Beach nourishment also affords a good illustration of another important aspect of the 

 BEB staff's research activity. The BEB was really a pioneer in the advancement of periodic 

 beach replenishment as a means of stabilizing a beach. Projects using the technique were 

 undertaken even while there were still a number of unknowns related to it. Gradually, more 

 and more was learned about the reactions of waves and beach to the periodic placement of 

 sand. 



One of the key sources of such information has been the followup study. These studies 

 were undertaken to evaluate the beach nourishment project in question, to see how the 

 beach fill behaved over a period of several years, to determine whether the placed sand was 

 too fine or too coarse, to compare techniques used in different projects, and also to 

 establish differences related to wave and beach conditions at various coastal locations. The 

 Board's staff conducted followup studies of this kind at Ocean City, New Jersey; Harrison 

 County, Mississippi; Virginia Beach, Virginia; Prospect Beach, New Haven, Connecticut; 

 Seaside Park, Bridgeport, Connecticut; and Presque Isle, Pennsylvania (along the shore of 

 LakeErie).l9 5 



The followup procedure was not limited to beach nourishment projects. Other types of 

 completed Corps of Engineers shore protection projects were also reexamined to judge 

 performance of various structural components. These studies provided a wealth of useful 

 information which, in turn, was utilized in plans for new projects so as to apply the benefits 

 learned from past experiences. 



But up until 1956, there was a major stumbling block to encouraging local agencies, who 

 were sponsoring cooperative beach erosion control projects, to use beach nourishment 

 rather than building a structure. This stumbling block was related to legislative 

 interpretation. The periodic pumping of sand onto a beach was interpreted as being a form 

 of maintenance. By law, the Federal Government was allowed to provide financial assistance 

 toward the first" costs of construction of shore protection structures but was prohibited 

 from providing any funding for purposes of project maintenance. Thus, Federal funds were 

 unavailable for beach nourishment projects, and local interests, sensing high periodic costs 

 for which they would be fully responsible, were therefore either unable or unwilling to 

 utilize this form of shore protection.^ ^^ 



To rectify the situation, legislation was sought which would permit beach nourishment 

 to be considered as deferred "construction" ratlier than as maintenance. In Public Law 826, 

 approved July 28, 1956, this adjustment was made. The result was an expansion in the 

 number of beach nourishment projects. 



/. Public Law 826 (1956). Pubhc Law 826 was an amendment to Public Law 727, 

 passed in August 1946. The importance of this new legislation went beyond the provision 

 which would allow Federal assistance for periodic beach nourishment. Regarding the 

 funding of the local share of construction costs of shore protection projects. Public Law 826 

 clarified the matter of responsibility. It stated that, "the Federal contribution in the case of 



83 



