Table 1 

 SHORELINE STUDIES AND NEEDS - 1967 



Maine 



New Hampshire . 

 Massachusetts . . 

 Rhode Island . . 

 Connecticut . . . 

 New York; 



Atlantic . . . . 



Great Lakes . . 

 New Jersey . . . . 



Delaware 



Maryland 



Virginia 



North Carolina . 

 South Carolina . 



Georgia 



Florida 



Puerto Rico and 



Virgin Islands. 



Alabama 



Mississippi . . . . 



Louisiana 



Texas 



California 



Oregon 



Washington . . . 



Alaska 



Hawaii 



Pennsylvania . . . 



Ohio 



Michigan 



Indiana 



Illinois 



Wisconsin 



Minnesota . . . . 



3,478 



131 



, 1,519 



384 



618 



, 1,850 

 408 



, 1,792 

 381 



, 3,190 

 3,315 

 3,375 

 2,876 

 2,314 

 8,426 



875 



607 



359 



7,721 



, 3,359 



. 3,427 



1,410 



3,026 



33,904 



1 ,092 



140 



312 



, 2,883 



45 



83 



820 



188 



10 

 18 



245 

 40 



618 



200 



8 



200 



200 



15 



400 



300 



200 



8,426 



24 

 20 

 50 

 50 

 50 

 3,000 



10 

 10 

 1,000 

 20 

 312 

 32 



83 

 100 



150 



150 



200 



3,190 



3,200 



500 



50 



10 



10 



100 



3,000 



1,000 

 300 



500 

 400 

 100 

 100 



100 



2,000 

 1,000 



800 



500 



300 



7,000 



3,000 



200 



1,000 



3,000 



5,000 



2,800 

 45 



700 

 188 



Total 94,324 15,621 7,575 33,034 



private interests, and the added cost of transport- 

 ing sand from remote inland areas. Materials 

 composing the bottom and sub-bottom of estu- 

 aries, lagoons and bays, in many instances, are not 

 suitable for long-term stabilization. 



Regardless of suitability, restraint also is in- 

 creasing in the use of any materials in tideland 

 areas, as evidenced by the many laws and ordi- 

 nances prohibiting such use due to the potential 

 ecological imbalances that may result. 



It thus becomes apparent that consideration 

 must be given to conserving sand to the most 

 practicable extent. This does not mean local 



hoarding of beach sand at the expense of adjoining 

 areas but rather the elimination of wasteful prac- 

 tices and the prevention of losses whenever feasi- 

 ble. 



Mechanical bypassing of sand at coastal inlets 

 (Figure 2) is one means of conservation that 

 should come into increasing use. Removal of beach 

 sand for building purposes, formerly common, is 

 rapidly being curtailed as coastal communities 

 learn the need to regulate this practice. Modern 

 hopper dredges, used for channel maintenance in 

 coastal inlets, are being equipped with pump-out 

 capabilities so their loads can be discharged on the 

 shore instead of being dumped at sea. Losses from 

 this practice are expected to be eliminated ulti- 

 mately. 



On the California coast, where large volumes of 

 sand are lost into deep submarine canyons near the 



Figure 2. Construction of harbor breakwaters 

 may disrupt the longshore movement of beach 

 sand replenishment as shown here at Shark River 

 Inlet, New Jersey. The Corps of Engineers has 

 installed a sand bypassing facility which trans- 

 ports sand from the "borrow area" south of 

 the inlet to three "feeder" areas on the north 

 side. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers photo) 



III-31 



