[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            Texas        Texas
 _J0
 <Y-
         General         Coastwide
             Land
            office       Erosion
                         Response
                             an


                         A Report to the
                         75th Texas Legislature
                         Prepared by the Texas General Land Office
                         Garry Mauro, Commissioner















              P'TM0 P





     QE
     571
     .T49
     1996
               NOAA
            Cooperative
            Aqreement
        .,-..,A570ZO268  August 1996





            Texas        Texas
          General        Coastwide
              Land                  0
             Office         rosion
                         Response
                         Plan

                         A Report to the
                         75th Texas Legislature



















                NOAA
             Cooperative
             Aqreement
        No. NA570ZO268   August 1996





















































                                                     Printed on recycled paper.


              The Texas General Land Office does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,
              sexual orientation, religion, age, or disability in employment or the provision of services. To request an
              accessible format, call 512/463-2613 or contact us through RELAY Texas at 1-800-735-2989 or mail your
              request to 1700 N. Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701-1495.










             Acknowledgments              ......................................................................... iii Contents
             Summary of Policy Recommendations                        ................................ iv

             Foreword by Garry Mauro               ..............................................................1

             Part I
             Coastal and Shoreline Erosion                              Contents
             Causes of Erosion           ............................................................................3
             Measuring Shoreline Changes                 ....................................................4
             The Economic Value of Texas Shores                    ......................................5
             Current Erosion Response Policies                  ..........................................9
             Current Erosion Practices             ............................................................ 13
             Selecting a Method of Shore Protection                     .............................. 16
             Post-Storm Emergency Response                     ......................................... 20
             Funding for Erosion Response                .................................................. 23

             Part 2
             Proposals for Improved Erosion Response
             Policy Recommendations                 ........................................................... 31

             Part 3
             Critical Erosion Areas
             Ranking Critical Erosion            .............................................................. 38
             Alamo/Magnolia Beach/Indianola Historical Site                         ........... 40
             Aransas National Wildlife Refuge/
                   Welder Flat State Coastal Preserve                  ............................. 42
             Caplen Beach, Bolivar Peninsula, Galveston County                         ...... 44
             Corpus Christi Ship Channel at Port Aransas                     ..................... 46
             Galveston Island State Park Bay Shoreline                    ......................... 48
             Highway 87 in Jefferson and Chambers Counties                          ........... 49
             Lower Neches River Marsh               .......................................................... 51
             South Padre Island, Cameron County                    .................................... 52
             Treasure Island, Brazoria County                ............................................. 53

             Literature Cited               ...................................................................... 56











                                                                           i










                                   Contenft                 Appendix A
                                                            Laws and Rules Addressing Coastal Erosion
                                                                  and Chronology of Changes                ............................................. 60

                                                            Appendix B
                                                            General Land Office Application Procedures
                                                                  for Bay Erosion Response Projects                  ............................... 66

                                                            Appendix C
                                                            Glossary      ............................................................................................. 68

                                                            Appendix D
                                                            Local Authorities Responsible for Permitting
                                                                  Post-Storm Emergency Response Projects                         ............. 78

                                                            Appendix E
                                                            Agency Contacts for Bay and Gulf Erosion
                                                                  Response Projects           ................................................................. 81

                                                            Appendix F
                                                            Notes f rom the Erosion Response Plan
                                                                  Advisory Committee Meeting of July 12,1995                         ........ 88






















                                                                               H










         The Coastal Division of the Texas General Land Office is            Acknowkdqmenft
         pleased to acknowledge the support of this project by the De-
         partment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
         Administration, through Cooperative Agreement No.
         NA570ZO268. The following Advisory Committee members
         attended public hearings and meetings and reviewed portions
         of this plan:

             ï¿½ Dave Behm, citizen, Friendswood
             ï¿½ Mary Lou Campbell, citizen, South Padre Island
             ï¿½ Ed Garner, University of Texas at Austin
                      Bureau of Economic Geology
             ï¿½ Brandol Harvey, planner, City of Corpus Christi
             ï¿½ Nicholas C. Kraus, Ph. D, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi,
                      Conrad Blucher Institute
             ï¿½ Fred LeBlanc, Mitchell Energy Corporation
             ï¿½ Brandy Littlejohn, citizen, Galveston
             ï¿½ George Nassar, citizen, South Padre Island
             ï¿½ B. J. Page, planner, Town of South Padre Island
             ï¿½ Jennifer Prouty, Ph.D., Texas A&M-Corpus Christi
             ï¿½ Larry Robinson, Matagorda Bay Pilots Association
             ï¿½ Laura Ryman, citizen, Matagorda County
             ï¿½ Jay Smith, citizen, Galveston
             ï¿½ Hon. Robert Stroder, Jefferson County Judge
             ï¿½ Richard Tillman, Calhoun County
                      Marine Extension Agent
               Barbara Tipton, citizen, Magnolia Beach
               Dan Yanta, District Conservationist, Natural Resource
                      Conservation Service Calhoun County










                                                     W









                         Summary             An explanation of the following list of policy recommenda-
                           ot Policy         tions is located in Part 2 on page 31.
                Recommendaflons
                                             1. Establish a state funding source for erosion response.

                                             2. Improve coordination among the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
                                                 neers and state and local governments regarding current
                                                 projects and identify potential erosion response projects.

                                             3.  Pursue Texas' fair share of federal funding for erosion re-
                                                 sponse projects.

                                             4.  Provide technical assistance to local governments and oth-
                                                 ers to obtain erosion response funding from the Federal
                                                 Emergency Management Agency

                                             5.  Improve sediment management practices, and consider
                                                 their effects on the coastal sediment budget.

                                             6.  Establish research priorities in s-upport of erosion response
                                                 planning and project assessment.

                                             7.  Promote public education about the impacts of coastal
                                                 erosion and about appropriate erosion response methods.




















                                                           iv








           In Texas today, there is a growing awareness of the urgency of               Foreword
           the coastal erosion problem. Homes, public highways, recre-                  by
           ational beaches, wetland habitat, oil and gas facilities, and com-
           mercial establishments along much of the coast are threatened                Garry Mauro
           by persistent shoreline retreat.

           In 199 1, recognizing that coastal erosion was a significant prob-
           lem, the 72nd Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1053, des-
           ignating the Texas General Land Office (GLO) as the lead state
           agency to draft a plan providing rules and guidelines for ero-
           sion avoidance and remediation, and for ranking critical ero-
           sion areas. The GLO has hosted numerous public meetings
           along the coast to obtain the local perspective on coastal ero-
           sion and to learn the erosion-response priorities of coastal resi-
           dents.


           The Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan describes the state's
           existing policies for managing coastal erosion and proposes
           new ones. It describes methods of erosion response for bay
           and Gulf shorelines and provides specific guidance concern-
           ing projects that can be undertaken to protect uplands, marsh,
           and shallow-water habitat in several identified "critical ero-
           sion areas." The plan is designed to help local communities
           identify critical erosion areas within their jurisdictions and plan
           for future erosion response.

           But most important, this plan proposes new state policies
           which I believe deserve strong consideration and support in
           our fight to protect the Texas shoreline. Among the proposed
           policies is a recommendation to establish a state funding source
           for erosion response projects. This proposed state funding
           would allow Texas to attract federal money that is crucial for
           successful coastal erosion projects. For too long, Texas has
           allowed available federal dollars to be spent by other coastal
           states.


           Shoreline erosion can have devastating effects. An erosion rate
           of more than five feet per year has resulted in the closure of
           nearly 14 miles of State Highway 87, an important hurricane
           evacuation route in Jefferson County. One Gulf shore oil and
           gas operator estimated that shoreline erosion may result in an
           annual loss of more than $2.6 million in state royalty, sever-
           ance tax, and county tax funds.











                                               Coastal erosion is not confined to the Texas Gulf shoreline; it
                                               also affects the bay systems, where it causes the loss of agri-
                                               cultural, industrial, and residential land and destroys produc-
                                               tive wetlands. About two-thirds of Texas bay shores are erod-
                                               ing at rates of two to nine feet per year. Erosion along the Gulf
                                               Intracoastal Waterway has caused wetland loss at Welder Flats
                                               State Coastal Preserve, converting valuable shallow-water habi-
                                               tat to open water.

                                               In some areas along the Gulf shoreline, erosion has overtaken
                                               structures erected to protect the shorefront, leaving them on
                                               the beach as obstacles that inhibit access to beaches open to
                                               public use. Landowners, local governments, and other con-
                                               cerned citizens along the coast have grown increasingly frus-
                                               trated. Those eager to protect their property against erosion
                                               or to mitigate its effects have found little guidance or assis-
                                               tance. Texas has had no central source of information or com-
                                               prehensive state plan for erosion response.

                                               I am committed to educating the Texas public about coastal
                                               erosion and the serious problems that will result if we fail to
                                               act now, and to working with local communities as they grapple
                                               with complex erosion issues. I call on all coastal citizens to
                                               review this plan and support our goal of protecting the state's
                                               shoreline. Working together on this issue, I know we will suc-
                                               ceed in doing what is best to protect the economic and envi-
                                               ronmental health of the Texas coast.



                                               GARRY MAURO
                                               TEXAS LAND COMMISSIONER


















                                                              2








           The natural coastal environment of Texas is the product of cli-             PART 1
           mate, tides, relative sea-level change, tropical storm frequency,           Coastal
           the amount of sediment delivered to the Gulf of Mexico by
           rivers, and the rate of dispersal of that sediment by waves and             and
           currents. Several of these processes contribute to long-term                Shoreline
           (chronic) shoreline erosion or recession, while others cause
           short-term (storm-induced) erosion. Chronic erosion or reces-               Erosion
           sion is generally more difficult to address than storm-induced
           erosion. Daily wind and tidal patterns alter shoreline position             Causes
           only moderately Hurricanes and tropical storms, however,                    ot Erosion
           have a significant impact on the shoreline where winds drive
           nearshore currents and large volumes of beach and shoreface
           sand to the west and southwest along the Texas coast
           (McGowen et al., 1977).

           Coastal shoreline recession and erosion is attributed to rela-
           tive rise in sea level (the combined effects of worldwide sea
           level rise and local subsidence) and to the fact that the amount
           of sediment removed by wave energy exceeds that supplied
           to the beach by longshore currents. At Galveston, the relative
           rise in sea level was measured at 0.63 cm/ year (Ramsey, 1991).
           Because the slope of Texas beaches is relatively flat, any rise in
           sea level can result in substantial shoreline recession.


           Climatic change (from wetter to drier) during the past 18,000
           years has decreased the volume of sediments carried to the
           Texas coast by rivers. Today, droughts can cause stabilizing
           vegetation to die and increase erosion of bay shorelines and
           coastal sand dunes.


           Storm frequency and intensity are factors contributing to quick
           and significant erosion. Concentrated storm energy was re-
           sponsible for the loss of a 150-foot-wide strip of coastal sand
           dunes on Mustang Island during Hurricane Carla in 1961
           (Hayes, 1967).

           The main channels of unstabilized (or natural) inlets can mi-
           grate over time and cause localized erosion of adjacent shore-
           lines. Stabilized inlets also create areas of accretion and ero-
           sion, but at predictable locations.

           Human modifications or actions can contribute to or acceler-
           ate localized coastal erosion. Jetties, groins, and breakwaters,

                                                            3










                                               for example, are designed to trap littoral sediments. By with-
                                               holding sand that would normally be carried to downdrift
                                               shorelines, they create a deficit in the sand supply Seawalls,
                                               revetments, and bulkheads keep sediment from entering the
                                               local littoral current. Wave reflection from any of these struc-
                                               tures can cause localized scour at the base of the structure and
                                               at its endpoints.

                                               Removal of sediment from the coastal sediment budget by hu-
                                               man actions is also a concern. These include commercial ex-
                                               traction of sediments from coastal, rivers, dredging and dis-
                                               posal of sediment in confined or upland areas, and employ-
                                               ment of improper beach cleaning and management techniques.

                                               Waves generated by boats and ships can erode unprotected
                                               shorelines or accelerate erosion in areas already affected by
                                               natural erosional processes. An increase in the number of ships
                                               with large wakes could prove detrimental to coastal proper-
                                               ties unless a means of addressing the problem is implemented.


                       Mectsurinq              Researchers can determine shoreline locations with informa-
                        Shoreline              tion gathered from topographic maps, aerial photos, and beach
                          ChcLnqes             profile and Global Positioning System (GPS) surveys. Shore-
                                               line change analyses involve plotting the shoreline at several
                                               sites and comparing those positions over time. The more shore-
                                               line positions recorded, the better for measuring beach fluc-
                                               tuations and for distinguishing trends in shoreline movement.
                                               Statistical, numerical, or geometric models or a combination
                                               of them is used to predict the extent of future land losses. Plan-
                                               ners and developers can use the predictions for planning fu-
                                               ture use of the shoreline.


