways. It could not be used, by single claim, to serve as the basis for declaring that an entire The issue of applicability of coastal strip belongs to the beaches. these theories in South Carolina is It promises most help when littoral clouded. Although they may be useful owners have been unaware of their title in the reclamation of beaches pre- to the beach and the State can demon- viously used for public recreation, strate long public enjoyment of the they are not effective planning tools. site . Une h hoyo rsrpinEach doctrine has shortcomings, and ad hoc adjudication alone will not Under the theory of "prescription", adequately address South Carolina's~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~deutlyadrs ouhCroia apublic easement can similarly be cre- beach recreation shortage. ated in privately owned lands. Title would remain with the owner, but use of I ~~the land for recreational purposes would be shared with the public. Such an easemaent could be established by I ~~showing open, continuous, an adverse use of the land without the owner's permission. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 347 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access Parseven, And Recreation Plan Legislation The Act would declare the erection Given the limitations of ad hoc judicial of signs designed to exclude the public expansion of coastal recreation opportunities, from open beaches to be a criminal offense. the Legislature should adopt several sub- Such legislation would be only part of a stantive measures regarding beach access. legislative package, and not a substitute for acquisition of accessways through purchase An Open Beaches Act would facilitate or regulation. Its principal aim would the application by State courts of any common be to encourage clarification of disputed law device which might expand public access accessways through standardized procedures to beaches. Essentially, the Act would nd litigation. Public Rights-of-Way guarantee that the public have free and Commission would be established to avoid unrestricted right to use beaches within courtroom battles by defining those sites the State to the extent that such rights where the public clearly has access rights. may be extended consistent with the private But the Act would also limit the liability property rights of littoral owners as may of landowners who make their beach access be protected absolutely by the Federal and areas available to public use. State Constitutions. A Beach Maintenance Assistance Act The Act would acknowledge, therefore, would authorize State matching funds to that, even when private owners hold fee help designated local governments clean, simple title to beachfront property, public patrol, and maintain their beaches. Except rights of access and recreation may still for locally licensed or government-owned exist. These rights could be affirmed through concessions, commercial activity on the judicial application of traditional legal State's beaches would be prohibited. doctrines. It would authorize the State Attorney General to protect those rights A fund would be established as an emergency and would specify evidentiary rules which pool from which local governments could shift the burden of proof to the property promptly be granted, upon authorization owner to refute the presumption that the of the Governor, emergency funds to combat public has'established rights of recreational threats to beach recreation, such as oil use in the beach. spills and hurricanes. The sources of monies for this would be general revenues (in recogni- tion of the great economic benefits derived by the entire State from maintenance of its beaches) or a tourist tax. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 348 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Public Beach Access Part Seven And Recreation Plan Notwithstanding the Heritage Police Power Regulations Trust Program, A Beach Access AC- quisition Program, under the juris- The police power has traditionally diction of the State Department of been thought to be~properly concerned only Parks, Recreation and Tourism, should with "the public peace, safety, morals, be eastablished by statute. Ac- and health." Today, however, courts in- quisition by purchase, sale/leaseback, creasingly recognize that the concept of the scenic, open space and recreation "general welfare" embraces the public easements should be authorized. The trust doctrine: that property rights Act would adopt this beach access in certain natural resources essential to plan's priorities; and local gov- the community must be vested in the gen- ernments would be encouraged to eral public. Thus, the doctrine is restrain development of any of these limited only by the scope of contemporary sites until negotiations for public perceptions of the general welfare. acquisition are concluded. Strong deference is generally made The Act would establish a by courts in favor of State and local new fund, through which the State government's flexible legislative use would annually for a period of of the police power. As long as local years match all Federal grants re- regulations permit private landowners ceived for beach park acquisition, some economic uses for their lands while such as those from the Land and restricting them for public objectives, Water Conservation Fund. Ac- the acquisition of beach accessways quisition would be authorized only through exercise of the police power on a cost-effective basis, and should withstand constitutional attack. special incentives would be fashioned for acquisition of less- Some diminution of property values then-fee simple interests that through regulations requiring public beach would expand beach recreation access of oceanfront landowners will likely opportunities. be tolerated if they are not discriminatory or unreasonable. Central to this judgment is the courts' perception of the public necessity. If nothing else, this market analysis of beach demand in South Carolina establishes the critical proportions of this issue. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 349 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access Part Seven' And Recreation. Plan Compensable regulations may also be applicable to beach access problems. Funds need not be expended unless a court finds that the regulation actually constituted a "taking" without compen- A host of regulatory schemes can be sation. If compensation is then re- employed to this end. Exclusive use zoning, quired, the initial cost is low since flood plain zoning, building setbacks and landowners do not recoup lost develop- official mapping, and transfers of development ment value until the property is sold. rights are the principal concepts which Subsequent increases in land values can be applied in South Carolina to expand do not affect the ultimate cost to gov- public beach recreation opportunities. ernment, which is based on the value prior to regulation. This system, Subdivision exactions and bonuses also therefore, is a means of constitution- merit consideration. The municipality, ally validating land use regulations by approval of a proposed subdivision, enables which, in the absence of some compen- the developer to profit financially. In sation to the property owner, would return, local government may require the be impermissible. dedication of public easements for shore access, parking space, and beach support To varying degrees, local gov- facilities sustained by user or parking ernment regulatory powers may be em- fees. A "common fund" approach to such ployed to expand South Carolina's exactions could convert scattered parcels shoreline recreational opportunities. into a neighborhood beach park. Similarly, If their application result in sub- density bonuses could be offered developers stantial diminution of coastal pro- as an incentive to dedication of beach accessways. perty values, compensation may serve to accomplish beach access objectives without extensive litigation. The techniques' limits are simply the s._il of draft-smen the scope of permitted uses, the lessening of reasonable private economic return, and -- most important -- the temerity of local governments. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 350 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH.CAROLINA Public Beach Access * ~~Part Seven And Recreation Plan ,Access Limitations Beach Access Acquisition Program In some local contexts, access Acquisition is the simplest approach limitations may be desired. There is to the expansion of public beach recreation. evolving, nevertheless, a consistent line Several Federal programs -- including of judicial cases barring municipal gov- the Land and Water Conservation Fund, ermnent discrimination against non- the HUD Open Space Land Program, and residents and similar restrictions. only the Federal Surplus Property Act -- those with a narrow and rational basis are realistic sources of assistance. .Lor classification may be sustained. Inter-governmental funding of beach But if demand levels meet this study's access acquisition should be expanded I ~~projections and this Beach Access Plan to include county and municipal governments, is not substantially implemented, some too. limitations may become necessary. This Plan should serve as the guidelines This may best be accomplished for a comprehensive Beach Access Acquisition through sound planning techniques, Program, established by statute a~nd such as limitation of vehicular access to be administered by the State Department I ~~from the mainland to island communities of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. The or ferry transport. Only those local agency should be empowered to establish restrictions which are reasonably re- or improve any public beach area by lated to'preservation of a unique re- the acquisition and retention of lands, source and which do not totally exclude easements, and other property interests. non-residents should be immune to constitutional attack. The Land Acquisition Trust Fund al- ready exists, but lacks adequate funding to purchase even a minor portion of the sites recommended for acquisition in this Plan. The Legislature should focus specifically on beach access-acquisi- tion needs. The devaluation of certain areas as a result o f the new Federal I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~flood insurance regulations may make acquisition of several potential beach * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~parks feasible. 1 ~~PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 351HAZO.ADR&ICRS Public Beach Access Part Seven And Recreation Plan3 Easements Gifts Although this Plan recommends public Existing and new tax benefits shouldI acquisition of several large park sites, induce voluntary donation of lands and less-than-fee interests comprise the easements. In addition to the incentives main thi:ust of the proposed Beach Access *of the Federal income tax laws authorizingI Acquisition Program. Only in this way deductions for charitable contributions, can a significant amount of public recrea- special tax concessions by State and tion opportunities be secured within local governments should be instituted.I the realistic capabilities of State Property tax exemption, especially, and local agencies. should be applied. There is no need for the public to To expedite such gifts, the State secure the entire fee if its objective Department of Parks, Recreation and is solely to guarantee public access Tourism should contract with a private to the beach. In today's economy, acquisi- firm, on an incentive compensation basis,I -tion becomes feasible only when the to pursue, negotiate, and secure beach public agency is required to acquire access opportunities throughout the only those rights which are essential State. Land trades and any tax mechanism to accomplish its goal. Moreover, to which can legally serve as an impetus be most consistent with South Carolina's to donation should be sanctioned. philosophical emphasis on private property Rgto-is eua ownership, this Beach Access Plan must Rgto-is eua leave intact much of the present private land tenure along the coast and disturbThBeuotCnymcaisfr as fw ofthos ownrs' ight as ossile.acquiring public access in new subdivisions Novel daptatons ofthe eaementor planned unit developments should device should be structured. Like the T ie adounteby woudther b coastal coniesh. recently established conservation easement,TeconywudtrbyavarihU "1recreation easements" would allow the of first refusal in purchasing public property owner to retain the beneficial, access within privately held tracts though qualified, use of his land while of beachfront land scheduled for development. I contributing to the State's conserva- Ti rcdrnvrhlssol tion and recreation ef forts. be used only if a subdivision exaction or density bonus is inapplicable. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 352 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Seven Public Beach Access I ~~~~~~~~~And Recreation Plan Beach Maintenance Program The Maintenance Assistance Program The program, therefore, would provide for should be authorized by statute. The Act State financial assistance in the form of should matching funds to qualified local governments for the purpose of cleaning and maintaining declare the public policy of the beaches subject to public access and recreation. State to be that, notwithstanding counties and local governments' Should the proposed funding mechanism primary responsibility, State govern- not be adopted, the program would he contingent ment should share with its political upon legislative appropriations. Administration subdivisions the burdens of beach of the beaches and determination of the cleaning and maintenance best uses of funds would be reserved to the recipient political subdivisions. PRT, * authorize allocation of a percentage as the program' s administrative agency, I ~~~~~of State revenues from existing would be empowered to enforce the statutory sources or new ones, such as a regulations and to distribute funds impartially. tourism tax, to the funding of State parks would also receive assistance. I ~~~~~this program The program would not embrace erosion * provide requisites for application measures, beach nourishment, or physical for such funds by cities and counties construction. "Maintenance" would include, I. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~however, the collection and removal of litter, * designate responsibilities for debris, and driftwood/seaweed, the elimination cleaning and maintenance of public of sanitary and safety conditions which I ~~~~~beaches threaten personal health or safety, and the employment of lifeguards and special * provide for program administration traffic police. I ~~~~~by the State Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, and The program, would In no way derogate the duty of cities and counties to clean * authorize contracts between certain and maintain all public accessways and beaches cities and counties and between within their respective corporate boundaries. certain counties relating to beach Neither would State assistance bar local maintenance. user fees so long as they are non-restrictive. * ~~PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS &L RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 35 * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access Pr ee And Recreation Plan Pr ee Sources of Funds Assistance would be conditioned, howevQr, The State Legislature and local governments on the maintenance of each city or county must realize the economic importance of applicant of at least one beach park or public beach access and recreation to a reasonable number of marked accessways South Carolina's businesses and tax base. which meet minimum requirements of size Such recognition should be manifested, and facilities: (1) sufficiently large on both levels of government, by allocation or numerous to permit convenient public of larger amounts of general public revenues access to that section of beach for which to acquisition, development, and maintenance I assistance is sought; (2) adequate sanitation of South Carolina's beaches. The following facilities in the vicinity to accommodate additional sources of funds for the implemen- the average summer weekend use of the area; tation of this Plan must be supplementedI (3) adequate off-beach parking, Public or with general revenue funds. commercial, to accommodate the number of average summer day visitors; and (4) adequate road and safe pedestrian access to the park UserFfeesI or accessways from the nearest main highway and parking area. Local government can require beach users to have in their possession tagsI These conditions should be designed which indicate payment of a seasonal, so the program may serve as an incentive weekly, or daily user fee. The legal for local initiative. Qualified cities and political rationale for this approach and counties would receive up to 50 percent is based on the community's need to defray reimbursement for eligible expenses incurred maintenance, lifeguard, and police expenses in beach maintenance. Maximum State assistance incurred by resident and non-resident and minimum local programs w.~ould bDe established. use of its beaches. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS. 354 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA U ~~~~~~~~Public Beach.Access * ~Part Seven And Recreation Plan Parking Fees of the coastal zone's strong attraction to tourists and State residents. If an An alternative local government approach increase were deemed inappropriate or is the requirement that automobiles parked infeasible, current revenues might be on public streets within a specified walking apportioned differently so as to aid coastal distance of public beaches or accessways communities in the acquisition and maintenance bear a parking sticker indicating paymaent Of public accessways. of a fee for beach access parking. Enforcement by local police and administration by I ~~~an existing fee-collecting office would Property Transfer Tax minimize expenses, and revenues would be earmarked for beach-related expenses. Property transfer taxes are commonly ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sdb oniesadcte ne nfr state legislation. An increase in this tax, State or local, would probably have Transient Occupancy Taxes no real effect on real estate transactions I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and would not reduce existing local receipts. Revenues could be designated for~beach State and local governments levy access programs. I ~~a four percent tax equivalent to a sales tax on hotel and motel room rentals, and revenues are placed in the general fund Concessions I - ~earmarked for school programs. Both an * ~~increase in this tax and local equivalents are potential sources of funds for beach Local governments should either own programs. In California, the typical or license beach concessions for the sale I ~~local rate is five percent, the maximum of food and beverages, umbrella, towel permitted by State law. and boat rental, and related recreation needs. variations of the Myrtle Beach Local add-on taxes would allow users system could be instituted at public access I ~~of commercial facilities, out-olf- s -ait ae points of beaches within other municipal visitors and inland residents to help jurisdictions. Some portion of the profits defray the beach community's recreation- derived from this commercial activity I ~~based expenses. If the present tax were could be directly applied to beach maintenance, increased, extra revenues could benefit or licensees could bear substantial maintenance the coast particularly, in recognition responsibilities. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Access And Recreation Plan Part Seven Oil Taxes and Revenues Given the present exploration and demand for oil, South Carolina may be -'he subject of competition for energy resources. At least two sources of funds may be engendered by this phenomena. An excise tax on petroleum exports and imports could finance public acquisitionI of coastal properties and research/development regarding oil-spill prevention and clean- up. Also, any tideland oil revenues derived from the depletion of off-shore resources could be used, in part, to fund protection of the beaches and expansion of beach recreation opportunities. BondlIssues If the State's entire population were alerted to the projected demand for beach access in South Carolina, a bond issue could be authorized to fund acquisitionI of beach parks and accessways identified in this Plan or consistent with specific criteria. At least a bond issue for statewideI park acquisition should be initiated, and a major portion of the funds secured should be applied toward public beach access objectives. HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 356 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA H ~~~~~~~~Public Beach Access Part Seven And Recreation Plan U ~PRT PROPOSALS This study's Public Beach Access and Recreation Plan is consistent with and embraces the policy statement regarding "The Beaches" adopt- ed on July 30, 1976, by the South Carolina Parks, Recre- ation and Tourism Commission. I ~~The following proposals are especially pertinent. ~~~PBIC EC CES&RCETO NSUHCRLN 5 ATOLD&RCAD Public ~Beach Access And Recreation Plan Pr ee PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIONS beach vacationers through accommoda- The challenge facing South Carolina tions and other facilities within is this: Within the restraints and limiting the limits of available beach areas. factors previously described, how can we serve an ever-increasing number of beach vacationers on a South Carolina *Promotion to Expand Lower-Use seashore that cannot physically expand Seasons - Gear PRT promotion andI in size- The private sector of the advertising to accommodate more State's billion dollar tourism industry total beach vacationers by extending has the major role in accommodating, beach vacations into seasons conducive' serving and providing beach access for to beach usage that are presently the majority of this rapidly-growing under-utilized. Work with local volume of vacationers who visit our promotion agencies and the private beach areas. Therefore, a major portion sector in encouraging such effortsI of PRT's program to expand beach access on the local levels. opportunities will be to directly support, complement and provide guidance to the private sector of the tourism-leisure *Build Ancillary Values of Beach industry. Access - Beaches can be the lure to attract millions of vacationers *Leisure Industry Technical Assis- and conventioneers whose feet need tance - Assist private investors, never to touch the ocean water developers and businesses in the or beach sand. Climatic conditions development of ocean and beach- impose limits in South Carolina ' related facilities to serve visitors on the direct use of the oceans as well as residents (through staff and beaches during some seasons. of PRT Tourism Di-vision and other However, scenic and aesthetic valuesI units). can be utilized year-round through ocean-view motel rooms and scenic *Accommodating More Beach Users overlooks while providing heated Within Limited Areas - In cooperation covered swimming pools along withI with private enterprise, develop golf, tennis, sightseeing and other design concepts and standards to indoor and outdoor recreation not serve larger numbers of future directly associated with the beaches. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 358 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Public Beach Access * Part Seven And Recreation Plan * Develop Inland Vacation Destinations - PUBLIC SECTOR ACTIONS As beach access needs are expanded to accommodate the ever-increasing future demands, a part of PRT's program will be to develop and promote inland visitor destination areas, which will relieve some Public agencies on the local, state of the future "growth pressures" and federal levels have significant on the beaches while building the opportunities as well as responsibilities economy and recreation opportunities to serve South Carolina's public recreation in the other areas of the state. needs, including those related to ocean or beach access. Through its State * Economic Incentives to Private Parks, Recreation and Planning divisions, Enterprise - Work with local govern- PRT will endeavor to help meet such ments in developing economic incentives needs througha number of programs for to encourage private enterprise South Carolinians as well as visitors. to provide beach access to serve the general public. * Existing State Parks - Develop * State Parks as a Stimulus for the full beach access potential Private Beach Developments - Continue of existing coastal State Parks PRT's policy of State Park development while protecting the natural qualities to stimulate adjacent private sector of these environmentally-sensitivi developments, such as privately- properties. owned oceanfront campgrounds in the Grand Strand. Look to the * Acquire Additional Park Lands - private sector to provide some The fact that the four oceanfront of the facilities within State State Parks accounted for over Parks, including those in the beach 40% of the total 10,500,000 visitors areas. in tLe entire South Carolina State Park system last year is evidence of the fact that additional coastal park lands must be acquired to help meet public beach access needs in the future. PUBLIC BEACH ACCES$ & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 359 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Public Beach Acces's Part Seven And Recreation PlanI P uller Utilization of Existing ideas and proposed action courses Government-Owned Lands - Many thousands that might be considered by interested of acres of coastal lands in South public agencies as they make plans Carolina are now owned by federal and decisions to accommodate beach and state government agencies. access and related recreation needs.I Public agencies that own coastal The findings of this study will lands should be encouraged to accommno- be available to interested public date beach access and recreation'a agencies as well as the sponsors. needs wherever possible, consistent with conservation and other land *Funding Assistance Programs- use priorities for such properties. "There ain't no free lunch",- all PRT proposes to consider cooperative approaches to public beach accessI working relationships with other are costly and somebody has to agencies to help meet such needs. pick up the tab. PRT administers the Land and Water Conservation *Technical Assistance to Local Fund of the U.S. Bureau of outdoorI Public Agencies - PRT's Recreation Recreation at the State level and Division is available to provide 50-50 matching funds from this all available research, information, source are available through theI and guidance to help local public three coastal regional Councils agencies develop plans to meet of Government to help public agencies recreation needs, including coastal to fund local recreation projects.I communities that may be involved However, federal, state or local in providing beach access. funds are far from adequate to meet the rapidly-growing public *Research, Guidelines and Action beach access needs of South Carolinians Proposals - In cooperation with and the millions of out-of-state the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, visitors who come to our State the South Carolina Coastal Zone for beach vacati.ons and recreation.I Council, the Charleston County in cooperation with other involved PRT Commission and other local public and private groups, PRT groups, PRT has co-sponsored a proposes to seek or develop anI public beach access study to compile adequate funding mechanism, to help all available facts and data, conduct local areas meet their beach access market and legal research and develop and recreation needs in the future.3 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS 360 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Eight .Appendices I ~~~~~APPENDIX II or local'mun'icipalities and 222 playground areas, most of which are part of local SUMMARY OF RECREATION FACILITIES school districts. I ~~IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL ZONE Ten state parks and recreation areas located in the coastal area comprise atotal of 58,545 acres. Most of these parks offer boating, swimming, fishing Major recreational and tourism aspects and picnicking as recreational activities, of South Carolina's coastal zone have and many offer camping facilities or I ~~been identified as part of this report. cabins as well for overnight public In the 10-county South Carolina coastal use. -area, there are 56 golf courses in 46 separate golf clubs. The majority There are hundreds-*of hotels and are 18-hole championship courses centered motels crowding many of these beach around Myrtle Beach, Charleston, and areas, complete with swimming pools Hilton Head Island. Twelve of the and other recreational facilities, I ~~golf courses are associated with private as well as 25 or more campgrounds and country clubs, and require membership. over 11,000 campsites serving as overnight Forty are semi-private located primarily accommodations for beach goers. I ~~in the remote areas and require some type of membership, although generally Existing recreation facilities in available to the public. Only two South Carolina's Coastal Zone are I ~~courses are completely public. summarized in Exhibit II.-A. Hunting and fishing are both popular recreational pastimes along South Carolina's I ~~shore. In 1974, there were 14 fishing piers, 37 marinas, 335 boat ramps and 29 charter fishing boats in operation. I ~~The public also had access to 208 hunting areas and preserves covering over 162,000 acres. I ~~~There are 107 public parks within the region, run by the state, counties PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREAT]ION IN SOUJTH CAROLINA1-HATO.AER&RCRD Appendices Part Eight EXHIBIT II-A 1974 RECREATION RESOURCES SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNTIES LOCATION TYPE C' C M D D tD tn g~ b rv :: H r1 H ' CD r1 0. C C h COUNTY O ' F rt O TOTALS o Georgetown 9 10 0 15 27 0 7 0 10 11 5 126 Horry 19 24 15 462 5 8 21 2 19 24 41 100 Williamsburg 3 11 0 3 18 0 2 0 5, 4 1 20 Berkeley 10 29 5 8 42 5 18 0 20 12 5 51 Charleston 44 87 15 54 24 6 12 7 32 38 17 70 Dorchester 3 14 1 2 5 3 ,7 2 3 4 '2 .3 Beaufort 7 18 3 18 10 0 5 2 19 20 10 79 Colleton 6 14 4 13 23 .'0 22 0 3 7 1 3 Hamipton 2 8 1 0 31 0 1 0 6 12 1 IO Jasper 4 7 1 18 23 2 1 0 11 5 2 /6 STATE TOTALS 107 222 50 593 208 24 96 13 128 125 85 458 Source: South Carolina Recreation Resources Inventory, Table 1, SCORP - 1975 Executive Summary, p. 9. