As stated in certain of the reports on the several areas covered by 
the study, groins may be used to a limited extent to assist in accumulat- 
ing or retaining a sandy protective beach. The amount of sand naturally 
available to the shore is generally insufficient to make this a feasible 
means of providing adequate shore protection for any extensive frontage. 
Where used effectively for a limited frontage it would reduce the amount 
of sand being transported alongshore and adversely affect an adjacent 
frontage. 
In the absence of a natural supply of beach material, beaches can 
be placed or widened by artificial placement of sand on the shore. It 
may be placed directly along the full extent of the shore to be protected, 
in stockpiles to be distributed by wave action, or as a feeder beach to 
provide a continuing supply of material to maintain the existing beach. 
Where there are extensive frontages between littoral barriers, artificial 
supply of material frequently becomes the least costly method of prevent- 
ing recession of the shore line, as the supply of material maintains the 
entire frontage. 
An investigation of offshore deposits of sand in the vicinity of 
Lorain and Fairport Harbors was made in connection with a previous report. 
The purpose of this investigation was to locate adequate sources of sand 
for the construction of beaches for shore protection and improvement. 
Ir was found that large reserves of suitable sand are available in the 
deposits investigated. Further investigation may reveal additional de- 
posits not presently known. 
A complete investigation of sources of sand for beach construction 
and maintenance and of methods of placement was beyond the scope of the 
reports under the cooperative study. If a comprehensive plan of beach 
construction is adopted, more economical methods of placement can in all 
probability be developed than are presently available. The Board believed 
that the plan of protection by artificially placed and maintained beaches 
may be found to be the most econo mical method of protection for any 
extensive reach of shore. 
As the Board did not consider the economic justification of protection 
for any large segment gf shore including both publicly and privately owned 
frontages, it could not comment on the relative costs of large scale 
protection and the economic cost of gradual toss of Land by recession of 
the shore at rates up to nearly 5 feet annually. The latter varies with 
the use of the land. Where land is developed with costly manufacturing 
or power plants high cost protection is warranted. In the case of unused 
land the cost of protection is obviously unjustified. In the latter case 
and where buildings can be readily moved landward as the shore recedes, 
or have an economic life less than the period until recession caused their 
destruction, an alternative solution is to permit continuing recession 
of the shore. In this solution, it would be advisable to restrict future 
construction to types having an economic life less than the period until 
the shore recession reaches their position. 
20 