                                               Local governments can assist property owners in addressing
                                               risks associated with construction on eroding barrier islands
                                               by establishing uniform setback requirements for new construc-
                                               tion. The setback provisions are based on the shoreline change
                                               rates published by the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG).

                                               For a detailed discussion of how shoreline changes are quanti-
                                               fied, see Shoreline Movement Along Developed Beaches of the Texas
                                               Gulf Coast: A Users' Guide to Analyzing and Predicting Shoreline
                                               Changes, by Robert A. Morton (BEG Open-File Report 93-1,1993).

                                                              4










                                                                                             The Economic
                                                                                             Value ot Texas
                 The legislature... recognizes that storms and erosion of                    Shores
                 beach and bay shorelines can harm the environment,
                 recreation and tourism, agriculture, industry, recreational
                 and commercial fisheries, waterborne transportation, and
                 property interests.
                       - Senate Bill 1053, 72nd Texas Legislature - Regular
                           Session, 1991, Coastal Management Plan for Beach
                           Access, Preservation and Enhancement, Dune Protec-
                           tion, and Coastal Erosion

           The beaches, dunes, and shorelines of the Texas Gulf Coast
           provide the state and its citizens with many direct and indi-
           rect benefits of great value. However, disputes arise when an
           effort is made to assign a monetary value to the benefits from
           these coastal natural resources. With the advent of cost/ben-
           efit analysis, the importance of determining the monetary value
           of natural resources has increased significantly. In most cases,
           especially with federally funded projects, the benefits of a
           project must outweigh the project costs for construction to be
           authorized.


           The significant benefits of protecting, restoring, or enhancing                   Comparativc
           beaches, dunes, and shorelines are often not recognized, much                     Annual
           less valued monetarily. Undervaluing or not valuing all these                     Spendinq
           benefits can keep important erosion response projects from                        (Source: Houston, 1996)
           receiving public funding.                                                         - $1,500,000,000 Japan
           Undervaluing or failing to value the benefits of protecting, re-                  shore protection/restora-
           storing, or enhancing beaches, dunes, and shorelines often re-                    tion (hiqhcst Ljear)
           sults from limitations in current economic valuation models                       - $199,000,000 U.S. rice
           or from lack of information. While some benefits, such as the                     subsidies (sinqlc state)
           recreational benefits of beaches, are widely understood, it is
           not an easy task to establish a dollar value for those benefits.                  - $1314,000,000 U.S. wool
           The monetary value of the recreational benefits of beaches,                       subsidies (wool value $53
           dunes, and shorelines must be derived from other indicators,                      million)
           such as tourism revenue.                                                          - $61,000,000 US.
                                                                                             mohair subsidies (mohair
           In other instances, benefits are not easy to determine because                    value $13 million)
           they are realized at a distance from the resource or accrue to                    - $34,000,000 U.S. shore
           another party. For example, sand loss almost always occurs                        protection and restom-
           after a beach has been replenished. While this is considered a                    tion
           loss for the nourished beach, the sand is a benefit to the sedi-









                 The Sediment Sudqet                      ment budget when it is carried downdrift and deposited on
                  A sediment budqct is an                 another beach or deposited in nearshore bars that later feed
                   accountinq method for                  the beach.
                 sediment or sand, just as
                 a household budqct is an                 Sometimes a benefit, by its subjective nature, is almost impos-
                  accountinq at monetary                  sible to value monetarily. How can a dollar value be assigned
                income and expenditures.                  to the relaxation a person may enjoy sitting on the beach? Some
                    When all of the compo-                economic valuation models try to assess the dollar value of
                     nents of the sediment                such benefits through the use of questionnaires.
                   budqct (both inflow and
                outflow) are added up, the
                   result is an indicator of              Regardless of the difficulty of assessing the monetary value of
                how the shoreline is likely               beaches, dunes, and shores, it is important to recognize the
                                  to behave               benefits that these coastal natural resources provide. Projects
                        Components at the                 designed to protect, restore, or enhance these resources should
                    sediment budqet for a                 include consideration of these benefits, even if the benefits can-
                      stretch at Gulf beach               not be assigned a dollar value.
                              miqht include.
                                        Inflow            Storm Protection Value
                        Sand inflow from a
                            stream or river.              Beaches and dunes benefit upland property owners by pro-
                    Offshore sand pushed                  tecting upland properties from storm damage. Dunes protect
                    ashore by lonq, qentle                property behind them from storm-surge flooding and can help
                                       waves.
                    Sand transported into                 dissipate the energy of high waves. In addition, dunes serve
                    the area by lonqshore                 as sand stores that replenish beaches eroded by storms. Beaches
                                    currents.             and dunes on barrier islands also protect the fragile estuarine
                    Materials -eroded from                system between the barrier islands and the mainland.
                            bluffs or dunes.
                     - Sand blown into the
                              area by wind.               The majority of federal beach nourishment projects focus on
                  Sand imported durinq a                  reducing coastal storm damage (National Research Council,
                       beach nourishment
                                      project.            1995). If the storm protection benefits of a beach nourishment
                                                          project can be quantified through economic analysis, the U.S.
                                     Outflow              Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is more likely to participate
                  Sand drawn into a tidal                 in the project.
                    inlet (flood tidal delta).
                   Sand swept offshore at
                     a tidal inlet (ebb tidal             Recreational Value
                                        delta).
                  Sand pulled offshore by                 Beaches and shorelines provide obvious recreational benefits
                               steep waves.               to visitors. From people-watching to bird-watching, sunbath-
                 Sand transported out at
                    the area by lonqshore                 ing, to kite flying, and volleyball to horseback riding, beaches
                                    currents.             and shorelines offer many attractions in addition to swimming,
                    Sand blown out of the                 surfing, fishing, and boating. According to Houston (1996),
                              area by wind.               beaches are the number-one destination of vacationers in the
                  Sand carried landward
                             at washovers.                United States.

                                                                            6










           Beach visitors make a tremendous contribution to the coastal                          Global Competition
           economy, spending money at coastal community restaurants,                             tor Forciqn Tourism
           grocery and convenience stores, bait shops, gas stations, sou-                        (Source: Houston, 1996)
           venir and curio shops, recreational facilities (e.g., shorefront
           miniature golf courses and water slides), and boat and equip-                          Spain will spend more in
           ment rentals. The national economy benefits by approximately                          its current fiveNear
           $170 billion annually from beach tourism (Houston, 1996).                             shoreline restoration
                                                                                                 program than the United
                                                                                                 States spent in the last,40
           Scenic/Aesthetic Value                                                                years.

           The primary reason the shoreline is experiencing high devel-                          - In the lost 140 years,
           opment pressures is that people want to enjoy the aesthetic                           Germany spent about
                                                                                                 five times as much as the
           rewards of living and vacationing by the shore. The shore's                           United States on shore-
           beauty is the reason people pay a premium to live in beachfront                       line protection and
           or bayfront homes. Even after suffering property damage from                          restoration, amounting to
           a storm, many people rebuild on the shoreline rather than lose                        a 25 to 50 times greater
           their view. Private homeowners are not the only group to take                         shore ot its gross domes-
                                                                                                 tic product. Germany
           advantage of the aesthetic value of the coast. The tourism and                        has less than 5% ot the
           real estate industries seek prime coastal lands for hotels and                        length ot coastline as the
           resorts.                                                                              U.S.

           Public Access Value                                                                   - In Miami Seach, the
                                                                                                 capitalized project cost ot
                                                                                                 the beach nourishment
           The shoreline is also valuable because it provides public ac-                         project (initiated in the
           cess to the bays and Gulf. Under the Texas Open Beaches Act,                          late 1970s) is about $3
           the Gulf beach is state-owned seaward of the line of mean high                        million per year; spending
           tide or mean higher high water. This publicly owned area, along                       by toreiqn visitors to
           with all of the beach seaward of the vegetation line, may be                          Miami Beach is now over
                                                                                                 $Z billion per year.
           accessed, used, and enjoyed by the public. In many other states,
           the beaches are privately owned, and public access to the shore                       - The United States has
           is severely restricted.                                                               lost 16% ot its market
                                                                                                 share ot international
                                                                                                 tourists in the post two
           Wildlife Habitat Value                                                                years, representing
                                                                                                 17QOOO jobs. Eiqhty-hve
           Texas beaches, dunes, and bayshores provide valuable habitat                          percent ot spending by
           and food for hundreds of species of coastal birds, fish, shell-                       toreiqn tourists in the
           fish, reptiles, mammals, and plants. Many threatened and en-                          United States is spent in
           dangered plant and animal species inhabit this ecosystem.                             coastal states.
           They include the American alligator, Kemp's ridley sea turtle,
           the hawksbill sea turtle, the leatherback sea turtle, the logger-
           head sea turtle, the brown pelican, the interior least tern, the
           piping plover, and the whooping crane.


                                                                  7









                                               Waterborne Transportation Value

                                               Beaches and dunes on barrier islands enclose and protect the
                                               estuarine resources of the state. A major value of Texas estuar-
                                               ies is their use as a major waterborne transportation route. The
                                               Texas section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) trans-
                                               ported over 82 million short tons of goods valued at $23.9 bil-
                                               lion in 1990 (Texas Department of Transportation). Roop and
                                               Burke (1991) estimated that the closure of the GIVVW due to a
                                               breach in Sargent Beach (currently experiencing the worst ero-
                                               sion on the Texas coast) would result in $270 million in eco-
                                               nomic losses during the first three weeks of closure and $20
                                               million per day thereafter.

                                               Local Economic Value


                                               Beaches, dunes, and shorelines are valuable to the economies
                                               of local communities. The local tax base benefits from the high
                                               value placed on shorefront property. When this higl-dy valued
                                               property erodes away, both the property owner and the local
                                               community suffer. In general, taxing entities do not recognize
                                               erosion of shoreline property; the property owner often must
                                               continue to pay property tax on the eroded land. If the prop-
                                               erty owner succeeds in having the taxing entity remove the
                                               eroded land from the tax rolls, tax revenue decreases. The tax-
                                               ing entity may be compelled to either reduce services or raise
                                               the property tax rate.

                                               Option Value

                                               Option value is the value a person places on having a certain
                                               option available. For example, a person may be unable to visit
                                               the beach often but may be willing to pay to keep the beach
                                               available for possible future visits. This person has placed an
                                               option value on the beach. Option value is difficult to mea-
                                               sure because it is not a market value; a person cannot go to the
                                               corner convenience store and buy an option on the beach. In
                                               attempting to measure option value, economists must rely on
                                               surveys and interviews with individuals.

                                               Existence Value


                                               Existence value, like option value, is difficult to measure be-

                                                            8












           cause it is not a market value. Existence value is the value a
           person places on a resource like a beach, even if that person
           expects never to make use of the resource.


           State Policies                                                               Current
           State policies pertaining to coastal erosion are found in a num-             Erosion
           ber of statutes and rules, including the Texas Open Beaches                  Response
           Act, the Dune Protection Act, rules of the School Land Board                 Policies
           (SLB) pertaining to the issuance of permits, leases, and ease-
           ments on coastal public lands, the General Land Office rules
           for management of the beach/dune system, and the Coastal
           Coordination Council rules for the Texas Coastal Management
           Program. The specific citations and a complete list of the state
           laws and rules that address coastal erosion, along with a chro-
           nology of their amendments, are found in Appendix A.

           The principal state policies may be summarized as follows:

                   1. Erosion avoidance, remediation, and planning shall
                   preserve and enhance the public's property right to ac-
                   cess, use, and enjoy the public beach.

                   2. "5oft- methods of avoiding, slowing, or remedying
                   erosion (such as shoreline vegetation, beach nourish-
                   ment, and dune reconstruction) are preferred to the con-
                   struction of hard or rigid shoreline protection structures.

                   3. Dunes are to be protected because stabilized, veg-
                   etated dunes offer the best natural defense against
                   storms, protect upland properties and state-owned
                   beaches and shores against erosion, and are areas of sig-
                   nificant biological diversity.

                   4. Structures on bay shorelines must be constructed in
                   a manner that does not significantly interfere with the
                   natural coastal processes which supply sediments to
                   shore areas or otherwise exacerbate erosion.


                   5. Suitable dredged material from commercially navi-
                   gable waterways should be used beneficially to reduce
                   and minimize erosion, provide shore protection, or ben-

                                                             9









                                                      efit the sediment budget or littoral system. The state
                                                      and local governments may enter into cost-sharing
                                                      agreements with the federal government to offset any
                                                      additional costs from the beneficial use of dredged ma-
                                                      terial.


                                                      6. Construction along eroding areas of the Gulf shore-
                                                      line must meet stricter building standards designed to
                                                      reduce the potential for interference with public beach
                                                      use should the structure be undermined by erosion.