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 2 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA ReDreD-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: J Page#: : ,t car U, ReDren-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: A Page #: R/-~~C Do Not Scan ReDreD-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: An j/ Page#: A./~ a * ~Part Eight Appendices U ~~~Hartzog, Lader & Richards has reviewed A general description of coastal the recreation facilities of the state recreation, therefore, is discussed by selecting those outdoor recreation according to regional parks and water- I ~ ~facilities in South Carolina's coastal based recreation, coastal state parks, counties that specifically relate to historic parks and areas, and other public beach use. Facilities extracted public recreation facilities located I ~~ fromthe SCORP Recreation Resources within national preserves or natural inventory include campground accommodations, areas. marina and boat landings, and hunting preserves near the shore. Remaining Presently, Berkeley County has no facilities contained in the SCORP inventory regional parks. In Dorchester County, not included here were either considered Grahams Ferry State Park can be considered not relevant to this study, or inadequate regional,in nature. Because of its I ~ ~information existed in the inventory proximity, Colleton Wayside State Park for the purpose of evaluation. on S.C,. 15 is considered a regional park for Dorchester County. Charleston I ~~~Any description of water-based recrea- County has'only one regional park -- tion within the South Carolina Coastal Edisto Beach State Park. As the only Zone should be a part of that area's coastal state park in Charleston County, I ~~regional recreational facilities, because its recreational burdens are immense. water is the coastal region's greatest natural asset and its greatest potential Beaufort County's Hunting Island for recreational development. The Grand State Park serves that county's regional I ~~Strand area with two regional parks -- park needs. Myrtle Beach and Huntington Beach - have greater public recreation resources * ~~than the remainder of the coastal counties, but also has large demand for use of these facilities. PUBLIC~ BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HATO.3DR&RCAD Appendices Part Eight COASTAL'STATE PARKS area with historical, natural environmentI and museum trails, as well as a visitors' center; special areas exist within of South Carolina's forty state the park, such as a 750-foot fishingI parks, ten state-run public park and pier with bait-tackle concession, Putt- recreation areas exist in the South Putt carpet golf, five rental cabins, Carolina coastal region. They include and an equipment rental concession-. Charles Towne Landing, Drayton Hall There is parking for each developed Historic Park, Edisto Beach State Park, campsite and an estimated 400 parking Givhans Ferry State Park, Hampton Planta- spaces for day visitors. tion, Hunting Island State Park, Hunting-I ton Beach State Park, Myrtle Beach Source: Master Plan and Land Use Plan- State Park, Old Dorchester State Park, Myrtle Beach State Park, January, and Rivers Bridge. Four state parks -- 1971; South Carolina DepartmentI Myrtle Beach, Huntington Beach, Edisto of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. Beach, and Hunting island -- are located on the ocean. A brief description of the size and facilities available at each of the coastal state parks follows. Huntington Beach State Park Buffered from U.S. 17, the entrance to Huntington Beach State Park is opposite Myrtle Beach State Park Brookgreen Gardens, 3 miles south of Murrells Inlet on U.S. 17. Presently,I Covering 312 acres and located 3 recreation consists of swimming, fishing, miles south of Myrtle Beach on U.S. camping, and picnicking. A majority 17, Myrtle Beach State Park is divided of the park's 2,500 acres is in tidal . into four use areas: a camping area marsh. The principal picnic 'area and with 155 tent and trailer campsites, associated swimming beach is located in addition to facilities for group in the main part of the park. It containsI and primitive camping; a day-use area an 18-hole carpet golf course, a conces- that includes eight picnic shelters, sion stand, shelters, change house a swimming pool, ocean swimming along and showers, a small playground and one mile of sand beach, and two restroom. a large parking lot with space for and change houses; an interpretive an estimated 220 cars. The picnic HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 4PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices area is well-cleared of underbrush Atalaya is a unique structure built but scattered trees enhance the area. by the Huntingtons. Its present condi- The park has 2.93 miles of ocean frontage, tion is deteriorating but repairable with a 140-foot wide beach at low tide. and visitors can walk through its rambling rooms and interior garden. The South Camping in the park consists of Carolina Arts Commission is developing a 52-unit tent and trailer area and plans for the creation of an arts center a recently-built 75-unit tent and trailer to be housed within Atalaya, and parking area, for a total of 127 campsites. for 160 cars. Both areas provide utility hookups, tables and grills at each site. There Source: Huntington Beach State Park are two comfort stations with restrooms Master Plan, June, 1974; South and showers in each camping area. Carolina Department of Parks, A trading post is located at the entrance Recreation and Tourism. to the 75-unit campground. Camping and food supplies can be purchased at this store. The 52-unit camping area has no recreational facilities Hampton Plantation State Park immediately available. A recreation building and small playground are located Historic restoration of the house in the 75-unit camping area. and grounds of Archibald Rutledge, poet laureate of South Carolina, is Other facilities include an alligator the focus of Hampton Plantation State habitat and feeding station, boardwalk Park. Located near McClellanville and observation platform for salt water on U.S. 17, the park contains 310 acres. marsh habitat, two observation towers and interpretive kiosks. Source: South Carolina State Parks; South Carolina Department The north end of the park is primarily of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, used for fishing and occasionally for pp. 42-43. group and primitive camping. Two shelters and a small parking lot are provided. No water or restroom facilities are provided. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 5 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight Charles Towne Landing Drayton Hall Historic Park Site of South Carolina's first perma- Located on 632 acres near Charleston, nent settlement in 1670, this 664-acre Drayton Hall was acquired in 1975 through state park includes picnic shelters, a combined effort of the National Trust a 17th century trading post replica, for Historic Preservation, the Historic a restaurant, 200-acre animal forest, Charleston Foundation and the South nature and historic interpretive centers, Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation a nature trail, open-air exhibit pavilion, and Tourism. The National Trust will 400-seat theatre, and parking for 1,000 retain, restore, and operate the Drayton cars. The park is located 3 miles Hall mansion and 135 acres, and PRT from downtown Charleston on S.C. 61. will utilize the newly-acquired adjacent land as a State Park. Source: South Carolina State Parks, South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, pp. 42-43. Givhans Ferry This state park is 1,229 Acres in size and includes 25 campsites, 5 vacation cabins, picnic shelters, 3 rest stations, Old Dorchester State Park a community assembly building, and nature trails. Parking is available Located 6 miles south of Summerville for 200 cars. Givhans Ferry is located on S.C. 642, 20 miles from Charleston, 16 miles west of Summerville on S.C. this park includes a picnic and fishing 61. area and 100 parking spaces. The 97.4 acre park is part of the ruins of a Source: South Carolina State Parks, 1788 community. South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, pp. 42-43. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 6 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Eight Appendices Edisto Beach State Park Hunting Island State Park Edisto Beach State Park is located This park, located 16 miles east 50 miles southeast of Charleston on of Beaufort, S.C., on U.S. 21, contains S.C. 174. Facilities include 5 cabins the following facilities: 136-foot overlooking Scott Creek and Marsh (twenty- lighthouse built in 1873, wildlife two additional cabins have been proposed), observation area with nature trails, I ~~75 tent'and trailer camping sites, 200 campsites, 4 comfort stations, group camping and an interpretive center. day-use parking for 400 cars, a bathhouse, Other facilities include a bathhouse, 13 rental cabins, picnic and swimming I ~~18-hole putt-putt carpet golf, a picnic areas, a boat launching ramp, a small area, two comfort stations, a playground, playground, and carpet golf. The park and day-use parking for 250 cars. covers 5,000 acres. The park has 2� miles of sandy oceanfront I ~~beach 160-200 feet wide, of which three- Source: Hunting Island State Park quarters of a mile is used for swimming. Development Plan; South Carolina The park is open daily free of charge. Department of Parks, Recreation I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and Tourism. Source: Master Plan and Land Use Plan ,for Edisto Beach, South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. Rivers Bridge 3 ~~Rivers Bridge is located 7 miles southwest of Ehrhardt, S.C., off S.C. 64. Its 390 acres include such recrea- tional facilities as 25 campsites, picnic shelters, a swimming pool, nature trail and interpretive center, and 3 ~~river fishing. -PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 7iHARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight EXHIBIT II-B SUMMARY OF STATE. PARK AREAS IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL REGION Charles Towne Landing City of Charleston 667 1971 Historic Park Edisto Beach S.C.174, 50 miles S.E. of Charleston 1,255 1956 Regional Park Givhans Ferry S.C. 61, 16 miles W. of Summerville 1,235 1934 Regional Park Hampton Plantation U.S. 17, near McClellanville 322 1971 Historic Park Hunting Island U.S. 21, 16 miles E. of Beaufort 5,000 1938 Destination Park Huntington Beach U.S. 17, 3 miles S. of Murrell's Inlet 2,500 1960 Destination Park Myrtle Beach U.S. 17, 3 miles S. of Myrtle Beach 312 1934 Regional Park Old Dorchester S.C. 642, 6 miles S. of Summerville 97 1960 Historic Park Rivers Bridge S.C. 64, 7 miles S.W. of Ehrhardt 390 1945 District Park Drayton Hall Charleston 632 1975 Historic Park Total Acres 58,545 Source: South Carolina Recreation Resources Inventory, Title I, p. 43. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 8 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices SELECTED RECREATIONAL TOURIST ATTRACTIONS Brookgreen Gardens Myrtle Beach, SC Located on U.S. 17 at Murrells.Inlet, 18 miles south of Myrlte Beach, this Myrtle Beach Amusement Parks park is an outdoor sculpture museum and is comprised of four old rice Myrtle Beach Pavilion 5 ac. plantations. There is a wildlife park, 812 North Ocean Boulevard 350 pieces of American sculpture, and picnic facilities. It is open daily Myrtle Beach Amusement Park 9 ac. 9 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. Admission $1.00 South Ocean Boulevard 610 parking spaces for adults, $.25 for children. Grand Strand Amusement Park 12 ac. 4th Ave. & S. Ocean Blvd. 600 parking spaces Georgetown, SC Sun Fun Amusement Park 3 ac. The Rice Museum Main St. & U.S. 17 400 parking spaces This museum on Front Street in Georgetown Ocean Drive Section, depicts the rice growing Georgetown county N. Myrtle Beach region in the 1840's. Open Monday-Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Admission $1.00 adults, Ocean Drive Pavilion & free for students. Amusement Park Main St. & Ocean Blvd. Belle Isle Gardens (c. 1895) Located six miles south of Georgetown Magic Harbor Theme Park on Winyah Bay, this park contains (Pirateland) 97 ac. historic Battery White (c. 1862). 4 mi. So. of Myrtle Beach 600 parking spaces Gardens are open to the public all year, except September and October. Surf side Amusement Park Surfside Beach PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 9 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 9 :HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight Cape Romain Wildlife Refuge Charleston, SC An outstanding wildlife refuge that allows visitor use of Bulls Island Fort Sumter National Monument for shell collecting, bird watching, In Charleston Harbor, Fort Sumter was in-Soaso'n hunting', and fishing. Bulls one of a series of coastal fortifications Island oan be readhed by boat from built by the U.S. after the War of 1812. Moore's Landing off U.S. 17, fifteen In 1861, the first shot was fired that miles north of Charleston. Boat began the Civil War. The fort can bd leaves at 8:30 a.m. daily and returns reached by boat from Charleston Municipal to pick up visitors in late afternoon. Marina; schedule varies. Admission $2.50 for adults and $1.00 for children. Sullivans Island Fort Moultrie Middleton Place Gardens Present fort was built between 1807 and Middleton Place is an example of an 1811. Fort Moultrie was used during the 18th and 19th century plantation. Located American Revolution and again in the War on the Ashley River, it was first owned between the States. It is located on by Henry Middleton in 1740. Middleton West Middle Street, Sullivans Island. Place has the first landscaped garden The318aresitsmaintained by in America. The Middleton Place House the National Park Service. the National Park Service.Museum, c. 1755, is a registered national historic landmark. Gardens Sullivans Island Lighthouse and stableyards are open daily. The 15-story lighthouse, maintained Admission $2.50 for adults, $1.50 for by the U.S. Coast Guard, a boathouse and students, and $.75 for children. landing are on the National Register of Historic Places. Located on Atlantic The Citadel Avenue, the lighthouse is open 2:00 p.m. Located in downtown Charleston near to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, Hampton Park, the military college of and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Tuesdays Charleston includes dress parades on and 3:00 p~m. to 4:00 pm.on Thursdays . Fridays at 3:45 p.m. The military museum is open Monday through Friday and Sunday from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Admission is free. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 10 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices Cypress Gardens Savannah. Developed on Hog Island along Located 23 miles from Charleston off the eastern shore of the Charleston Hwy. 52, Cypress Gardens is open February Harbor, this 150 acre tract of parkland 15-May 1. It offers'boat and walking is part of 500 acres to be leased for tours through old cypress trees and floral private development of support facilities. displays on 250 acres and an outdoor A 400-room motel in twin 12-story restaurant. Adults $2.50. towers, as well as a marina, are already planned for this area. Magnolia Gardens January 1, 1976 is the planned opening. Located 12 miles from Charleston on Hwy.61, Magnolia Gardens is open February 15 - May 1. The Gardens contain over Other attractions and Points of Interst 500 varieties of camellias, with live in Charleston oaks, cypress trees, and azaleas. Adults $2.50. Hunley Museum Provost Dungeon Boone Hall Plantation Old Stove Mart Museum A land grant in 1681 to Major John Boone, Charleston Carriage Rides one of the earliest South Carolina settlers, Port of Charleston established Boone Hall Plantation. Confederate Museum The 738 acre plantation is located 8 miles Old Powder Magazine north of Charleston on U.S. 17 and includes Charleston Naval Base Boone Hall, gin houses, slave cabins, formal Charleston Harbor Tour gardens. It is open to the public Charleston Museum Monday-Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., City Market Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Dock Street. Theatre Patriots Point As a major new tourist attraction, sponsored Beaufort, S.C. by the Patriots Point Development Authority, Patriots Point is a planned naval and maritime Beaufort Arsenal Museum .museum featuring the aircraft carrier USS Sheldon Church Ruins Yorktown and other ships, including the N.S. Parris Island Marine Training Center PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 11 ! ~~~~~HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight EXHIBIT I1-C SOUTH CAROLINA TOP RANKED OCEANFRONT STATE PARKS 1975 Rank* Attendance 1974 1975 1. Myrtle Beach State Park 2,031,120 2,005,916 2. Hunting Island State Park 780,020 1,066,064 3. Huntington Beach State Park 497,309 491,236 4. Edisto Beach State Park 191,748 483,994 3,500,197 4,047,210 *Ranking among all South Carolina State Parks. Source: South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, March, 1976. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 12 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices EXHIBIT II-D SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL TENNIS FACILITIES # Courts Category C Courts Category North Myrtle Beach P*Calso Carolina Shores 4 Pr* Kiawah Island 10 Pr Hillside Tennis Courts 6 P Seabrook Island 2 Pr Robbers Roost Racquet Club 6 Pr* Edisto Island (Oristo) 4 Pr* Conway Beaufort University of South Carolina 2 P Fripp Island 6 Pr Conway Golf & Country Club 2 Pr Beaufort Public Courts 4 P Conway Public Courts 3 P Hilton Head Island Myrtle Beach Hilton Head Plantation 8 Pr* Deer Track Golf & Country Club 4 Pr* Palmetto Dunes 18 Pr* Dunes Golf & Beach Club 4 Pr* Island Club 2 Pr Eagle Nest Tennis Club 4 Pr* Port Royal 4 Pr* Surf & Dunes Motor Inn 3 Pr* Shipyard Plantation 22 Pr* Litchfield Racquet Club 17 Pr* Sea Pines Plantation 31 Pr* Myrtle Beach Public Courts 5 P Myrtle Beach Racquet Club 11 Pr* Myrtle Beach Tennis Club 10 Pr* Myrtlewood Tennis 4 Pr* P - Public Ocean Drive Public Courts 2 P Pr - Private Pan American Resort 3 Pr* Pr* - Open to non-members for a fee Pine Lakes Country Club 2 Pr* Sea Mist Resort 3 Pr* Source: "Coast Vacationers Guide", vol. XX, Surfside Beach No. 33, Nov., 1975, p. 61-62. Surfside Beach Public Courts 2 P PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 13 i HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight �~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EXHIBIT II-E SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL GOLF COURSES Holes Category* Holes Category* North Myrtle Beach Pawleys Island Azalea Sands Golf Club * 18 R Sea Gull Golf Course 18 R Bay Tree Golf Plantation 54 R Beachwood Golf Club 18 R Georgetown Cypress Bay Golf Club 18 R Eagle Nest Golf Club 18 R Wedgefield Plantation Country Club 18 R Possum Trot Golf Club 18 R Winyah Bay Golf Club 9 P Robbers Roost Golf Club 18 R Georgetown Country Club 9 PR Robbers Roost Golf Club 18 R Surf Golf & Beach Club 18 R Loris, S.C. Myrtle Beach ML~~~~~~~yrtle Beach ~Carolinas Country Club 9 R Arcadian Shores Golf Club 18 R Arcadian Skyway Golf Club 27(U.C.) R Charleston Deer Track Golf & Country Club 18 R Dunes Golf & Beach Club 18 R Charleston Municipal Golf Course 18 P Myrtle Beach A.F.B. Golf Course 9 M Morgan's Point 18(U.C.) R Myrtle Beach National Golf Club 54 R Seabrook Island 18 PR Myrtlewood Golf Club 36 R Country Club of Charleston i18 PR Pine Lakes International Golf Club 18 R Shadowmoss Country Club 18 PR Quail Creek Golf Club 18 R King's Grant Country Club 9 PR The Oaks Golf & Country Club 9 PR Conway Yeomans Hall Golf Club 18 PR Snee Farm Golf Course 18 PR Conway Country Club 18SP Charleston A.F.B. Golf Course 18 M Litchfield Beach Edisto Beach Litchfield Golf Club 18 R Oristo Golf Club 18 R HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 14 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices EXHIBIT II-E (con't.) SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL GOLF COURSES Holes Category* Fripp Island Fripp Island Golf Club R Beaufort Royal Pines Country Club 36 PR Parris Island Golf Course 18 M Hilton Head Island Hilton Head Golf Club 18 R Dolphin Head Golf Club i s R Palmetto Dunes Golf Club 36 R Port Royal Inn and Golf Club 27 R Sea Pines Plantation 54 H I~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Spanish Wells Golf Club 9 PR *South Carolina golf courses are categorized among the following designations: R (Resort) - greens fee play open to guests of certain inns, motels, etc. P (Public) - open to anyone PR (Private) - open only to members and guests of members M (Military) - open only to military and guests of military Source: S.C. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Columbia, S.C., January, 1976. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 15 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HRZG AE ICAD Appendices Part Eight EXHIBIT II-F SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL CAMPGROUNDS Ownership* Camping Units Ownership* Camping Units MYRTLE BEACH - GRAXD STRAND Myrtle Beach (con't.) Little River- Plantation Campground C 50 (20 mi. N. of Myrtle Beach on Ocean Lake Family Campground C 1,900 U.S. 17) (5 mi. S. of Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17) Huntington Beach State Park S 135 North Myrtle Beach (20 mi. S. of Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17) Riverside Marine Campground C 75 Little River Neck Road (2 mi. from U.S. 17 on S.C. 9) Francis Marion National Forest Gilreath's Campground C 10 Guilliard Lake Campground F 10 Cherry Grove (McClellanville - 17 mi. N.W. of S.C. 45) (1/2 mi. from U.S. 17) Buck Hall Campground F 11 Myrtle Beach (30 mi. N.E. of Charleston on U.S. 17) Sherwood Forest Campground C 525 Bonneau Campground F 12 (10 mi. N. of Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17) (7 mi. N. on U.S. 52) Ponderosa Family Campground C 1,000 (10 mi. N. of Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17) Santee Holiday Inn Trav-L-Park C 600 Shawnee Campground C 225 (9 mi. N. of Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17) (2 mi. E. on S.C. 6) Lake Arrowhead Campground C 1,300 Bob's Marina C 25 (8 mi. N. of Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17) (6 mi. E. on S.C. 6) Apache Family Campground C 755 (7 mi. N. of Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17) North of Charleston Birch Canoe Family Campground C 250 Sewee Campground C 106 (U.S. 17 at 5th Ave., South) (Awendaw - 25 mi. N. of Charleston Springmaid Family Campground C 114 on U.S. 17) (S. Ocean Blvd.) Holiday Inn Trav-L-Park 188 Pebble Beach Family Campground C 92 (18 mi. N. of Charleston on U.S. 17) 300 S. Ocean Blvd. Myrtle Beach State Park S 155 Charleston (3 mi. S. of Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17) Oak Plantation Campground C 137 Piratfzoand Family Carpqround- 1,061 (6 mi. S. of Charleston on U.S. 17) (4 mi. S. of Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17) C Charleston KOA Campground C 160 Lakewood Family Carpground 1,500 (15 mi. W. of Charleston off 1-26) (4 mi. S. of Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17) C Island Campground C 150 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 16 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices EXHIBIT II-F (con't.) SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL CAMPGROUNDS Ownership* Camping Units Ownership* Camping Units Monck's Corner Hardeeville Big Boo Family Campground C 300 Lake Pines KOA Kampground C 150 (3 mi. N. on S.C. 402) (2 mi. N. of Hardeeville on U.S. 17) Evans' Landing C 8 (13 mi. S. on S.C. 260) Yemassee Americamps - Point South C 68 Folly Beach (Interchange U.S. 17 and 1-95) Campers Cove Campground C 20 Point South KOA Campgrounds C 65 (9 mia. S. of Charleston on S.C. 171) (Interchange of 1-95 and U.S. 17) Edisto Beach Total S.C. Coastal Zone Campsites 11,463 Hutson's Landing Club & Marina C 16 (23 mi. From U.S. 17 on S.C. 174) Edisto Beach State Park S 75 (25 mi. from U.S. 17 on S.C. 174) Beaufort Seaside - Campers C i15 Source: "M'ountains, Beaches, Lakes and Other Places to Camp in 6 Station Creek Landing South Carolina", S.C. Division of Tourism, HLR. (6 mi. S.E. of Frogcore near Beaufort) *C = Commercial Hunting Island State Park 5 200 S =otat'a (17 mi. E. of Beaufort on U.S. 21) F Federal PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 17 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight EXHIBIT II-G SOUTH CAROLINA OCEAN FISHING PIERS Inlet Fishing Pier Second Avenue Pier E. Cherry Grove Beach Myrtle Beach Cherry Grove Fishing Pier Myrtle Beach State Park Pier Myrtle Beach State Park Tilghman Fishing Pier Tilghman Beach Surfside Fishing Pier Surfside Beach Crescent Beach Fishing Pier Kingfisher Fishing Pier Windy Hill Fishing Pier Garden City.Beach Windy Hill Beach Isle of Palms Fishing Pier Kit's Fishing Pier Windy Hill Beach Sea Point Fishing Pier Folly Beach Ocean Plaza Fishing Pier Myrtle Beach Collins PierI Myrtle Beach ~~Edisto Beach Source: South Carolina Beaches, Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Columbia, S.C. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 18 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices EXHIBIT II-H SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC BOAT LANDINGS WACCAMAW AREA CHARLESTON COUNTY BEAUFORT COUNTY Worthams Ferry Landing Buck Hall Landing *New River Landing - New River Bridge on Bellamy's Landing - Waccamaw River Wando Landing - Creech's Grocery Highway 170 Bridge & Highway 9 Mitch Graham Landing Chechessee Landing - Chechessee Bridge & Red Bluff Landing - Highway 905 Remley's Point Landing Highway 170 Reaves Ferry Landing Shem Creek Landing - Mt. Pleasant All Joy Landing - May River in Bluffton *Toddville Landing - Harper's Store - Municipal Yacht Basin Broad Creek - Hilton Head Island Highway 701 Wando Woods *Bolen Hall Landing - Old House, S.C. *Old Chimney Landing - Highway 701 - Ashley River Landing - W. Ashley Broad River Landing - Broad River 7 mi. W. of Conway - River Bridge Bridge & Highway 170 *Peachtree Landing - Socastee Br. Wappo Landing - Wappo Cr. Br. *Grays Hill Landing Wachasaw Landing - Murrells Inlet Lloyd Flemming Landing - James Island City Parking Lot Landing - Bay Street - Hagley Landing - Hagley Plantation Stono Landing - John F. Limehouse Br. Beaufort New Meeting Street Landing - George- Bulow Landing Public Landing - Beaufort bridge town, SC Cherry Point Landing - Rockville Station Creek Landing - St. Helena Island Meeting Street Landing -, Georgetown, Dawhoo Bridge Landing - Edisto Is. Wilkins Landing - Johns Point SC *Welton Bluff Landing - Hutton Plantation Russ Point Landing - Hunting Island Shrine Club Landing *Penny Creek Landing - Edisto River Buckingham Boat Landing - Broad Creek South Island Ferry Landing - So. Battery Creek - 2 boat ramps Island Beaufort River - 3 boat ramps Poleiard - Highway 17 - N. Santee Br. COLLETON COUNTY Brickyard Landing - Rd. 26 @ Brickyard Harris Lake - W. of Highway 17 Bennetts Point Landing - Draw Bridge in Bear Is. Game Management Area on Ashepoo River Tripps Landing at Field's Point Source: S.C. Boat Landings, S.C. *County-owned and maintained boat ramp Dept. of Wildlife & Marine located outside of area depicted on Resources, Div. of Boating, accompanying maps. Columbia, SC, 1974. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 19 I HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight EXHIBIT II-I SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL MARINAS Operator* Operator* North Myrtle Beach Sullivans Island Palmetto Marina C Exxon Marina C Esso Marina C Briarcliff Yacht Basin P Charleston Myrtle Beach Hobcaw Yacht Club C Fisherman's Marina C Hague Marina - Charleston Municipal Marina M Botany Bay Marina P Conway Conway Marina M Beaufort. Georgetown'~~~~~~~ ~Ladies Island Marina . C Georgetown Worth's (Exxon) Marina C Griffin's Marina . C Gulf Auto Marina C Nautica Marina C Hilton Head Isiand Belle Isle Marina P ~~~~~~~Murrells Inlet ~Harbour Town Yacht Basin C Murrells Inlet South Beach Marina . C Palmetto Bay Marina C Gaddys Marina P Alex's Marina P Hilton Head Harbor C AInlex's Marina P Inlet Marina P Wacca Wache Marina . C Nachasaw Landing Marina C ~~~~~~~Garden City * ~C = commercial Garden City P = private Bucksport Marina -M = municipal Gulf Stream Marina Isle of Palms ~~~~~~Isle of Palms ~Source: Hartzog, Lader & Richards, October, 1975. Isle of Palms Marina C HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 20 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices EXHIBIT II-J SELECTED SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL GAME MANAGEMENT AND HUNTING AREAS Name of Area Size Quality* Site Ownership Westvaco 2,200 ac. B Private Canal Wood Corporation 3,449 ac. B " Georgia Pacific Corporation 21,655 ac. B " International Paper Company 37,812 ac. B " Waccamaw Game Management Area 7,626 ac. - Private (a) Buist Game Management Area 16,236 ac. - Private (b) N. SANTEE Westvaco - Oaks 5,129 ac. Private Westvaco - Odum Campfield 954 ac. B Santee Cooper Preserve Federal CHOPPEE Westvaco - North 19,196 ac. B Private YOUHAMAH Westvaco - Pee Dee 3,241 ac. B MURRELLS INLET Sandy Island Corporation 7,688 ac. B SAMPIT Westvaco - East 34,144 ac. B Ingram Lumber Campfield 447 ac, B Campfield 1,594 ac. B Outland 878 ac; B Outland 1,327 ac. B PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 21 iHARTZOG, LADER RICHARDS HARTZOG, LADER a RICHARDS * ~~~~~~~Part Eight Appendices APPENDIX III MARKET ANALYSIS I ~~SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhiibit iii-A DAY USE BEACH USER OCCASIONS-~ 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 03.003bs~tlO 1..0l 0..4 U... I.SO cap. I - T.I.I. J...- Porwlatlo bf Soa-! 0360 ItC~a - 0u430 by , .- U.-r X1,c4 Soua nbf .04.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:. 10.121 31.9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~292 :. 162 9.S T . 01.0 14.0 12.0 1514.4 22.3 01 40.4 9.000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6. 