now known as East Beach. At the time of the study this accretion was still 

 active, although at a lower rate. 



A portion of the study area southwest of the jetty has been protected 

 by a massive concrete sea wall and embankment 6.7 miles in length, extending 

 to a point 7.U miles southwest of the jetty. The wall was constructed partly 

 by local interests and partly by the United States. A groin system compris- 

 ing 13 steel sheet pile groins was built by the United States between 1936 and 

 1939 along the westerly 3.8 miles of the wall. This groin system has been 

 effective in protecting the base of the sea wall by accumulating beach 

 material at a slow rate, but the increase in beach width above sea level 

 has been small. The slow rate of accumulation results in part from heavy 

 losses during hurricanes. 



The remaining U.l miles of the study area, known as West Beach, have 

 no protective measures, but a Federal project has been authorized for ex- 

 tension of the sea wall 16,300 feet southwestward. Recent surveys indicated 

 that the easterly half of this reach has been eroding slowly while the 

 westerly half has been building up. The loss over the easterly 2.2 miles 

 averaged 3ii,200 cubic yards annually from 19U6 to 19k9» Experience indicates 

 that, due to additional losses during hurricanes, the additional average 

 annual volume of material required to stabilize this reach would be about 

 80,000 cubic yards. 



The district and division engineers and the Beach Erosion Board con- 

 curred in the finding that only a portion of the study area in front of the 

 proposed sea wall extension required remedial measures, and that the most 

 practical and economical plan for maintenance of this beach is by artificial 

 replacement of beach materials where and when lost by erosion at an estimated 

 average annual cost of $>2li,000. As there is no FederaD property in the area 

 and existing law includes no policy for Federal participation in maintenance 

 costs of other property, no Federal project for maintenance of the Gulf 

 shore of Galveston Island was recommended. 



In compliance with existing statutory requirements, the Beach Erosion 

 Board stated its opinion that: 



a. It is not advisable for the United States to adopt a pro- 

 ject for protection of the shore of the study area at this time; 



b. No improvement of the beach is required, but public interests 

 in maintenance thereof is associated with ownership of a small proportion of 

 the shore frontage, public recreational benefits and reduction in maintenance 

 costs of the sea wall; and 



c. No share of the expense should be borne by the United States. 



The Chief of Engineers concurred in the views and recommendations of 

 the Beach Erosion Board. 



28 