                                               The purpose of the Texas Open Beaches Act, passed in 1959 (TEX.
                                               NAT. REs. CODE ANN. ï¿½61.011 et seq.) is to protect the public's
                                               right to "free and unrestricted" access to and from "the state-
                                               owned beaches bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of
                                               Mexico." Under the Open Beaches Act, the burden of proof
                                               rests with the private landowner rather than with the beach
                                               user in the event of a conflict regarding public traversal or use
                                               of private land. The act prohibits the erection of any physical
                                               barrier that would impede public access to the beach and any
                                               written or oral claim that the public beach is private property
                                               or that the public does not have the right of access to it. Gov-
                                               ernment agencies are exempt from the physical barrier prohi-
                                               bition. The Open Beaches Act applies only to Gulf beaches
                                               that are accessible by public road or public ferry.

                                               The 1991 amendments to Chapter 33 of the Texas Natural Re-
                                               sources Code direct the GLO to work with local governments,
                                               other state agencies, and federal agencies such as the COE in
                                               erosion response projects that encourage the use of nonrigid
                                               structures for shoreline protection. The 1995 amendments to
                                               article 5415e-2 of the Texas Natural Resources Code allow the
                                               Texas Transportation Commission to cost-share with the fed-
                                               eral government in projects that use dredged material for shore
                                               protection projects.

                                               The Dune Protection Act (TEX. NAT. REs. CODE ANN. ï¿½63.001 et
                                               seq.) recognizes the importance of coastal sand dunes and the
                                               role they play in protecting landward structures from storms
                                               as well as supplying sediment to the beaches during storms.
                                               In the 1991 amendments, local governments bordering the Gulf
                                               of Mexico were required to establish a dune protection line
                                               that protects coastal sand dunes and dune vegetation up to

                                                            110










          1,000 feet landward of mean high tide.

          Chapter 155 of the Texas Administrative Code sets out the rules
          of the GLO and SLB for leasing and management of the state's
          surface and mineral interests in an estimated four million acres
          of state-owned submerged lands. Authorization from the com-
          missioner of the GLO or the SLB is required for any project on
          state-owned land, including private, public, and commercial
          projects. The Coastal Public Lands Management Act of 1973, the
          chief state law governing the use of state-owned submerged
          lands, mandates the protection of natural resources.

          Promulgated under the Open Beaches Act and Dune Protection
          Act, the General Land Office rules for management of the
          beach/dune system (31 TAC ï¿½ï¿½15.1-15.10) cover elements com-
          mon to all coastal communities. Each coastal county or mu-
          nicipality is responsible for adopting a plan that meets the rules'
          minimum requirements for dune protection, beach access,
          coastal erosion, and flood protection. A permit or certificate
          from the county commissioners' court or municipal govern-
          ment is required for construction activity seaward of the local
          dune protection line that may affect dunes or dune vegetation
          or public beach access. Local governments are required to for-
          ward copies of applications submitted for proposed projects
          requiring a dune permit and/or a beachfront construction cer-
          tificate to the GLO and the Office of the Attorney General
          (OAG) for review at least 10 days before acting on the applica-
          tion. The GLO and the attorney general may comment on the
          project's consistency with the approved local plan, but may
          not hold up or veto a permit or certificate.

          The Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP), adopted by the
          state's Coastal Coordination Council, is composed of state stat-
          utes, rules, and guidelines for activities that affect coastal natu-
          ral resource areas such as critical dune areas, critical eroding
          areas, Gulf beaches, coastal shore areas, coastal barriers, and
          special hazard areas.

          Federal Policies


          Under Public Law 71-570, the COE was established as the fed-
          eral agency responsible for studying, planning, and implement-
          ing shore protection projects and projects for improving navi-

                                                             1111










                                                gation in cooperation with state agencies and local govern-
                                                ments. The COE enters into cost-sharing agreements with a
                                                local sponsor for beach nourishment if the project is the most
                                                suitable and economical method of dredged material disposal.
                                                In determining the economic value of a project, the COE does
                                                not consider the recreational benefits that the project may pro-
                                                vide.


                                                The COE is also responsible for regulating all construction in
                                                or modification of navigable waters (River & Harbor Act of 1899)
                                                and for regulating the discharge of dredged and fill material
                                                into waters of the U.S (ï¿½404 of the federal Clean Water Act).
                                                The COE ensures that all permits comply with the environ-
                                                mental requirements. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                                (USFWS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
                                                National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provide important
                                                advisory roles to the COE in the permitting process.

                                                The purpose of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 was to
                                                provide federally subsidized insurance protection to those who
                                                live in coastal and flood-prone areas. The Federal Emergency
                                                Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood
                                                Insurance Program by adopting and enforcing floodplain man-
                                                agement regulations. In coastal high-hazard areas, structures
                                                must be elevated above the base flood elevation (determined
                                                by FEMA) and must be constructed according to strict stan-
                                                dards to withstand flood and windstorm damage.

                                                The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was origi-
                                                nally called the Soil Conservation Service when it was estab-
                                                lished in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The NRCS works
                                                with private landowners and other entities to reduce soil ero-
                                                sion, conserve water, protect and improve water quality, and
                                                protect renewable natural resources. In Texas, the NRCS has
                                                been very successful in using vegetation to stabilize eroding
                                                bay shorelines and in promoting wetland restoration.

                                                Two federal acts that indirectly affect coastal erosion policy
                                                are the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 and the
                                                Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. Both acts are
                                                administered under programs in the U.S. Department of Com-
                                                merce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The
                                                CBRA limits the amount of federal spending in areas desig-

                                                             12










          nated as coastal barrier resource units in order to protect bar-
          rier island resources. One program restricted by the CBRA in
          many high-risk coastal areas is the National Flood Insurance
          Program.

          The CZMA was passed to dipreserve, protect, develop, and
          where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the
          nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations."
          Coastal states may develop coastal management programs that
          follow the federal guidelines. States whose plans receive fed-
          eral approval are eligible for grants for program implementa-
          tion, coastal erosion planning, and research. These states have
          the authority to veto federal permits for activities in wetlands
          or coastal waters that are inconsistent with the state's plan.

          Local Ordinances and Orders

          To be consistent with the GLO's beach/dune rules, local gov-
          ernments adopt plans as ordinances or orders that are enforced
          under the local code for conducting general business.


          There are three general ways to address shoreline erosion: (1)              Current
          stabilize the shoreline by structural or nonstructural methods;             Erosion
          (2) relocate or set development back from the shoreline; and                Response
          (3) take no action.                                                         Pracfices
          In stabilizing the shoreline, the landowner's goal is often to
          draw a line in the sand that says "the sea stops here." De-
          pending on local coastal conditions, achieving a stabilized
          shoreline can be difficult and expensive. Texans have used
          many different (and sometimes unsound) methods to protect
          their shoreline properties from erosion. These include bulk-
          heads, riprap, autos, erratically dumped tires, bags filled with
          concrete, articulated concrete ramps, and vegetation. (Erosion
          response terminology is defined in Appendix C.)

          Shoreline Stabilization

          Structural Stabilization. Structural erosion response meth-
          ods include seawalls, bulkheads, revetments (which are usu-
          ally constructed of riprap but can include concrete mats or
          slabs, bags filled with concrete mix, gabions, and interlocking

                                                           13










                                                 brick), groins, jetties, and detached breakwaters. Seawalls,
                                                 bulkheads, and revetments are designed to maintain the shore-
                                                 line at a specific location. Such structures limit the availability
                                                 of sediment for transport. Erosion of unarmored property at
                                                 the ends of the structure (called flank erosion) is common, and
                                                 erosion at the toe, common in steep revetments, further de-
                                                 creases the stability of the structure. Seawalls, bulkheads, and
                                                 revetments may fail if waves overtop them.

                                                 Groins, jetties, and detached breakwaters are designed to
                                                 quickly trap and retain littoral sediment and therefore decrease
                                                 the volume of sediment delivered to downdrift shores. If the
                                                 sediment budget remains unbalanced, erosion intensifies.
                                                 These types of structures are typically used to decrease the need
                                                 for maintenance of navigable waterways.

                                                 Nonstructural Stabilization. Nonstructural, or "soft," stabili-
                                                 zation methods include vegetation, beach nourishment, sedi-
                                                 ment berms, and sediment bypassing. These methods are de-
                                                 signed to augment the local sediment budget either through
                                                 direct placement of sand on the eroding shore or, in the case of
                                                 vegetation, by slowly trapping littoral sediment. The GLO's
                                                 Surface Damage Fund has enabled coastal Soil and Water Con-
                                                 servation Districts to demonstrate to the public that eroded
                                                 bay shorelines in certain wave environments can be success-
                                                 fully protected with temporary wave barriers and marsh grass
                                                 plantings.

                                                 The COE has augmented the sediment budget by placing
                                                 dredged sediment in water depths affected by wave action to
                                                 form nearshore sediment berms. The purpose of the nearshore
                                                 berms is to supply sediment to the shoreline via wave trans-
                                                 port. Two nearshore berms have been constructed along the
                                                 Texas Gulf coast, at South Padre Island and at Galveston Is-
                                                 land. The berms are not monitored, so their effectiveness is
                                                 unknown.


                                                 Sometimes, a combination of structural and nonstructural
                                                 methods is used to protect bay shorelines that are subject to
                                                 high wave energy. An example of this is found at Grassy Point
                                                 in Matagorda County. The Palacios, Seawall Commission has
                                                 constructed a detached rock breakwater to decrease wave en-
                                                 ergy so that sediments will be deposited landward of the struc-

                                                               14









             ture. Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) has been planted                            The Unc ot
             in the lee of the breakwater. The project is being monitored                               Veqctafion
             for planting success and effects on adjacent shores.
                                                                                                        Under the Open Ekoches
             Setback/Relocation                                                                         Act and by historical
                                                                                                        practice, the line of
                                                                                                        vegetation determines the
             Many coastal states require that new structures and build-                                 landward extent of the
             ings be set back a certain distance from the shoreline. Some                               public beach along the
             states have adopted a minimum distance from a reference                                    Gulf Coast The line is
                                                                                                        defined as "the extreme
             feature, while others use the "average annual erosion rate"                                seaward boundary of
             to help establish minimum setbacks (National Research Coun-                                natural vegetation which
             cil, 1990).                                                                                spreads continuously
                                                                                                        inland.
             Texas law prohibits construction on the public beach. Land-                                In legal terms, the public
             ward of the vegetation line, however, new structures may be                                has an casement to use
             constructed'in accordance with the local community's dune                                  the beach from the mean
             protection and beach access plan. Each community may as-                                   low tide line up to the line
                                                                                                        of vegetation. The case-
             sist property owners in addressing risks associated with                                   ment does not mean the
             beachfront construction by establishing uniform setback re-                                public owns the land; it is
             quirements based on the average erosion rate. State law does                               a right to use and enjoy
             not impose a mandatory horizontal setback on all coastal con-                              the beach.
             struction.                                                                                 Sometimes, the circa is
                                                                                                        owned by a private
             Relocating structures from erosion hazard areas has been spo-                              citizen or business. It so,
             radic along the Texas coast. From 1987 to 1995, funding was                                the public has the right to
                                                                                                        use the landowner's
             available through the FEMA National Floodhisurance Pro-                                    property seaward of the
             gram for relocation of structures in imminent danger of col-                               vegetation line. The
             lapse due to coastal erosion. However, as of July 1994, only                               landowner may not build
             16 Texas landowners had taken part in the program (FEMA,                                   any structure on the
                                                                                                        public beach or interfere
             personal communication). FEMA is now developing the Miti-                                  with or restrict the
             gation Assistance Program, which provides cost-sharing                                     public's right to use the
             grants to states and communities for relocation of structures,                             beach.
             acquisition of property, and some shore protection projects.                               Because the line at
             The program should be available to the public in 1996.                                     vegetation naturally
                                                                                                        migrates, the public's
             No Action                                                                                  cosement is often called a
                                                                                                        ;
                                                                                                        rolling eascmenV As the
                                                                                                        ine of vegetation moves,
             On Gulf shorelines, the typical erosion response method has                                so does the area subject
             been one of no action, mainly because shoreline protection                                 to the casement
             projects are very expensive and local governments simply can-
             not afford them. Many landowners abandon their storm-dam-
             aged homes, leaving them on the public beach.


                                                                       15








                          Selledinq            To plan an effective erosion response strategy for a particular
                         A Method              location, the landowner must determine the cause of the prob-
                         Ot Shore              lem, take into account applicable local, state, and federal laws,
                        Protedion              and decide what outcome is desired. This information will
                                               ensure the selection of techniques appropriate to the location
                                               and to the type of erosion problem encountered.

                                               Gulf Shorelines

                                               The most commonly described erosion problems along the
                                               Texas coast are steady shoreline retreat which jeopardizes some-
                                               thing of value and the perceived threat of hurricane damage.