43.07 so.7 3. 40.0 6 19:.400-24.49 9. 3.110. 30.4 .. 3. 4439.0 I.,.7 A 4. 1.3 . 3. 1. It.11 AS.:~~~~~~I~ 4.9 500.9 1. . 40.1 0T.1.1 74 y~~~~~~*3 3~~~~~~~~~~4.3 7.: 3.4. 0. 4 31.4 72.1390 1.4 Om 0 649914 3L4 9.3 *.* 43.3 344 . 4.0 13.3 34.3 9.1 29.0 II.) * Ia 27.7~~~~~~~~360 .3.3 3.0 L 11500024. 1. T,"1 A~ I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3004. 0~ PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 23HRTOLDR&ICAS Appendices Part Eight Exhibit III-A (con't.) DAY USE BEACH USER OCCASIONSI 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 Zone 4 Berkeley 5.000 24.5 1,. 3*2.1274851. 13.14.311. 2.0 5,800-9,9 22.4 14.046 64.4 20.1 1. 67. 1261.36. 1.3 1 32.8 6. 10.001.9 21.8 1 3.6 0 88.4 20.7 11 021. 49 691. 439. 15,000-~~~~~ ~~~242: 1931.0 10.93 7 12242285.3 176.25 27.8 22.8'5 228.5 29. 56 6. 25,000 + 12.0 7.1 12.9 96.8 15.3 13. 2 144.5 30.6 16.7 315.4 38.8 21.2 325.1. 3 1 2 1 44. 2 0 .6 Tot.1 62.3 422.5 42. 73.0 535.3 81.0 650.8 80.0 72. 51050 22.2 5 7.9 3.3 18111. 703511. 8319.70.11 07. 5.000-9.997 21.2 55.2 4. 253. 16. 48.0 229.1 13.9 485.2 1207. 141 40615. 150-.14,999 9 19.9 519 6.-3741. 49.9 322.4 15 .8-6: 43.8 204.9 13. 3.324 15.0052.0 21.2 5.2 l a .2 563. 25.7 67. 691.6 2.9. 81.9 835.038. 25,000 + 10.5 ~~~~~~~~~40.4 12. 9 521.3 18.8 - 49.6, 639.0 24.1 60.4 0 5 6.6 31.5 90.71,3. Total 200.6 1,866.6 1,066.4 264.0 2 �.038.4 275.7 21314.3 280.0 j, 01.9 5 z88e a Dorchester 21.7 8.5 81 17.8 7.1 25.4 1.7.12. 5.000 26.1 10.8 3335. 35.0 9.45.1 22.5 9 .7 4.20297 48. 5.00-9,48 27.3 11.2 4.6 51.8 20 .5 8.06 520 17. 7.941. 7. 46.8 10,000-14,899 21.6 8.9 8.8 57.8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.011767. 4 . 1.7 15',0524,0 1. 7 .310. 74.5 ' a . 8. 0.7 2 6.2 21.3 115.3 36.8 2. 131.6 31.650 4 7.3 3.0 12.9 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~30.7 1.4152411.9 6.9 889.0 23.3 11 .214. Total ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~41.2 258.2 288.2 39025643.3 308.7 480. 119 t~na 7 Colletois 31.9 8.9 20.4 . 280 . 792. 249.134 - 8.000 - 38.3 10.3 3.3 24.8 36.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~267 7.5 38.5 24.2 6831.3 2'!.8 6.2 29.5 5,000-9,899! 2 9,0 8.2 4.6 37.7 168482. 1. . 41 08301.5 10.005-14,989 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~17.1486521.--1. 4.8 49.0 21.2 6.0 61.22.8.26. 15,009-24.899 12.7 3.6, 10.2: 36.7 8.2 2.32. 35 . 902.8 6.0 33. 25,000 $4.9 1.4 12.9 18.I . 9 7135384. 2 096 74 Totl.3 28.3 157.7 27.28.0 171.9 .- 28.2 291.7 28.5 5 -one 8 B eaufort 5,090 28.1 14.8 3.3 40823.7 12.3 40. 19.8 10.5 24.9 16.7 9.0 29. 05.008- 9,999 30.6 16.3 4.6 75.0 20.3 14.7 . 67.6 25.8 12.7 63.0 23.5 12.7 68.:,' 15.000-24,999 16. 7.7 10.2 78.5 18.1 9.9 10.021 32,27. 23.7 12. 130.6 20,000 +8.0 4.2 12.9 54.2 13358 611.800333.5 24.0 1.12. Total -53.7 320.9 320.9 5 2 .0 345.1 53.0 3.3 54.0 42R.7 z0ne 9 Hesplonl 8,080 40.7 .7 . 3.3 22.1 36.3 9.4 17.8 32.4 4.9 1 6.2 29.3 4.5 I 4:. 5.800-9.999 32.~ ~~1 54. 24. 296.5.27 27.3 4.1 10.9 25.0 3.8 17.9 18,10-14,89 146 2. 6.5 9.6 3.5 .0 13. 18. 2 . 2. 8.0 5.2 7.0. 160-489 90 1.5 10.2 15. 3.2020.4 1752.722 8138 2ir.6 25,0800 3.6 .6 12.9 7.7 6.9 1. 12.9 12.2 1.9 24.0 19.8 2.0 8. Total .16.5 85.1 85.1 15.8 84.8 15.2 97.5 15.5 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 24 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAI * ~Part Eight Appendices U ~~~~~~~~~~~Exhibit 111-A (con'tj.) DAY USE BEACH USER OCCASIONS I ~~~~~~~~~~~1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 zone 10 .7amper 5,30 42.4 5.4 3.3 17. 5.000-9,999 ~~~27.1 3.5 4.6 1.1304.1.6 34.1 4.4 1 4.1. 31.0 4213.9 24.8 3.1 14.3 22.3 * 2.9 33.1 20.0 2.7 12.4 10,000- 24,99 16.6 1.3 60.5 13.3 25.5 1.9 12.4 12.6 1.6 20.4 10.0 5.4 9.1 15.000-24.999 10.5~3: 1.3 10. 1..0.9 19.4 10.0 2.3 23.5 19.6 2.6 26.'- 25,000 4 3.4 .4 ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~12.9 : . .6. , . 10.3 12.0 1.6 25.6 19.4 2.6 Total 12.5 70.0 70.0 12.5 72.2 13.0 14..45 **no 11 b illion 5.000 29.0 11. 2. 38.:3 34.6 10.7 3 5.3 30.7 9.82. 27.6 9.1 3. 5,000-9,999 30.0 .94:. 409 27.7 .6 39.5 25.2 8.1 2. 22.9 702. 10.000-14,999~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1594765 310.6 14.7 4.6 259 11.9 3.9 30.3, 9.2 211. 35.000-24,909~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3. Is. 102 152674. 2 66. 2.2 29.9 .8o 25,000 4 4.5 1.22.9 16.8 7.8 .4 31.0 13142 -2 20.5 . Total 192 159.2 31.0 183.73202.03. Zon. 12 fmarlom 5,000 39.9 12.9 2.3 42.6 * 35.5 11.4 37.6 3 1.5 10.7 35.3 29.5 10.3 p4.0 S,000-9,999 29.2 9.1 4.6 419 1 25.9 6.3 3012 23.4 7.9 36.3 21.1, 7.6 1S.C 10.000-14.99w' 16.4 o.3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~6.5 345 1 5.2 4.9 11.9 12.4 4.2 2 7.3 9.9 3.5 22.0 - 1.000-24.9919 10.8 3 .5 10.2 3 5.7 00. 4.1001. . 531. . 3.4 29,000 4 ~~~~4.7 1,5 12.9 19.4 9. . 32 13.3 4.5 50.1 20.7 -7.5 91.0 Total -32.3 7427 4. 4. !Zi 32.0 191.2 33.9 223.3 35.0 262.C Zone 13 1Iowan" 5,000 26.3 . 27.5 3.3 90.6 12.9 23.7 70.2 20.0 20.6 . 5.6 16.9 10.4 62.7 5.000-.99 27.71 26.91 4.8 323.7 2.251115.9 22.9 23.8 209.5 25.6 22.3 10-1.5 10.550-14,s99 20.2 19.5 6.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~127.4 1.189122.9 16.2 16.0 .100.2 13.6 34.8 '-0.2 15.000-24,999 16.1 15.6 20.2, 159. 2.2042.1 24.6 25.5 261.1 25.2 27.9 2 Xl~ 25.000 4 7.7 7.9 12.9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~96.8 11.0 10.9 .140.1 16.3 35.9 229.0 23.7 25.8 ". Total 97.2 597.9 597.9 99.0 6f.5t3 103.9 766.4 119.0 973.7 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.0 100.1 10.0-992. .3 S.3 41.6 44.4 10.2 33.7 40.5 . 9.5 31.4 31. .02. 35,000-24,999 12. 2.9 269. 1a. 139 S 081. 41. 25.600 4 ~~~2.7 .123.9 .9.0 6.0 1.4I 19.1 2 1.3 2.7 34.9 18.7 4.5 50.1 Total 25.9 125.4 125.4 23.0 125.9 . 3.5 144.3 . 24.0 162.2 5,680 39.1 29.1 3.3 94.0 34.3 24.7 91.5 30.4 92.5 74.3 17.1 20.7 68.3 S.000-9,809 23.1 21.6 4.6 99.6 9. 19.0 67.4 23.9 17.7 0 1.4 21.6 16.4 76.4 15,000-14,999 16. 2.1 6.5 79.3 151 10.9 0.9 12.2 9.0 59.5 9.6 7.3 47.5 15.600-24,999 ~~11.6 0.7 10.1 90.7 16.1 11.6 119.9 20.1 14.9 152.0 20.1 16.2 150.1 29.550 4 ~~~4.0 3.8 12.9 46.4 6.1 5.6 74.9I 13.4 9.9 127.7 20.9 19.6 203.8 .@t61~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7. 0. 72,0 43.24.0 49-3.9 *76.0 597.9 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION, IN SOUTH CAROLINA 2,5 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight3 Exhibit III-A (can't.) DAY USE BEACH USER OCCASIONS 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 ZOO. 16 ~ ~~~5,000 59. 65 .3 3 1.5 35.2 561. 31.3 . 52 17.2 202 4. 15.0 1,0-4999 3 16. 2. 2 6.5 16.914. 2.4 1561. 26.0 13. 9. 16. 5.060-9,494 31.2 5.~16462. 26. 4. 21. .26.4 . 201.21 24.1 4. . 15 ,9990-24209 0293123 10. 2 16 .3 14. 233.184 30 3. 90221. Moto0 + 3.3 .5 12.9 6.5 6.6 1.1 1421. I . 5.93224. Total 16. 5 84. 7 84.7 16.0 a 00.0 16.5 1081. 2. Zone 17 AIlendele 5.000 44.0 4.4 3.3 14.9 3 9. 4.0 12. 35. 3.1. 32.6 2. 11.3I 5,010-9,092 26.8 2.7 ~4.6 12.42.:. 11.5 27.0 2:.8 12. 15.7 2 3.1 9 10,000-14,999 16.2 1.6 16.5 10.41. ' S .81. 1.2 9 7. 0. 1.0 1S(010-24 999 10.3 1.01. 10.2 - : .8 O 1. 15.31.17 19.4 194 .N2. 25.105 t 2.~ ~ ~~27 .312.9 3.9 60. . 03121. 03202. 18.0 57.5 10.2 67.5 15.5 33. Total 10.1 51.4 51.43 5,903.0 - LR2_ 6,0739 8,636.0 sout~ce: Hartzog, Lader & Richards, september, 1975.3 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 26 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA1 Part Eight Appendices Exhibit III-C RESIDENT VACATION USE DISTANCE (Driving distance miles - nearest 5 miles) Origin Zones Destination Beaches Regional Planning Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 myrtle Beach 230 215 170 140 165 110 70 15 95 165 Myrtle Beach St. Pk. 235 220 175 135 160 115 75 20 90 160 Huntington Beach St. Pk. 235 225 180 140 150 110 85 35 75 145 Litchfield Beach 230 210 175 135 145 105 90 35 70 140 Pawley's Island 230 205 170 135 140 100 95 40 70 140 Charleston Area Beaches 230 195 200 130 120 130 130 125 20 65 Edisto Island 240 205 210 140 130 135 145 155 50 70 :lunting Island St. Pk. 240 195 215 145 120 155' 170 195 90 20 'ripp Island 240 200 220 145 120 155 75 200 90 20 lilton Head Island 260 220 240 170 140 180 5 210 100 30 *ource: HLR, September, 1975. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 27 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight Exhibit III-D RESIDENT VACATICI USE DESTINATION RATIOS (I Overnight Accommodations/Distance) Est. t Overnight Origin Zones Destination Beaches Accommodation Units Regional Planning Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Grand Strand Atlantic Beach N. Myrtle Beach Myrtle Beach Surfside Beach 38,000 165.2 176.7 223.5 271.4 230.3 345.4 542.9 2,533.3 400.0 230.3 Garden City Beach Huntington Beach St. Pk. Litchfield/Pawley's I Isle of Palms 180 .8 .9 .9 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 9.0 2.8 Sullivan's Island 170 .7 .9 .9 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 8.5 2.6 Folly Beach 900 3.9 4.6 4.5 6.9 7.5 6.9 6.9 7.2 48.0 13.8 Kiawah Island 150 .7 .8 .8 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 7.5 2.3 Edisto Island 680 2.8 3.3 3.2 4.9 5.2 5.0 4.7 4.4 13.6 9.7 Hunting Island State Park 200 .8 1.0 .9 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.0 2.2 10.0 Fripp Island 250 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.7 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.3 2.8 12.S Hilton Head Island 2,300 8.8 10.4 9.6 13.5 16.4 12.8 11.8 11.0 23.0 76.7 Total 184.7 199.9 245.4 303.7 267.4 376.9 572.8 2,562.2 511.6 360.7 Source: HLR, September, 1975. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 28 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices Exhibit III-E RESIDENT VACATION UISE DESTINATION RATIOS (Prcportion of Vacation readc User Ocn-vtion3 from Eadc Origin to Eadc r-stinzltion) Origin Zones Regional PlanninQ Districts Destination Beaches i 2 3 4 S 6 7 a 9 10 Grand Strand 89.4 88.2 91.1 89.3. 86. 91.6 94.8 98.6 78.1 63.8 Isle of Palms .4 .5 .4 .5 .6 .4 .2 .1 1.9 .8 3I Sullivan's Island .4 .5 .4 .4 ..` .3 .2 .1 1.7 .7 rolly Beach 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.8 1.8 1.2 .3 8.8 3.8 Xiawah Island .4 .4 .3 .4 .5 .3 .2 . 1.5 .6 Edisto Island 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.3 .8 .2 2.7 2.7 Hunting Island St. Pk. .4 .5 .4 .5 .6 .3 .2 .1 .4 2.8 Fripp Island .5 .7 .4 .6 .8 .4 .2 .1 .5 3.5 Hilton Head Island 4.9 5.2 3.9 4.4 6.2 3.6 2.2 .4 4.5 21.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: HLR, September, 1975. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 29;! HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight Exhibit III-F RESIDENT VA'CATION BEACH USEI 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 V,.. P.IpO ..~o 537 P ., C.Pit. 1,1,3 ~ ~ 5~.. o~.o by 9.-ot, 0.t boo.. 5'o.P!9'-1o by %-h. U.-r v-.154o b 35 . An -.Ila ChiaI 9o..nnhold 1.,.... o...3.7 5003 25 1 ~164.5 3 2 20.9 3456. 495007. 361736. 225~~~~~ 55. 953535003.620110 2. 3. 21.003 * 5~~~ 43.2 11 40.1 9.3 . 73.4 90.0 14.9 53,.4 l~~~~~~~~o.9 35.9 301.294 15223.1 733.3 ggs.~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____ 796~~~~~~~~~I.4 00. 60. n. 14 5. Jo:0-5,0 32.4 N A 6. 31 333. 3. 643. 30.9 30.93.4.) 13.0~~2.34.004 14.2.0.0.0 0 35. 33.4 .4 4 354. 43.9 314554. 20.000 5 4.) . 7.1 *1.1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~7.6 13.3 1:.4 53. 2.5 36.4 30".34034. 70741 104.3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~135.3 ____.170.0 1 43.1 319.6 507. 19.570.4. Central Piedc-2nt .3. 652. 630. 952. 453. -1..7. SaC0 344* 91.5 34.0 10,005.9 1402.1 . 511. 93 937. 010. 310.9 ' 9':' 35.000 53 7.5 14.5 ~~~~~~~~~1.1 I 3:.7 .30.4 32I. 3431.73. 6. 050590. 701.1 ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~200.9 302.6 0.4 256.0 569.1 33.26. 63.3 20 4n'3~4 0.v~4 25.0 50.4 .5 66.6 17. 33. 39.0 17.3 430 1.0 5010133 0.' '30.5.050 34.4 01.5 .6 66.370. 000 " I V I A ' 05. 3. 6.0.5D 4151. 351.4 291- 02359.0 25.0 500.7 500.7 414.1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5. 45.3 363 2.95. 1090. 25.3 343.6 13 SoloS 414.1 543.9 . 347.4 444.0 344.0 457.4 439.7 307.4 670.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~34.04776 l~.? 37. Al. Lcwer SaVannah 31. 45.3 244. 7. 4J. 31. 4 2 3.4 04. 3590. I 0. Is'3599 5. 4. 93. 475674. 330.34. 994. 10. C.- 35.I, I 4. I 3. I V.0 I 421. 13 * 3. 5 633. 303. 30~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~I.01 7 0.I7:.1 i f .1 5. 45.57. 3. 50.7 2 06.7 35.5 62.6 4 143. 34.6 50.3 304 0. 41.4 31. 2 0. 70045 336.4 578.6 176.4 239.9 559.5 359.5 203.0 500.4 2 019. 5 229 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 30 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROL INA * ~~~~~~~~Part Eight Append ices Exhibit 111-F (can't.) RESIDENT VACATION BEACH USE I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~1975, 1980, 1935, 1990 San~tee Water",. 5.3~~Co~t.252 39.0 47.1 .2 11.3 37.3 43.0~. 29. 24. 400. 33. . 01 lO.C~~~~~~~.30.9lt u~~~~~~~~~~~s 22.2 25*2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~16.4 a 34.4 23.1.33.2.1 0. 2. 2.1 30.0 57.2 23.3 21.7 22.2 25.0 25.0.22TV0'2 .0 73.0 35.023 * 1.5 0.4 00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 14.2 S 5.0 14.3 22.2 34 3. 103. ?o0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 143~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~a.4 331.1 - 2.1 4. 7 3454 . 1375.200 4. Pee Dee 300.00 39t.? 023. .04.32.0 144. 2. .00ll2. 95 as.l07.4 13.0 3 2.102.536.3 3305. 220.414 3. 141. ood~ 5.00 2.5 2.4 1347. 205 . 4.022.421.041. 340.73. 003. 3.000-2.095 ~~20.71..0 127. . 4. 4.7 23.4 25.9 40.3 223. 3. 3 wa::aiiav 1:: ~. . . 23~ - 203.0 0:.: 50.0 s 4ll. I 20242.6 29.4264:8 2*P.0Ul 10,003-31.009 ~~30. 3.0 01. 23.4 102.2 20.2252. 033. 192. 33.000-24.990 i t's 30.1 1.0 I 330. 403. 2. 1. 213. 452. 23.000 4 5.* 0.0 0.2 4.1332.4 34.7 '4.. 22.4, 24.4 33.0 Is1.0 29.4 Told . 152.0 113.3 .1#78 4.0 I35.4 009.7 327.2 345.0 __ 2830. 5.030 22010. .9293.4 .1.34.03.2,43.4 1. 242. 2. 3.000-3.009 ~~23. 800 - . 040.07. 253. 0.4 I s . a 5. 1296. 30.000-24.029 ~~20.4 .74.2 .04. 22 214. 1. 541.0 33.0 51.0 52.9 3.0.41999 20.5 A 4. 1.0 141 5.0944 . 403.0 . 2.00.0 2.23.20. 25.0 au 30.0 $ 1.0 1. 5~ .1. 11.3 0%.0 12. 22.4 042. 0. 2. 2. To.ta24. 04020. 234.0 2.4400.1 220.1 421.0 101.4 Lower Coast *wer5.000 23.4 30.0 i .5 004 2.03.2.31 27. 1 3. 2. 45 2. I s~~~~~~~~~~~~~odo-s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ns 24.3 31.2 .6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~272 3 30.004-34.959 . . 24.1 * 27.9 20.0 24.0 . 35.4~~~~~~~ 27.32203 25.82. 15.000.24.990 ~~1.1: I 4. .17.2 .I 10.2 37.5 3S.0 33.4 1413.2. 1 40 3.0U 13.1~ ~~~~~~~~~~~1. 0I17.4 20.0 30.9 33.4 22. 32.7 22.520. 24. 25.000 4 504.4 . 1.1 7. 0.1 0.4 00 14.4 i s . 27. 4 33.0 20.2 261. 30 4240. 0.1300.3 Sol.$co 3.3.1 90.92Ill. 32 S 2.C. - *time, .acIo -State R 0 ak beach a I beach days rep. MtO I 43 ~~Source: liLR, September. 1975. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 31: HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Append ices Part Eight Exhibit 111-H Exhibit 111-I IflCo!2 Shijft, * mili cs, .nd Iinrrl -attod Individuals Incorna Shift, 1 ' .-il ns w thirtlatrd I ncl-ijduals Age 35-4 i, Incomro S15,000 and Above Agc 55-64, Xnrcnrin '15,000 a2nd Above (Of0's) (000 ,;-) (In 1971 Const:..ut bollarc;) (In 197.1 Constint oollars) 17 1 11) 75 1 9RI 198a5 11)990 19 71 197 17y0 1 98a5 1990a 15,000 to 17 ,4 99 1, 1-87 1, 2 '3 1 5 16 1, 0882 1, 66 5 15,000 to 17,499 776 a 863 1, 092 1. 16 8 8 3 4 17,500o to 19.999 7 86 9 84 1 2 4 7 1,1623a 1,968 17 ,500 to .t9,999 ~ 5 34 6 71 790 a 963 97 3 20,000 to 2 4,9 99 8 12 1. 14 2 1a80 6 2, 573 ,1 20, 000 to 24,999 615 a 829 1, 12 9 1, 34 5 .1, 4 71 25,000 to 34,999' 4 97 7 91 1,3 30 2,462 3,'903 25, 000 to 34,999 4 27 6 38 I1,0 11 1, 35 8 1,675I 35,000 to 4 9 ,9 99 16 5 2 15 4 52 987 1, 84 7 35, 000 to 49,999 1 43 22 3 3803 6 42 905 33, 000 and over 66 97 176 355 724 so ,000 a2nd over 104 136 210 322 4743 Percent Dlistribut ion in 11claiiion To Percent Distribution InI Rela.tiofl To Total PopulaLion of Age Group Toa Population of Age Group 1971 1975 198') 1905 1990 1971. 1975 1 1JUII 1985 1990 .15,000 to 17,499 10.0 10.9 11.4 11.4 8.5 15,000 to 17,499 6.81 7.3 H.7 9 .2, 6.9 1.7,500 to 19,999 6.6 0.3 9.4 9.9 10.1 17,500 to 15,999 4.7 S.7 6.3 7.6 8.0 20,000 to 24,999 6.8 9.6 13.6 15.6 16.4 20,000 to 24,999 5.4 7.0 .9 .0 10.6 12.1 25,000 to 34,999 4.2 6.7 10.0 14.9 19.9 25,000 to 34,999 3.8 5.4 8.0 10.7 13.8I 35,000 to 49,999 1.4 1.8 3.4 6.0 9.4 35,000 to 4.9,999 1.3 1.9 3.1 5.0 7.5 50,000 and over .6 .6 1.3 2.2 3.7 50,000 and over .9 1.2 1.7 2.539 29.6 38.1 49.1 TO -.0 68.0 - - 1~~~~ 29.6 38.1 49.1 60.0 68.0 ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~22.9 20.5 36.81 45'.6 52.2 Source: U.S. Iuure-itu of Ccmusnu, rurr'.10~. F.I'11;kio~inn e~~r ~ Sovrce.- U.S. llurc-lu of Comwu:;, Cuurvit1,qmla ionIl 21! R'purt S~'rir~'; l'-23 No. 7. Ui.:. ,ivo-(rnl..- 1-r, nAlU Tice Gwr i~ rs1-2)P, -:. 17. U.!;. I;V...r' .w"' III ItII, o int ,;, Otc c jnrfjj,n' CGrowthl Iate 34, 11upulation Jlro)cci-ion Inctomen f'rowth Rate 31, 1'upulaiLion Vxo~jerctior Series E&. Scrica E. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 32 PUBLIC B3EACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices Exhibit Iii-J Exhibit Il-K Income Shift, I' *nilic'n awl MI,,relatcd Individuals income !Jliftl m *lili'i"' nd lIlrclatod 7n1dividuals Age 55.1.4, Inc.-n', $15,000 and Above Age 65 Incorlt $35,000 and Above (In 1971 ConstsrnL Dollars) (In 1971 Constanrt Dullars) 1971 1975 1 910 1985 1990 1971 L975 1980 1985 1990 15.000 to 17,499 776 863 1,092 1.168 834 15,000 to 17.499.-' 263. 339 424 595 660 17,500 to 19,999 534 671 790 963 973 17,500 to 19,999; 177 236 319 395 567 20.000 to 24.999 615 8 29 1,129 1,345 1.471 20,000 to 2j.999. : 162 251 393 533 696 427 638 1.011 1,350 1,675 25,000 to 34,999. 113 160 273 463 701 35,000 to 49,999 143 _223 3 83 642 905 35,000 Lo 49,999 65 71 113 185 292 '50.000 and over ,0037 57 9 131 198 Percent Uistrihuticn I z ei.,tion To Percent Distribution jr,'1.-t ion To Total Population of A"Jn Group Total Paitpplion of Ago c;roup 1971 1975 19810 1985 1990 1971 ' 1975 1"U0 1985 1990 15,000 to 17,499 6.8 7.3 0.7 9.2 6.9 15,000 to 17,499 1.9 1 2.4 2.7 3.4 3.. 17.500 to 19,999 4.7 5.7 6.3 7.6 6.0 17.500 to 19.999 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.3 3.0 2C,000 to 24.999 5.4 7.0 9.0 10.6 12.1 20,000 to 24.999 1.2 1.8 2.5 3.1 3.7 25,000 to 34,999 3.6 5.4SA 8.0 10.7 13.8 25,000 to 34,999 .8 1.2 1.7 2.7 3.7 35,000 to 49,999 1.3 1.9 3.1 5.0 7.5 35,000 to 49,999 .5 .5 .7 1.1 1.6 50.000 and over .9 1.2 1.7 2.5 3.9 50,000 and over .3 .4 .6 .8 1.1 T2 9 28.5 036. 45.6 52.2 6.0 8.0 10.2 13.4 16.6 Sov~ce. U of :::;.us.:uirist N-j" io o Source: U.S. Durcan OC C~w~us, C rrnf. P pul-io-si InAco CCS GRro w t hNRa ~e 3t, Nulalivii jIrr;)ectjoj 1nr:,,r Growth CatA N 31, Hopul ar tZOG, P &rojction 5,!Vies E. Sre ; PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 33 . HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight Exhibit .Ii-G Income Shift, F.ijicq un( t nr-lat.', Individuals Aye 25-34. Inco.,- SIS,000 and Above (In 1971 Constoat Dollaru) 1971 1975 19no 1985 1990 15,000 to 17,499 997 1,558 2,232 2,887 2,492 .17,500 to 19.999 551 93.6 1,624 2,174 2,646 20,000 to 24,999 393 836 1,776 2,902 3,624 25,000 to 34,999 177 371 845 1,836 3,238 .35,000 to 49,999 45 76 191 412 835 SD),000 and over 26 38 69 128 233 Perccnt Distribution in Relation To Total Population of Aye Group 1971 1975 1j91111 19115 1990 15,000 to 17,499 7.4 10.1 11.9 13.8 11.5 17,500 to 19,999 4.1 5.9 8.7 10.4 12.2 20,000 to 24,999 2.9 5,4 9.5 13.8 16.7 25,000 to 34,999 1.3 2.4 4.5 8.8 15.0 35.000 to 49,999 .3 .5 1.0 2.0 3.9 50,000 and over .2 .3 .4 .6 1.1 16.2 24.6 36.0 49.4 60.4 Source: U.s. lura-ut of Census, Curro.,I: Po.,.ilvtin, q'1., HARcrZG L;coA& tlD I HARDS 33U. PopulRation ISToJCcriARLN Series E. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 34 PUBLIC BEACH AOCESSA8 RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices EXHIBIT III-L SOUTH CAROLINA RESIDENT DAY USE DRIVING DISTANCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 9 10 11 12 ii 14 15 i 6 Ir-str~-_tin B eaches sArry willamsburg Georgetmwn Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Colleton Beaufort Hampton Jasper Dillon Marion Florence Clarendon Oraneeburg D S ______ %. ylrtle Beach 30 55 65 65 85 .iacc-ric Beach 30 50 70 6 80 -rleBeach i s 75 35 85 95 - 75 45 65 ,!:~rt-re tEach St. PM. 20 75 30 80 9 0 80 50 70 Car,,n City - Surfide bie ach 20 70 30 75 85 -- 80 55 75 h2,-in-tcf St. Pk. 25 65 25 75 - - 85 60 80 Isl cf alra - - 65 45 15 65 60 85 - - - - - 90 90 95 Z-...ar.sz'; Z9larA -60 40 10 60 60 80 95 85 90 zs::-I 3la: - 70 45 10 60 60 80 as85 85 01 _11_4.11i ard - 60 80 50 20 70 55 75 95 80 - - - 95 lslard - 80 50 70 50 70 75 60 95 90 Island St. Pk. 100 80 60 20 65 55 105 10C IIllH n Head Island - - - - - 100 so 35 60 40 - 110 95 95 I indicates that distance Ls considoged too long for day use beach use. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 35 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Append ices Part Eight APPENDIX IV BEACH USE SURVEYI *_TV-A BEACH USE QUJESTIONNAIRE teTie____ INSTRUCTIONS Location! Dress casually; wear your name tag. B-C1Ls UG1 C 1- Be polite; talk with every third or fourth group on the beach. Do not talk only with teenagers; ask Hello, V., conducting a sutvey of be-ach users. yould you mind different groups, espacially- families, and talk with answering a few q,-estiols? only ono persorn %-ithin each group. Cover your beach territory systematically. Try not to retrace your steps aswroly if necessary- over a beach area where you have already conducted This qucsti~.n--ire is paro of a state study sponsored by theI interviews. South Carolina ofatnn eor Pr t P.czati, an-1 odeemn the extent of pub-ic a~cesu to r.~uth C arr;.ca's L'-,c.-Xs. I've been Place the date, location, and time on each questionnaire. hir d by Fartzog, L eur nd Riclhards, the consulting firs which has b~een commissioned to do this study. Your work schedule can be arranged an an individualI - start questionnaire _ basis; however,' the following time periods must be covered: I weekend day - 1. Are you h ere in the im-ediate area (16) on August 16, 17, 23, or 24 - 6 hours overnight ......0 Are you staying at: (17) a campgrounj ....... 01 1 week day - otel/Motel ........02 on August 18, 19, 20, 21, or 22 - 6 hours friends/relat-sve s home. . U4 ether (spacify)______O 1 Labor Day Weekend day -(8 on August 30, 31, or September 1 - 6 hours ~~~~~~~~On vacation. .0..2 How long? on August 30, ~ ~ ~ ~ __ 31-2rSpebe or nights .....D... le;ss than a week.:. I3 Total 18 hours one we. . ......L133 more than a week ..... LI4 We are assuming that 10 questionnaires can be completed Axe you staying at: (19) per hour, therefore, we will expect a minimum of 180 completed a ean-;rou.d........ ques tionnairos for the survey period. haoe/nt -7.2 Work between the hours of 10:00O a.m. and 4:00 p.m. You other (specify)______ may wish to conduct daily interviews in 3-hour time segrents. 3ust for the day 03 For example, 3 hours on. Saturday, August 16, and 3 hours on Sunday, August 17. This will be acceptable as long as the total hours (6) have been covered for the "weekend day" period, 2. How many miles is this'beach from your permanent residence? (20) or 60 questionnaires completed. 1-5 miles Di 6-15 mils C02 16-30 miles 0 3 31-60 miles 04 61-90 miles C1s over 90 miles 06 Upon completion of each work segment, fill out the Report Sheet: and return te completed questionaires in the self-3. How many times this year have you visited this beach for:I addressed envelope. You will not be Daid until we have Week~end... noner3 1 2 03 3 4 or more0 (21) received the appropriate number of completed questionnaires for Vacation..::nore0 I El 2 El 3 0 4 or moreO (22) each worlk segmen.. Thu day . ....noneD 1-50 6-I00 11-200 20. 0 (3 1 2 3 4 5 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 36 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices APPEL1DIX I V-A (con't. ) 4. now many tinos have you visited other South Carolina beaches this b. What is the age of the head of household: (38) year for: under 25.. ... Weeked ........none 1 0 2 0 3 4 or more (24) 25-34 .............. vacation .......nore...[ 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 or noreD (25) 35-44.............. The day ........nor.e 1-521- 6-10C 11-20[ 20+ I (26) 45-4 ............. C4 1 2 3 4 5 55-64............. 5s 5S. Including yourself, please tell me thc composition of your group. over 65 .......... U6 Hlow many. ow an. In which of aese broad inco_.e groups is your total household (39) income: Men (over 18) (27) I Won (over 10) (28) under $5,0007..:............. ......1., 1 Teenagers (13-18) (29) over $5,000 but under 10,00 ... .. 2 Children (u.dcr 13) (30) over 510 S03 ut unet $11,01 .03 Total '(31) over $13,000 b-. under 525,00 ..04 o0'er S25,000 but under $50,00S.O0 over $50,000. .. ................0..6.. U6 b. Aro these persona- Friends 01 Family O2 Both 03 (32) d. What is the occupation of the head of household? _ (If retired, mark here O1 and answer for last occupation.) (40) 6. Did you drive to the beach? yesO1 no 02 (33) If no, skip to question 8. Profcesicnal/Technical.... 1 C!'r .................. 6 (41) MonagenentercI ............. 2 ebr of Arnwd orces.... If yes, did you have to park: (34) Govcr. :,unt .............r ............... Skilled Cra.uran ....... fJ4 Other (specify) 09 1-2 blocks away ........... Service Work ............ 2-5 blocks away....... I5 or more blocks axway ................... Q03 .10. hrnat is the zip code of your primary residence? (42,43,44) 7. Did you park: (35) in a free public parking lot ...... 01 on the street ..................... 2 in a pay parking leeot .... . 03 other (specify) 04 8. (By observation) male C1 feale 02 (36) 9. Is your age: (7) unier 1 . .......... : 1e-24 ..... ,.2 25-: .............. '[3 45-54.............. 05 over 65 ............ 7 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 37 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices. Part Eight' APPENDIX IV-B SOUTH CAROLINA BCACH USE SURVEY SUMMARY OF TOTAL RESPONDENTS SUMMARY OF DAY-USERS Fifty-four percent of those surveyed were at the beach as part of their vacation, 45.5% were at the beach just The highest number of day-users responding to the survey for the day. were at Folly each, followed byv Edisto Beach State Park, Atlantic Beach, and then Myrtle Beach State Park. Over half of the vacationers (56.1%) stayed less than a week. Fifty-eight percent (58.3%) of day-users traveled thirty miles or less to got to the beach, while 22.3% traveled Campgrounds, hotels, and motels provided most (60.6%) over 90 miles to use the beach just for the day. of the accommodations required. Relatively few (23.0%) respondents stayed in a cottage or vacation home, or Forty-nine percent (49.4%) of day-users visited the same in a friend's or relative's home. This phenomenon is beach 5 or more times this year, of which 25.7% visited explained by the fact that the survey was conducted at the same beach 20 or more times. "public" access points, not areas within private developments. p bc- aTwenty-four percent (24.9%) of these same day-use respondents Over twenty-eight percent (28.7%) of the respondents also visited other South Carolina beaches one to five drove thirty miles or less to reach the beach, while times this yeer. almost sixty percent (58.0%) traveled over 90 miles to their beach destination. Almost half (46.4%) of all day-users were family groups. The survey respondents (1,293) represented a total of Ninety-three percent (93.0%) drove to the beach and most more than 4,992 beach users. (93.8%) parked 1-2 blocks away; most (39.5') parked either on the street or in a free public parking lot. Almost sixty percent (58.0%) of beach users were family groups. An overwhelming 81.4% of the beach users (both vacationers and day-users) drove to the beach: 89.4% parked within two blocks of the beach. Most parked on the street, or ih a free public parking lot. Of those that go to the beach, 53.6% earn less than $15,000 in total annual household income; 78.8% of beach users earn $25,000 or less per annum. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 38 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices APPENDIX IV-C (32) The groups were composed of: SOUTH CAROLINA BEACH USE SURVEY QUET10414IRERESONSSIfriends 275 21.3 QUESTIONIJAIRE RESPONSES1 BY family 750 58.0 TOTAL RESPONDENTS both 254 19.7 no answer 14 1.0 1,293 100.0 (16)2 Of the 1,293 respondents to the survey, the following Note: of the 750 family groups, 114 were individuals. beach visitation types were indicated: I t% (33) 1,053 respondents, or 81.4%, drove to the beach; 236 Overnight -127 9.8 respondents, or 18.3%, did not. Overnight �127 9.8 On vacation. 577 - 44.6 Just for the day 589 45.5 (34) Those respondents who drove to the beach (1,053) parked 1,293 100.0 as follows: (17) Of those staying overnight (127), the following accommo- dations were used: 1-2 blocks away 945 89.4 2-5 blocks away 83 7.8 �s-' > � - % 5 or more blocks away 22 2.1 no answer 3 .7 a campground 33 26.0 1,053 100.0 hotel/motel' 42 33.1 cottage/vacation home 16 - 12.6 friends/relatives' home' 30 23.6 135) Those respondents that drove to the beach (1,053) parked other 6 4.7 127 -0.0 ' Free public parking lot 612 57.9 (18) Those respondents on vacation (577) stayed the following On the street 286 27.2 length of time: Pay parking lot 38 3.5 Other 115 10.9 -- % * No answer 3 .5 1,053 100.0 1-2 nights 95 16.5 less than-a week 228 39.6 one week 156 27.0 (36) Of the respondents to the questionnaire, 51.7% were female more than a week 89 15.4 (668) while 48.3% were male (625). no answer 9 1.5 577 100.0 (37) Age breakdown of the respondents is as follows: under 18 108 8.4 18-24 425 . 