01/30/2009
D
R
A
F
T
CSE
–S&W–DEW [DRAFT]
Accreted Land Management Plan
18
2253 [30 JANUARY 2009]
Town of Sullivan’s Island, SC
preservation of views, maintenance of dense understory cover, expansion of one dominant
shrub species, ongoing cost of pruning, and potential increase in fire hazard.
The Team evaluated the potential impact of more extensive vegetation controls such as re-
moval of shrubs and replacement with grasses along broad corridors to provide greater variety
of habitat, improve vistas, and reduce potential fire hazards. Controlled burning is one man-
agement measure that can lead to greater habitat diversity while reducing the density of under-
story vegetation. Expanded efforts at controlling the spread of invasive species or understory
vegetation potentially reduce associated problems with rodents while improving habitat for
certain birds such as painted buntings. Changes in vegetation have potential impacts on wave
attenuation during storm surges.
The Team used the existing variety of habitats to test alternative configurations during storm
surges (Section 5). This provides the community with a more quantitative basis for determin-
ing whether removal of dense shrub or tree vegetation increases the vulnerability of develop-
ment to damaging storm surges.
The final broad alternative considered relates to manipulation of the existing topography. The
Team evaluated the degree of protection afforded by the existing elevations in the AL area and
potential improved protection if a beneficial dune is constructed. The purpose of this analysis
was to determine whether a relatively small dune could provide better storm-surge protection
and reduce potential damages to oceanfront structures.
The various management alternatives were also considered with respect to the applicability
along various portions of the AL. For example, the Team’s review of existing conditions shows
considerable variation between the western half and eastern half of the AL area. Section 4
describes the historical evolution of the AL and helps explain why there are distinct differences
from one section to another. Present differences in vegetative cover suggest that the final
ALMP should consider site-specific management approaches which favor different objectives
rather than a single set of regulatory controls and guidelines for the entire area.
Each broad alternative will involve costs whether it is actual outlay to change vegetation and
the land or an aesthetic cost or potential reduction of property values if nothing is done. It is
beyond the scope of the ALMP to outline costs of all alternatives. Instead, the Team has at-
tempted to offer broad guidelines regarding quantities and costs under a limited selection of
alternatives. Detailed cost estimates will necessarily depend on the alternative approach(es)