                                               Structural Stabilization. Self-help construction of shoreline
                                               protection measures such as seawalls, bulkheads, or revetments
                                               by individual property owners can accelerate erosion and dam-
                                               age to adjoining properties and natural resources. Provisions
                                               of the Open Beaches Act and the GLO beach/ dune rules limit
                                               or prohibit individuals from building structures on Texas
                                               beaches.


                                               Beach Nourishment. Beach nourishment is a method of shore
                                               protection that is encouraged by the state legislature. How-
                                               ever, finding an economical sand source may be difficult in
                                               some Gulf shoreline locations. For the most part, it may be
                                               cheaper for local communities to tie into existing COE dredg-
                                               ing projects for a sediment source.

                                               Dune Construction and Restoration. Because a healthy dune
                                               system is the best defense against beach erosion and coastal
                                               storm damage, property owners should concentrate on main-
                                               taining this natural defense. In places where the dune system
                                               has been damaged or destroyed, restoration should be the fo-
                                               cus. The Dune Protection and Improvement Manualfor the Texas
                                               Gulf Coast (GLO, 1991), available from the GLO, provides a
                                               comprehensive discussion of dune preservation and restora-
                                               tion techniques. These include the planting of native dune
                                               vegetation, use of sand-trapping fences where appropriate, and
                                               proper construction and use of dune walkovers. In sand-
                                               starved areas of the coast where sand-trapping efforts are un-
                                               successful, the importation of sand for dune construction or
                                               restoration may be necessary.









           Bay/Channel Shorelines

           The number and complexity of shoreline types and erosion
           problems are much greater in the bays, estuaries, and chan-
           nels along the Texas coast than on the open Gulf shoreline.
           Accordingly, there are more options for controlling erosion and
           protecting property along bay shorelines.

           Often, low-lying bayfront property becomes submerged due
           to the combined effects of gradual land subsidence and sea
           level rise. Stabilizing the shoreline location without the use of
           armor requires an inflow of sediment balanced with the reten-
           tion of existing sediment.

           Before using either the revetment or bulkhead shore protec-
           tion methods along state-owned lands, an applicant must ob-
           tain a boundary survey by a licensed state land surveyor. If all
           or part of the structure is to be placed on state-owned land, an
           easement from the GLO is also required.

           The use of groins perpendicular to the shore to modify sedi-
           ment transport is generally not authorized in Texas because of
           the adverse effects such structures have on adjoining shore-
           lines. Recent revisions to the SLB rules (31 TAC ï¿½155.3) only
           allow the construction of jetties, groins, and breakwaters by
           public entities for public purposes, and proposed projects must
           be analyzed to ensure that structures will not induce erosion.

           Planting of Vegetation. When a natural shoreline is the de-
           sired result and some variation in the shoreline location can be
           tolerated, a vegetation protection or planting program can be
           the first step in stabilizing the shoreline and promoting the
           entrapment of sediment. The ability of vegetation to withstand
           wave forces can be enhanced by the use of temporary para-
           chute fences or sand fencing, or by geotextiles (engineered
           woven materials) that help to dissipate energy and protect root
           systems while allowing the plants to grow through. If the long-
           term sediment deficit cannot be improved, then other struc-
           tural measures such as sediment-filled bags or tubes, or shore-
           parallel rock breakwaters may be warranted in addition to
           vegetation to help stabilize the shoreline.

           Revetment. Where access along the shoreline is not the pri-

                                                           '17









                                                 mary goal, and dissipation of wave energy is desired, a revet-
                                                 ment may be the preferred shoreline protection option. A re-
                                                 vetment can be viewed as a shield or facing for the existing
                                                 shoreline, in contrast to a bulkhead or seawall, which supports
                                                 the earth behind it. The most common revetment along the
                                                 Texas bay shorelines is rock riprap. Revetment materials can
                                                 include rock or rubble, bags filled with sand or lean concrete
                                                 mix, rock-filled wire mesh gabions, articulated concrete cells
                                                 or slabs, or combinations of the above. Revetment generally
                                                 does not allow a fringe marsh to be established.

                                                 Bulkhead. Along a higher bluff or on a developed shoreline,
                                                 the desired result may be a defined, well-protected division
                                                 between land and water. In this instance, a bulkhead can be
                                                 built from any of a variety of materials to suit the specific use.
                                                 Examples include pile-and-plank; steel H-piles with railroad
                                                 ties; sheet piles of concrete, wood, steel, or synthetics; and cast-
                                                 in-place concrete gravity structures. Bulkheads do not dissi-
                                                 pate wave energy as effectively as a natural shoreline, nor do
                                                 they protect the shore in front (seaward) of them. In fact, the
                                                 reflected wave energy can intensify erosive forces immediately
                                                 seaward of the structure. For this reason, scour protection such
                                                 as riprap at the bulkhead base is normally integrated into the
                                                 design. Bulkheads are well suited to shoreline uses such as
                                                 boating or commercial transportation.

                                                 Cost Considerations

                                                 Although the ultimate cost of a project depends on many fac-
                                                 tors, it is possible to provide approximate costs of the various
                                                 methods for comparison. Maintenance requirements and
                                                 monitoring costs should be considered along with initial con-
                                                 struction costs in choosing an erosion response method or com-
                                                 bination of methods.


                                                 Beach Nourishment. Beach nourishment is generally a regional
                                                 approach and not within an individual property owner's
                                                 means. However, the cost is worth considering in comparison
                                                 with other methods. In areas of the Texas coast where a nearby
                                                 (within several miles) supply of imported sand has been iden-
                                                 tified, nourishment costs, including the necessary pre-construc-
                                                 tion costs and post-construction monitoring, have been pro-
                                                 jected at $150 to $200 per foot of nourished beach. The benefi-

                                                               18










           cial effect of nourishment at the project location can be expected
           to diminish over a five- to 10-year period, although downdrift
           areas will benefit as the sand is transported along the coast.
           Maintenance of the project through renourishment will be re-
           quired if longer-term results are desired.

           Dune Construction and Restoration. The basic building ma-
           terial for dunes is beach-quality sand. In general, this material
           must come from an upland (non-beach) source. Commercially
           available sand can be obtained for $5 to $10 per cubic yard.
           Depending on the desired width and height of reconstructed
           dunes, the total cost is on the order of $20 to $40 per foot of
           beach. Vegetation establishment, as described below, is a criti-
           cal component of any dune restoration or dune construction
           project.

           Planting of Dune Vegetation. The first step in a vegetation
           planting program is to ensure that existing and new vegeta-
           tion is protected. After that, native dune species can typically
           be acquired commercially at $0.25 to $1.00 per plant, or plants
           or sprigs can be taken from dense, healthy stands of vegeta-
           tion near the project site-with the permission of the property
           owner. Depending on the labor source and the width of the
           area planted, the total cost could range from $2 to $10 per foot
           of shoreline, or $15 to $18 per foot in combination with sand
           fencing to protect the vegetation.

           Planting of Wetland (Bay Shoreline) Vegetation. The GLO
           allows permittees planting vegetation adjacent to state-owned
           lands to use vegetation from existing stands on state lands as
           source material, provided that no more than one 6-inch-diam-
           eter plug per square yard is taken. Any damage to borrow
           areas and/or existing adjacent seagrass beds is to be strictly
           avoided. If the GLO determines that excessive impacts have
           occurred to any of these areas, the permittee may be required
           to mitigate the impact.

           Revetment. Protection of bay or channel shorelines by revet-
           ment can cost $100 to $200 per foot of protected shoreline.
           Maintenance costs will generally not be incurred for a number
           of years, or until the structure is damaged by a major storm
           event. Because of their flexible nature, revetment systems can
           generally sustain limited damage without catastrophic dam-

                                                           19










                                               age to the protected property.

                                               Bulkhead. The cost of bulkhead construction along bay shore-
                                               lines can range from $75 to $175 per foot, depending on the
                                               height of the structure and the materials used. The cost of
                                               bulkheads for commercial use can reach $2 million per mile
                                               ($350 to $400 per foot). Maintenance costs are minimal, but
                                               damage to a bulkhead can result in significant damage to the
                                               upland property


                      Pos+Storm                Gulf beaches recover from storms when sufficient sediment is
                      Emerqency                transported to the beach from offshore. The factors affecting
                        Response               the rate of recovery are time, the amount of beach erosion
                                               caused by the storm, occurrence of subsequent storms, shore-
                                               line stability (whether it is a historically eroding beach), cli-
                                               matic variations, and human alteration of natural processes.
                                               Human modifications of the beach following a storm can have
                                               profound effects on the shoreline. Following Hurricane Opal
                                               in the fall of 1995, the state of Florida allowed the beach to be
                                               scraped and the sand to be placed in a shore-parallel berm
                                               along portions of the Florida Panhandle coast. The state found
                                               that the scraped beaches did not recover as quickly as beaches
                                               that were not scraped (Leadon, 1996).

                                               In a study of the effects of long-term recovery, Morton and
                                               Paine (1985) found that two years. after Hurricane Alicia, re-
                                               covery of the vegetation line along the beaches of West
                                               Galveston Island was insignificant because the depth of beach
                                               scour was greater than the root depth and no vegetation could
                                               take hold. They concluded that natural recovery of the veg-
                                               etation line to its pre-storm position would be unlikely along
                                               the eroding segments of the Galveston Island shoreline. To
                                               maxin-dze recovery of the beaches and vegetation line, the natu-
                                               ral processes of sedimentation should not be disturbed. It is
                                               for this reason that different "emergency" measures must be
                                               taken to protect the beaches after storms.

                                               Post-storm response is governed by the local dune protection
                                               and beach access plans and the GLO rules for management of
                                               the beach/dune system (TAC ï¿½ï¿½15.1-15.10). The term "'emer-
                                               gency erosion response" becomes effective when the gover-
                                               nor declares a state of emergency and requests federal assis-

                                                            20










           tance following a storm incident. At that time, federal fund-
           ing may be made available to those with flood insurance for
           acquiring, relocating, or elevating damaged structures.

           If storm erosion moves the natural line of vegetation to a posi-
           tion landward of existing beachfront structures, the attorney
           general, district attorney or county attorney may enforce the
           Open Beaches Act by seeking a court order for the removal of
           such structures from the public beach. This act prohibits the
           construction of any new structure seaward of the post-storm
           location of the natural line of vegetation.

           Structures Seaward of the Post-Storm Vegetation Line

           For structures that were situated landward of the vegetation
           line prior to a storm but are located seaward of the vegetation
           line after the storm, the following policies have been used by
           the OAG.


           More than 50% Damaged
              PROHIMED: The repair or reconstruction of any structure
                  that is more than 50% damaged by the storm or any
                  other casualty If, by visual observation, it is not obvi-
                  ous that more than half of the structure is damaged or
                  destroyed, monetary values will be evaluated to deter-
                  mine whether damage exceeds 50% of the value of the
                  structure. No reconstruction will be allowed unless and
                  until the natural line of vegetation has migrated by natu-
                  ral processes to a position seaward of the structure.

           Less than 50% Damaged
              PERMITT ED: The repair or reconstruction of any structure
                  that is less than 50% damaged.

              PROHIMED: (1) The construction or repair of bulkheads,
                  riprap, or other "hard" beachfront structures, (2) con-
                  struction activities that interfere with the natural for-
                  mation of sand dunes on the property, and (3) construc-
                  tion activities that interfere with public use of the beach
                  area immediately adjacent to the structure. If at any time
                  thereafter the structure is more than 50% damaged and
                  is still situated seaward of the natural line of vegeta-
                  tion, the structure may not be repaired or rebuilt unless

                                                           21










                                                      and until the natural line of vegetation has migrated by
                                                      natural processes to a position seaward of the structure.

                                               After Hurricane Alicia, the OAG recommended that coastal
                                               landowners check with that office before rebuilding proper-
                                               ties adjacent to the public beach. The City of Galveston at that
                                               time imposed a 30-day moratorium on the repair of beachfront
                                               structures to prevent haphazard construction that might be
                                               detrimental to the natural beach recovery process or to public
                                               access and use of the public beach.

                                               Structures or Erosion Response Projects within 200 Feet
                                               Landward of the Post-Storm Vegetation Line

                                               The OAG has used the following guidelines for structures lo-
                                               cated within 200 feet landward of the post-storm vegetation
                                               line, or for erosion response activities.

                                                  PERMrlrrED: (1) The repair or reconstruction of any habit-
                                                      able structure following the requirements for construc-
                                                      tion in flood hazard areas (31 TAC ï¿½15.6(e)); (2) beach
                                                      nourishment projects that follow the requirements of
                                                      31 TAC ï¿½15.7(d); and (3) dune reconstruction projects
                                                      that follow the requirements of 31 TAC ï¿½15.7(e).