32.9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 ~~~~25-34 340 26.3 computer run dated 09/15/75 35-44 229 17.7 45-54 138 10.7 2numbers In parentheses refer to code numbers in the right 55-64 30 2.3 hand margin of the questionnaire over 65 15 1.2 no answer 8 .6 1,293 1T0.0 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 39 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight (38) The age of the head of household to which the respondent belonged was as follows: under 25 226 17.5 25-34 327 ' 25.3 35-44 317 24.5 45-54 291 22.5 55-64 90 7.0 over 65 27 2.1 no answer 15 1:2 1,293 100.0 (39) The broad income groups indicated by the respondents for their total household income was as follows: * 8 under $5,000 79 6.1 $5,000-$10,000 254 20.4 $10,000-$15,000 351 27.1 $15,000-$25,000 326 25.2 $25,000-$50,000 124 9.6 over $50,000 12 .9 no answer 137 10.6 1,293 100.0 Of those that go to the beach, 53.6% earn less than $15,000 in total annual household incoma; 78.8% earn $25,000 or less; as indicated by this survey. (40) Occupations of the head of household as indicated by the respondents were placed into the following groups: Professional/Technical 270 20.9 Management 105 8.1 Government 73 5.6 Skilled Craftsman 96 7.4 Service worker 81 6.3 Clerical 60 4.6 Member of Armed Forces 103 8.0 Labbrer 140 10.8 Business 179 13.8 Retired 49 3.8 Other 137 10.6 1,293 100.0 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 40 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices APPENDIX IV-D (19) Respondents on vacation (577) used the following accommo- dations: SOUTII CAROLINA BEACII USE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES BY DAY USE RESPONDENTS a campground 152 26.4 hotel/motel 197 34.2 cottage/vacation home 59 10.2 (11)2 The 587 day users responding to the survey were at the friends/relatives' home 75 12.9 following beach areas: other 5 .9 no answer 89 15.4 # % 577 100.0 Atlantic Beach 70 11.9 Myrtle Beach Pavilion 5 .9 (20) All respondents indicated the following distances between Myrtle Beach State Park 62 10.6 the beach and their permanent residence: Huntington Beach State Park 20 3.4 Isle of Palms 79 13.5 Sullivans Island 56 9.5 Folly Beach 150 25.6 1-5 miles 98 7.6 Edisto Beach State Park 91 15.5 6-15 miles 162 12.5 Hilton Ilead Island 54 9.2 16-30 miles 110 8.6 587 100.0 31-60 miles 118 9.1 61-90 miles 45 3.5 � ~ - - over 90 miles 750 58.0 (20) Day-use respondents indicated the following travel distances no answer 10 .8 between the beach and their permanent residence: 1,293 100.0 # % (21) - (26) Not applicable in aggregate number form. See 1-5 miles 91 15.5 "overnight use", "vacation use" and day use". 6-15 miles 150 25.6 16-30 miles 101 17.2 31-60 miles 91 15.5 (27) - (30) Survey results for these answers were inconclusive. 61-90 miles 19 3.2 over 90 miles 131 22.3 no answer - 4 .7 (31) Of the 1,293 respondents, the following group size is 587 100.0 shown: total group (23) Day-use respondents visited the same beach this year size the following number of times: I person 115 x 1 = 115 2.3 # % 2 persons 341 x 2 = 682 13.6 3 persons 184 x 3 = 552 11.1 none 97 16.4 4 persons 246 x 4 = 984 19.7 1-5 200 34.1 5 persons 129 x 5 = 645 12.9 6-10 69 11.8 6 persons 103 x 6 = 618 12.4 11-20 70 11.9 7 persons 57 x 7 = 399 8.0 20 + 151 25.7 8 persons 25 x 8 - 200 4.0 58-7- 100.0 9 or more 88 x 9 = 792 15.9 no answer 5 x 1 = 5 .1 I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~91-,293 o,992 100.0 1computer run dated 09/15/75 Indicates that the respondents represented a total number 2numbers in parentheses refer to code numbers in the right of 4,992 beach users. hand margin of the questionnaire PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 41 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight (26) Day-use respondents visited other South Carolina beaches (35) Those day-use respondents that drove to the beach parked this year for the day the following number of times: I % free public parking lot 284 52.0 ~none 330 5~6.2 on thestreet 205 37.5 6-10 146 249 pay parking lot 20 3.7 (31) Of the 587 day-use respondents, the following group size their total household income were as followas is shown: total group size % under $5,000 54 9.2 311-2~$,000-$10000 124 21.1 1 person 58 x 1 = 58 2.3 $10,000-$15,000 162 27.6 2 persons 167 x 2 = 334 15.0 $15,000-$25,000 134 22.8 3 persons 84 x 3 = , 252 11.3 $25,000-$50,000 46 7.8 4 persons 110 x 4 = 440 19.7 over $50,000 4 .7 5 persons 45 x 5 = 225 10.2 no answer 63 1 0 .27 6 persons 30 x 6 = 180 .1 587 100.0 7 persons 27 x 7 = 189 8.5 8 persons 12 x8 = 96 4.3 9 or more 51 x 9 = 459 20.5 no answer 3 x1 = 3 .1 587 2,236 100.0 (32) The day-use groups were composed of % friends 181 30.9 family 272 46.4 pers on 58 x 1 =58 2.3 $,0-$1, 162 27.6 both 129 22.0 pesnno answer 63 10.7 p58 57 100.0 (33) Of the 587 respondents, 546 or 93.0% drove to the beach for the day; 41 or 7.0% did not. (34) The 546 respondents who drove to the beach parked 1-2 blocks away 512 93.8 2-5 blocks away 28 5.2 5 or more blocks away 3 .5 no answer 3 .5x 1 = 3 .1 587 2,276 10. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 42 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG, LADER &. RICHARDS 42 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS a RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices APPENDIX IV-E SOUTH CAROLINA BEACH USE SURVEY OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY DESIGNATIONS Responses to question 9d on the 4. Skilled Craftsman Beach Use Survey Questionnaire -- "What is the occupation of the head of house- Welder Computer hold?" -- were varied, and often Programmer incorrectly-categorized by the inter- Plumber Carpenter viewer in the field. Since the actual Electrician Brick Mason occupation of the respondent was written Machinist Mechanic on the questionnaire by the interviewer, Telephone Repair Machine Setter the consultant reassigned occupational designations for greater accuracy. An additional category "Business" was added 5. Service worker - supporting to the nine categories listed on the . questionnaire. service-oriented business Waitress/waiter Janitor Beach users surveyed, or the head Wairresser of their households, were employed by Social worker Hair dresser the following sectors of the economy: Short order cook House cleaner Wholesale dis- 1. Professional/Technical - high tributor - educational skills oil jobber Maintenance Jbe X-ray technician Preacher Engineer Treasurer Clerical Arch./Drafting Pilot Teatcher Advertising Clerk Secretary Doctor Accounting Librarian Teacher's Aid Key punch operator 2. Manlagement - product-oriented 7. Armed Forces usiness supervisionr Foreman Supervisor~~~~~8 Laborer - necessity physical/manual skills 3. Gover nment Construction State Commissioner worker Textile worker City Sheriff Industrial worker Truck driver Federal Policeman Factory worker Farmer Public Employee Postman PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 43R HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Appendices Part Eight 9. Other I Unemployed Student Band/Musician Golf pro !4is ce llane6us ZIP CODE ANALYSIS 10. .Business Salesman/Sales management Owner of small business Each of the respondents was asked --Self-employed EO of the zipode of aske Purchasing Agent to indicate the zip code of his home Real Estate address. These codes were analyzed to determine the primary residence of the respondents by each of the subject beach areas. Concentrations of respondents from any particular metropolitan area, such as Charleston residents at Sul- livans Island, Isle of Palms and Folly Beach were indicated. For most of the beach areas, however, there were no concentrations from single areas. The following exhibit shows the number and percentage of respondents from the listed states for the total sample, and for each of the beach areas. The states with a significant percentage of representation overall include South Carolina (53.9%), North. Carolina (15.7%), and Georgia (5.8%). No other single state accounted for more than 3.0% of the respondents. Analysis of each beach area is included in the body of the report. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 44 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Appendices APPENDIX IV-F ZIP CODE ANALYSIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF RESPONDENTS BY BEACH AREA Myrtle Myrtle Huntington Total Atlantic Beach B each Beadl Sullivans Isle of Edisto Bead, Hilton faed Respondets Beach Pavillion State Park State Park Island Palm.s F ollv Beach State Park Island F: ~ _ __ __l a %k T i ai T T -t 6 __e-~--~ i __ __~~~~~-- - _T south Carolina 677 53.9 79 39.1 21 17.8 83 36.1 41 39.8 62 92.5 89 79.5 156 88.1 110 85.9 36 30.5 Charleston (a) 358 28.5 - - - - - - - 53 79.1 72 64.3 150 84.7 83 64.8 - - North Cato i na 197 15.7 73 36.1 41 34.7 58 25.2 15 34.6 - - 2 1.8 - - 6 4.7 2 1.7 Gacbria 73 5.8 9 4.5 2 1.7 3 1.3 8 7.8 - - 7 6.3 4 2.3 4 3.1. 36 30.5 Sav.'nnah (a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18 15.3 .tlnta :a) - - - - - - - 12 10.2 Vir-5iria 38 3.0 7 3.5 13 11.0 7 3.0 5 4.9 - 1 .6 2 1.6 3 2.5 33. 2.6 1 .5 11 9.3 11 4.8 5 4.9 - 1 .6 2 1.6 2 1.7 32 2.5 6 3.0 1 .8 11 4.8 6 5.8 1 1.5 2 1.8 1 .6 - 4 3.4 Penzin'vcrnia 27 2.1 7 3.5 3 2.5 30 4.3 - - - 4 3.6 1 .6 1 .8 1 .8 FlcrL- a 23 1.0 6 3.0 - 5 2.2 3 2.9 1 1.5 1 .9 2 1.1- - 5 4.2 Undo ,23 -1.,8 1 .51 6 5.1 12 5.2. 1 1.0 1 1.5 - - 2 1.6 W~Et Virixjinia 18 1.4 1 .5 8 6.8 4 1.7 -1 1.0 1 1.5 - 3 1.7 - - .V'axy ane318 1.4 '3 1.5 4 3.4 5 2.2 2 1.9 -1 .9 1 .6 - - 2 1.7 Jer-y17 1 2 1.0 - 5 2.2 7 6.8 - - - - 3 2.5 -';Cky 10 .8 1 .5 3 2.5 2 .9 2 .9 2 1.9 - - - - - - 2 1.7 I! 3"' ois 9 .7 - - . - - 1 .4 4 3.9 - - - - - - - A 1: 7 -.6 1 .8 2 .9. - - - - 1 .9 - - - - 3 2.5 7C .6 - -. 7 - 2 .9 - - 1.5 1I .9 1 .6 - 2 1.7 Conrrc C icut :6 .5 1 .8 2 .9 - - 2 1.1 - 1 .8 Li ~~:lre6 .5 2 1.7 1 .4 3 2.9 Db i-,:c of Colurbia 5 .4 1 .5 1 .4 1 .9 1 .6 1 .8 5 .4 2 .9 1 .9 2 1.7 7ir~;ra 3 .2 1 .5 -- 2 1.1 - Ix 3 .2 2 1.0 - -- Nclsn-.'.ihufmsetts 3 .2 - 1 .4 2 1.1 Ic~ia. 3 .2 - - - - - - - - - 2 1.8 - - - - 1 .8 .:i3~cZ~f 2 .2 1 .5 1 .8 2 .2 1 .5 1 .4 l~~ a2 .2 - - - - 1 .4 -, - - - - - - - - - 1 .8 Colc~ 2 .2 2 1.7 Misscu~ri 1 .1 - - 1 .8 - - - - - - - ,.las:.a 1 .1 -- - . .8 -- 1 .1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 .8 ::;af'n~shire 1 .1 - - - - -- - - - - - - -- 1 .8 nrizcrr~J. .1 - - - - - - - -- 1 .8 'JMrAL (b) 1,256 100.0 202 100.0 118 100.0 2310 100.0 67 100.0 112 100.0 120 100.0 128 100.0 118 100.0 (a) NuTZ.er and percentage shown are part of State figure. Ib) These totals reflect only those resp-ndents A--ao prmided their zip cocdc. Ihirty-sewn resmxndents did not answer. Source: HLR, South Carolina Beach Use.Survey, August, 1975. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 45 L HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight GENERAL Books 1. Ducsik, D., Shoreline for the Public: A Handbook of Social, Economic, and Legal Considerations Regardinq Public Recreational Use of the Nation's Coastal Shoreline, Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1974. 2. Harvard University, Graduate School of Design, Dept. of Landscape Archi- tecture, Ecoloqic-Economic Analysis for Regional Development: Regional Science and Landscape Analysis Project, New York, Harvard University' Free Press, November, 1969. 3. Hite, James C., and James M. Stepp, Coastal Zone Resource Management, New York, Praeger Publishing Company, 1971. 4. Smally, Wellford and Nelson, Shoreline- Analysis of the City of Sarasota, Sarasota, Fla., 1970. Signed Pamphlets 1. Badger, Daniel D., Recreational Considerations in Water Planning, Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Water for Texas, College Station, Texas, Water Resources Institute, Texas A & M University, November 22-23, 1965. 2. Beckham, Frank M., Long Range Recreation Plans, Myrtle Beach, S.C., 1963. 3. Blossom, H. D., R. R. Forster, and J. H. Watts, An Approach to Regional Planning and Design in the North Georqian Bay Recreational Reserve, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University, Graduate School of Design, Dept. of Landscape Architecture. 4. Bode, R., and W. Farthing, Coastal Area Management in North Carolina: Problems and Alternatives, North Carolina Institute of Civic Education, 1974. 5. Bradley, Earl H., Jr., and John Armstrong, A Description and Analysis of Coastal Zone and Shoreland Management Programs in the U.S., Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Sea Grant Program, 1972. 6. Cox, Janson L., Old Dorchester State Park Historical Development, Columbia, S.C., South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, 1971. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 46 P PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Biblirhy Bbiograph GENERAL Signed Pamphlets (cont'd) 7. D'Ambrosi, Joan, Coastal Land Use - A Selected Annotated Bibliography, Council of Planning Librarians, University of Illinois, November, 1974. S. Dean, R. G., Evaluation and Development of Water Wave Theories for Engineering Application, Volumes I and II, Fort Belvoir, Va., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, November, 1974. 9. Ditton, Robert B., Ph.D., The Social and Economic Significance of Recreation Activities in the Marine Environment, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Sea Grant Program, Tech. Rep. No. 11, 1972. 10. Ditton, Robert B., Ph.D., Water-Based Recreation: Access, Water Quality and Incompatible Use Considerations, an Interdisciplinary Bibliography, Council of Planning Librarians, University of Illinois, June, 1971. 11. Ducsik, Dennis W., "The Crisis in Shoreline Recreation Lands," in Papers on National Land Use Policy Issues, prepared for the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U. S. Senate, by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and Boston University, Washington, D.C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 12. Ellickson, Materials on Problems of Governing the Coastal Zone, unpublished, University of Southern California Law Center, 1971. 13. Healey, Warren, ed., Proceedings of the Second New England Coastal Zone Management Conference, Cambridge, Mass., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sea Grant Program, 1971. 14. Hopkins, Walter S., Jr., Impacts of Recreation on Competition for Use of Water, Western Resources Conference, 1963; Boulder, Colorado, University of Colorado Press, 1964. 15. Isaacs, Reginal R., Conservation of Beaches: A Study of Problems, Needed Political Resources, Actions Required of Private Enterprises, Citizens an the Government of the U. S. Virgin Islands, Cambridge, Mass., 1967. 16. Kinsky, Arthur M., Determination of Maximum Practical Recreation Use, unpublished paper presented at U. S. Army Corps of Engineers SPD Recreation Orientation Session; Sacramento, Calif., November 4-8, 1968. 47 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight Signed Pamphlets (cont'd) 17. Kusler, J., Public/Private Parks and Management of Private Lands for Park Protection, Madison, Wisc., Institute for Environmental Studies, Report No. 16, March, 1974. 18. Kusler, J., Regulations to Reduce Conflicts Between Recreation Water Uses Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Research Report No. 65, 1970. 19. Olsen, Stephen B., and Malcohm J. Grant, Rhode Island's Barrier Beaches: Volume I. A Report on a Management Problem and an Evaluation of Options, Kingston, R.I., University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center, Marine Technical Report No. 4. 20, Olsen, Stephen B., and Malcohm J. Grant, Rhode Island's Barrier Beaches: Volume II, Kingston, R.I., University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center, Marine Technical Report No. 4, 1973. 21. Oswalt, Donald, Problems of Public Access to the Saltwater Beaches of Connecticut, Kingston, R.I., University of Rhode Island, Dept. of Marine Affairs, May, 1975. 22. Pinson, Lawrence F., and Thomas A. Weldon, Coastal Georgia, Its Resources and Development, Athens, Ga., Institute of Comm. and Area Development, Bureau of Business Research, 1969. 23. Schmid, A. Allan, Michigan Water Use and Development Programs, East Lansing, Mich., Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Static " Circular Bulletin 230, 1961. 24. Sorenson, Jens, and Marie Demers, Coastal Zone Bibliography: Citations to Documents on Planning, Resource Management and Impact Assessment, La Jolla, Calif., University of California, Institute of Marine Resources 1973. 25. Stephans, Eleanor Belknap, Conflicts in Recreation, unpublished Masters Thesis; Chapel Hill, N.C., University of North Carolina, 1962. 26. Strang, William A., Recreation and the Local Economy: Implications for Economic and Resource Planning, Madison, Wisc., University of Wisconsin, Sea Grant Program, 1972. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 48 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight ~Part Eight ~Bibliography GENERAL Signed Pampillets (cont'd) 27. Threinen, C. W., An Analysis of Space Demands for Water and Shore, reprinted from Transactions of the 29th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, March 9-11, 1964; Washington, D.C., Wildlife Management Institute, 1964. 28. Vismor, McGill and Bell, Initial Land Use Element, Lowcountry Regional Planning Council, June 22, 1972. Unsigned Pamphlets 1. Batelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Shoreland Management Guidelines for the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Richland, Wash., 1971. 2. Beaufort County Joint Planning Commission, Open Space and Recreation Plar Beaufort, S.C., June, 1973. 3. Beaufort County Joint Planning Commission, Town of Port Royal, S.C., Initial Reconnaissance Survey, 1973. 4. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council, Development Plan: McClellanville Area, Charleston, S.C., 1973. 5. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council, Development Plan: Township of Folly Island, 1973. 6. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council, Regional 'Open Space and Recreation Plan, Berkeley-Charleston Counties, June, 1971 and 1972. 7. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council and Charleston County Planning Board, Land Use and Analysis, June, 1975. 8. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, Annual Reports, 1973 and 1974. 9. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, California Coastal Plan, December, 1975. 491 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight GENERAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 10. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, Preliminary Coastal Plan 1973. 11. Charleston County Park, Recreation and Tourist Commission, Charleston County Park and Recreation Master Plan, Charleston, S.C., May, 1971. 12. Charleston County Planning Division, Charleston County Park and Recreatior Master Plan, Charleston, S.C., May, 1971. 13. Charleston County Tricentennial Committee, A Pictorial History, Charles-Towne 1670, Charleston 1970, 1970. 14. Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services, Report-of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States, Wilmington, N.C., December, 1974. 15. Countryside Commission, H. M. Stationery Office, The Planning of the Coastline: A Report on a Study of Coastal Preservation and Development in England and Wales, London, 1970. 16. Countryside Commission, H. M. Stationery Office, The Coastal Heritage: A Conservation Policy for Coasts of High Quality Scenery, London, 1970. 17. Creative Development Institute, An Initial Concept for Santee State Park, Florence, S.C. 18. Development Consultants, Inc., Hunting Island State Park Feasibility Study, Charlotte, N.C., December, 1971. 19. East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Regional Background for Planning the Coastal Area, Titusville, Fla., 1968. 20. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Florida Coastal Zone Land Use and Ownership Atlas, Tallahassee, Fla., Florida Dept. of Natural Resources, 1971. 21. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Florida Coastal Zone Management Atlas, Tallahassee, Fla., Florida Dept. of Natural Resources. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 50! PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Bibliography GENERAL UnsignedPamprhlets fcont'd) 22. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Recommendations for Development Activities in Florida's Coastal Zone, Tallahassee, Fla., Florida Dept. of Natural Resources, 1973. 23. George Washington University, Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States: Report to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Washington, D.C., 1962. 24. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, North Carolina Dept. of Administra- tion, South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Southern Highlands Mountain Resources Management Plan, June, 1974. 25. Georgetown, S.C., City of, Planning and Zoning Commission, Georgetown, S.C., Population and Economy, 1968. 26. Georgetown, S.C., City of, Master Plan, Recreation Areas, Open Spaces, I Parks, 1966. 27. Grand Strand Area Building Permit Data, obtained from Building Dept's of Myrtle Beach, North Myrtle Beach, Surfside, Georgetown County (Waccamaw Neck), and Horry County (Strand area), 1973-April 1974. 28. Great Britain Coastal Commission, Coastal Heritage, London, 1970. 29. Great Britain Coastal Commission, Coastal Recreation and Holidays, Volume I, London, 1969. 30. Great Britain Coastal Commission, Nature Conservancy at the Coast, Volume 11, London, 1970. 31. Great Britain Coastal Commission, Planning of the Coastline, London, 1970. 32. Hampton County Planning Commission, Hampton County Land Development Plan, 1974. 33. Horry County Auditor's Office, Property Tax Assessment Data, Grand Strand, Horry County, S.C., 1963 and 1973. 34. LBC & W Associates, Preliminary Land Development Plan, Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, Columbia, S.C., June, 1972. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS a RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 5 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight GENERAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 35. LBC & W Associates, Rebellion Road, Development Concept Program, Columbia, S.C., August, 1972. 36. Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources, Wetlands '73: Toward Coastal Zone Management in Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University, 1973. 37. Lowcountry Regional Planning Council, Initial Land Use Element, Yemassee, S.C., June, 1972. 38. Lowcountry Regional Planning Council, Open Space Plan and Program - Lowcountry Regional Planning District, Yemassee, S.C., May, 1973. 39. National Academy of Sciences, A Program for Outdoor Recreation Research, Washington, D.C., 1969. 40. National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, Marine Science Affairs - A Year of Broadened Participation, Washington, D.C., 1970. 41. New England River Basin Commission, Long Island Sound Study, Boston, Mass., Summer, 1975. 42. New Hampshire State Planning Project, New Hampshire Public Water Bodies and Public Access Points (Part II), Concord, N.H., September, 1965. 43. North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, State Guidelines for Local Planning in the Coastal Area Under the Coastal Area Management Act of 1974, Raleigh, N.C., Office of State Planning, January 27, 1975, amended October 15, 1975. 44. Ocean Drive Beach, S.C., City of, Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan for Ocean Drive Beach, S.C., 1966. 45. Rappahannock Area Development Commission, Radco Planning District 16, Fredericksburg, Va., May, 1974. 46. Rhode Island Coastal Management Council, Barrier Beach Findings, Definitions, Policies and Regulations. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 52; PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * ~~Part Eight Bibliography Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 47. Rhode Island Committee on the Coastal Zone, Report of the Governor's Committee on the Coastal Zone, Providence, R.I., Statewide Comprehensive Transportation and Land Use Planning Program, 1970. 48. Rhode Island Development Council, The Rhode Island Shore: A Regional Guide Plan Study, 1955-1970, Providence, R.I., 1956. I ~~~~~~~~~49. Smith, Wilbur, and Associates, South Carolina Critical Areas Process, Columbia, S.C., June 30, 1974. 50. Smith, Wilbur, and Associates, Statistical Data: Charleston Area I ~ ~~~~~~~~~Transportation Study, Volume II, Columbia, S.C., June, 1969. SI. South Carolina, Budget and Control Board, Research & Statistical Services, 1974 S.C. Statistical Abstract, Columbia, S.C., August, 1974. I ~ ~~~~~~~~52. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Hunting Island State Park Development Plan. 53. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Engineering and Planning Section, Master Plan for Huntington Beach State Park, Columbia, S.C., September, 1974. 54. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Master Plan and Land Use Plan, Myrtle Beach State Park, Columbia, S.C., January, 1971, updated by interviews. 55. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Orientation Report for Governor-Elect James B. Edwards, December 10, 1974. 56. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Division of Planning and Development, Proposed Acquisition for Capers Island, Columbia, S.C., January, 1975. 57. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South Carolina, A Lot of It Looks a Little Like a Foreign Country, 1974. 58. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South Carolina I ~ ~~~~~~~~~Outdoor Recreation Plan 1970/1984, Executive Summary. 59. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, 1970. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAHATO.LDR&ICRS Bibliography i~~7.I Part Eight GENERAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 60. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, 1972. 61. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, 1975. 62. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South Carolina Urban Recreation Problem Reviews, Columbia, S.C. 63. South Carolina Heritage Trust, Elements of Diversity (Final Report Documents: A First Draft), Arlington, Va., The Nature Conservancy, March, 1975. 64. South Carolina, Office of the Governor, Division of Administration, Physical and Economic Development Unit, Beaufort County Land Use Survey and Analysis, Columbia, S.C., June, 1973. 65. South Carolina, Office of the Governor, Division of Administration, South Carolina State Development Plan, Coastal Plains Area, Fiscal 72-73. 66. South Carolina, Office of the Governor, State Planning and Grants Division Comprehensive Development Plan, Myrtle Beach, S.C., April, 1970. 67, South Carolina, Office of the Governor, State Planning and Grants Division Development Plan for North Myrtle Beach, S.C., October, 1970. 68. South Carolina, Office of the Governor, State Planning and Grants Office, Community Planning. Division, Initial Reconnaissance Survey for Surfside Beach, S.C., April, 1970. 69. South Carolina, Office of the Governor, State Planning and Grants Office, Community Affairs Section, Land Use Survey and Analysis, Surfside Beach, S.C., March, 1971. 70. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, 1970 Annual Report. 71. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, Coastal Mapping - A Seminar on the Technical and Legal Aspects of Surveying in the South Carolina Coastal Region, Charleston, S.C., December 10, 1974. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 54 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Bibliography GENERAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 72. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, Permit Applications Policy and Procedure for Water Resources Commission, 1971. 73. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, South Carolina Tidelands Report, Columbia, S.C., 1969. 74. Southern Growth Policies Board, Land and Natural Resources in the South, Atlanta, Ga., December, 1974. 75. Sport Fishing Institute and Outboard Boating Club of America, Proceedings: Fourth National Conference on Access to Recreational Waters, San Diego, Calif., 1965. 76. Surfside Beach Town Council, Surfside Planning and Promotion Board and Community Affairs Section, S.C. State Planning and Grants Office, Land Use Survey and Analysis, Surfside Beach, S.C., May, 1971. 77. Synergetics, Inc., Specifications for the Construction of the Theater, Service Area, and Site Development: Charles Towne Landing, Columbia, S.C. 78. Texas Interagency Council on Natural Resources and Environment, Texas Coastal Resources Management Program: A Comprehensive. Report to the 63rd Texas Legislature, Austin, Texas. 79. Texas Legislature, The Beaches and Islands of Texas - Report to the 57th Texas Legislature, 1961. 80. Texas Legislature, 60th, Interim Beach Study Committee, Footprints on the Sands of Time: An Evaluation of the Texas Seashore, 1970. 81. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Beach Cleaning and Maintenance Assistance Program, 1974. 82. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Murrell's Inlet: Survey Report on Navigation, Charleston, S.C., March, 1970. 83. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study: Regional Inventory Report, Atlanta, Ga., August, 1971. 84. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study: Shore Management Guidelines, Washington, D.C., 1971. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 55 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight GENERAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 85. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Proceedings of the 14th Coastal Engineerir Conference, Chapters 55, 78, and 80; Fort Belvoir, Va., 1974. 86. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, State of South Carolina Regional Inventory Report on Shoreline Erosion - Draft Report, Charleston, S.C. 87. U. S. Congress, 92nd, 1st Session, House Document No. 92-137 (Murrell's Inlet, Georgetown County, S.C.), Washington, D.C., 1971. 88. U. S. Congress, 92nd, 2nd Session, House Document No. 92-362 (Little River Inlet, N.C. and S.C.), Washington, D.C., 1972. 89. U. S. Congress, Testimony of State Senator R. L. Schwartz to House Representative Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, D.C., 1973. 90. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Management, State Coastal Zone Management Activities, Rockville, Md., October, 1974. 91. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Recreation Access Study, Washington, D.C., February, 1975. 92. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Financing of Private Outdoor Recreation, Washington, D.C., May, 1967. 93. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Islands of America, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 94. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, The Santee Recreation Project, Santee, California, Final Report, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967. 95. U. S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service, Our Vanishing Shoreline, 1955. 96. U. S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service, Reconnaissance Report of Magnolia Seashore Area, Richmond, Va., 1960. 97. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Water for Recreation - Values and Opportunities, Study Report No. 10; U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 56 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Bibliography GENERAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 98. University of Michigan, Great Lakes Resource Management Program, Planned Unit Development: Tool or Trap?, Ann Arbor, Planning Information Bulletin 2 of the Coastal Zone Laboratory, 1976. 99. University of Rhode Island, New England Marine Resources Information Program, Outdoor Recreation Uses of Coastal Areas, No. 7; Kingston, R.I., 1969. 100. University of Texas, Division of Natural Resources and the Environment, Bay and Estuarine System M4anagement in the Texas Coastal Zone, Austin, Texas, Governor's Office, Division of Planning Coordination, 1973. 101. University of Wisconsin, Sea Grant Program, The Future of Boating on Lake Michigan, Madison, Wisc., 1971. 102. Ventura County Planning Commission, General Plan: Regional Parks, Shoreline Development, Riding and Hiking Trails, Calif., 1965. 103. Vismor, McGill and Bell, Inc., A Planning Manual for South Carolina Local Governments, Columbia, S.C., 1973. 104. Waccamaw Regional Planning Commission, Initial Reconnaissance Survey - Aynor, South Carolina, 1973. 105. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, Atlantic Beach - Reconnaissance Survey and Program Design, September 1, 1973. 106. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, Capital Improvements Program and Capital Improvements Budget, Surfside Beach, S.C., June, 1973. 107. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, Community Facilities Plan, Surfside Beach, S.C., March, 1975. 108. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, An Environmental, Historical and Recreational Atlas of the Waccamaw Region, Georgetown, S.C., 1973. 109. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, Georgetown County Development Plan, prepared for the Georgetown County Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commissioners; Georgetown, S.C., 1973. 110. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, Grand Strand Comprehensive Planning Study, August, 1973. 57 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight GENERAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 111. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, Overall Program Design, Georgetown, S.C., June, 1974. 112. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, Williamsburg County, Georgetown, S.C., 1973. 113. Washington Land Use Symposium, Land, Recreation and Leisure, abstracted from the first annual Land Use Symposium; Washington, D.C., 1970. GENERAL Signed Periodicals 1. Ackley, G., "Land Use and the Leisure Boom," Dun's, 100, October, 1972, p. 7. 2. Arno, S. F., "They're Putting Wild Back in Wilderness," National Parks and Conservation Magazine, 45, September, 1971, pp. 10-14. 3. Beller, W. S., "Coastal Areas and Seashores," Current History, 59, August, 1970, pp. 100-4+. 4. Beller, W. S., "Ocean Islands - Consideration for Their Coastal Zone Management," Coastal Zone Management Journal, 1, Fall, 1973, pp. 27-45. 5. Bisso, L. C., "People, Planners, and Politicians," Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain Institute, 1972, p. 37. 6. Brody, Barbara, "Coastline Watchdogs: Will They Bark or Bite?" San Francisco Business, 8, May, 1973, pp. 14-16. 7. Bryer, Robin, "Priorities in Coastal Development," Planner, 60, March, 1974, pp. 588-95. 8. Capper, L. S., "Land Between the Lakes," National Wildlife, 8, June, 1970, pp. 38-41. 9. Carter, L. J., "Galveston Bay Test Case of an Estuary in Crisis," Science, 167, February 20, 1970, p. 1102. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 58'i PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight *~Part Eight ~Bibliography GENERAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 10. Chase, R. W., "Commercial Approaches to Public Recreation," Parks and Recreation, 8, May, 1973, p. 26. 11. Clement, Charles, and James Richardson, "Recreation on the Georgia Coast: An Ecological Approach," Georgia Business, 30, May, 1971, pp. 1-21. 12. Connelly, D., "Resort That Helps Preserve a Wild Seashore: Salishan, Oregon," Sports Illustrated, 30, April 28, 1969, pp. 36-40. 13. Conover, H. S., "Beach Construction in a State Park: Robert Moses State Park near Massena, N.Y.," Parks and Recreation, 1, May, 1966, p. 420. 14. Coppock, J. T., "The Recreational Use of Land and Water in Britain," Tijidshrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 57, May-June, 1966, pp. 81-96. 15. Craig, J. B., "They: Environmentalists and Land Utilization," American Forest, 79, August, 1973, p. 26. 16. Craine, L. E., "Institutions for Managing Lakes and Bays," Natural Resources Journal, 11, July, 1971, p. 519. 17. Davis, Jim, "A Look at the Coastal Zones," Humble Way, 10, Second Quarter, 1971, p. 20. 18. Douglas, P. M., "Coastal Zone Management - A New Approach in California," Coastal Zone Management Journal, 1, Fall, 1973, pp. 1-25. 19. Dworsky, L. B., "Management of the International Great Lakes," Natural Resources Journal, 14, January, 1974, pp. 103-38. 20. Fisher, A. C., and J. V. Krutilla, "Determination of Optimal Capacity of Resource Based Recreation Facilities," Natural Resources Journal, 12, July, 1972, p. 417. 21. Frederickson, W., Jr., "Public Seashores: Their Administration," Parks and Recreation, 1, August, 1966, pp. 638-40. 22. Frome, Mike, "Sunfish Pond in Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area," American Forest, 74, July, 1968, p. 5+. 59 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight GENERAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 23. Gopalakrishnan, C., and J. Rutka, "Some Institutional Constraints to Coastal Zone Management: A Case Study of Hawaii," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 33, pp. 225-32. 24. Gosser, H., "Painting the Waterfront," Parks and Recreation, 1, July, 1966, pp. 558-60. 25. Hawkins, D. E., "Trends at a Glance: Progress of Park and Recreation Services Over the Past 25 Years," Parks and Recreation, 2, July, 1967, pp. 21+. 26. Hayden, B., and R. Dolan, "Management of Highly Dynamic Coastal Areas of the National Park Service," Coastal Zone Management Journal, 1, Winter, 1974, pp. 133-39. 27. Hertz, K. D., "County Acts to Save Its Vanishing Shorelands," Parks and Recreation, 5, February, 1970, pp. 48-9+. 28. Hines, T. I., "The Pro and Con of Charges and Fees (for parks and recreation areas)," Parks and Recreation, 48, February, 1965, pp. 102-3. 29. Hoffman, Gene, "Recreation Areas for Small Towns (How Small Communities Have Financed Recreational Needs Through Formation of Nonprofit Associa- tions: Iowa)," Iowa Municipalities, 19, February, 1965, pp. 14-16. 30. Hysom, J. L., Jr., "Land Use Controls: Who Watches the Watchers," Urban Land, 33, March, 1974, pp. 3-9. 31. Inman, D. L., and B. M. Brush, "Coastal Challenge," Science, 181, July 6, 1973, pp. 20-32. 32. Jubenville, A., and T. C. Wood, "Quasi-Wilderness: Need for More Trails,' Parks and Recreation, 8, March, 1973, pp. 38+. 33. Jackson, Reiner, "Planning for the Capacity of Lakes to Accommodate Water-Oriented Recreation," Plan, 10, June, 1970, pp. 29-40. 34. Kennedy, R., "Eden Fights Back: Saving the Islands of Sannibel and Captiva," Sports Illustrated, 42, February 3, 1975, pp. 28-30. 35. Kershow, W. W., "Developers Help Country Acquire Recreation Sites," Parks and Recreation, 2, February, 1967, p. 4. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 60 PUBLIC BEACH ACESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA *Part Eight Bibliography GENERAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 36. Knecht, Robert, "Coastal Zone Management Act: A Broader Scope for State Initiative," Water Spectrum, 5, November 1, 1973, pp. 32-36. 37. Marx, W., "Case of the Vanishing Beaches: California," American Forests, 71, November, 1965, pp. 10-13+. 38. Matthews, G. C., "Crusader in the Swamps: Protecting Southwest Coast of Florida," Time, 100, August 14, 1972, pp. 40-41. 39. McClaskey, Paul N., Jr., "Preservation of America's Open Space: Proposal for a National Land Use Commission," Michiqan Law Review, 68, May, 1970, pp. 1167-74. 40. Milek, B., "Access: The Key to Public Land Recreation," Field and Stream, 73, April, 1969, p. 20+. 41. Morris, N., and R. Laudenslayer, "Site Reading," Recreation, 58, April, 1965, pp. 167-8. 42. Mott, W. P., Jr., "Creative Approach to Parks and Recreation," Recreation 58, September, 1965, pp. 340-1. 43. Nace, R. L., "Arrogance Toward Landscape: A Problem in Water Planning, Excerpts from Address September 4, 1969," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 25, December, 1969, pp. 11-14. 44. Nadel, M., "Citizen's Voice in Wilderness," Living Wilderness, 31, Autumn, 1967, p. 2. 45. Nierengarten, P., "Maintenance of Public Use Areas," Parks and Recreatiorn I1, March, 1966, pp. 249-50. 46. Ogden, Daniel M., "Wildland Policy Decisions - By Whom?" Journal of Forestry, 68, April, 1970, p. 200. 47. Paulson, F. M., "Fishing and Boating, the Land Between," Field and Stream, 74, July, 1969, pp. 36-39. 48. Rettie, D. F., "New Perspective on Leisure," Parks and Recreation, 9, August, 1974, pp. 20-25+. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 61 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight GENERAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 49. Roe, K. S., "California Loses Another Beach: Dilton Beach," Audubon Magazine, 67, March, 1965, pp. 110-111. 50. Russell, Clifford S., and Alan V. Kneise, "Establishing the Scientific, Technical and Economic Basis for Coastal Zone Management," Coastal Zone Management Journal, 1, Fall, 1972, pp. 47-63. 51. Sapora, A. V., "Evaluation of Park and Recreation Operations: Who Should Do It?" Parks and Recreation, 4, December, 1969, pp. 35-36. 52. Schenker, Alan E., "Toudoor Recreation on Federal Lands: Three Dimensions of Organization," Rocky Mountain Social Science Journal, 8, October, 1971, pp. 83-90. 53. Simmons, G., "Indian River Study," Sea Frontiers, 21, January, 1975, pp. 38-43. 54. Simmons, I. G., "Wilderness in the Mid-20th Century U.S.A.," Planning Review, 36, January, 1966, p. 249. 55. Soucie, G., "Coast Saving: Developers Covet Highest Dune: Jockey's Ridge on the Outer Banks of North Carolina," Audubon, 76, May, 1974, pp. 94-95. 56. Starr, Warren A., "Multiple Land Use Management," Natural Resources Journal, 1 (2), November, 1961, pp. 288-301. 57. Stollings, C., "Last Sea Island Is Up For Grabs," Audubon, 76, May, 1974, pp. 75-76. 58. Thomas, Joseph M., "Florida's Outdoor Recreation Program," Florida Plannin- and Development, 18, December, 1967, pp. 1+. 59. Thompson, J. R., "Giant Nobody Knows: Outdoor Recreation Enterprises, Studied by Georgia State Planning Bureau," Parks and Recreation, 3, March, 1968, pp. 24-26+. 60. Trillin, C., "U. S. Journal: The Coastline," New Yorker, 48, November 18, 1972, p. 215. 61. Uhlig, H. G., "Big Recreation Needs: Watershed Projects," American City, 85, December, 1970, p. 59. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 62 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA *Part Eight Bibliography GENERAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 62. U. S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service, "Tocks Island National Recreation Area: A Proposal," Planning and Civic Comment, 30, March, 1964, pp. 29-34 and 54-55. 63. Vines, William R., "Florida Beach Resources Management Needs," Florida Planning and Development, 18, June, 1967, pp. 1+. 64. Wagner, Alan, "Recreational Carrying Capacity Considered," Journal of Forestry, 72, May, 1974, pp. 274-78. 65. Wagner, J. V., "Some Fundamental Characteristics of Outdoor Recreation," Journal of Forestry, 64, October, 1966, pp. 667-73. 66. Winslow & Bigler, "A New Perspective on Recreational Use of the Ocl," Undersea Technology, Volume 10, No. 7, July, 1969, pp. 51+. / 67. Ziunuska, J. S., "Managed Wilderness," American Forest, 79, gust, 197 pp. 16-19. GENERAL Unsigned Periodicals ' S 1. "American Seashore: Symposium," Holiday, 40, July, 196 pp.8+. 2. "Are American Beaches in Danger Too?" U. S. News and World Report, 62, April 17, 1967, pp. 46+. 3. "Battle for America's Crowded Coastlines," U. S. News and World Report, 69 August 10, 1970, p. 44. 4. "Battle Over California's Coast," Business Week, September 30, 1972, p. 63 5. "Can We Save Our Open Space?" Parks and Recreation, 2, March, 1967, p. 23. 6. "A Critical View of Zoning," Colorado Municipalities, 41, May, 1965, pp. 118+. 7. "Governing Recreation," Economist, 230, February 1, 1969, p. 47. 63 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight GENERAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 8. "Government Subsidy for Inland Waterways," Municipal and Public Services Journal, 75, September 15, 1967, pp. 2418+. 9. "The Hackensack Meadlowlands - 1968," Jersey Plans, 17, Summer, 1968, pp. 5-23. 10. "Hawaii's Quiet Revolution Hits the Mainland," Reader's Digest, 103, October, 1973, pp. 128-33. 11. "Improvements Planned for Historic Waikiki," Hawaii Economic Review, 9, November-December, 1971, pp. 1+. 12. "Losing Ground," Time, 91, April 26, 1968, p. 52. 13. "Narrow Beach Lot: Special Design Problems," Sunset, 139, July, 1967, p. 58. 14. "Outdoor Recreation: Water-based Recreation," American County Government, 33, April, 1968, pp. 21-44. 15. "Rivers, Recreation and You: Interview with F. Church," Field and Stream, 71, July, 1961, pp. 10-13. 16. "Where the Beaches Go," Science Digest, 59, April, 1966, pp. 38-39. 17. "Zoning: The Floating Zone: A Potential Instrument of Versatile Zoning," Catholic University Law Review, 16, September, 1966, p. 85. Signed News Stories 1. Amor and Foster, "Ratcliffe Wins Seat in Surfside," Sun News, Myrtle Beach, S.C., March 13, 1974. 2. Bunker, "America's Shoreline Is Shrinking;" Boston Herald Traveler, October 18, 1970, p. 23. 3. Cummings, "The Late Great State of Maine," Portland Sunday Telegram, August 30, 1970. 4. Cummings, "Maine for Sale: Everybody's Buying," Portland Sunday Telegram, August 23, 1970. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 64 PUBLIC BEACH ACESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA *Part Eight Bibliography GENERAL Signed News Stories (cont'd) 5. Cummings, "Where Went the Maine Coast," Portland Sunday Telegram, August 16, 1970. 6. Darnton, "Suburbs Stiffening Beach Curbs," N.Y. Times, July 10, 1972, p. 1 7. Fradkin, "Fences Go Up to Keep Public from Beaches," L.A. Times, March 21, 1971, p. C-1. 8. Fradkin, "State Promises Aid in Enforcing Public Access to Beaches," L.A. Times, February 25, 1970, p. A-3. 9. Hirsch, Mayor Robert J., "Mayor Hirsch Calls for Unity," Sun News, Myrtle Beach, S.C., letter to the Editor, April 3, 1974. 10. Meade, Fred, "Engineers to Study Pawley's Water Plan," Sun News, Myrtle Beach, May 10, 1974. 11. Monk, John, "Council Cites Violations," Sun News, January 24, 1974. 12. Monk, John, "Key Reading Set for Joint Use," Sun News, May 21, 1974. 13. Monk, John, "Wasterwater Master Plan Unveiled," Sun News, June 5, 1974. 14. Monk, John, "Zoning Ordinances Get First Reading," Sun News, January 16, 1974. 15. Tonoer, "Where Have All the Beaches Gone?" Miami Herald, April 22, 1973. 16. Ulman, Neil, "Land Use Quarrels: States Move to Trim Local Zoning Autonomy as Criticisms Increase," Wall Street Journal, August 15, 1966, p. 1. 17. Webster, "Few Seaside Beaches Left Open in Developers' Rush," N.Y. Times, March 29, 1970, p. 54. I~~~~~~~~~~~~ 65 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight GENERAL Unsigned News Stories 1. "Alternate School Site for Waccamaw Eyed," Sun.News, Myrtle Beach, May 18, 1974. 2. "Coast Area Benchmark Aid Sought," Sun News, May 24, 1974. 3. "Coastal Planning Funds Awarded," Sun News, May 11, 1974. 4. "Proposed Strand Highway to Benefit Entire State," Sun News, editorial, April 10, 1974. 5. "Record Crowd Awaited," Sun News, June 20, 1974. 6. "Slowdown Benefits Cited," Sun News, February 16, 1974. MARKETING Signed Pamphlets 1. Brewer, M. F., Incorporating Recreational Values into Benefit-Cost Analysis, in Western Farm Economics Association Proceedings, August, 1962. 2. Case, Natalie, William Gasnell, and Elaine Gerber, Paying for Open Space, Baltimore, Md., Baltimore Regional Planning Council, 1972. 3. Clawson, Marion, Recreation as a Competitive Segment of Multiple Use, in Land and Water Use, No. 73, ed. by Wynne Thorne, Washington, D.C., American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1963. 4. Copeland, Leona and Lewis, Travelers and South Carolina Business During 1972, University of Tennessee, 1973. S. Devanney, John W., III, Economic Factors in the Development of a Coastal Zone, Cambridge, Mass., Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program, 1970. 6. Marr, Michael J., Study of Economic Change in Two South Carolina Coastal Counties, Columbia, S.C., University of South Carolina, Bureau of Businesv and Economic Research. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 66 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA I Part Eight Bibliography MARKETING Signed Pamphlets (cont'd) 7. Mayo, Edward J., The Psychology of Choice in the Lodging Market, University of Notre Dame, 1974. 8. Olson, Arden, and David Jamison, Marine Land Management in Washington, Olympia, Wash., Washington Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Survey and Marine Land Management, 1973. 10. Paterson, Karen W., Joel L. Lindsey, and Alvin L. Bertrand, The Human Dimension of Coastal Zone Development, Baton Rouge, La., Louisiana State University, Agricultural Eriment Zt.ation, 1974. 11. Permar, Diana, Charleston, S.C., Area Market Analysis (Isle of Palms Beach and Racquet Club), Hilton Head Island, S.C., April, 1975. 12. Royer, L. E., Stephan McCool, and John D. Hunt, The Relative Importance of Tourism to State Economies, Utah State University. 13. Tideman, T., Defining Distressed Areas, Harvard University Program on Regional and Urban Economics, Discussion Papers, 1973. 14. Warren, Robert, Mitchell L. Moss, Robert L. Bish, and Lyle E. Craine, Designing Coastal Management Agencies: Problems in Allocating Coastal Resources, Los Angeles, Center for Urban Affairs, University of Southern California, 1972. 15. Wilkins, Bruce T., ed., Critical Issues for the Coastal Zone - Recreation: Public and Private Sectors, in Managing Our Coastal Zone, Proceedings of a Conference on Coastal Zone Management held at Albany, N.Y., February 2-21; Albany, N.Y., State University of New York, Sea Grant Program, 1973. 16. Woodside, Arch G., and David Reid, Tourism Profiles Versus Audience Profiles: Are Upscale Magazines Really Upscale?, S.C. Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Columbia, S.C., Unsigned Pamphlets 1. American Automobile Association, Distances Between Cities, South Carolina State Maps. 2. Behavior Science Corporation, Developing the Family Travel Market, Los Angeles, 1972. 67 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight MARKETING Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 3. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Regional Planning Council, Study of the Population and Economy of the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Region, Charleston, S.C., 1972. 4. Centaur Management Consultants, Inc., Family Income Patterns in Tourism/ Recreation Areas, Washington, D. C., U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1974. 5. Charleston County Planning Board, Growth Trends in Charleston County, S.C. S.C., 1969. 6. Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service, Reference Tables - Population Change of Counties and Incorporated Places in South Carolina, 1950-70, Clemson, S.C., January, 1972. 7. Clemson'University, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Preliminary County Data for Economic Study of Coastal Plains Area, Clemson, S.C., 1967. 8. Coastal Plains Regional Commission, Regional Development Plan, Draft Revision, November, 1970. 9. The Conference Board, "Consumer Attitudes and Buying Plans," in Consumer Market Indicators, May, 1975. 10. Edie, Lionel D., and Company, U. S. Travel Outlook Through 1982, May, 197? 11. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Office of Planning and Research, Resources Planning Section, Activities in Georgia's Coastal Waters, Draft Copy, Atlanta, Ga., 1974. 12. Greater Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce, Myrtle Beach Grand Strand, 1975. 13. Greater Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce, Visitor Survey, September, 1974. 14. Greiner, J. E., Company, Inc., Air Transportation Market Demand in the Coastal Plains, Tampa, Fla., 1971. 15. Harper, Cotton and Little, Inc., Findings and Recommendations for State and Local Travel Investment Programs in the Coastal Plains Region, Charlotte, N.C., 1971. 16. Hartzog, Lader & Richards, South Carolina Beach Use Survey, Washington, D.C., August 1, 1975. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 68 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH'CAROLINA I Part Eight Bibliography MARKETING Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 17. Kiawah Beach Company, Myrtle Beach Market Study, Charleston, S.C., March 3, 1975. 18. Leisure Systems, Inc., Recreational Development Opportunities of the Intracoastal Waterway in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, 1969. 19. Marketing Economics Institute, Marketing Economics Guide, 1974-75, 1974. 20. Midwest Research Institute, Compressed Work Weeks - Impact for L/R Products and Services, Kansas City, Mo., 1974. 21. Midwest Research Institute, 1974 Leisure Industry Program, November, 1974. 22. Midwest Research Institute, Opportunities in the Leisure Industry: Statistical Summary, 1972. 23. Midwest Research Institute, unpublished data, 1974. 24. Research Triangle Institute, 1973 North Carolina Travel Survey, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1974. 25. Sales Management, 1974 Survey of Buying Power, July 8, 1974. 26. Sea Pines Company, Resort Guest Tracking System Quarterly Reports, June 1974, January 1975, and May 1975; Hilton Head Island, S.C. 27. Smith, Wilbur, and Associates, Travel Demands and Recommended Transportation Plan, Vol. I, Columbia, S.C., October, 1968. 28. Smith, Wilbur, and Associates, Travel Demands and Recommended Transportation Plan: Summary Report, Columbia, S.C., August, 1968. 29. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Computer Inventory, Columbia, S.C., 1973. 30. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Recreation Survey, 1974. 31. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Recreation Survey, 1975. 69 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight MARKETING Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 32. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South Carolina Private Outdoor Recreation Systems Plan, Private Recreation Users Profile; 1975. 33. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, 1973 South Carolina Travel Study - Summary Report, 1974. 34. South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, 1974 South Carolin-a Travel Study - Summary Report, 1975. 35. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1970 Census - General, Social and Economic Characteristics: South Carolina, Washington, D.C., March, 1972. 36. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 47, "Illustrative Projections of Money, Income, Size, Distribution, for Families and Unrelated Individuals," U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 37. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, Washington, D.C., 1972. 38. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation Action, Washington, D.C., Fall, 1975. 39. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Recreation in the Coastal Zone, 1975. 40. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1965 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities-, Washington, D.C., 1964. 41. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities, Preliminary Report, 1972. 42. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Survey of Fishing and Hunting, Resource Publication No. 27; Washington, D.C., 1965. 43. U. S. Travel Data Center, 1972 National Travel Expenditure Study: Summary Report, Washington, D.C., September, 1973. 44. Urban Land Institute, Planning and Developing Waterfront Property, Tech. Bulletin 49; Washington, D.C., June, 1964. � 70 HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA *Part Eight Bibliography MARKETING Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 45. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, "Resident Population Trends, Waccamaw Region, 1930-1970," in Population and Economy, April, 1972. Signed Periodicals and News Stories 1. Barkan, A., "Problems in the Valuation of Real Estate," New York Universit- Institute of Federal Taxation, 26, 1968, p. 351. 2. Bechtar, D. M., "Outdoor Recreation (expenditure)," Federal Reserve of Kansas City, November, 1970. 3. Bedell, Douglass, "Costly Playgrounds: Developers Drive Up Price of Land Picked for New National Parks," Wall Street Journal, 168, July 22, 1966. 4. David, E. J. L., "The Exploding Demand for Recreation Property," Land Economics, 45, May, 1969, pp. 206-17. 5. Dower, M., "Recreation, Tourism and the Farmer," Journal of Agricultural Economics, 24, September, 1973, pp. 454-77. 6. Knetsch, Jack C., "Economics of Including Recreation as a Purpose of Eastern Water Projects (address)," Journal of Farm Economics, 46, December, 1964, pp. 1148-57. 7. Kraws, R., "Economics of Leisure Today," Parks and Recreation, 6, August, 1971, pp. 62-66+. 8. Porter, R. W., "Financing Outdoor Recreation (excerpt from address)," Parks and Recreation, 4, November, 1969, pp. 23+. 9. Robinson, W. C., "The Simple Economics of Public Outdoor Recreation," Land Economics, 43, February, 1967, p. 71. 10. Yanggen, A., and John A. Kusler, Land Economics, 44, February, 1968, pp. 73-86. 11. Yorshis, S. H., "Appraising Ocean Front Property," Title News, 47, November, 1968, p. 8. 71 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLiNA 71 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight ENVIRONMENT Books 1. Bascom, Willard, Waves and Beaches: The Dynamics of the Ocean Surface, Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1964. 2. Boesch, Donald F., et al., Oil Spills and the Marine Environment, Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation; Ballinger Publishing Co., 1974. 3. Ducsik, Dennis, ed., Power, Pollution and Public Policy: Issues in Electric Power Production, Shoreline Recreation, and Air and Water Pollution Facing New England and the Nation, Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1971. 4. Hite, James C., and Eugene A. Laurent, Environmental Planning: An Economic Analysis: Applications for the Coastal Zone, New York, Praeger Press, 1972. 5. Reid, George K., Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1961. 6. Shaler, Nathaniel, Beaches and Tidal Marshes of the Atlantic Coast, New York, American Book Co., 1895. Signed Pamphlets 1. Alexander, Harold E., Water Policy and Wildlife, reprinted from Pro- ceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference, Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, October 23-26; Columbia, S.C., South- eastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, 1960. 2. Armstrong, John M., and Thomas H. Suddath, eds., The Dimensions of Coastal Zone Management: Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the Coastal States Organization, Seattle, Washington, July 28-30, 1971, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Sea Grant Program, 1972. 3. Armstrong, John, Harold Bissell, Russell Davenport, Joel Goodman, Marc Hershman, Jens Sorenson, Lucy Sloan, and Daniel Wormhoudt, Coastal Zone Management: The Process of Program Development, Sandwich, Mass., Coastal Zone Management Institute, 1974. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 72 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * Part Eight Bibliography E__VIRON___;T Signed Pamphlets (cont'd) 4. Batsille, James H., Analysis and Interpretation of Littoral Environment Observation (LEO) and Profile Data Along the Western Panhandle Coast of Florida, Fort Belvoir, Va., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, March, 1975. 5. Bearden, Charles M., and Michael D. McKenzie, A Guide to Saltwater Sport Fishing in South Carolina, Charleston, S.C., South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., 1974. 6. Berg, Dennis W., and Morrison G. Essick, Case Study - Hunting Island Beach, S.C., in the Proceedings of Seminar on Planning and Engineering in the Coastal Zone; Charleston, S.C., Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development, 1972. 7. Bird, E. C. F., Coasts, Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1969. S. Blumer, Max, Scientific Aspects of the Oil Spill Problem, in Environmenta Affairs, Vol. I, No. 1, April, 1971. 9. Brenneman, R. L., Private Approaches to the Preservation of Open Land, Conservation and Research Foundation, 1967. 10. Brun, Per, and Madhov Marchar, Coastal Protection for Florida Development and Design, Gainesville, Fla., Florida Engineering and Industrial Experi- ment Station, 1963. 11. Bumpus, Dean F., and Louis M. Lauzier, Surface Circulation on the Continental Shelf Off Eastern North America Between Newfoundland and Florida, Serial Atlas of the Marine Environment, Folio 7, 1965. 12. Cheney, Philip B., The Development of a Procedure and Knowledge Require- ments for Marine Resource Planning. Functional Step Two, Knowledge Requirements, Hartford, Conn., The Travelers Research Corporation, 1970. 13. Clark, John, Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management of the Coastal Zone, Washington, D.C., The Conservation Foundation, 1974. 14. Cole, Bruce J., ed., Marine Recreation Conference: Planning for Shoreline and Water Uses, Kingston, R.I., University of Rhode Island. 15. Croke, E. J., et al., The Relationship Between Land Use and Environmental Quality, Publication PB-209642; Springfield, Va., U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 1972. 73 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight ENVIRONMENT Signed Pamphlets (cont'd) 16. Cronin, L. Eugene, Gordon Gunter, and Sewell H. Hopkins, Effects of Engineering Activities on Coastal Ecology, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971. 17. Douglas, Peter, Coastal Resources Planning and Controlling Their Uses: The California Approach. 