                                                  PROHIBUED: (1) the construction of any new or repair of
                                                      any existing bulkhead or "hard" structure as set forth
                                                      in 31 TAC ï¿½15.6(c), regarding construction of new ero-
                                                      sion response structures, and ï¿½15.6(d) regarding repair
                                                      of existing erosion response structures; (2) beach main-
                                                      tenance activities that alter the beach profile (such as
                                                      scraping and creating windrows); and (3) fin projects
                                                      other than approved dune reconstruction or beach nour-
                                                      ishment projects.

                                               Landowners should contact their local city planning depart-
                                               ment, county engineer's office, or city/county floodplain ad-
                                               ministrator (listed in Appendix D) for information about ob-
                                               taining emergency dune protection permits and beachfront
                                               construction certificates.


                                               The Open Beaches Act restrictions outlined above do not ap-
                                               ply to property along bay shorelines. Property owners should

                                                            22










           contact their local building permit authority for information
           and, if the property is adjacent to state-owned submerged
           lands, the GLO.


           Many coastal states, counties, and municipalities are contend-               Fundinq
           ing with the issue of funding erosion response projects. State               tor Erosion
           legislatures, governor's task forces, county commissioners'                  Respwm
           courts, city councils, and citizen groups have developed rec-
           ommendations, passed laws, and implemented programs ad-
           dressing coastal erosion. Almost all attempt to balance the costs
           of erosion response projects with the benefits that accrue to
           shorefront landowners; to local, state, and national govern-
           ment; and to the general population. In many cases, the three
           levels of government work together to apportion the costs of
           erosion response projects among those responsible for caus-
           ing the erosion (when caused by non-natural forces) and those
           who benefit from the project.

           Most erosion response projects are funded through cost shar-
           ing; federal, state, and local monies are used to fund the project.
           The governments' funds are raised through various taxing
           mechanisms that target different segments of the population-
           from the federal income tax every wage earner pays to a capi-
           tal gains tax on the sale of beachfront property.

           While our shorelines provide the county, state, and coastal com-
           munities with numerous benefits, the U.S. has spent only $34
           million annually (1993 dollars) on shoreline protection and
           restoration in the past 40 years (Houston, 1996). According to
           Houston (1996), spending on beach restoration has been less
           than 0.1% of U.S. spending for crop subsidies or foreign aid.

           A limited number of funding mechanisms (e.g., taxes, fees, and
           fines) can be used to finance an erosion response project in
           Texas. The state has no funding mechanism dedicated to ero-
           sion response. Erosion response projects must compete for
           existing monies with other projects important to local and state
           government.

           Local Funding Options

           Be"h User Fees. The GLO rules for the management of the

                                                            23









                                              beach/dune system allow local governments with state-ap-
                                              proved dune protection and beach access plans to impose beach
                                              user fees. The fees collected may be used solely for the provi-
                                              sion of beach-related services, which include beach nourish-
                                              ment projects and beach/dune protection and restoration
                                              projects.

                                              HotellMotel Occupancy Tax and State Hotel Occupancy Tax
                                              Refund. Home rule cities have the authority to assess a hotel/
                                              motel occupancy tax in addition to that assessed by the state.
                                              This tax assessment may be used to fund erosion response
                                              projects such as beach nourishment. Cities often use revenue
                                              from taxes paid mostly by visitors to improve services or re-
                                              sources the visitors use. In addition, eligible coastal munici-
                                              palities, as defined by Section 156-2511 of the tax code, are en-
                                              titled to collect a refund from the hotel occupancy tax collected
                                              by the state from hotels within their jurisdiction. This fund
                                              must be used for cleaning and maintaining the beach.

                                              Impact Fees. Communities around the country often use "im-
                                              pact fees" to fund resource protection projects. These are fees
                                              tied to projects that require local permits or authorizations and
                                              that cause some quantifiable "residual" impact to a natural
                                              resource even after steps to mitigate the impact have been
                                              taken.


                                              For example, the County of Santa Barbara, California, has
                                              implemented a mitigation fund to help reduce the level of im-
                                              pacts to coastal resources that cannot be avoided or mitigated
                                              through permit conditions. In 1988, the environmental impact
                                              statements of four offshore oil and gas projects with onshore
                                              components in the county identified potential cumulative im-
                                              pacts to coastal resources and activities (e.g., recreation and
                                              tourism) that would occur throughout the life of the project.

                                              To mitigate residual impacts on the county's coastal resources
                                              and activities, the county established the Coastal Resource
                                              Enhancement Fund (CREF), which funds coastal resource en-
                                              hancement projects. Project approvals are conditioned on con-
                                              tribution to the CREE Annual contributions to the CREF are
                                              required for the life of the project. A company may make an-
                                              nual payments or a discounted five-year payment. The county
                                              adjusts the fee formula value every five years based on the

                                                            24










           consumer price index for the preceding five years.

           Seawall TaxlBreakwater Authority. Each coastal county and
           municipality is authorized to build, maintain, protect, and
           improve seawalls. By statute, counties and municipalities are
           authorized to levy a special ad valorem property tax of up to
           $0.50 per $100 valuation to pay for a seawall project. In addi-
           tion, coastal counties-except Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, and
           Willacy-are authorized to construct breakwaters using exist-
           ing tax mechanisms (e.g., ad valorem property tax).

           The Office of the Attorney General was asked in 1989 whether
           beach nourishment could be funded with seawall tax money
           or under the breakwater authority. The attorney general's
           opinion stated that whether "on the facts of a particular case"
           a constructed beach could be "accurately characterized" as a
           seawall, breakwater, or some necessary appurtenance was a
           fact question. That is, each project is evaluated on the particu-
           lar facts.

           State Funding Mechanisms

           Beach Maintenance Fund. The GLO administers the Beach
           Maintenance Program, a state program that reimburses eligible
           cities and counties for local expenditures to clean and main-
           tain Gulf beaches. Activities eligible for reimbursement un-
           der this program include beach nourishment. State hotel oc-
           cupancy tax monies spent on beach maintenance cannot be
           reimbursed by the Beach Maintenance Fund.

           Coastal Management Program. Erosion response grant fund-
           ing through the Texas CUT is administered through the Coastal
           Coordination Council (CCC). Upon federal approval of the
           CMP, Texas will receive an estimated $2.4 million per year in
           federal matching funds to implement the program and advance
           the program's goals and policies.

           One of the ten goals of the CMP is "to minimize loss of human
           life and property due to the impairment and loss of protective
           features of CNRAs (Coastal Natural Resource Areas)." In ad-
           dition, the CUT contains six policies addressing erosion re-
           sponse, five policies addressing construction in the beach/ dune
           system, and several policies addressing shoreline access struc-

                                                           25












                                               tures and facilities.


                                               Because of the focus on shoreline issues in the policies, it is
                                               expected that the CMP grants program, once it is developed
                                               and implemented, will help fund erosion response planning,
                                               design, and construction projects.

                                               General Land Office. The GLO administers the state Surface
                                               Damage Account, which is funded by fines and penalties
                                               charged for violations and fees for GLO permits and authori-
                                               zations. The Surface Damage Account may be used to fund
                                               conservation or reclamation projects making permanent im-
                                               provements on Permanent School Fund (PSF) land and to make
                                               grants to lessees of PSF land for these purposes. In the past,
                                               funds from the Surface Damage Account have been used to
                                               purchase wetland vegetation for planting on PSF lands to sta-
                                               bilize the shoreline and protect it from erosion caused by wave
                                               action.


                                               Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (77VRCC).
                                               The Litigation Services Division of TNRCC administers the
                                               Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) program, a discre-
                                               tionary program used in agency-agreed enforcement orders.
                                               In settling enforcement actions, TNRCC staff are allowed to
                                               work with respondents to present to the Commission a reduced
                                               administrative penalty if voluntary contributions are made to
                                               fund a SEP.


                                               In general, funding a SEP may not reduce an administrative
                                               penalty by more than 50 percent. In addition, expenditures
                                               for a SEP must be on at least a one-to-one ratio with the reduc-
                                               tion in penalties. Some projects may require a higher expendi-
                                               ture-to-reduction ratio.


                                               Projects that may be accepted for SEP funding are those that
                                               will directly benefit the environment in the community where
                                               the alleged violation occurred. Projects that may be appropri-
                                               ate for the SEP program and that may provide erosion response
                                               are: (1) environmental restoration projects that enhance the
                                               environment in the vicinity of the violating facility; (2) projects
                                               that provide significant and meaningful environmental edu-
                                               cation and/or engineering assistance to members of the regu-
                                               lated community or the public; and (3) projects to fund public

                                                             26










          works for a neighboring municipality or county that will ben-
          efit the environment in a way that is beyond ordinary compli-
          ance with the law.


          Texas Transportation Commission (TxDOT). In 1995, the 74th
          Texas Legislature amended the Texas Coastal Waterway Act
          of 1975 to allow the Texas Transportation Commission to enter
          into agreements with the COE to share the costs of projects
          making beneficial use of material dredged from the GIWW.

          The commission is required to develop rules that establish eli-
          gibility criteria for beneficial-use projects. The legislature de-
          fined a beneficial use as "any productive and positive use of
          dredged material [that] covers broad use categories ranging
          from fish and wildlife habitat development to human recre-
          ation."


          Input into the Texas Transportation Commission's rulemaking
          from coastal landowners whose property is endangered by
          erosion will help ensure that erosion response projects such as
          beach nourishment receive high priority.

          Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). The TWDB's Flood
          Control Fund can issue loans to local communities for flood
          protection projects. The TWDB was instrumental in provid-
          ing loans to the City of Galveston for the construction of its
          beach nourishment project in 1995.

          Texas Legislature. State funding for erosion response projects
          can be obtained through direct legislative appropriation.

          Federal Funding Mechanisms

          Federal Emergency Management Agency. Currently, FEMA
          provides disaster assistance to coastal communities only after
          an area has been declared a disaster area by the president of
          the United States. The disaster assistance includes individual
          assistance and public assistance. Individual assistance is pro-
          vided to individuals, families, and small businesses in the form
          of grants, loans, and temporary housing. Public assistance is
          provided for the repair of public property such as courthouses,
          city halls, and public parks.


                                                          27










                                              Coastal property owners having federally funded flood insur-
                                              ance may be able to participate in a newly developed FEMA
                                              program that will provide grants to states and communities
                                              for the acquisition, relocation, elevation, floodproofing, or
                                              demolition of structures, as well as for beach nourishment and
                                              technical assistance. Further inform" ation may become avail-
                                              able on this program in the fall of 1996.

                                              U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under its Continuing Authori-
                                              ties Program (CAP), the COE is authorized to construct cer-
                                              tain water resource projects without specific congressional ap-
                                              proval. Projects constructed under the CAP must include local
                                              cooperation and sponsorship. The local sponsor may be a state,
                                              county, city@ or other fully empowered group. Each project must
                                              be economically justified on a benefit-to-cost basis. All CAP
                                              projects are subject to the availability of federal funds.

                                              CAP Emergency Bank Protection - Emergency strearnbank and
                                              shoreline protection is available for public and nonprofit prop-
                                              erty through Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act (as
                                              amended). Each project must be a complete solution to the
                                              problem involved, and the local sponsor must cover at least 25
                                              percent of project cost, including all costs above $500,000.

                                              CAP Small Beach Protection Projects      Section 103 of the 1962
                                              River and Harbor Act (as amended) allows the COE to design
                                              and construct small projects to restore or protect coastal shores
                                              from erosion caused by natural wave and current action. The
                                              local sponsor's share is at least 35 percent of the total project
                                              cost for publicly-owned (non-federal) shores. Federal assistance
                                              is limited to $2 million per project.

                                              CAP Mitigation of Shore Damages - The COE can investigate
                                              and construct projects to mitigate shore damage resulting from
                                              federal navigation works under the authority of Section 111 of
                                              the 1968 River and Harbor Act (as amended). The cost-share
                                              percentage for mitigation is the same as that of the original
                                              project which caused the shore damage. Local interests must
                                              operate and maintain the project.. The federal participation
                                              limit is $2 million per project without congressional approval.

                                              CAP Section 1135 Projects - Section 1135 of the Water Resources
                                              Development Act of 1992 authorizes modifications to existing

                                                            28










           federal water resource projects to improve environmental qual-
           ity where it is in the public interest. Project modifications must
           be feasible and consistent with the intended purposes of the
           existing project. Local sponsors must provide at least 25 per-
           cent of project costs and must operate and maintain the project.
           Federal participation is limited to $5 million without congres-
           sional approval.

           Section 933 Projects - Section 933 of the Water Resource De-
           velopment Act of 1986 authorizes the COE to place suitable
           dredged material on public beaches. The dredged material
           must come from construction or maintenance dredging of navi-
           gation inlets and channels. The federal share of project costs is
           50 percent only if the economic benefits (primarily flood pro-
           tection and recreation benefits) exceed the added project cost.
           Otherwise, the COE can still construct the project with the lo-
           cal sponsor contributing all of the added cost.

           Section 216 Projects - Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of
           1970 authorizes the COE to review the operation of completed
           projects and to report to Congress with recommendations on
           the advisability of modifying existing structures or their op-
           eration, and for improving the quality of the environment in
           the overall public interest.

           Planning Assistance to States - Section 22 of the Water Resources
           Development Act of 1974 authorizes the COE to cooperate with
           any state or state subsidiary in preparing comprehensive plans
           for the development, utilization, and conservation of water and
           related resources. The state must provide 50 percent of the cost,
           and annual federal participation is limited to $300,000 per state.

           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Coastal Wetlands
           Conservation Grant Program is authorized by Section 305 of the
           Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act of
           1991. Funds are intended for coastal states to acquire, restore,
           enhance, or manage coastal lands or waters, including wetlands.

           Under the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS must protect
           and preserve endangered species and their habitats. Some
           eroding areas in Texas are known to be used by endangered
           species and are therefore entitled to protection and preserva-
           tion.


                                                           29










                                           Congressional AuthorizationlAppropriation. Federal fund-
                                           ing of erosion response projects can be obtained through di-
                                           rect congressional action. The local sponsor must convince
                                           Congress of the need for the project. The congressional com-
                                           mittees with jurisdiction over the Water Resources Develop-
                                           ment Act of 1996 are the Senate Environment and Public Works
                                           Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure
                                           Committee.


                                           Appropriations would come from the Energy and Water Sub-
                                           committee of the House Appropriations Committee, along with
                                           the Senate Appropriations Committee.
































                                                       30









          The following policy recommendations are proposed to better                  PART 2
          address coastal erosion problems in Texas. The proposed poli-                        0SOIS
          cies are based on the lessons we have learned from implement-
          ing ineffective or inadequate policies, and on comments and                  for
          suggestions from coastal residents.                                          improved
          1. Establish a state f unding source f or erosion response.                  Erosion
          Many critical erosion areas along the Texas Gulf coast require               Response
          expensive remedies to protect private property and the com-
          mon law rights of the public on public beaches. Current state                Recommended
          policies and programs are not effective in providing landown-                Policy
          ers with assistance or protection. The main problems imped-
          ing coastal erosion response are lack of funding, lack of eco-
          nomical sand sources, and poor coordination among federal,
          state, and local agencies and coastal citizens.

          The greatest obstacle that citizens and local and state govern-
          ments face in responding to erosion is obtaining adequate fi-
          nancial resources for the planning and construction of erosion
          response projects, A state source of funding could provide
          local governments financial assistance in cost-sharing projects
          with the federal government. For instance, the COE win dredge
          sediments from Rollover Pass in Galveston County in the win-
          ter of 1997. The sediments from the dredging project could be
          placed on the eroding beaches nearby to provide storm pro-
          tection to the homes that are now located on the line of vegeta-
          tion. However, the state, property owners, and Galveston
          County do not have the funding to share the beach fill costs
          with the COE.


          To solve these problems, the legislature should consider en-
          acting legislation to establish a fund that could be used in con-
          junction with local funding for approved projects. The act
          would follow existing state policies by promoting the use of
          llsoft" methods of avoiding, slowing, or remedying erosion and
          would list the types of projects that could be used in critical
          erosion areas. The types of projects eligible for funding could
          include beach nourishment, vegetation planting, sediment by-
          passing, construction of nearshore sediment berms, dune sta-
          bilization and creation, post-storm emergency response, moni-
          toring of project effectiveness, relocation of structures, and ac-
          quisition of property. Planning, design, and construction of

                                                           31










                                                the projects listed above would be eligible, as well as the propa-
                                                gation or collection of vegetation suitable for shoreline or dune
                                                stabilization.


                                                Additionally, the act could promote broad-based partnerships
                                                with local governments, state agencies and river authorities,
                                                soil and water conservation districts, marine advisory com-
                                                mittees, and coastal industries for planning and implement-
                                                ing projects and for identifying local funding sources.

                                                The major beneficiaries of the legislation would be local gov-
                                                ernments, property owners, coastal businesses, and beach and
                                                bay users. Local governments include cities, counties, and any
                                                special districts dedicated to erosion response (e.g., conserva-
                                                tion and reclamation districts, and seawall commissions).
                                                Many of the proposed erosion response projects would add
                                                sediment to the shoreline, resulting in wider beaches for the
                                                general public to enjoy Some projects could remove struc-
                                                tures from future erosion threats, which would cost taxpayers
                                                less in the long run.

                                                2. Improve coordination among the U.S. Army Corps of En-
                                                gineers and state and local governments regarding current
                                                projects and identify potential erosion response projects.

                                                Although some federal dredging projects directly impact local
                                                communities, many local goverm-nents and communities are
                                                not adequately engaged in the COE's planning processes. As
                                                a result, opportunities to address local needs have been missed.

                                                The COE does not provide sufficient forewarning of long-term
                                                dredging plans in a manner whichfacilitates full participation
                                                at the local level. While the COE does provide some notice
                                                and opportunity to comment on all its projects, this notice is
                                                generally published too late to allow local governments and
                                                communities to influence the design and budget for the project.

                                                The COE, Galveston District, hosts an annual dredging con-
                                                ference. This conference, principally geared toward dredging
                                                contractors, provides some information about proposed dredg-
                                                ing activities for the next two years. In effect, the conference
                                                report outlines the established dredging practices for specific
                                                areas. Little opportunity exists to explore alternatives which

                                                              32










           may address the concerns of local communities or change the
           project design or schedule. As a result, few, if any, local gov-
           ernments take part in the conference.

           The COE should reform its long-term planning process to in-
           crease the opportunity for local involvement and participa-
           tion in decision-making. In particular, the COE should pro-
           mote exploration of alternative dredging options designed to
           meet the needs of local communities, while still satisfying its
           duty to maintain navigable channels. The planning process
           should provide local governments with adequate time to plan
           for, and acquire funds necessary to serve as local sponsors for,
           beneficial use projects. Local government representatives
           should be included in the COE's beneficial uses group.

           GLO should continue in its role as the lead state agency for
           coordinating efforts among federal, state, and local agencies.

           3. Pursue Texas'fair share of federal funding f or erosion
           response projects.

           A number of underutilized federal funding mechanisms should
           be tapped. In cooperation with the COE and local govern-
           ments, the state should identify projects that may qualify for
           federal funds under COE Continuing Authority Programs and
           other federal authorities (described in Part I-Funding for Ero-
           sion Response). Texas needs the COE to take an active role in
           enabling these projects to be cost-justified within the funding
           guidelines. To date, the COE, Galveston District, has not been
           able to justify federal involvement and funding for any "Sec-
           tion 933" projects in Texas, leaving local governments to pay
           the bill on their own. The federal government may be respon-
           sible for some shoreline erosion problems such as areas of ero-
           sion downdrift of jetties and navigation projects.

           Texas needs the COE to be proactive in its involvement in shore-
           line protection because the state and local governments need
           the federal funding assistance and because some COE naviga-
           tion or dredging projects yield sediment that could be used
           for erosion response projects.




                                                         33









                                               4. Provide technical assistance to local governments and
                                               others to obtain erosion response funding from the Fed-
                                               eral Emergency Management Agency.

                                               As part of its existing statutory responsibilities, the GLO will
                                               help local governments and citizens who have federally-funded
                                               flood insurance to participate in a new program being devel-
                                               oped by FEMA under the National Flood Insurance Reform
                                               Act. The new program will provide grants to states and com-
                                               munities at a 75/25 percent (federal/state) cost share for ac-
                                               quisition, relocation, elevation, floodproofing, and demolition
                                               of structures, as well as for beach nourishment and technical
                                               assistance.


                                               The new FEMA program takes the place of funding under the
                                               Upton-Jones Act, which was discontinued in 1995.

                                               5. Improve sediment management practices and consider
                                               their eff acts on the coastal sediment budget.

                                               Sediment management within Texas river systems has long
                                               been proposed by coastal citizens as a key element in any plan
                                               to alleviate coastal erosion. Although dams stop sediment from
                                               reaching the coast, many are so far from the coast that it is
                                               difficult to justify the cost of importing the sediment from them
                                               to the Gulf beaches. In 1991, for example, the COE, Fort Worth
                                               District, published a report that calculated the costs of dredg-
                                               ing sediment from Whitney Lake on the Brazos River and de-
                                               positing it on the beaches of Matagorda County Whitney Lake
                                               was chosen for the study because it is the most downstream
                                               reservoir on the Brazos River. (The dam is located approxi-
                                               mately 442 river miles from the Gulf of Mexico.) The study
                                               found that the sediments witl-dn the lake were too fine (silt
                                               size or smaller) for beach restoration, and the cost of dredging
                                               and transporting, via slurry pipeline, about 76.4 million cubic
                                               yards of sediment to the Gulf would be about $787.3 million
                                               (COE, 1991). Another study estimated that the cost of dredg-
                                               ing sediments from Lake Buchanan on the Colorado River and
                                               stockpiling them nearby would range from $4.25 to $5.50 per
                                               cubic yard (Engitech, Inc., 1991).

                                               The question of the effect that the mining of sand, marl, and
                                               gravel from coastal rivers may have on coastal erosion has also

                                                             34










           been raised. Despite these concerns, sediment mining in riv-
           ers that empty into the Gulf of Mexico continues to be permit-
           ted. New permittees are required to help fund a study of the
           effect of sand mining on coastal erosion. The study is being
           conducted by the BEG and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
           Austin office, and the results are expected in 1997.

           Potential alternative sediment sources, such as dredged mate-
           rial disposal sites, are often ignored mainly because the sedi-
           ment size and the amount of sediment available are unknown.
           Typically, disposal sites are filled with a mix of beach-quality
           sand and sediment too fine for use.


           The state should take appropriate action in three specific areas
           of concern relating to sediment management.

           First, steps should be taken to reduce the impact of structures
           on sediment supply. For example, the state should ensure that
           sediment bypassing is an integral part of future flood control
           or water supply projects. Plans for new coastal improvements
           such as jetties, groins, and inlets should incorporate sediment
           management features (such as bypass systems) or provide for
           mitigation of the shoreline damage attributable to the struc-
           ture. Where feasible, existing riverine and coastal structures
           should be retrofitted to allow sediment bypassing or other-
           wise reduce the impact of these projects on coastal sediment
           supply.

           Second, dredged material disposal practices should be modi-
           fied to facilitate the beneficial use of dredged material. The
           COE should plan for and create disposal areas to stockpile
           beach-quality sediment. These disposal areas should be lo-
           cated near areas where the material can be used beneficially.
           In addition, the COE should identify opportunities to reclaim
           beach-quality sediment from existing dredged material dis-
           posal areas.

           Third, to the extent warranted by the forthcoming BEG/USGS
           study, the state should modify its existing policies governing
           sand, marl, and gravel mining in coastal rivers.




                                                          35









                                               6. Establish research priorities in support of erosion re-
                                               sponse planning and project assessment.

                                               In the past, coastal erosion investigations and impact assess-
                                               ments have been conducted in support of specific coastal con-
                                               struction projects. Usually, sand source studies and monitor-
                                               ing of erosion response projects have been funded solely by
                                               local sponsors. These studies are necessary to evaluate the
                                               success of a project or to plan subsequent projects; however,
                                               the studies are costly and of limited application in other areas.
                                               In many cases, broader, more comprehensive studies and as-
                                               sessments are needed as a foundation for development and
                                               implemention of a more comprehensive coastal erosion re-
                                               sponse program.

                                               The state should establish partnerships with universities to
                                               complete the following investigations and impact assessments:

                                                  a. identify economically feasible sand sources for beach
                                                  restoration projects;

                                                  b. investigate the use of COE dredged material disposal
                                                  sites as potential sources of sediment for shoreline restora-
                                                  tion projects;

                                                  c. conduct annual beach profile survey studies along de-
                                                  veloped Gulf beaches to measure shoreline changes;

                                                  d. establish nursery projects that develop and cultivate
                                                  disease-resistant vegetation adapted to local conditions;

                                                  e. determine the effects of vessel wakes on shorelines;

                                                  f. determine the impact of local beach-cleaning and scrap-
                                                  ing practices on the beach/dune system and, where war-
                                                  ranted, develop alternative and less damaging beach-clean-
                                                  ing methods;

                                                  g. develop regional and local sand management plans (sedi-
                                                  ment budgets);

                                                  h. implement a wave gauging program (long-term clima-
                                                  tology and storm documentation); and

                                                             36










               L develop inlet management plans.

           7. Promote public education about the impacts of coastal
           erosion and about appropriate erosion response methods.