18. Erlich, Harry, and P. H. McGouhey, Economic. Evaluation of Water, Jurisdictional Considerations in Water Resources Management, in Economic Evaluation of Water, Part 2, June, 1964. 19. Ferguson, L. G., Pintail Island Project, Columbia, S.C., South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 1973. 20. Goodin, Julius A., Jr., Man-Made Lakes and Waterways Within Residential Developments, unpublished Masters Thesis; Atlanta, Ga., Georgia Institute of Technology, 1961. 21. Hargis, William J., and Beverly L. Laird, The Environmental, Resource-Use, and Management Needs of the Coastal Zone, Gloucester Point, Va., The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 1971. 22. Haugen, Arnold 0., and Arnold J. Sohn, Competitive Recreational Uses of Selected Iowa Lakes, Completion of Report of Project No. A-005-1A, Iowa State Water Resources Research Institute, June 30, 1968. 23. Hayes, Miles 0., et al., Beach Erosion Inventory of Charleston County, South Carolina: A Preliminary Report, South Carolina Sea Grant Technical Report No. 4, 1975. 24. Hite, James C., James M. Stepp, W. W. Hall, E. A. Laurent, and W.J. Steele, Economic Evaluation of Zoning Alternatives in the Management of Estuarine Resources in South Carolina, Report No. 25; Clemson, S.C., Water Resources Research Institute, Clemson University, 1972. 25. Hubbard, Dennis K., and Robert J. Finley, Tidal Inlet Morphology and Hydrodynamics of Merrimack Inlet, Mass., and North Inlet, S.C., Columbia, S.C., University of South Carolina, Dept. of Geology, Coastal Research Division, 1973. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 74'! PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * Part Eight Bibliography ENVIRONMENT Signed Pamphlets (cont'd) 26. Jackson, Reiner, Shoreline Recreation Planning: A Systems View, Waterloo, Ontario, University of Waterloo, Faculty of Environmental Studies, 1973. 27. Jagschilz, John, and Robert C. Wakefield, How to Build and Save Beaches, Kingston, R.I., University of Rhode Island, College of Resource Develop- ment, 1971. 28. Johnson, F. A., A Reconnaissance of the Winyah Bay Estuarine Zone, South Carolina, U. S. Dept. of Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 1972. 29. Johnson, P. L., Wetlands Preservation, New York, Open Space Institute, 1969. 30. Ketchum, Bostwick H., ed., The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of the Coastal Zone, Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1972. 31. Ketchum, Bostwick H., and Bruce W. Tripp, A Summary of the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Coastal Zone Workshop Held in Woods Hole, Massachusetts ftom May 22 to June 3, 1972, Woods Hole, Mass., Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 32. Laird, Beverly L., et al., Documents Related to the Coastal Zone: An Annotated Bibliography, Gloucester Point, Va., The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 1972. 33. LaRoe, Edward T., Statement on Relation of Coastal Zone Management to Offshore Petroleum, April, 1974. 34. Lipp, Morris N., Some Practical Facts About Beach Erosion in Florida, New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, Waterways Division, 1953. 35. McClenan, Cecil M., and D. Lee Harris, The Use of Aerial Photography in the Study of Wave Characteristics in the Coastal Zone, Fort Belvoir, Va., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, January, 1975. 36. McKee, John J., ed., The Maine Coast: Prospects and Perspectives: A Symposium, October 20-22, 1966, Brunswick, Maine, Center for Resource Studies, Bowdoin College, 1967. 37. Neiheisel, James, Littoral Drift in Vicinity of Charleston Harbor, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, 1959. 75 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight ENVIRONMENT Signed Pamphlets (cont'd) 38. Nelson, Frank P., The Cooper River Environmental Study, South Carolina Water Resources Commission, 1974. 39. Plager, S., and F. Maloney, Controlling Water Front Development, Gainesville, Fla., University of Florida, Public Administrative Clearing Service, Studies in Public Administration, November 30, 1968. 40. Sargent, Frederick O., and W. H. Bingham, Lakeshore Land Use Controls, Burlington, Vt., Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, 1969. 41. Shealy, M. H., Jr., et al., A Survey of Benthic Macrofauna of Fripp Inlet and Hunting Island, South Carolina, Prior to Beach Nourishment, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Tech. Report No. 7, 1975. 42. Sorenson, Jens C., A Framework for Identification and Control of Resource Degredation and Conflict in the Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone, Berkeley, University of California, College of Environmental Design, Dept. of Landscape Architecture, 1971. 43. Talbert, 0. Rhett, Jr., The Atlantic Loggerhead, Caretta caretta caretta, on Kiawah Island, S.C., 1975. 44. Thompson, John R., Ecological Effects of Offshore Dredging and Beach Nourishment: A Review, Misc. Paper No. 1-73; Fort Belvoir, Va., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1973. 45. Wagener, H. D., Notes on Beach Erosion in the Charleston Harbor Area, Columbia, S.C., South Carolina State Development Board, Division of Geology, 1970. 46. Wharton, Charles H., The Southern Swamp - A Multiple-Use Environment, Athens, Ga., Georgia State University, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, May, 1970. 47. Wilcox, Susan M., and Walter J. Mead, The Impact of Offshore Oil Production on Santa Barbara County, California, February, 1973. 48. Wilson, George T., Lake Zoning for Recreation: How to Improve Recreational Use of Lakes Through Regulations, Wheeling, W.Va., American Institute of Park Executives, Management Aids Bulletin No. 44, 1964. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 76 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * Part Eight Bibliography ENVIRONMENT Unsigned Pamphlets 1. California State Dept. of Conservation, Dept. of Fish and Game, Dept. of Emergency Services, Oil Spills Contingency Plan, Sacramento, August, 1972. 2. California State Dept. of Navigation and Ocean Development, California Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, Sacramento, 1971. 3. Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services, An Index to Coastal Marine Observations Off the Carolinas and Georgia, Part II of an Environmental Inventory for the Coastal Plains and Adjacent Atlantic Waters of the Southeastern States; Wilmington, N.C., June, 1972. 4. Coastal Zone Resources Corporation, An Environmental Report on the Georgetown Harbor Project, Georgetown County, South Carolina, 1973. 5. Coastal Zone Resources Corporation, An Environmental Report on the Port Royal Project, Beaufort County, South Carolina, 1973. 6. Coastal Zone Resources Corporation, An Environmental Report on the Village Creek Project, Beaufort County, South Carolina, 1973. 7. Coastal Zone Resources Corporation, An Environmental Report on the Waccamaw River Project, North and South Carolina, 1973. 8. Connecticut State Dept. of Environmental Protection, Potential Environmental Effects of an Oil Refinery in Connecticut, November, 1974. 9. Council on Environmental Quality, OCS Oil and Gas - An Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C., April, 1974. 10. Environmental Research Center, Inc., A Preliminary Report on the Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island, S.C., Columbia, S.C., 1974. 11. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Revised Dune Protection Ordinance, City of Savannah Beach, Atlanta, Ga., 1973. 12. Glynn County Beach and Dune Study Commission, Glynn County Beach and Dune Study, Brunswick, Ga., 1973. 1,3. Harvard University, Aspects of the Shoreline Pertaining to Recreation and Erosion, Cambridge, Mass., 1961. 77 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight ENVIRONMENT Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 14. HHW Associates, Inc., Final Report of Scientific Studies for the Charleston Beach and Racquet Club, 1974. 15. Illinois Dept. of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Waterways, Interim Report for Erosion Control, Illinois Shore of Lake Michigan. 16. LBC & W Associates, Population and Economy, Waccamaw Region, S.C., 1972. 17. Little, Arthur D., Inc., Analysis of Environmental Impact of Port Development in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, Volumes I, IIA and IIB, Cambridge, Mass., September, 1974. 18. Louisiana State University, Center for Wetland Resources, Wetlands: Resources for the Future, Baton Rouge, La., 1971. 19. National Academy of Sciences, Steering Committee on Coastal Wastes Management, Wastes Management Concepts for the Coastal Zone: Requirements for Research and Investigation, Washington, D.C., 1970. 20. National Climatic Center, AWS Climatic Brief, Myrtle Beach AFB, S.C., 1942-1967. 21. National Petroleum Council, U. S. Energy Outlook, A Summary Report of the National Petroleum Council, Washington, D.C., December, 1972. 22. Naval Weather Service Environment Detachment, Station Climatic Summary, Beaufort, S.C., 1957-1972, Asheville, N.C. 23. Naval Weather Service Environment Detachment, Station Climatic Summary, Charleston, S.C., 1945-1972, Asheville, N.C. 24. New Jersey Dept. of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of State and Regional Planning, New Jersey's Shore: An-Inventory and Analysis of Land Use, Trenton, N.J., 1966. 25. North Carolina Land Policy Council, Office of State Planning, Criteria for the Identification of Areas of Environmental Concern, Raleigh, N.C. July, 1974. .26. Rhode Island Committee on the Coastal Zone, Potential Values and Problems in Using Water Supply Reservoirs and Watersheds for Recreational Purposes, Providence, R.I., Statewide Comprehensive Transportation and Land Use Planning Program, 1974. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 78 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Bibliography ENVIRONMENT Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 27. South Carolina, Office of the Governor, Lowcountry: Resource Conservatior and Development Project, Columbia, S.C., May 1, 1967. 28. South Carolina Pollution Control Authority, Stream Classifications for the State of South Carolina, 1972. 29. South Carolina Public Service Authority, Environmental Impact Statement - Pintail Island. 30. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, Port Royal Sound Environmental Study, The State Printing Company, 1972. 31. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, Wando River Environmental Quality Studies, An Interim Report, Columbia, S.C., April, 1973. 32. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., Marine Resources Division, Guidelines for Evaluating Coastal Wetland Developments, January, 1974. 33. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., List and Description of Coastal Areas Under Consideration as Unique Natural Areas or Critical Environmental Areas, March, 1975. 34. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., State of Texas Beach Cleaning and Maintenance Manual, 1970. 35. Trustees of Reservations, This Fragile Shore, Coone Beach, Ipswich, Mass.: A Program of Sand Dune Protection, Milton, Mass., 1972. 36. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of the Shore of Cape Cod between Cape Cod Canal and Rose Point, Provincetown, Mass., 1959. 37. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Garden City Beach: Detailed Project Report on Beach Erosion Control, 1972. 38. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, Regional Inventory Report of Shoreline Erosion, draft report, 1975. 39. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Survey Report on Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Study at Hunting Island Beach, South Carolina: Charleston, S.C., 1963. 79 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAHATG.LER&ICRD Bibliography Part Eight ENVIRONMENT Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 40. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, Water Resources Development by the U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers in South Carolina, Atlanta, Ga., 1975. 41. U. S. Congress, 88th, *2nd Session, Hunting Island Beach, South Carolina, Washington, D.C., 1964. 42. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Coastal Management Aspects of OCS Oil and Gas Developments, Rockville, Md., January, 1975. 43. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Climatological Summary, Georgetown, S.C., 1925-1954. 44. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Estuary Study, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 45. U. S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service, Great Lakes Shoreline Recreation Area Survey, Remaining Shoreline Opportunities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York, Washington, D.C., 1960. 46. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Areawide Waste Treatment Managemer. Planning, Washington, D.C., November, 1974. 47. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, First Things First: A Strategy Against Water Pollution, Washington, D.C., September, 1974. 48. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report on Areawide Designation and Planning, Washington, D.C., April, 1975. 49. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Multiple Use of Land and Water Areas, Study Report No. 17, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. 50. U. S. Task Force on Environmental Health and Related Problems, A Strategy for a Livable Environment, U. S. Government Printing Office, June, 1967. 51. Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Final Guidelines, Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Olympia, Wash., 1972. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS . 80 . PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * Part Eight Bibliography Signed Periodicals 1. Abelson, P. H., "Natural Beauty and Conservation," Science, 147, March 12, 1965, p. 1295. 2. Behan, R. W., "Succotash System or Multiple Use: A Heartfelt Approach to Forest Land Management," Natural Resources Journal, 7, October, 1967, p. 473. 3. Blassinggame, W., "Jack and the Dragline: Battle to Save North Florida's Marshes," Audubon, 75, May, 1973, pp. 52-59. 4. Brennan, William J., "Balancing Man's Demands of the Sea and Shore," NOAA Magazine, January, 1975. 5. Burton, Ian, and Robert W. Katos, "The Flood Plain and the Seashore: A Comparative Analysis of Hazard Zone Occupancy (U.S.)," Geographical Review, 54, July, 1964, pp. 366-85. 6. Caldwell, L. K., "Ecosystem as a Criterion for Public Land Policy," Natural Resources Journal, 10, April, 1970, p. 204. 7. Chandler, E. W., and J. W. Chandler, "Sand Dunes: Problem or Prize?" American-Forest, 78, January, 1972, pp. 32-35. 8. Clement, R. C., "Marshes, Developers, and Taxes, a New Ethic for Our Estuaries," Audubon, 71, November, 1969, pp. 34-35. 9. Crane, D. A., and G. P. Wolfe, "Achieving Quality in Environment," Planning, Zoning, and Eminent Domain, 1971, p. 43. 10. Crutchfield, James H., "Valuation of Fishery Resources," Land Economics Journal, 37(2), May, 1962, pp. 145-54. 11. Dolan, R., "Barrier Dune System Along the Outer Banks of North Carolina: A Reappraisal," Science, 176, April 21, 1972, pp. 286-88. 12. Dolan, R., and B. Hayden. "Adjusting to Nature in our National Seashores, National Parks and Conservation Magazine, 48, June, 1974, pp. 9-14. 13. Einsohn, B., "Birth of a Beach," Motor Boating and Sailing, 128, July, 1971, pp. 56-57. 14. Frese, P. S., "Let's Keep Our Natural Beauty," Flower Grower, The Home Garden, 52, September, 1965, p. 15. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 81 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight ENVIRONMENT Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 15. Gerber, William, "Coastal Conservation," Editorial Research Reports, February 25, 1970, p. 141. 16. Goodman, R. H., "Our Coastal Marshes: Are They to Become a Vanishing Resource," Recreation, 58, June, 1965, pp. 305-7. 17. Hanley, W., G. C. Matthiessen, and S. L. Udall, "Ebbtide of Our Sa]t Marshes," Recreation, 58, June, 1965, p. 271. 18. Harrington, A., and L. Regenstein, "Plight of Ocean Mammals," Environmental Affairs, 1, March, 1972, p. 792. 19. Hartley, W., and E. Hartley, "Can Land Be Developed Without Wrecking Nature," Science Digest, 71, January, 1972, pp. 73-78. 20. Hay, S., "Sea of Survival: Excerpt from 'In Defense of Nature'," Audubon, 71, May, 1969, pp. 40-51. 21. Inman, D. L., and B. M. Brush, "Coastal Challenge," reply with rejoinder, S. P. Poulou and J. R. Clayton, Jr., Science, 184, May 24, 1974, pp. 714-15. 22. Lindsay, S., "Complex Life of the Ocean's Edge: Ecosystems of Tidal Zones," Saturday Review, 55, April 15, 1972, pp. 30-33. 23. McLean, M. T., Jr., "Keeping the Outdoors for the Future," Parks and Recreation, 3, January, 1968, pp. 31-32. 24. Newman, M. E., "Shelters on a Scalloped Shore: Sea Ranch, California," Sports Illustrated, 24, March 28, 1966, pp. 46-52. 25. O'Mara, W. P., "California's Irreplaceable Coastline," Sea Frontiers, 19, July, 1973, pp. 211-18. 26. Palmer, J. D.,."Biological Clocks of the Tidal Zone," Scientific American, 232, February, 1975, pp. 70-77+. 27. Phleger, F. B., and J. S. Bradshaw, "Sedimentary Environments in a Marine Marsh," Science, 154, December 23, 1966, pp. 1551-3. 28. Redford, P., "Vanishing Tidelands," Atlantic, 219, June, 1967, pp. 75-78. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 82 PUBLIC BEACH ACESS RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA *Part Eight Bibliography ENVIROMEXNT Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 29. Reitze, A. W., Jr., and G. L. Reitze, "Preserving Land from Development," Environment, 15, November, 1973, pp. 41-42. 30. Roberts, J. M., "Wandering Sands," Americas, 22, August, 1970, pp. 9-14. 31. Schuberth, C. J., "Barrier Beaches of Eastern America," Natural History, 79, June, 1970, pp. 46-55. 32. Sekam, J., "Between the Tides," Conservationist, 27, August, 1972, p. 49. 33. Shepherd, J., "Disappearing Beauty of the Salt Marsh," Look, 34, April 21, 1970, pp. 24-31. 34. Singletary, R. L., "Tide Pools: Nature's Marine Aquaria," Sea Frontiers, 18, January, 1972, pp. 2-9. 35. Soucie, G., "We Can Still Save Salt Marshes of Georgia, Carolina," Smithsonian, 5, March, 1975, pp. 32-39. 36. Soucie, G., "Who Will Gird Our Beaches for the Energy Onslaught? The Coastal Imperative: A National Conference on Coastal Zone Management," Audubon, 76, May, 1974, pp. 96-97. 37. Tanner, W. F., "Our Moving Beaches," Americas, 23, October, 1971, pp. 2-8. 38. Teal, J., and M. Teal, "Ribbon of Green: Epic of a Salt Marsh, Its Birth Life, and Death," Audubon, 7, November, 1969, pp. 4-8. 39. Thomsen, D. E., "As the Seashore Drifts," Science News, 101, June 17, 1972, p. 396. 40. Tippy, R., "Preservation Values in River Basin Planning," Natural Resources Journal, 8, April, 1968, p. 259. 41. Towell, W. E., "Parks Are For People: Balancing Park Use and Preservatico of Resources," American Forest, 73, October, 1967, pp. 5+. 42. Tydings, J. D., "Coastal Erosion," Parks and Recreation, 3, February, 1968, pp. 18-19+. 43. Wharton, R., "They're Saving America's Priceless Seashore," Reader's Digest, 89, August, 1966, p. 181. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH 83 PUB3LIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAH A T O . LER&ICRD Bibliography Part Eight f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ENVIRONMENT Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 44. Wilson, J. E., "Protecting a Natural Beach," Conservationist, 24, April, 1970, pp. 28-31. 45. Wolff, A., "Saving Swamps," Science Digest, 77, February, 1975, p. 14. Unsigned Periodicals 1. "Are Landmarks Part of the Environment," Hobbies, 75, May, 1970, p. 50. 2. "Battle for the Beaches, California," Senior Scholastic, 101, November 13 1972, p. 7. 3. "Diseased Estuaries," New Republic, 160, March 1, 1969, p. 7. 4. "Drive to Save America's Shorelines," U. S. News and World Report, 73. July 31, 1972, pp. 38-40. 5. "Environmental Policy: New Directions in Federal Action: A Symposium," Public Administration Review, 28, July-August, 1968, p. 301. 6. "Dying Marshes," Audubon, 71, November, 1969, pp. 21-32. 7. "Erosion of Eden: Is Tourism Creating Its Own Pollution," Saturday Review, 53, June 6, 1970, p. 58. 8. "Growing Battle to Save America's Coastlines," U. S. News and World Report, 77, September 9, 1974, pp. 45-47. 9. "Is Scenic Protection Merely a Joke?" Audubon, 70, January, 1968, p. 4. 10. "Keeping the Wilderness Wild - How Will It Be Done," U. S. News and World Report 57, August 24, 1964, p. 65. 11. "Martha's Vinyard: The Development of a Legislative Strategy for Preservation," Environmental Affairs, 3, 1974, pp. 396-431. 12. "Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area," National Parks and Conservation Magazine, 49, January, 1975, pp. 30-31. 13. "Plastic Seaweed Helps Build Up Beach Sand," Science News Letter, 88, August 21, 1966, p. 123. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 84 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA IPart Eight Bibliography ENVIRONMENT Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 14. "Sands Trace Erosion," Science News Letter, 89, February 12, 1966, p. 101 15. "Symposium: Administration of Public Lands," Natural Resources Journal, 7, April, 1967, p. 149. 16. "Threatened Coastlines," Time, 98, August 30, 1971, p. 32. 17. "Threatened Marshes of Glynn: Georgia's Swamps," Life, 67, November 14, 1969, pp. 88-93. 18. "Where Waves Erode the Land," Geographical Magazine, 44, May, 1972, pp. 557-62. 19. "Wisconsin's Requirements for Shoreland and Flood Plain Protection," Natural Resources Journal, 10, April, 1970, pp. 327-35. ENVIRONMENT Signed News Stories 1. Cook, F. J., "Case of the Disappearing Coastline," N.Y. Times Magazine, September 25, 1966, pp. 38-39. 2. Davenport, S. R., Jr., "Great Ripoff of Long Island's Beaches," N.Y. Times Magazine, July 30, 1972, pp. 8-9+. 3. Meade, Fred, "Deepwater Well Tested for NMB," Sun News, Myrtle Beach, S.C. May 17, 1974. 4. Meade, Fred, "NMB Environmental Unit Formed," Sun News, May 17, 1974. 5. Monk, John, "Wastewater Views Vary," Sun News, June 11, 1974. 6. Sweeney, Ken, "Area Water, Wastewater for Grand Strand Aired," Sun News, June 12, 1974. PUJBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 85HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight ENVIRONMENT Unsigned News Stories 1. "Coast Development Safeguards Beefed," Sun News, Myrtle Beach, S.C., March 8, 1974. 2. "Surfside Sewer Nod Awaited," Sun News, February 21, 1974. LEGAL Books 1. Doolittle, Fred C., Land Use Planning and Regulation on the California Coast: The State Role. 2. Douglas, William 0., A Wilderness Bill of Rights, Little, 1965. 3. Hirshleifer, J., J. C. DeHaven and J. W. Milliman, Water Rights -U. S., Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960. 4. Ullman, Edward, Ronald R. Boyce, and Donald Volk, The Meramec Basin: Water and Economic Development, Vol. 1; St. Louis, Mo., Washington University Press, 1962. Signed Pamphlets 1. Alexander, Lewis M., ed., The Law of the Sea: Offshore Boundaries and Zones, Proceedings of the First Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute, June 27-July 1, 1966; Columbus, Ohio, State University Press 1967. 2. Angel, J., A Treatise on the Right of Property in Tidewaters, 2d ed. 1847- 3. Bailey, Gilbert E., and Paul S. Thayer, California's Disappearing Coast: A Legislative Challenge, No. 3; Berkeley, Institute of Government Studies University of California, 1971. HARTZOG, LAD ER & RICHARDS 86 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eigh t Bibliography LEGAL Signed Pamphlets (cont'd) 4. Berlin, Roisman and Kessler, Law in Action: The Trust Doctrine, in Law and the Environment, ed. by M. Baldwin and J. Page. 5. Beuscher, J. H., J. P. DeBraal, H. H. Ellis, and D. C. Howard, Water-Use Law and Administration in Wisconsin, Madison, Wisc., University of Wisconsin, Department of Law, 1970. 6. Bosselman, Fred, David Callies, and John Banta, Selected Legal Cases Dealing with Beach and Sand Dune Protection, from The Taking Issue - A Study of the Constitutional Limits of Governmental Authority to Regulate the Use of Privately Owned Land Without Paying Compensation to the Owners, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 7. Buckland, W.-, A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian, 2d ed. 1937. 8. Campbell, William A., and Milton S. Heath, Legal Aspects of Designation of Areas of Environmental Concern Under the Coastal Area Management Act, Chapel Hill, N.C., Institute of Government, University of North Carolina, January 6, 1975. 9. Dewsnup, R., Public Access Rights in Waters and Shorelands, National Water Commission, Legal Study 8-B, 1971. 10. Eckhardt, The Texas Open Beaches Act, in The Beaches: Public Rights and Private Use, Galveston, Texas Law Institute of Coastal and Marine Resources, Conference Proceedings, January, 1972. 11. Forste, Robert H., Multiple-Use Problems of Water Law in New Hampshire, Proceedings of Water Rights Law Conference; Boston, Mass., New England Council of Water Center Directors, November 10, 1966. 12. Garretson, Albert, The Land-Sea Interface of the Coastal Zone of the United States: Legal Problems Arising Out of Multiple Use and Conflicts of Private and Public Rights and Interests, Springfield, Va., U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Publication PB- 179428, 1968. .13. Gould, J., A Treatise on the Law of Waters, 1900. 14. Henry, Harriet P., Coastal Zone Management in Maine: A Legal Perspective, Augusta, Maine, State Planning Office, Coastal Planning Group, 1973. 87 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Signed Pamphlets (cont'd) 15. Kalinske, A. J., The Law Relating to Access to Public Waters in New Hampshire, Proceedings of Water Rights Law Conference; Boston, Mass., New England Council of Water Center Directors, November 10, 1966. - I 16. Kendall, James H., Basic Concepts of Private Water Rights, Proceedings of Water Rights Law Conference; Boston, Mass., New England Council of Water Center Directors, November 10, 1966. 17. Loveland, R., Hall's Essay on the Rights of the Crown and Privileges of the Subject in the Sea Shore of the Realm, 1875. 18. Middleton, Philip, A Review of the Law Pertaining to the Private Ownershi, of South Carolina's Marshland, January, 1975. 19. Moore, S., A History of the Foreshore and the Law Relative Thereto, 3d ed. 1888. 20. Newman, The State's View of Public Rights to the Beaches, in The Beaches: Public Rights and Private Use, Galveston, Texas Law Institute of Coastal and Marine Resources, Conference Proceedings, January, 1972. 21. Packer, Paul E., and Harold F. Haupt, The Influence of Roads on Water Quality Characteristics, reprinted from the Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, 1965, Washington, D.C., U. S. Forest Service, 1965. 22. Plimpton, 0. A., Conservation Easements, Legal Analysis of Conservation Easements as a Method of Privately Conserving and Preserving Land; Washington, D.C., The Nature Conservancy. 23. Ratliff, Private Use and Public Rights, in The Beaches: Public Rights anr Private Use, Galveston, Texas Law Institute of Coastal and Marine Resources, Conference Proceedings, January, 1972. 24. Sargent, F. 0., Multiple Use and Water Law, Proceedings of Water Rights Law Conference; Boston, Mass., New England Council of Water Center Directors, November 10, 196.6. 25. Schoenbaum, Thomas J., Public Rights and Coastal Zone Management, Raleigh, N.C., North Carolina State University/University of North Carolina Sea Grant Program, 1972. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 88' PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA * Part Eight Bibliography LEGAL Signed Pamphlets (cont'd) 26. Shalowitz, A., Shore and Sea Boundaries, Coast Guard Geodetic Survey Pub. No. 10-1, 1962. 27. hyte, William H., Easements and Other Approaches, in Maine Coast Prospects and Perspectives: A $.posiun, Brunswick, Vaine, Center for Resource Studies, 1966. Unsigned Pamphlets 1. Beaufort County Joint Planning Commission, Subdivision Regulations, Beaufort County, S.C., 1974. 2. Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service, Zoning Law of South Carolina, Agricultural Economics Publication 362, June, 1973. 3. Council of State Governments, The Land Use Puzzle, Lexington, Ky., 1974. 4. Florida House of Representatives, The Constitutional and Legal Limits to the Regulation of Private Land, Seminar Proceedings, January, 1975. 5. Georgetown County Commissioners, Minutes of Meetings, April 1973 - March 1974, Georgetown County, S.C. 6. Georgetown County Planning Commission, Zoning Ordinance, Georgetown County, December, 1973. 7. Georgetown County Planning and Zoning Commission, Minutes of Meetings, January 1973 - April 1974. S. Grand Strand Flood Commission, Minutes of Meetings, September 1971 - April 1974. 9. Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority, Minutes of Meetings, September 1971 - April 1974. 10. Isle of Palms, City of, Draft of Proposed Zoning Ordinance, Isle of Palms, S.C., March, 1975. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 89 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 11. Louisiana State University, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana Coastal Law, newsletter, Baton Rouge, La. 12. Marine Technology Society, Conference on Tools for Coastal Zone Management, Proceedings; Washington, D.C., February 14-15, 1972. 13. Massachusetts Special Legislative Commission on Marine Boundaries and Resources, 4th Report, 1970 - 9th Report, 1973. 14. Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Review Commission, Public Access in Minnesota, Report No. 3; St. Paul, Minn., 1965. 15. Myrtle Beach City Council, Minutes of Meetings, January 1973 - April 1974. Myrtle Beach, S.C. 16. Myrtle Beach Planning and Zoning Commission, Minutes of Meeting, April 1, 1974. 17. Myrtle Beach Planning and Zoning Commission, Zoning Ordinance of the City of Myrtle Beach, S.C., amended, codified, and reprinted June, 1974. 18. Myrtle Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment, Minutes of Meetings, January 1973 - April 1974. 19. New Hampshire State Planning Project, New Hampshire Public Water Bodies and Public Access Points (Part I), Concord, N.H., August, 1964. 20. New Hampshire State Planning Project, New Hampshire Public Water Bodies and Public Access Points (Part II), Concord, N.H., September, 1965. 21. North Carolina Marine Science Council, North Carolina's Coastal Resource: : Raleigh, N.C., N.C. Dept. of Administration, Office of Marine Affairs, 1972. 22. North Myrtle Beach City Council, Minutes of Meetings, January 1973 - April 1974. 23. Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission, Estuary Planning Guidelines, Florence, Ore., 1973. 24. Proposition 20, California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972, November 7, 1972. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 90 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA *Part Eight Bibliography LEGAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 25. South Carolina General Assembly, 1971, Act No. 337, H.1396, "To create the Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority..." 26. South Carolina General Assembly, 1973, Act No. 831, S.614, "To create the Horry County Planning Commission..." 27. South Carolina General Assembly, 1972, Act No. 1822, S.958, "To create the Waccamaw Neck Flood District..." 28. South Carolina General Assembly, 1972, Act No. 1857, H.2727, "To create the Grand Strand Flood District..." 29. South Carolina, Office of the Governor, Office of Planning, and Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, Zoning Ordinance, Surfside Beach, S.C., October, 1973. 30. South Carolina, State Planning and Grants Office, Community Planning Division, Subdivision Regulations, Myrtle Beach, S.C., prepared for the Myrtle Beach Planning Commission, February, 1970. 31. South Carolina, State Planning and Grants Office, Community Affairs Section, Subdivision Regulations, North Myrtle Beach, S.C., prepared fcr the North Myrtle Beach Planning and Zoning Commission, June, 1971. 32. South Carolina, State Planning and Grants Office, Community Affairs Section, Zoning Ordinance, North Myrtle Beach, S.C., June, 1971. 33. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., Marine Resources Division, An Application for a Program Development Grant to the Office of Coastal Environment, submitted on behalf of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Planning and Management Council, March 7, 1974. 34. Surfside Beach Board of Adjustment, Minutes, April 1972 - April 1974. 35. Surfside Beach City Council, Minutes, August 1972 - March 1974. 36. Texas Law Institute of Coastal and Marine Resources, The Beaches: Public Rights and Private Use, Conference Proceedings, Galveston, 1972. 37. Texas Law Institute of Coastal and Marine Resources, A Summary of Legislation Relating to the Coastal Zone, A Report Prepared for the Coastal Resources Management Program, Office of the Governor, Galveston, 1972. 91 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 38. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Permits for Work in Navigable Waters, 1968 Regulations. 39. U. S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, Our Nation and the Sea: A Plan for National Action, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 40. U. S. Congress, 89th, 2nd Session, Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, Public Law 753, 1966. 41. U. S. Congress, 92nd, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Public Law 92-583, October 27, 1972. 42. U. S. Congress, 91st, 2nd Session, Environmental Education Act, Public Law 516, 1970. 43. U. S. Congress, 90th, 2nd Session, Estuaries Inventory Study, Public Law 454, 1968. 44. U. S. Congress, 87th, 1st Session, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961, Public Law 88, 1961. 45. U. S. Congress, 92nd, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500, October 18, 1972. 46. U. S. Congress, 89th, 1st Session, Federal Water Project Recreation Act, Public Law 72, 1965. 47. U. S. Congress, 87th, 2nd Session, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas, Public Law 714, 1962. 48. U. S. Congress, 87th, 1st Session, Flood Control - Improvement, Public Law 170, 1961. 49. U. S. Congress, 86th, 2nd Session, Flood Control - Land, Public Law 545, 1960. 50. U. S. Congress, 93rd, Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law 92-234, December 31, 1973. 51. U. S. Congress, 88th, 2nd Session, Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Public Law 578, 1964. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 92 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA *Part Eight Bibliography Unsigned Pamphlets (cor.t'd) 52. U. S. Congress, 90th, 2nd Session, Land and Water Conservation Fund, Public Law 401, 1968. 53. U. S. Congress, 90th, 2nd Session, National Water Commission Act, Public Law 515, 1968. 54. U. S. Congress, 90th, 2nd Session, National Wildlife Refuge System - Disposition of Lands, Public Law 404, 1968. 55. U. S. Congress, 88th, 1st Session, Outdoor Recreation - Federal State Programs, Public Law 29, 1963. 56. U. S. Congress, 89th, 1st Session, Water Quality Act of 1965, Public Law 234, 1965. 57. U. S. Congress, 89th, 1st Session, Water Resources Planning Act, Public Law 80, 1965. 58. U. S. Congress, 90th, 2nd Session, Water Resources Planning Act - Administration, Public Law 547, 1968. 59. U. S. Congress, 88th, 2nd Session, Water Resources Research Act of 1964, Public Law 379, 1964. 60. U. S. Congress, 90th, 2nd Session, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law 542, 1968. 61. U. S. Congress, 88th, 2nd Session, Wilderness Act, Public Law 577, 1964. 62. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Public Access to Public Domain Land: Two Case Studies of Landowner-Sportsman Conflict. 63. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Draft Environmental Statement, Vol. 1 of 2, 1974. 64. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Guidelines for Evaluating Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Areas for Possible Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, Washington, D.C., 1970. 65. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation for America, 1962. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS 3 RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAHATO.LDR&ICRS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Unsigned Pamphlets (cont'd) 66. U. S. President, Marine Science Affairs, The Report to Congress on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967-1971. 67. U. S. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Federal Water Project Recreation Act, Report 149, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965. 68. U. S. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Papers on National Land Use Policy Issues, prepared by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and Boston University, 1971. 69. U. S. Senate, Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Flood Control, River and'Harbor Flood Control and Beach Erosion Projects in the State of Hawaii, November 18-23, 1968. 70. University of Oregon, The Law Center, The Future Management of the Oregon Coast, Publication ORESU-W-74-001; Corvallis, Ore., Oregon State Uni- versity, Sea Grant Program, 1974. 71. Waccamaw Neck Flood Commission, Minutes of Meetings, April 1972 - May 1973. 72. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Commission, Positive Action Program for the Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Commission, Publication No. WCCMA-EDA-72-02, prepared for the Economic.Development Administration, 1971. 73. Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council, Zoning Ordinance, Georgetown County, S.C., prepared for Georgetown County Planning Commission, adopted by County Commissioners, November 16, 1973. 74. Waccamaw Regional Planning Commission, Proposed Horry County Zoning Ordinance. 75. Washington State Legislature, State Financing for Watercraft Related Outdoor Recreation Facilities, Report to Washington State Legislature No. 72-5; Olympia, Wash., 1973. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 94 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Bibliography LEGAL Signed Periodicals 1. Agnello, "Non-resident Restrictions in Municipally Owned Beaches: Approaches to the Problem," Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 10, 1974, pp. 177-227. 2. Armstrong, "Gion v. City of Santa Cruz - Now You Own It, Now You Don't (or the Case of the Reluctant Philanthropist)," Los Angeles Bar Bulletin 45, 1970, p. 529. 3. Ausnes, "Land Use Controls in Coastal Areas," California Western Law Review, 5, 1973, p. 391. 4. Barker, R. I., "Private Right Versus Public Interest," New Zealand Law Journal, June, 1967, p, 251. 5. Bawe, W. J., "Regional Planning vs. Decentralized Land Use Controls - Zoning for the Megalopolis," DePaul Law Review, 18, Autumn, 1968, P. 144. 6. Beck, R. E., "Governmental Refilling of Lakes and Ponds and the Artificial Maintenance of Water Levels: Must Just Compensation Be Paid to Abutting Landowners?" Texas Law Review, 46, December, 1967, p. 180. 7. Bennett, E. F., "Public Land Policy: Reconciliation of Public Use and Private Development," Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, 11, 1966, p. 311. B. Berger, "Gion v. City of Santa Cruz: A License to Steal?" California State Bar Journal, 49, 1974, p. 24. 9. Berger, "Nice Guys Finish Last - At Least They Lose Their Property: Gion v. City of Santa Cruz," California Western Law Review, 8, 1971, p. 7 10. Beuchert, E. W., "State Regulation of Channel Encroachments," Natural Resources Journal., 4, January, 1965, p. 486. 11. Beuscher, J. H., "Current Trends in Wisconsin's Water Law," Wisconsin Bar Bulletin, April, 1967, p. 19. 12. Bicknell, B.A., "Restrictions on Rights of Way," New Law Journal, 116, October, 1966, p. 1451. 13. Bird, R. M., "Tax Subsidy Policies for Regional Development," National Tax Journal, 19, June, 1966, p. 113. 95 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 14. Black, "Constituionality of the Eckhardt Open Beaches Bill," Columbia Law Review, 74, 1974, p. 439. 15. Breeden, R.C., "Coastal Controls in California - Wave of the Futurc", Harvard Journal of Legislation, 11, April, 1974, pp. 463-508. 16. Brion, D.J., "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New Virginia Wetlands Act", Washington & Lee Law Review, 30, Spring, 1970, p. 19. 17. Broesche, T.C., "Land Use Regulation for the Protection of Public Parks and Recreation Areas", Texas Law Review, 45, November, 1966, p. 96. 18. Bryden, R.M., "Zoning: Frigid, Flexible or Fluid", Journal of Urban Law, 44, Winter, 1966, p. 287. 19. Buchanan, G.S., "Texas Navigation Districts and Regional Planning in the Texas Gulf Coast Area", Houston Law Review, 10, March, 1973, p. 533. 20. Burka, "Shoreline Erosion: Implications for Public Rights and Pri- vate Ownership", Coastal Zone Management, 1, 1974, p. 175. 21. Caldwell, "Rights of Ownership or Rights of Use? The Need for a New Conceptual Basis for Land Use Policy", William & Mary Law Review, 15, 1974, p. 759. 22. Chapman, V.J., "Coastal Land Management Act in New Zealand", Coastal Zone Management Journal, 1, November 3, 1974, pp. 333-45. 23. Chenoweth, D.R., "Defense for a Shoreline", Water Spectrum, 6, November 3, 1974, pp. 41-46. 24. Clark, R.E., "Groundwater Management: Law and Legal Response", Arizona Law Review, 6, Spring, 1965, p. 178. 25. Clineberg, W.A., and J.E. Krahmer, "Law Pertaining to Estuarine Lands in South Carolina", South Carolina Law Review, 23, 1971, p. 7. 26. Clyde, E.W., "Mineral Rights Versus Water Rights", Natural Resources Law, 2, November, 1969, p. 299. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 96 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Bibliography I~~~~~~~~~~~ LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 27. Cohen, "The Constitution, The Public Trust Doctrine and The Environ- ment", Utah Law Review, 1970, p. 388. 28. Corker, C.E., "Thou Shalt Nor Fill Public Waters Without Public Permission - Washington's Lake Chelan Decision (Wilbour v. Gallagher)", Washington Law Review, 45, 1970, p. 65. 29. Corker, "Where Does the Beach Begin and to what Extent Is This a Federal Question", Washington Law Review, 42, 1966, p. 33. 30. Costonis, J.J., "Development Rights Transfer: An Exploratory Essay", Yale Law Journal, 83, November, 1973, pp. 75-128. 31. Courdert, "Riparian Rights: A Perversion of Stave Decisis", Columbia Law Review, 9, 1909, p. 217. 32. Crooks, G., "Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1971", Washington Law Review, 49, February, 1974, pp. 423-62. 33. Curtin, P.J., Jr., "Preservation of Open Space in California: Associated Home Builders v. City of Walnut Creek", Los Angeles Bar Bulletin, 47, January, 1972, p. 108. 34. Curtin, "Requiring Dedication of Land by Developers", Planning, Zoning, and Eminent Domain Institute, 1974, p. 57. 35. Dau, R.W., "Problems in Condemnation of Property Devoted to Public Use", Texas Law Review, 44, October, 1966, p. 1517. 36. David, "The .ew York Law of the Foreshore at the Beginning of the 18th Century", Cornell Law Quarterly, 11, 1926, p. 209. 37. Degran, D.A., "Public Rights in Ocean Beaches: A Theory of Prescrip- tion", Syracuse Law Review, 24, Summer, 1973, pp. 935-66. 38. Deloqu, O.E., "Land Use Control Principles Applied to Offshore Coastal Waters", Kentucky Law Journal, 59, Spring, 1971, p. 606. 39. Dinkins, "Texas Seashore Boundary Law: The Effect of Natural and Artificial Modifications", Houston Law Review, 10, 1972, p. 43. 97 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 40. Dominy, F.E., "Federal and State Cooperation in the Development of the Water Resources of California", American Water Works Association Journal, 55, April, 1963, pp. 461-66. 41. Due, M.J.C., "Access over Public Lands", Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, 17, 1972, p. 171. 42. Dunham, A., "Promises Respecting the Use of Land", Journal of Law and Economics, 8, October, 1965, p. 133. 43. Eckhart, "A Rational Policy on Public Use of Beaches", Syracuse Law Review, 24, 1973, p. 967. 44. Eckhart, R.C., "Open Beaches: Bill in Congress Based on Texas Law", Parks and Recreation, 51, August, 1970, pp. 21-3+. 45. Eckert, R.J., "Acquisition of Development Rights: A Modern Land-Use Tool", University of Miami Law Review, 23, Winter-Spring, 1969, p. 347. 46. Eikel, M.A. and W.S. Williams, "Public Trust Doctrine and the California Coastline", Urban Lawyer, 6, Summer, 1974, pp. 519-71. 47. Ellis, Harold H., "Water Law in Eastern United States", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 18, 1963, pp. 19-27. 48. Emory, B., "Protecting a Heritage: Maine Coast Heritage Trust Con- servation Easement Program", Yachting, 133, April, 1973, p. 88. 49. Eveleth, P.A., "An Appraisal of Techniques to Preserve Open Space", Villanova Law Review, 9, 1964, p. 559. 50. Eveleth, P.A., "New Techniques to Preserve Areas of Scenic Attraction in the Established Rural-Residential Communities - the Lake George Approach", Syracuse Law Review, 18, Fall, 1966, p. 37. 51. Fell, A.T., "Amortization of Non-Conforming Uses", Maryland Law Review, 24, Summer, 1964, p. 323. 52. Finnell, G.L., Jr., "Saving Paradise: The Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972", Urban Law Annual, 173, 1973, p. 103. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 98 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 98PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAI IPart Eight Bibliography I~~~~~~~~~~~~ LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 53. Forer, "Preservation of America's Park Lands: The Inadequacy of Present Law", New York University Law Review, 41, 1966, p. 1093. 54. Foster, W.F., "New Zealand's Coastal Jurisdiction", California Western International Law Journal. 55. Fraser, "Title to Soil Under Public Waters - A Question of Fact", Minnesota Law Review, 2, 1918, p. 313. 56. Gallagher, Jure, and Agnew, "Implied Dedication: The Imaginary Waves of Gion-Dietz", Southwestern University Law Review, 5, 1973, p. 48. 57. Garner, J.F., "Restrictive Covenants and Easements", Solicitors' Journal, 110, November 18, 1966, p. 860. 58. Gaudet, Joseph B., "Water Recreation-Public Use of Private Waters", California Law Review, March, 1964, pp. 171-84. 59. Gay, "High Water :4ark: Boundary Between Public and Private Lands", University of Florida Law Review, 18, 1966, p. 553. 60. Gibson, W.L., Jr., "Zoning and Land Use in Rural Virginia", University of Virginia News Letter, 42, April 15, 1966, pp. 29-32. 61. Gifford, K.D., "Islands Trust: Leading Edges in Land Use Laws", Harvard Journal of Legislation, 11, April, 1974, pp. 417-61. 62. Gilmour, Robert S., "Private Interests and Public Lands", Current � History, 59, July, 1970, pp. 36-42+. 63. Glenn, "The Coastal Area Management Act in the Courts: A Preliminary Analysis", North Carolina Law Review, 53, 1974, p. 303. 64. Greene, W.A., "Positive Covenants Affecting Land", Law Journal, 115, September 10, 1965, p. 605. 65. Gregg, F., "Wilderness and the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act: Outdoor Enjoyment", Living Wilderness, 29, Summer, 1965, pp. 25-8. 66. Gremillion, J.P., "Current View of the Tidelands Dispute", Institute on Mineral Law, 12, 1965, p. 17. 99 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 67. Gross, A.D., "Condemnation of Water Rights for Preferred Uses - A Replacement for Prior Appropriation?", Willamette Law Journal, 3, Fall, 1965, p. 263. -68. Haari, C.M. (Foreword), "Land-Use Symposium", Iowa Law Review, 50, Winter, 1965, p. 243. 69. Hagman, D.G., "Single Tax and Land-Use Planning: Henry George Updated", UCLA Law Review, 12, March, 1965, p. 762. -70.- Harmsberger, R.S., "Eminent Domain and Water Law", Nebraska Law Review, 48, January, 1969, p. 325. '-71. Heard, J.G., "Tax Aspects of Tidelands Operations", Oil and Gas Law *< and Taxation Institute, 15, 1964, p. 577. -<72:. Heath, M.S., Jr., "Estuarine Conservation Legislation in the States", Land and Water Law Review, 4, 1970, p. 351. -73. Hershman, M., "Lender Looks at Land Use Controls: The Wonder World of Fixed-and Floating Zones, Subdivision Regulations and Master Plans", -Practical Lawyer, -12, December, 1966, p. 11, and 13, January, 1967, -p. 51. -.74. Heyman and Gilhool, "The Constitutionality of Imposing Increased . Community Costs on New Suburban Residents Through Subdivision -Exactions", Yale Law Journal, 73, June, 1964, p. 1119. 75. Heyman, I.M. and R.H. Twiss, "Environmental Management of the Public Lands", California Law Review, 58, November, 1970, pp. 1364-1411. 76. Hillhouse, W.A., "Water Rights", Annual Survey of American Law, Winter, 1974, pp. 255-64. 77. Hirsch, W.Z. and D.C. Shapiro, "Some Economic Implications of City Planning", UCLA Law Review, 14, August, 1967, p. 1312. 78. Hocht, L.S., "Benefits to the Property Owner as Affecting Assessments for Improvements to Real Estate", Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, 36, June, 1965, p. 399. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1. i 00' PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight I~Part Eight ~Bibliography LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 79. Horebeck, John Miles, "Titles to Marshlands in South Carolina", South Carolina Law Quarterly, 14, 1962, p. 288. 80. Hubbard, K.D., "Ah Wilderness! (but what about access and prospecting?)", Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, 15, 1969, p. 585. 81. Hustace, C., "Free Outdoor Recreational Areas for Missouri - A Law Limiting Landowners' Liability", Missouri Bar Journal, 28, August, 1969, a. 423. 82. Jackson, H.A. and A. Baum, "Regional Planning: The Coastal Zone Initiative Analyzed in Light of the BCDC Experience", California State Bar Journal, 47, September-October, 1972, p. 426. 83. Jackson, P., "Equitable Easements", Conveyancer & Property Lawyer, 33, March-April, 1969, p. 135. 84. Jackson, P., "Reviewing our Public Land Policies", Current, 127, March, 1971, pp. 24-8. 85. Jackson, R., "Recreation Zoning and Lake Planning", Town Planning Review, 43, March, 1972, pp. 41-55. 86. Jackson, R., "Zoning to Regulate On-Water Recreation", Land Economist, 47, November, 1971, pp. 382-8. 87. Jacobson, "Expropriation by Forced Dedication: The Problem of Uncompensated Public Takings of Private Lands", Journal of Beverly Hills Bar Association, 6, January-February, 1972, p. 10. 88. Janney, "Recreational Beaches: The Right to a Scarce Resource", Maryland Law Forum, 3, 1973, p. 121. 89. Johnson, Ralph W. and Russel A. Austino "Recreational Rights and Titles to Beds on Western Lakes and Streams", Natural Resources, 7, January, 1967, pp. 1-52. 90. Johnson, R.W. and G.P. Morry, "Filling and Building on Small Lakes - Time for Judicial and Legislative Controls", Washington Law Review. 91. Johnston, "Constitutionality of Subdivision Control Exactions: The Quest for a Rationale", Cornell Law Quarterly, 52, 1967, p. 871. 101 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 92. Johnston, J.D., Jr., "Developments in Land Use Control", Notre Dame Lawyer, 45, Spring, 1970, p. 399. 93. Jones, R.P., "Tax Problems of Real Estate Developers - From Acquisition through Disposition", Journal of Taxation, 24, January, 1966, p. 32. 94. Jordahl, Harold C., Jr., "Conservation and Scenic Easements, As Experience Resume", Land Economics, 39, November, 1963, p. 343. 95. Joseph, C., "Betterment Levy and Residential Development", New Law Journal, 116, June 9, 1966, p. 911. 96. Joseph, C., "Informal Approach to Planning", Law Society's Gazette, 63, pp. 429-95. -97. Joseph, C., '"Town and Country Planning Act. 1968", Law Society's Gazette,. 66, January-February, 1969, p. 32. 98. King, B.E., "Condemnation Quandary: Public Use and Necessity - The Impact of Decisions in Recent Years", Los Angeles Bar Bulletin, 41, July, 1966, p. 405. 99. Knibb, "National Recreation Areas: Evolving Legislative Answer to Land Use Conflicts",- Lincoln Law Review, 6, 1970, p. 1. r100. Knight, H.G., "Proposed Systems of Coastal Zones Management: An Interim Analysis", Natural-Resources Lawyer, 3, November, 1970, p. 599. 101. Knox, Andrew, "Coastal Zoning Laws", Ripon Forum, 9, December, 1973, pp. 6-7. 102. Kratovil, R., "Easements and Leases", Title News, 45, April, 1966, p. 2. 103. Kratovil, R., "Some New Developments and Trends in Real Property Law", Title News, 43, August, 1964, p. 2. 104. Kreuger, R.B., "Recreationally-Oriented Land Development", Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 3, Fall, 1962, p. 353. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1 02 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight I~Part Eight ~Bibliography LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 105. Kusler, "Open Space Zoning: Valid Regulation or Invalid Taking", Minnesota Law Review, 57, 1972, p. 1. 106. Land, Alan E., "Toward Optimal Land Use: Property Tax Policy and Land Use Planning", California Law Review, 55, August, 1967, pp. 856-97. 107. Landstrom, K.S., "Citizen Participation in Public Land Decisions", St. Louis University Law Journal, 9, Spring, 1965, p. 372. 108. Lauer, T.E., "Reflections on Riparianism", Missouri Law Review, 35, Winter, 1970, p. 1. 109. Lawton, P., "New System for Taxing Property", Solicitor's Journal, 109, January-February, 1966, pp. 3, 20, 42, 62, 84, 100. 110. Ledbetter, W.H., Jr., "Subdivision Control in South Carolina", South Carolina Law Review, 24, 1972, p. 155. 111. Leighty, "The Source and Scope of Public and Private Rights in Navigable Waters", Land & Water Law Review, 5, 1970, p. 391. 112. Levin, "Environmental Quality and Public Land Acquisition", Zoning and Eminent Domain institute, 1971, p. 155. 113. Levin, D.R., "New Directions in Land Acquisition and Land Use", Wisconsin Law Review, 1969, 1969, p. 848. 114. Lewis, "Capsule History and the Present Status of the Tidelands Controversy", Natural Resources Law, 3, 1970, p. 620. 115. Limerick, G.F., "Effects of Zoning on Valuation in Eminent Domain", Illinois Bar Journal, 53, July, 1965, p. 956. 116. Long, C.C., "Surface Waters and the Civil Law Rule", Emory Law Journal, 23, Fall, 1974, pp. 1015-46. 117. Lundberg, W., "Restrictive Covenants and Land Use Control: Private Zoning", Montana Law Review, 34, Summer, 1973, p. 197. 118. Lyall, F., "Recreation, Land Ownership and the Countryside", Juridical Review, 1970, December, 1970, p. 203. 103 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER &RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 119. Lynch, J.J.D., Jr., "Riparian Title in Pennsylvania", Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, 41, January, 1970, p. 224. 120. MacDonald, "Shoreland Zoning in Maine", Coastal Zone Management Journal, 1, 1973, pp. 109-14. 121. Maloney and Ausness, "The Use and Legal Significance of the Mean High Water Line in Coastal Boundary Mapping", North Carolina Law Review, 53, 1974, p. 185. 122. Mandelker and Sherry, "The National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972", Urban Law Annual, 7, 1974, p. 119. 123. McAuliffe, J.W., and F.S. Sengstock, "What is the price of eminent ..domain? An introduction to the problems of valuation in eminent domain proceedings.",i Journal of Urban Law, 44, Winter, 1966, p. 185. 124. McKnight, "Title to Land in the Coastal zone", California State Bar Journal, 47, 1972, p. 408. 125. McLennan, "Public Patrimony: An Appraisal of Legislation and Common Law Protecting Recreational Values in Oregon's State-Owned Lands and Waters', Environmental Law, 4, 1974, p. 317. 126. Merling, T.R., "Conflict of Planning Legislation with Private Interests: Litigation Likely to Arise from the Implementation of a Planning Scheme", University of Western Australia Law Review, 9, December, 1970, p. 303. 127. Michelman, F.I., "Property, Utility and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of 'Just Compensation' Law", Harvard Law Review, 80, April, 1967, p. 1165. 128. Milner, J.B., "Introduction to Subdivision Control Legislation", Canadian Bar Review, 43, p. 49. 129. Milner, J.B., "Lawyer's Role in Land-Use Planning", Alberta Law Review, 5, 1967, p. 119. 130. Mix, A.Q., "Restricted Use Assessment in California: Can It Fulfill its Objectives?", Santa Clara Lawyer, 11, Spring, 1971, p. 259. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 104 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA IPart Eight Bibliography LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 131. Mondelker, D.R., "National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972", Urban Law Annual, 7, 1974, pp. 119-37. 132. Montgomery, "The Public Trust Doctrine in Public Land Law: Its Application in the Judicial Review of Land Classification Decisions", Willamette Law Journal, 8, 1972, p. 135. 133. Moore, "The Acquisition and Preservation of Open Lands", Washington and Lee Law Review, 1966, p. 274. 134. Morrison, F.A., "Land Use Planning and the Natural Resources Industry", Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, 18, 1973, pp. 135-47. 135. Moses, R.J., "Water as a Tool for Recreational Land Use Planning", Syracuse Law Review, 24, Summer, 1973, pp. 1047-56. 136. Nelson, "State Disposition of Submerged Lands Versus Public Rights in Navigable Waters", Natural Resources Law, 3, 1970, p. 491. 137. Nenk, E., Jr., "Coastal Waters and the Nation: Address", Vital Speeches, 35, March 15, 1969, pp. 349-52. 138. Newson, M.D., "Zoning for Beauty", New England Law Review, 5, Fall, 1969, p. 1. 139. Nicoson, William J., "Land Use Controls: In Search of the Public Interest", Urban Land, 31, February, 1972, pp. 11-15. 140. Parsons, "Public and Private Rights in the Foreshore", Columbia Law Review, 22, 1922, p. 706. 141. Pearl, Milton A., "Historical View of Public Land Disposal and the American Land Use Pattern", California Western Law Review, 4, Spring, 1968, pp. 45-75. 142. Pearl, M.A., "Public Land Policy: A Time for Review", State Govern- ment, 39, pp. 138-46. 143. Plater, Z.J.B., "Takings Issue in a Natural Setting: Floodlines and the Police Power", Texas Law Review, 52, January, 1974, pp. 201-56. 1PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CARONA 105 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. L-ADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 144. Platt, G.M., "Valid Spot Zoning: A Creative Tool for Flexibility of Land Use", Oregon Law Review, 48, April, 1969, p. 245. 145. Poole, R.E., "Restrictive Covenants", New Law Journal, 117, June 19, 1969, p. 583. 146. Porro, A.A., Jr., and L.S. Toleky, "Marshland Title Dilemma: A Tidal Phenomenon", Seton Hall Law Review, 3, Spring, 1972, p. 323. 147. Porro, "Invisible Boundary--Private and Sovereign Marshland Interests", Natural Resources Law, 3, 1970, p. 512. 148. Reilly, W.K., "New Directions in Federal Land Use Regulation", Urban Law Annual, 1973, p. 29. 149. Reis, "Policy and Planning for Recreational Use of Inland Water", Temple Law Quarterly, 40, 1967, p. 155. 150. Reps, "The Zoning of Undeveloped Areas", Syracuse Law Review, 3, 1952, p. 292. 151. Rice, "Estuarine Land of North Carolina: Legal Aspect of Ownership, Use and Control", North Carolina Law Review, 46, 1968, p. 779. 152. Riggs, '.The Alienability of the State's Title to the Foreshore", Columbia Law Review, 12, 1912, p. 395. 153. Roberts, "The Luttes Case: Locating the Boundary of the Seashore", Baylor Law Review, 12, 1960, p. 141. 154. Ryekman, W.E., Jr., "The Use of Property is Invalid as a Taking Without Compensation", Natural Resources Journal, 6, January, 1966, p. 8. 155. Samuels, A., Public Law, 1969, Spring, 1969, p. 19. 156. Sax, "Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention", Michigan Law Review, 68, 1970, p. 473. 157. Schoenbaum, "The Management of Land and Water Use in the Coastal Zone: A New Law is Enacted in North Carolina", North Carolina Law Review, 53, 1974, p. 275. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 106 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA IPUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight I~Part Eight ~Bibliography LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 158. Schoenbaum, T.J., "Public Rights and Coastal Zone Management", North Carolina Law Review, 51, November, 1972, p. 1. 159. Schroeder, M.R., "Public Regulation of Private Land Use in Arizona: An Analysis of its Scope and Potential", Law and the Social Order, 1973, pp. 747-814. 160. Searles, S.Z., "Aesthetics and the Law", New York State Bar Journal, 41, April, 1969, p. 210. 161. Searles, S.Z., "Highest and Best Use: The Keystone of Valuation in Eminent Domain", New York State Bar Journal, 45, January, 1973, p. 36. 162. Shavelson, "Gion v. City of Santa Cruz - Where Do We Go From Here?", California State Bar Journal, 47, 1972, p. 415. 163. Silverstone, S., "Open Space Preservation Through Conservation Ease- ments", Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 12, May, 1974, pp. 105-24. 164. Simonton, "Ways by Necessity", Columbia Law Review, 25, 1925, p. 571. 165. Stoebuck, W.B., "Condemnation of Riparian Rights: A Species of Taking Without Touching", Louisiana Law Review, 30, April, 1970, p. 394. 