           To achieve effective erosion response, the public must be con-
           tinually informed about the impacts of coastal erosion and the
           importance of using appropriate erosion response methods.
           This can only be achieved through a concerted public outreach
           program. An informed public will produce better steward-
           ship within communities and can assist in the enforcement of
           state and local programs. Shoreline erosion was one of the
           chief concerns of coastal residents who testified at public hear-
           ings on the proposed CMP. Certainly, the public has an inter-
           est in learning more about coastal erosion and what citizens
           can do to help address it. Existing state policies do not do
           enough to promote public outreach.

           The Texas Sea Grant College Program or another outreach en-
           tity should assist agencies in educating the public about the
           causes of erosion, the latest studies on coastal erosion, and
           appropriate erosion response methods. This can be achieved
           through newsletters and state agency guidance documents,
           public speaking engagements, education of teachers and
           schoolchildren, and public service announcements.

           As part of its existing statutory mandate, the GLO should co-
           ordinate and expand efforts to educate the public about coastal
           erosion problems and possible solutions.















                                                           37









                                 PART 3                          The GLO rules for management of the beach/ dune system (31
                                    Clifical                     TAC ï¿½ï¿½15.1-15.10) define "eroding areas" as "a portion of the
                                                                 shoreline which is experiencing a historical erosion rate of
                                  Erosion                        greater than two feet per year based on published data of the
                                      Areas                      University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology."'
                                                                 An eroding area is considered critical when the rate of erosion
                                                                 exceeds two feet per year and poses a threat to:
                                      Rankinq
                                        Critical                      9 public infrastructure or areas of national importance,
                                      Erosion                         e public beach access and recreation,
                                                                      o traffic safety,
                                                                      9 private property, or
                                                                      o fish or wildlife habitat.


                                                                 To rank critical erosion areas in a reasonably quantifiable man-
                                                                 ner, the following factors and ratings are considered (HIGH = 3
                                                                 PtS., MED = 2 pts., Low = 1 pt.). Areas with higher point totals
                                                                 should receive higher priority for funding.

                                                                 1. Evacuation routes and public safety

                                                                      HIGH   .......... Evacuation routes are closed due to shoreline ero-
                                                                                    sion, and beach travel is closed.
                                                                      MED    ........... Evacuation routes are open, but reasonably safe
                                                                                    beach travel is threatened.
                                                                      Low    ........... Evacuation routes are open, and beach travel is
                                                                                    open.

                                                                 2. Public access and recreation


                                                                      HIGH   .......... Public access and use are halted due to erosion.
                                                                      MED    ........... Public access and use are threatened.
                                                                      Low    ........... Public access and use is not affected.

                                                                 3. Federal/state/local economic impact

                                                                      HIGH   .......... Erosion is the main cause for a decrease in an-
                                                                                    nual tourist dollars and in the tax base.
                                                                      MED    ........... Erosion is partly the reason for decreased rev-
                                                                                    enues.
                                                                      Low    ........... Erosion is not a reason for decreased revenues




                                                                                    38


0







                 4. Public/private property value                                                                                            Examples of Hiqh
                                                                                                                                             Rankinq Factors
                       HIGH.......... The total value of threatened property exceeds                                                   1. Evacuation routes and
                                      $100,000, or habitable structures are in imminent                                                   public safety: Highway 87
                                      danger of collapse due to erosion.                                                                  in Jefferson County;
                                                                                                                                          Magqnolia Beach/
                       MED........... The total value of threatened property is equal                                                     Indianola.
                                      to or less than $100,000, and/or structures are
                                      located within the eroding area boundary.                                                        2. Public access and
                                                                                                                                          recreation: Hiqhway 87
                       LOW........... Property values have not decreased, and/or the                                                      in Jefferson County;
                                      structures are located landward of the eroding                                                      Magnolia Beach.
                                      area boundary.                                                                                   3. Federal/state/local
                                                                                                                                          economic impact: Magno-
                 5. Existing shoreline protection                                                                                         lia Beach; Caplen Beach;
                                                                                                                                          Corpus Christi Ship
                       HIGH.......... The shoreline is in its natural state, and no shore                                                 Channel at Port Aransas;
                                                                                                                                          Hiqhway 87; South Padre
                                      protection program has been implemented.                                                            Island; Treasure Island.
                       MED........... The shoreline has been restored by beach nour-                                                   4. Public/private property
                                      ishment.                                                                                            value: Caplen Beach;
                       LOW........... The shoreline is armored.                                                                           Corpus Christi Ship
                                                                                                                                          Channel at Port Aransas;
                 6. Historical erosion rate                                                                                               Treasure Island; South
                                                                                                                                          Padre Island.

                       HIGH.......... Greater than five feet per year.                                                                 5. Existinq shoreline
                       MED........... Greater than two feet and less than five feet per                                                   protection (natural):
                                                                                                                                          Welder Flats State
                                      year.                                                                                               Coastal Preserve; Lower
                       LOW........... Stable or accreting.                                                                                Neches River Valley.
                 7. Loss of wildlife areas/endangered species                                                                          6. Historical erosion rate
                                                                                                                                          greater than 5 ft/yr:
                                                                                                                                          Caplen Beach; Hiqhway
                       HIGH.......... Wildlife and endangered species habitat is be-                                                      87; Treasure Island; South
                                      ing lost due to erosion.                                                                            Padre Island.
                       MED........... Wildlife and endangered species habitat is im-                                                  7. Loss of wildlife areas/
                                      minently threatened by erosion.                                                                    endangered species:
                       LOW........... No habitat is threatened by erosion.                                                               Welder Flats; Lower
                                                                                                                                         Neches River Valley;
                                                                                                                                         Galveston Island State
                 8. Human impacts                                                                                                        Park bay shoreline.
                       HIGH.......... Erosion is mainly attributed to human impacts                                                   8. Human impacts:
                                                                                                                                         Corpus Christi Ship
                                      (for example, coastal structures or vessel wakes).                                                 Channel at Port Aransas;
                       MED........... Erosion is attributed to a mixture of human im-                                                    Caplen Beach; Welder
                                      pacts and natural processes.                                                                       Flats State Coastal
                                                                                                                                         Preserve; Lower Neches
                       LOW........... Erosion is mainly attributed to natural processes.                                                 River Valley.


                                                                                               39
 









                                               Once the critical erosion areas have been prioritized, the next
                                               step is to consider the type of erosion response project that
                                               may be planned. Proposed erosion response projects should
                                               be ranked on a benefit-to-cost ratio on the basis of the follow-
                                               ing benefits:

                                                   e Preserves coastal sand dunes
                                                   * Provides storm protection
                                                   * Protects commercial or recreational navigation
                                                   * Provides recreational opportunities
                                                   * Provides potential tourism income
                                                   9 Protects the tax base
                                                   o Benefits downdrift shorelines
                                                   o Protects or provides habitat

                                               On shorelines that are historically stable or accreting yet expe-
                                               rience significant erosion du -e to storm activity, the emergency
                                               measures recommended in Part II - Post-Storm Emergency
                                               Response - should be followed.

                                               Based on public input, nine critical erosion areas are featured
                                               below, including potential solutions and funding sources. Be-
                                               cause ranking criteria may depend on the funding source, the
                                               nine areas have not been ranked relative to one another. De-
                                               tails about the potential sources and types of funding can be
                                               found in Part I - Funding for Erosion Response.


                             Alamo,            Critical Erosion Area: Alamo Beach/Magnolia Beach/
                          Maqnolla,            Indianola Historical Site
               Indianola fkact%                Problem Description: Alamo, Magnolia, and Indianola beaches
               Calhoun County                  are located along the western shore of Matagorda Bay The
                                               shoreline is characterized by salt marshes and shell beaches.
                                               The Matagorda Ship Channel is located within one mile of the
                                               shoreline, with cargo ships traveling to the Formosa Plastics
                                               and ALCOA facilities. Approximately eight miles of shoreline
                                               are affected by severe erosion.

                                               Coastal landowners are spending thousands of dollars for
                                               shoreline stabilization only to see their efforts fail and their
                                               homes threatened. The width of the public beach park at Mag-
                                               nolia Beach is decreasing, and the public road (a hurricane

                                                            40










           evacuation route) that extends to Indianola is periodically
           flooded and needs repair.

           Presumed Causes: Historically, wave energy derived from the
           prevailing winds was the cause of the predominantly erosional
           state of the shoreline, where approximately 162 acres was lost
           between 1856 and 1934 (McGowen and Brewton, 1975). To-
           day, these natural coastal processes are combined with waves
           and surges generated by ship traffic.

           Desired Outcome: The goal of the erosion response project is
           to protect private property, public park beaches, and the pub-
           lic roadway

           Recommendation for Erosion Response: Except for areas to
           be reestablished as public beach, vegetation in combination
           with wave-breaking structures should be used to stabilize the
           shoreline. Beach-quality sand should be used to nourish the
           public beach. Marsh vegetation should be planted in areas of
           low wave energy Along eroding shorelines where the impact
           of vessel wakes is greatest, riprap or a combination of vegeta-
           tion with shore-parallel breakwaters could be used.

           Because the recommended response is multi-faceted, an ero-
           sion response working group consisting of local citizens, local
           government officials, the Calhoun County Navigation District,
           the local soil and water conservation district, the COE, and the
           GLO should be established.


           The working group should review the previous recommenda-
           tions made by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
           (NRCS), in conjunction with the local soil and water conserva-
           tion district. These organizations have mapped the eroding
           areas along the shorelines of Galveston, Matagorda, San Anto-
           nio, Copano, and Corpus Christi bays, and have evaluated sta-
           bilization methods


           In addition, the working group should consider taking the fol-
           lowing actions:

              1. determine the availability of beach-quality dredged ma-
                  terial for placement at the bayshore beach park;


                                                          41









                                                  2. evaluate the feasibility of extracting beach-quality mate-
                                                      rial from existing disposal areas for beach nourishment;
                                                      and

                                                  3. monitor vessel speeds in the navigation channel and
                                                      evaluate the impact of vessel wakes on the shoreline
                                                      erosion problem.

                                              Funding Alternatives

                                              Local - User fees; impact fees; seawall tax/breakwater au-
                                              thority; county property taxes; technical assistance through the
                                              Soil and Water Conservation District.


                                              State - CMP grant program; GLO surface damage account;
                                              TNRCC SEP program; TxDOT cost sharing with COE; TWDB,
                                              flood control fund; legislative appropriation.

                                              Federal - FEMA grant program; COE Section 933 authority
                                              for use of dredged sand; COE Continuing Authorities Program;
                                              technical assistance through NRCS; congressional appropria-
                                              tion.




                    Weldtm f lats             Critical Erosion Area: Welder Flats State Coastal Preserve
                   State Cocstal              Problem Description: Welder Flats State Coastal Preserve is
                        f *resemz,            located on San Antonio Bay, protected from the Gulf of Mexico
               Calhoun County                 by Matagorda Island. Productive marsh area is being converted
                                              to open water adjacent to the GIWW. A similar problem exists
                                              at the nearby Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. Both the pre-
                                              serve and refuge are known to be used by the endangered
                                              whooping crane (COE, 1995).

                                              Presumed Causes: Shoreline recession and deepening of shal-
                                              low-water habitat areas in the preserve are believed to be
                                              caused primarily by wakes from GIWW traffic in channel
                                              reaches confined by dredged material disposal areas opposite
                                              the preserve shoreline.

                                              Desired Outcome: Shoreline retreat and the deepening of shal-
                                              low water areas should be halted and reversed to reclaim pro-

                                                            42










           ductive marsh and seagrass habitat.                                                    Manmade Waves
           Recommendation for Erosion Response: Wave-dissipating                                  Alonq the coast most
           systems such as geotextile tubes or discontinuous breakwa-                             manmade waves come
                                                                                                  from boats, barqes and
           ters should be located near the GIWW channel to shield the                             ships.
           shallow, open water portions of the coastal preserve from barge
           tow wakes and surges.                                                                  Smaller, liqhter vessels
                                                                                                  produce wakes similar to
           If it is determined that a nonstructural method can accomplish                         natural, wind-driven
                                                                                                  waves. The effect at
           the desired outcome, this will be preferred over any structural                        these boat wakes on local
           solution. The high-energy wave environment created by                                  erosion can be important
           GIWW traffic may preclude a totally "soft" response. How-                              it the wakes are a larqe
           ever, if much of the wake energy can be absorbed or deflected                          percentaqe at the total
           before reaching the preserve shoreline, the area between the                           number at waves in the
                                                                                                  area.
           GIWW and the present shoreline can be restored. The use of
           limited amounts of dredged material should be considered to                            Other vessels cause
           restore bottom elevations to depths appropriate for marsh and                          wakes and surqcs that
           seagrass reestablishment. Partially segregating the habitat ar-                        arevery different from
                                                                                                  natural waves or fides,
           eas from the GIWW can also improve water clarity, which im-                            especially in locations
           proves conditions for seagrasses.                                                      where the volume (dis-
                                                                                                  placement) of the vessel is
           Additional habitat could be created by properly grading and                            lQrqc compared to the
           stabilizing the banks of the dredged material disposal areas                           size of the channel or
                                                                                                  body of water. When this
           opposite the preserve, which presently consist of erosional es-                        is the case, the water is
           carpments or bluffs.                                                                   forced to move out of the
                                                                                                  way at the vessel, result-
           Funding Alternatives                                                                   inq in switt currents or
                                                                                                  surq4Es that can move
                                                                                                  sediment and erode
           Local - N/A                                                                            shorelines.