166. Stone, Albert W., "Legal Background on Recreational Use of Montana Waters", iontana Law Review, 32, Winter, 1971, p. 1. 167. Stone, Albert W., "Recreational Use of Montana Waters: A Legal Background", Montana Business Quarterly, 7, Winter, 1971, pp. 38-48. 168. Strauss, P.C., "New York Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System Act", Urban Law Annual, 1973, p. 137. 169. Sussna, S., "New Tools for Open Space Preservation", Urban Lawyer, 2, Winter, 1970, p. 87. 170. Tarlock, A.D., "Preservation of Scenic Rivers", Kentucky Law Journal, 55, Summer, 1967, p. 745. 171. Tarlock, A.D. and R. Tippy, "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968", Cornell Law Review, 55, May, 1970, p. 707. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 107 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS St RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAHATO.LER&ICRD Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 172. Taylor, "The Seashore and the People", Cornell Law Quarterly, 10, 1925, p. 303. 173. Taylor, P.S., "Water, Land and Environment, Imperial Valley: Law Caught in the Winds of Politics", Natural Resources Journal, 13, January, 1973, p. 1. 174. Teclaff, L.A., "Coastal Zone - Control Over Encroachments to the Tide- waters", Journal of Maritime Law, 1, January, 1970, p. 241. 175. Teclaff and Teclaff, "Saving the Land-Water Edge from Recreation, for Recreation", Arizona Law Review, 14, 1972, p. 39. 176. Tilden, R.J., "Public Inducements for Industrial Location: A Lesson from Massachusetts", Maine Law Review, 18, 1966, p. 1. 177. Tiley, J., "Easements, Options and Perpetuities", Solicitors' Journal, 110, 1966, pp. 694, 720. 178. Tillinghast, "Tide-Flowed Lands and Riparian Rights in the United States", Harvard Law Review, 18, 1905, p. 341. *179. Tindall, F.P., "The Care of a Coastline (East Lothian County, Scotland)" and "Strategic Planning for the Coast: The Example of Cornwall", Town Planning Institute Journal, 53, November, 1967, pp. 387-97. 180. Town, 4.A. and W.W.L. Yuen, "Public Access to Beaches in Hawaii: A Social Necessity", Hawaii Bar Journal, 10, Spring, 1973,'p. 5. 181. Vaughn, G.F., "In Search of Standards for Preserving Open Space", Public Administration Review, 24, December, 1969, p. 259. 182. Vines, William R., "Florida Beach Resources Management Needs", Florida Planning & Development, 18, June, 1967, pp. 1+. 183. Waite, G.G., "Beneficial Use of Water in a Riparian Jurisdiction", Wisconsin Law Review, 1969, p. 864. 184. Waite, G.G., "The Dilemma of Water Recreation and a Suggested Solution", Wisconsin Law Review, 1958, p. 542. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 108i P C BCH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA' IPart Eight Bibliography LEGAL Signed Periodicals (cont'd) 185. Waite, G.G., "Public Rights in Maine Waters", Maine Law Review, 1965, reprint. 186. Waite, "Public Rights to Use and Have Access to Navigable Waters", Wisconsin Law Review, 1958, p. 335. 187. Walnut, A. and S. Sussna, "Dune Protection Ordinance", American City, 80, October, 1965, pp. 105-6. 188. Wershaw, J.S., "Au Valorem Taxes in Florida - hhither Now?", university of Florida Law Review, 18, Summer, 1965, p. 9. 189. Wnaram, Alan, "The Seashore", Journal of Planning and Environmental Law, December, 1974, pp. 705-13. 190. Wiel, "Natural Communism: Air, Water, Oil, Sea, and Seashore", Harvard Law Review, 1934, p. 425. ~~~~* ~191. Williams, N., Jr., "Three Systems of Land Use Control", Rutgers Law Review, 25, Fall, 1970, p. 80. 192. Winters, J.M., "Environmentally Sensitive Land Use Regulation in California", San Diego Law Review, 10, June, 1973, pp. 693-756. 193. Wolff, A., "We Shall Fight Them on the Beaches: Controversy Over Free Public Access", Harper's Magazine, 247, August, 1973, pp. 55-8. 194. Yiannopoulos, "Public Use of the Banks of Navigable Rivers in Louisiana", Louisiana Law Review, 31, 1971, p. 563. 195. Zipser, H.A., "Zoning Classification and Eminent Domain", Urban Lawyer, 1, Spring, 1969, p. 89. 109 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals 1. "Access to Public Lands Across Intervening Private Lands", Land & Water Law Review, 8, 1973, p. 149. 2. "Access to Public Municipal Beaches: The Formulation of a Comprehen- sive Legal Approach", Suffolk University Law Review, 7, 1973, p. 93�. 3. "Acquisitions of Easements by the Public Through Use", San Diego Law Review, 16, Winter, 1971, p. 150. 4. "Act to Provide Compensation for Loss of Good Will Resulting From Eminent Domain Proceedings", Harvard Journal on Legislation, 3, May, 1966, p. 445. 5. "Ad Valorem Taxes - Omitted Property and Improvement Assessments", Natural Resources Journal, 6, January, 1966, p. 105. 6. -"Aesthetic Considerations in Land Use Planning", Albany Law Review, 35, 1970, p. 126. 7. "Aesthetics vs. Free Enterprise: A Symposium", Practical Lawyer, 15, Februaryj 1969, p. 17. 8. "Aesthetic Zoning: A Current Evaluation of the Law", University of Florida Law Review, 13, Winter, 1966, p. 430. 9. "Aluvion, Islands and Sand Bars", Tulane Law Review, 47, February, 1973, p. 367. 10. "Area of Critical State Concern: Its Potential for Effective Regula- tion", University of Florida Law Review, 26, Summer, 1974, p. 858. 11. "Are Water Rights Marketable in Wisconsin?", Wisconsin Law Review, 1966, p. 942. .12. "Batl1e of the Beaches: Question of Territorial Rights", Newsweek, 80, August 14, 1972, p. 70. i3. "Bibliography of Materials on the Law of Zoning", Tulsa Law Journal, 4, January, 1967, p. 118. 14. "Bibliography of Recent Books and Periodicals", Natural Resources Lawyer, 3, May, 1970, p. 357. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1 1 0 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight I~Part Eight ~Bibliography LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 15. "Big Squeeze: California's Comprehensive Shoreline Regulation", Architectural Forum, 138, May, 1969, p. 16. 16. "California Beach Access: The Mexican Law and the Public Trust", Ecology Law Quarterly, 2, 1972, p. 571. 17. "Californians Need Beaches - Maybe Yours!", San Diego Law Review, 7, July, 1970, p. 605. 18. "California Surface Water Law", Hastings Law Journal, 17, May, 1966, p. 826. 19. "California's Tidelands Trust for Modifiable Public Purposes", Loyola University Law Review (LA), 6, September, 1973, p. 485. 20. "California's Tideland Trust: Shoring It Up", Hastings Law Journal, 22, February, 1971, p. 759. 21. "Coastal Area Management Act in the Courts: A Preliminary Analysis", North Carolina Law Review, 53, December, 1974, p. 303. 22. "Coastal Commissions: What Have They Done?", California Journal, 4, November, 1973, p. 377. 23. "Coastal Controls in California: Wave of the Future?", Harvard Journal of Legislation, 11, 1974, p. 463. 24. "Coastal Land Use Development: A Proposal for Cumulative Area-Wide Zoning", North Carolina Law Review, 49, 1971, p. 866. 25. "Coastal Wetlands in New England", Boston University Law Review, 52, 1972, p. 724. 26. "Coastal Zone Management--The Tidelands: Legislative Apathy vs. Judicial Concern", San Diego Law Review, 8, 1971, p. 695. 27. "Coastal Zoning", The Vanderbilt International, 4, Spring, 1971, p. 127. 28. "Coastline Crisis", Pacific Law Journal, 2, January, 1971, p. 226. 111PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINAHATO.LDR&RCRS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 29. "Common Law Doctrine of Implied Dedication and Its Effect on the California Coastline Property Owner: Gion v. City of Santa Cruz", Loyola University (LA) Law Review, 2, 1971, p. 438. 30. "Compensation for the Right of Access to Navigable Waters", Washington and Lee Law Review, 26, Spring, 1967, p. 136. 31. "Comprehensive Planning: Only as Certain as Your Survival", Hawaii Bar Journal, 8, April, 1971, p. 15. 32. "Constitutional Revision--Water Rights", National Resources Journal, 9, July, 1969, p. 471. 33. "Constitutional Sanctity of a Property Interest in a Riparian Right", Washington University Law Quarterly, Summer, 1969, p. 327. 34. "Conveyances of Sovereign Lands Under Public Trust Doctrine: When Are They in the Public Interest?", University of Florida Law Review, 24, 1972, p. 285. .35. "County Regulation of Land Use and Development", Natural Resources Journal, 9, April, 1969, p. 266. 36. "Debate Over Delaware's Tough Coastal Use Law", Business Week, March 2, 1974, p. 71. 37. "Decision Making Process for the California Coastal Zone", Southern California Law Review, 46, March, 1973, p. 513. 38. "Deeds: Covenants and Conditions", Baylor Law Review, 16, Spring, 1964, p. 147. 39. "Dilemma of Preserving Open Space: How to Make Californians an Offer They Can't Refuse", Santa Clara Lawyer, 13, Winter, 1972, p. 284. 40. "Does Public User Give Rise to a Prescriptive Easement or Is It Merely Evidence of Dedication", Texas Law Review, 6, 1928, p. 365. 41. "Draft of Model Eminent Domain Code", Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 2, Fall, 1967, p. 365. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 112 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Bibliography LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 42. "Easement: Tool or Trap for the Land-Use Planner?", New York University Law Review, 21, November, 1967, p. 42. 43. "Easements: Judicial and Legislative Protection of the Public's Rights in Florida's Beaches", University of Florida Law Review, 25, 1973, p. 5S6. 44. "Easements of N4ecessity to Reach Public Lands", Wyoming Law Journal, 13, 1958, p. 51. 45. " asamnsto Preserve OCpen Space Land", Ecology Law Quarterly, 1, Fall, 1971, p. 728. 46. "Ecological and Legal Aspects of Flood-Plain Zoning", Kansas Law Review, 20, Winter, 1972, p. 268. 47. "Elimination of Non-Conforming Uses: Alternatives and Adjuncts to �-~ ~ ~~Amortization", UCLA Law Review, 14, November, 1966, p. 354. 48. "Eminent Domain and the Environment", Cornell Law Review, 56, April, i 1971, p. 651. x, 49. "Eminent Domain - Ecological Considerations and the Control of Land", i ,4z<'>"~~ iSuffolk University Law Review, 5, Spring, 1971, p. 1079. 50. "Eminent Domain - The Meaning of the Term 'Public Use' - Its Effect Li Lon Excess Condemnation", Mercer Law Review, 18, Fall, 1966, p. 274. 51. "Eminent Domain: Providing Highest and Best Use of Undeveloped Land in Utah", Utah Law Review, Winter 1973, p. 705. 52. "Enforcing the Coastal Act - Citizens' Suits and Attorneys' Fees", California State Bar Journal, 49, May-June, 1974, p. 236. 53. "English Doctrine of Custom in Oregon Property Law: State ex. rel. Thornton v. Hay", Environmental Law, 4, 1974, p. 383. 54. "Environment Control: A Symposium", Denver Law Journal, 45, Spring, 1968, p. 145. 55. "Environmental Control: Guide or Roadblock to Land Development: A Symposium", Villanova Law Review, 19, May, 1974, p. 703. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREAON IN SOUTH CARONA 113 HARZOG. LADER & RICHARDS PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 56. "Environmental Land Use Control: Common Law and Statutory Approaches", University of Miami Law Review, 28, Fall, 1973, p. 135. 57. "Environmental Law - Expanding the Definition of Public Trust Uses", North Carolina Law Review, 51, 1972, p. 316. 58. "Environmental Law - Wetland Fill Restrictions Do Not Constitute A Compensable 'Taking' Within the Meaning of the 5th Amendment", Seton Hall Law Review, 4, Spring, 1973, p. 662. 59. "Fishing and Recreational Rights in Iowa Lakes and Streams", Iowa Law Review, 53, June, 1968, p. 1322. 60. "Floodplain Zoning in California Open Space by Another Name: Policy and Practicality", San Diego Law Review, 70, 1973, p. 381. 61. "Florida Constitution and Legislative Clarification for Tax Assess- ment Purposes", University of Florida Law Review, 17, Spring, 1965, p. 609. - 62. "Florida's Sovereignty Submerged Lands: What Are They, Who Owns Them and Where Is the Boundary?", Florida State Law Review, 1, 1973, p. 596. 63. "Fluctuating Shorelines and Tidal Boundaries: An Unresolved Problem", San Diego Law Review, 6, 1969, p. 447. 64. "Forced Dedications in California", Hastings Law Journal, 20, January, 1969, p. 755. 65. "Forest Taxation in Maine: A Proposal", Maine Law Review, 21, 1969, p. 109. 66. "Government Control of Land: Protecting the I-know-it-when-I-see-it Interest", Northwestern University Law Review, 62, July-August, 1967, p. 428. 67. "Hawaiian Beach Access: A Customary Right", Hastings Law Journal, 2, 1975, p. 823. 68. "Implied Dedication: A Threat to the Owners of California's Shoreline", Santa Clara Lawyer, 11, Spring, 1971, p. 327. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 114 1 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Bibliography LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) -I~ ~69. "Improved Policy Making for the Multiple Use of Public Lands", University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 5, Spring, 1972, p. 485. 70. "Lake Tahoe: The Future of a National Asset - Land Use, Water and Pollution", California Law Review, 52, August, 1969, p. 563. 71. "Land Planning and the Law: Emerging Policies and Techniques - A Symposium", UCLA Law Review, 12, March, 1965, p. 707. 72. "t`nd Subd-visaion R.gulation: Its Lffects and Constitutionality", St. John's Law Review, 41, January, 1967, p. 374. 73. "Land Use, Aesthetics and the State Legislature", Wayne Law Review, 19, November, 1972, p. 73. 74. "Land Use - Mandatory Dedication for Park and Recreational Facilities", Arkansas Law Review, 26, 1972, p. 415. 75. "Land Use Regulation for Protection of Public Parks and Recreational Areas", Texas Law Review, 45, 1966, p. 45. 76. "Land Use - Wetlands Regulation", Arkansas Law Review, 27, Fall, 1973, p. 527. 77. "Large Lot Zoning", Yale Law Journal, 78, July, 1969, p. 1418. 78. "Legal Methods of Historic Preservation", Buffalo Law Review, 19, Spring, 1970, p. 611. 79. "Legislation Concerning Public Access to Private Roads - From the Point of View of a Forest Company", University of British Columbia Law Review, 3, March, 1967, p. 275. 80. "Legislation - The Delaware Coastal Zone Act", Buffalo Law Review, 21, Winter, 1972, p. 481. 81. "Legislation to Preserve and Control Open Space Land", Harvard Journal of Legislation, 6, November, 1968, p. 57. 82. "Man's Activities in Watershed Areas - A Need for Planning", Environ- mental Law, 4, Winter, 1974, p. 229. PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 11 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 83. "Maryland's Wetlands: The Legal Quagmire", Maryland Law Review, 30, 1970, p. 250. 84. "Michigan's Citizen Participation Statute", Urban Law Annual, 1970, p. 231. 85. "Mississippi Public Trust Doctrine: Public and Private Rights in the Coastal Zone", Mississippi Law Journal, 46, Winter, 1975, p. 84. 86. "Modification of the Riparian Theory and Due Process in Missouri," Missouri Law Review, 34, Fall, 1970, p. 562. 87. "Municipal Enforcement of Private Restrictive Covenants: An Innovation in Land-Use Control", Texas Law Review, 44, March, 1966, p. 741. 88. "New Fish and Game Law May Help: Save our Tidepools; Watching Tidepools", -'Sunset, 144, March, 1970, pp. 3-4.' 89. "Non-Resident Beach Fees: Do the BeachesBelong to the People", The Municipal Attorney, 13,'1972, p. 236. 90. "On the Legal Aspects of North Carolina Coastal Problems: A Symposium", North Carolina.Law Review, 49, August, 1971, p. 866. 91. "Open Space Legislation: Suggestions for a Model Act", Georgia Law Review, 2, Winter, 1969, p. 294. 92. "Ordinance Providing a Residency-Differentiated Fee Schedule for Use of a Municipal Beach is Invalid as a Violation of the Public Trust Doctrine', University of Cincinnati Law Review, 42, 1973, p. 554. 93. "Outdoor Recreation: Land Acquisition", American County Government, March, 1968. 94. "Park Planning and the Acquisition of Open Space: A Case Study," University of Chicago Law Review, 36, Spring, 1969, p. 642. 95. "Permissible Uses of New York's Forest Preserve Under 'Forever Wild'", Syracuse Law Review, 19, 1968, p. 969. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1 1 6 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA IPart Eight Bibliography LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 96. "Place of Aesthetics in Zoning", DePauw Law Review, 14, Autumn-Winter, 1964, p. 104. 97. "Preservation of n..diana's Scenic Areas: A Method", Indiana Law Journal, 40, Spring, 1965, p. 402. 98. "Preservation of Park Lands", Baylor Law Review, 24, 1972, p. 170. 99. "Preserving Rural Land Resources: The California West Side", Ecology ,aw Quarterly, i, Spring, i9i, p. 330. 100. "Problem on the Fringe: Conflict in Urban-Rural Transition Areas", Ohio State Law Journal, 31, Winter, 1970, p. 125. 101. "Progress and Problems in Wisconsin's Scenic and Conservation Easement Program", Wisconsin Law Review, Spring, 1965, p. 352. 102. "Property Taxation of Agricultural and Open Space Land", Harvard Journal of Legislation, 8, November, 1970, p. 158. 103. "Property - Wharfing Out - Riparian Owner Permitted to Use Filled-In Swamp as a Wharf to Reach Navigable Waters", San Diego Law Review, 7, July, 1970, p.- 684. 104. "Proposals for State-wide Planning in North Carolina", Wake Forest Law Review, 8, June, 1972, p. 407. 105. "Public Access to Beaches: Common Law Doctrines and Constitutional Challenges", New York University Law Review, 48, lay, 1973, p. 369. 106. "Public Access to Beaches", Stanford Law Review, 22, February, 1970, p. 564. 107. "Public Lands - The Public Trust Doctrine Includes a Right to Equality of Access to Municipal Beach Areas", Loyola University Law Journal, 4, 1973, p. 603. 108. "Public or Private Ownership of Beaches: An Alternative to Implied Dedication", UCLA Law Review, 18, 1971, p. 794. 109. "Public Ownership of Land Through Dedication", Harvard Law Review, 75, 1962, p. 1406. 117 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 117 j ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 110. "Public Recreation on Non-Navigable Lakes and the Doctrine of Reasonable Use", Iowa Law Review, 55, 1970, p. 1064. 111. "Public Rights and the Nation's Shoreline", ELR, 2, 1972, p. 10184. 112. "Public Rights in Public Lands", Montana Law Review, 32, Winter, 1971, p. 147. 113. "The Public Trust in Public Waterways", Urban Law Annual, 7, 1974, p. 219. 114. "Public Trust in Tidal Areas: A Sometime Submerged Traditional Doctrine", Yale Law Journal, 79, March, 1970, p. 762. 115. "Real Property", University of Miami Law Review, 28, 1973, p. 1. 116. "Real Property - Doctrine of Customary Rights - Customary Public Use of Privately Owned Beach Precludes Activity of Owner Inconsistent with Public Interest", Florida State University Law Review, 2, Fall, 1974, p. 806. 117. "Real Property Easements - Prescriptive Acquisition in North Carolina", North Carolina Law Review, 45, December, 1966, p. 284. 118. "Real Property: Easements by Prescription in Oklahoma", Oklahoma Law Review, 24, 1971, p. 266. 119. "Reconciling Competing Public Claims on Land", Columbia Law Review, 68, 1968, p. 155. 120. "Recreational Planning: A Symposium", Kentucky Law Journal, 55, Summer, 1967, p. 745. 121. "Regulation and Ownership of the Marshlands: The Georgia Marshlands Act", Georgia Law Review, 5, 1971, p. 563. o 122. "Requirement of a Public Use. for Expenditure of Public Funds: A Reappraisal of the Narrow Doctrine", University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 28, December, 1966, p. 329. 123. "Restrictive Covenants and Zoning Regulations", Tennessee Law Review, 31, Spring, 1964, p. 353. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 118 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SouTH CAROLINA *Part Eight Bibliography LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 124. "Riparian Rights Doctrine in South Carolina", South Carolina Law Review, 21, 1969, p. 757. 125. "Riparian Water Law - Lakeshore Development", Wisconsin Law Review, Winter, 1966, p. 172. 126. "Sand for the People: Oregon Decision on Public Use of Beachland", Nation, 210, February 23, 1970, p. 196. 127. "Saving the Coast: The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972", Golden Gate Law Review, 4, Spring, 1974, p. 307. 128. "Saving San Francisco Bay: A Case Study in Environmental Legislation", Stanford Law Review, 23, January, 1971, p. 349. 129. "Saving the Seashore: Management Planning for the Coastal Zone", Hastings Law Journal, 25, 1973, p. 191. 130. "Site Value Taxation: Economic Incentives and Land Use Planning", Harvard Journal of Legislation, 9, November, 1971, p. 115. 131. "State Citizen Rights Respecting GreatWater Resource Allocation: From Rome to New Jersey", Rutgers Law Review, 25, 1971, p. 571. 132. "State and Local Wetlands Regulation: The Problem of Taking Without Just Compensation", Virginia Law Review, 58, May, 1972, p. 876. 133. "Subdivision Control Requirement for Park Land", Syracuse Law Review, 12, 1961, p. 224. 134. "Supreme Court of California, 1969-1970", California Law Review, 59, 1971, p. 30. 135. "Symposium: California's Coastline", California State Bar Journal, 47, September-October, 1972, p. 402. 136. "Symposium: Eminent Domain", Hastings Law Journal, 20, January, 1969, p. 431. 137. "Symposium on Recreational Land Use", Syracuse Law Review, 24, Summer, 1973, pp. 927-1066. 119 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER& RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 138. "Symposium: The Ownership, Administration and Disposal of the Public Lands", Arizona Law Review, 8, Fall, 1966, p. 4. 139. "Symposium: Planned-Unit Development", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 114, November, 1965, p. 3. 140. "Symposium: Presenting An Analysis of the Public Land Law Review Commission Report", Land and Water Law Review, 12, Winter, 1970, p. 733. 141. "Techniques for Preserving Open Space", Harvard Law Review, 75, 1962, p. 1622. 142. "Testing the New Land Use Laws: California's Coastal Zoning Rules", Business Week, July 7, 1973, p. 84. * 143. "This Land is My Land: The Doctrine of Implied Dedication and Its Application to California Beaches", Southern California Law Review, 44, 1971, p. 1092. 144. "Tideland Ownership - Time for Reform", University of Cincinnati Law Review, 36, 1967, p. 121. 145. "Tideland Trust: Economic Currents in a Traditional Legal Doctrine", UCLA Law Review, 21, February, 1974, p. 826. o 146. "Toward Optimal Land Use: Property Tax Policy and Land Use Planning", California Law Review, 55, August, 1967, p. 856. 147. "Utah Statute Construed to Permit Dedication of Land Solely on the Basis of Public Use", Utah Law Review, December, 1966, p. 735. 148. "Validity Roles Concerning Public Zoning and Private Covenants: A Comparison and Critique", Southern California Law Review, 39, 1966, p. 409. 149. "Vanishing Wildlife and Federal Protection Efforts", Ecology Law Quarterly, 1, Summer, 1971, p. 520. 150. "Variations in Land Use Controls", Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 1, Winter, 1966, p. 431. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 1 20 PUBLICBEACHACCESSRECREATIONINSOUTHCAROLINA PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA *Part Eight Bibliography LEGAL Unsigned Periodicals (cont'd) 151. Water Appropriation for Recreation", Land and Water Law Review, 1, 1966, p. 209. 152. "Water Law - Artificial Versus Natural Fluctuation of Water Level of Navigable Lake - Rights of the Public Held Same in Both Situations", Land and Water Law Review, 5, 1970, p. 517. 153. Water Law - Public Trust Doctrine Bars Discriminatory Fees to Non-Residents for Use of Municipal Beaches", Rutgers Law Review, 26, 1972, p. 179. 154. 'Water Recreation - Public Use of 'Private Waters"', California Law Review, 52, 1964, p. 171. 155. "Waters and Watercourses - Public Trust Doctrine - An Ordinance Providing a Residency.Differentiated Fee Schedule for Use of a Municipal Beach is Invalid as a Violation of the Public Trust Doctrine", University of Cincinnati Law Review, 42, 1973, p. 554. 156. "Waters and Watercourses - Right of Public Passage Along Great Lakes Beaches", Michigan Law Review, 31, 1933, p. 1134. 157. "Wetlands Statutes: Regulation or Taking?", Connecticut Law Review, 5, Summer, 1972, p. 64. 158. "Who Owns the Beaches?", Time, 94, August 29, 1969, p. 43. 159. "Within the Meaning of the 5th Amendment", Seton Hall Law Review, 4, Spring, 1970, p. 662. 160. "Zoning the Flood Plains of Ohio", University of Toledo Law Review, Summer, 1969, p. 655. 161. "Zoning for Industrial Waterfronts", Florida Planning and Develop- ment, 17, March, 1966, p. 1. 121 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Signed News Articles 1. Meade, Fred, "NMB Vote May Settle Argument", Sun News, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, May 22, 1974. 2. Meade, Fred, "Easements No Laughing Matter", Sun News, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, June 13, 1974. 3. Monk, John, "Council Refuses Bryan Rezoning", Sun News, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, June 19, 1974. LEGAL Unsigned News Articles 1. "Bryan Drive Hearing Set", Sun News, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, February 4, 1974. 2. "Court Nixes Condominium", Sun News, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, January 29, 1974. 3. "Do The Beaches Belong to the People?", New York Times, July 30, 1992. 4. "Dredging Permit Rulings Revised", Sun News, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, April 13, 1974. 5. "NMB Land Decision Postponed", Sun News, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, April 2, 1974. 6. "Ramsey Acres Topic Annexation", Sun News, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, February 22, 1974. 7. "Suit Threatened on Connecticut Beach Restrictions", New York Times, October 1, 1972. 8. "Supreme Court Hears Dispute", Sun News, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, February 12, 1974. HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 122C PUBLIc BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Bibliography LEGAL Legal Cases 1. Adams v. Elliott, 128 Fla. 79, 174 So. 731 (1937). 2. Allen v. Allen, 19 R.I. 114, 32 A.166 (1895). 3. In re Ashford, 40 Hawaii 314, 440 P.2d 7C (1968). 4. Barclay v. Howell's Lessee, 31 U.S. 498 (1832). 5. Barnes v. Midland R.R. Co., 193 N. 378 (1903). 6. Bloom v. State Water Resources Commission, 157 Conn. 528, 254 A.2d 884 (1969). 7. Board of Trustees of International Improvement Trust Fund v. M4adeira Beach Nominee, Inc., 272 So.2d 209 (Ct. App. Fla., 1973). 8. Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10 (1935). 9. Borough of Neptune City v. Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea, 61 N.J. 296 294 A.2d 47 (1972). 10. Brindley V. Borough of Lavallette, 33 N.J. Super. 344, 110 A.2d 157 (L. Div. 1954). 11. Carolina Beach Fishing Pier, Inc. v. Town of Carlina Beach, 277 N.C. 297, 177 S.E.2d 513 (1970). 12. City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc., 294 So.2d 73 (1974). 13. City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court, 231 Cal. App. 2d 294, 41 Cal. Rptr. 796 (1964). 14. City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal. 3d. 462, 476 Pwd 423 (1970). 15. City of Manhattan Beach v. Cortelyou, 10 Cal. 2d 653, 76 P2d 483 (1938). 16. Collins v. Gerhardt, 237 Mich. 38, 211 N.W. 114 (1927). 17. County of Hawaii v. Sotomura, 55 Ha. 176, 517 P.2d 57 (1973). 18. Coxe v. State, 144 N.J. 396 (1895). 19. Delaplane v. Crenshaw, 56 Va., (15 Gratt.) 457 (1860). 123 PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Bibliography Part Eight LEGAL Legal Cases (cont'd) 20. Dincans v. Keenan, 192 S.W. 603 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1917). 21. Elmer v. Rodgers, 106 N.H. 512, 214 A.2d 750 (1965). 22. Galveston East Beach, Inc. v. State of Texas. 23. F.A. Hihn v. City of Santa Cruz, 170 Cal. 436 (1915). 24. Gerwitz v. City of Long Beach, 69 Miisc. 2d 763, 330 N.Y.S. 2d 495 (Sup. Ct. 1972), Aff'd mem., 358 N.Y.S. 2d 957 (App. Div. 1974). 25. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, Dietz v. King, 2 Cal.3d 29, 465 P.2d to, 84 Cal. Rptr. 162 (1970) (En Banc). 26. Graham v. Walker, 78 Conn. 130, 61 A. 98 (1905). 27. Hughes v. State, 67 Wa. 2d 799, 410 P.2d 20 (1966), rev'd sub nom., Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290 (1967). 28. Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290 (1967). 29. Illinois Central R.R. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). 30. Johnson v. May, 189 App. Div. 196, 178 N.Y.S. 742 (1919). 31. Just v. Marinette Co., 56 Wis. 2d 7, 201 N.W. wd 761 (1962). 32. King v. Oahu Ry. & Land Co., 11 Ha. 717 (1899). 33. Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251, 491 P.2d 374 (1971). 34. McCarthy v. City of Manhattan Beach, 41 Cal. 2d 879, 264 P.2d 932 (1953), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 817 (1954). 35. Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. 367 (1842). 36. Money v. Wood, 152 Miss. 17, 118 So. 357 (1928). 37. Nekoosa. Edwards Paper Co. v. RR Commission, 201 Wis. 40, 228, N.W. 144, 229 N.W. 631 (1930). 38. Nudd v. Hobbs, 17 N.H. 524 (1845). HARTZOG, LADER & RICHARDS 124 RBLIC BEACH ACCESS & RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA Part Eight Bibliography LEGAL Legal Cases (cont'd) 39. People v. William Kent Estate, 242 Cal. App. 2d 156 (lst Dist. Ct.App. 1966). 40. Oregon v. Fultz, 491 P.2d 1171 (1971). 41. Perley v. Langley, 7 N.H. 233 (1834). 42. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845). 43. Seaway Co. v. Attorney General, 375 S.W.2d 923 (Tex. Civ. App. 1964). 44.. Shepard's Point Land Co. v. Atlantic Hotel, 132 N.S. 335, 44 S.E. 39 (1903). 45. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (1894). 46. Spiegle v. Borough of Beach Haven, 116 N.J. Super. 148, 281 A.2d 377 (1971). 47. Spiegle v. Borough of Beach Haven, 46 N.J. 479, 281 A.2d 129 cert. denied 385 U.S. 331 (1966). 48. State v. Bauman, ilo. 28831 (Ct. App. Ore. Jan. 21, 1974, Ore. S.Ct. review denied April 1, 1974), 4 E.L.R. 20311. 49. State ex rel. Thompson v. Parker, 132 Ark. 315, 200 S.W. 101r (1918). 50. VanRuymbeke v. Patapsco Indus. Park, 251 1D. 470, 276 A.2d 61 (1971). 51. State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, 254 Or. 584, 462 P.2d 671 (1969). 52. Trustees of Brookhaven v. Smith, 188 N.Y. 74 (1907). 53. Tucci v. Salzhauer, 69 Misc. 2d 225, 329 N.Y.S. 2d 825 (Sup. Ct. 1972), aff'd mem., 33 N.Y. 2d 854, 352 I.Y.S. 2d 198 (1973). 54. White v. Hughes, 139 Fla. 54 190 So. 446 (1939). PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS 8 RECREATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 125 HARTZOG. LADER & RICHARDS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ARZ.LAE&RICAD