           State - CMP grant program; GLO/TPWD/TNRCC operat-                                      Imaqine the motion at the
           ing funds for the designated coastal preserve; GLO surface                             water in a swimminq pool
           damage account; GLO spill response funds for onsite staging                            when a person wades
                                                                                                  throuqh, compared to
           area; TNRCC SEP program; TxDOT beneficial use participa-                               what happens in a
           tion; legislative appropriation or assessment of GIWW users.                           bathtub filled with water
                                                                                                  when a child moves
           Federal - USFWS protection of whooping crane habitat un-                               forward and backward.
                                                                                                  A channel with narrow
           der the Endangered Species Act; USFWS National Coastal Wet-                            banks or that is sur-
           lands Conservation Grant program; COE Section 216 modifi-                              rounded by shallow
           cation funding; congressional appropriation.                                           water reacts to Q larqc,
                                                                                                  possinq vessel much like
                                                                                                  the water in the bathtub
                                                                                                  reacts to the movement
                                                                                                  at the child.


                                                                  43









                     Caplen Beach                  Critical Erosion Area: Caplen Beach, Galveston County, Texas
                               Bolivar
                           Peninsula,              Problem Description: The Gulf-facing beach is receding over
               Givalveston County                  time. A nearly vertical cut bluff has developed along several
                                                   miles of the coast at Caplen Beach, west of Rollover Pass. The
                                                   beachfront bluff at Caplen is the highest point on Bolivar Pen-
                                                   insula west of High Island. The bluff suffers further cut-back
                                                   with each episode of wave attack (a combination of large waves
                                                   and high tides). During these episodes, the bluff is undermined
                                                   at its toe, resulting in slope failures and collapse onto the beach.
                                                   The bluff face is unstable and unvegetated, and no dune sys-
                                                   tem remains.


                                                   The destruction of several dozens of homes is imminent. Most
                                                   of these homes were located well back from the shoreline fol-
                                                   lowing the devastation of the area by Hurricane Carla in 1961.

                                                   Presumed Causes: Several causes of shoreline and bluff re-
                                                   treat in this area can be idenfified.-I Regionally, Bolivar Penin-
                                                   sula suffers from a general deficit:of sediment, due in part to
                                                   the presence of the Sabine jetties (a longshore sediment trans-
                                                   port barrier) as well as to reduced sediment supply from the
                                                   Neches and Sabine rivers (due to urbanization and water sup-
                                                   ply/flood control dams). The GIWW also intercepts sediment
                                                   formerly carried to the coast along drainage paths from inte-
                                                   rior marshes along the peninsula.

                                                   Low vertical relief and the flatness of stable beach slopes due
                                                   to the very fine-grained sediment make Bolivar Peninsula es-
                                                   pecially susceptible to the effects of relative sea level rise. Rela-
                                                   five sea level rise includes the effects of any absolute rise in
                                                   sea level; however, land subsidence is a more significant con-
                                                   tributor to relative sea level rise at Bolivar. The land surface
                                                   has been lowered by a combination of natural comp         action of
                                                   coastal sediments and the reduction of soil pore pressures as a
                                                   result of fluid (water, oil, and natural gas) pumping (Germiat,
                                                   1988). A consequence of gradualrelative sea level rise is the
                                                   landward migration of the shoreline, even if no sand or sedi-
                                                   ment is eroded from the area.


                                                   Although relative sea level rise and background sediment defi-
                                                   cit are known to exist on the peninsula, the locally accelerated
                                                   erosion rate is a direct consequence of the presence of Rollover

                                                                44










          Pass and other sediment-trapping structures (Morton, 1975).

          The presence of Rollover Pass on the updrift side of Caplen
          results in a more acute sediment deficit there than along neigh-
          boring beaches. In addition, derelict concrete structures and
          unauthorized self-help seawalls on the public beach to the east
          are functioning as groins, further reducing the supply of sand
          available for southwestward longshore transport to the beach
          at Caplen.

          Desired Outcome: The goal of an erosion response plan for
          the Rollover Pass vicinity is to stop or slow the landward ad-
          vance of the Gulf shoreline. A near-term goal is to stabilize
          the eroding bluff at Caplen Beach before any further loss of
          beachfront homes occurs. Reestablishment of a dune complex
          is also desired.


          Recommendation for Erosion Response: Initiate temporary
          bluff stabilization measures where homes are threatened, and
          implement a long-term beach nourishment program. An ero-
          sion response plan for the Gulf beaches adjacent to Rollover
          Pass must include three important cbmponents-bluff stabili-
          zation, reduction of the sediment deficit, and action to address
          relative sea level rise.


          1. Bluff stabilization - The bluff toe can be protected by pro-
          tective measures such as the installation of large sandbags or
          similar temporary measures. Such protection should only be
          considered as temporary, low-level protection. Long-term use
          of sandbags without beach nourishment may result in the loss
          of usable beach area and could exacerbate downdrift erosion.

          2. Sediment deficit reduction -A long-term beach nourishment
          program can stabilize the shoreline by providing sufficient sedi-
          ment to balance the local coastal sediment budget. Beach nour-
          ishment can also end the need for temporary protection mea-
          sures. Rollover Bay and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway offer
          potential sand sources for beach placement.

          Offshore sand sources also exist in the area (Bales and Holley,
          1985). A sand bypassing system to transport material across
          Rollover Pass from east to west should be considered. This
          would reduce the loss of beach sand into Rollover Bay or into

                                                          45










                                               deeper offshore waters (Wang, 1989). Closure of Rollover Pass
                                               to normal tidal flow would achieve the same result. Sediment
                                               quantities impounded upstream in Neches and Sabine River
                                               projects should be released to the coast where possible, to bring
                                               the regional sediment deficit more into balance.

                                               3. Response to relative sea level rise - Sand used for beach nour-
                                               ishment should be of sufficient quantity to negate the effects
                                               of relative sea level rise on the shoreline position. An alterna-
                                               tive to additional beach nourishment is planned retreat of de-
                                               velopment from the present shoreline.

                                               Funding Alternatives

                                               Local - Beach user fees; impact fees (including user fees for
                                               fishing at Rollover Pass and the assessment of fees on other
                                               beneficiaries of the pass); seawall tax/breakwater authority;
                                               county property taxes.

                                               State - Beach maintenance fund; CMP grant program; GLO
                                               surface damage account; TNRCC SEP program; TxDOT ben-
                                               eficial use participation; TPWD Rollover Pass maintenance
                                               funds; TWDB flood control fund; legislative appropriation.

                                               Federal - FEMA grant program; COE Continuing Authori-
                                               ties Program; COE Section 933 program; congressional appro-
                                               priation.


                                               Critical Erosion Area: Port Aransas shoreline adjacent to the
                                               south side of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel.

                 CoTpus Mristi                 Problem Description: The City of Port Aransas extends from
                   Ship Channel                the Corpus Christi Ship Channel to the Gulf of Mexico on the
                                   at          northern tip of Mustang Island, Several federal projects are
                  Port Aransas,                located within the vicinity of Port Aransas. They consist of a
                Nucces County                  deep-draft channel, a turning basin, rubblestone jetties, and a
                                               stone dike. The Corpus Christi Ship Channel bordering the
                                               city's northwest jurisdiction has a depth of 45 feet and a bot-
                                               tom width of 500 feet (COE, 1994). Deep-draft vessels and
                                               commercial and recreational boaters navigate the channel daily

                                               The shoreline adjacent to the south bank of the Corpus Christi

                                                            46










          Ship Channel is composed of unconsolidated sediments
          (mostly fill from dredged materials) and is unstabilized, The
          eroding shoreline stretches from the end of the stabilized area
          near the Nueces County Fishing Pier westward to Piper Chan-
          nel. Erosion of the 5,844 linear feet of unstabilized shoreline is
          of great concern to the City of Port Aransas because the city
          owns a large portion of the eroding property. Several private
          landowners and the GLO own the remainder of the shoreline
          properties. Public access for fishing is threatened and wildlife
          habitats are impacted by the loss of land.

          In addition to the impacts to city, state, and private property,
          the erosion is wearing away an unstabilized dredged material
          disposal site located at the western end of the eroding area.
          The disposal site sediments are the cause of shoaling at the
          entrance to Piper Channel. City staff report that the landown-
          ers'association pays up to $15,000 per month to keep the chan-
          nel open for the marina subdivision.

          Presumed Causes: In its 1994 Section 111 Report, the COE,
          Galveston District, determined that waves generated by pass-
          ing ships were the likely cause of the erosion and found that
          erosion caused by currents was negligible (COE, 1994). With
          this finding, the COE determined that future federal partici-
          pation would be withheld.

          Desired Outcome. The goal of an erosion response project along
          the southern shoreline of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel is
          to protect the city's property from further erosion without ac-
          celerating erosion to the downdrift shoreline and properties,
          as well as stabilizing the Piper Channel inlet.

          Recommendation for Erosion Response: The City has re-
          quested that the entire 5,844 feet of shoreline be bulkheaded to
          stop the erosion. The cost of the bulkhead project is estimated
          at $978,236.00. Kraus and Brown (1995) studied the effects of
          erosion and subsequent sedimentation of Piper Channel. Their
          recommendations included establishing a "no wake" zone at
          the entrance to Piper Channel; planting vegetation on the dunes
          and cliffs to reduce wind-blown erosion and slumping in com-
          bination with light bulkheading for containing the cliff sedi-
          ment; and placement of an L-shaped tire-encased piling adja-
          cent to the channel.


                                                          47










                                              A plan for an appropriate erosion response project should be
                                              developed in partnership by the City of Port Aransas, the Port
                                              of Corpus Christi, adjacent landowners, and GLO staff.

                                              The partnership should consider taking the following actions:

                                                 1. obtain and evaluate all available data on vessel speed
                                                     and associated wake and surge impacts on shoreline
                                                     erosion;

                                                 2. monitor vessel speeds and take appropriate action to
                                                     address their impacts; and

                                                 3. ask the COE to revisit the federal cost-share opportuni-
                                                     ties if it can be shown that, dredging costs will be re-
                                                     duced through local action.


                                              Funding Alternatives

                                              Local - Impact fees for channel users /beneficiaries; coopera-
                                              tive arrangement with Port of Corpus Christi; property taxes.

                                              State - CMP grant program; GLO surface damage account;
                                              TNRCC SEP program; TxDOT beneficial use participation; leg-
                                              islative appropriation.

                                              Federal - COE Section 1135; congressional appropriation.


               Galveston Island               Critical Erosion Area: Galveston Island State Park Bay Shore-
                      State Park              line, Galveston County
                 Bay Shoreline:,,             Problem Description: The marshes comprising the Galveston
             Galveston County                 Bay shoreline in Galveston Island State Park are being con-
                                              verted to open water. The rate of loss appears to be increasing
                                              following the loss of protective emergent shoals.

                                              Presumed Causes: Wave erosion, exacerbated by recreational
                                              vessel wakes, has lowered the elevation of protective shoals
                                              bayward of the shoreline. The previously sheltered marshes
                                              and shallow open-water areas are now subject to greater wave
                                              energy.

                                                          48











         Desired Outcome: Shoreline retreat should be halted, and
         where possible, reversed to reclaim productive marsh habitat.
         Deepening of shallow areas should be halted and reversed.

         Recommendationfor Erosion Response: A site-specific assess-
         ment of local conditions should be conducted to determine
         appropriate response measures. Among the possible response
         alternatives are importing fill material to rebuild the protec-
         tive shoals, or, if wave energy is excessive, providing a flexible
         energy-dissipating system to reduce the wave energy to a level
         the marsh can tolerate.

         Funding Alternatives

         Local - N/A

         State - TPWD state park funds; CMP grant program; TxDOT
         beneficial use participation; GLO surface damage account;
         TNRCC SEP program; legislative appropriation.

         Federal - USFWS National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
         Grant Program; COE Section 22 planning assistance; congres-
         sional appropriation.


         Critical Erosion Area: Highway 87 in Jefferson and Cham-                    Mqhway 97 in
         bers Counties (including a segment along the Sabine-Neches                  Jetterson and
         Channel)                                                                    Chambers
         Problem Description: Highway 87 in Jefferson County is the                  Counties
         coastal route between Port Arthur and High Island. It is also
         the o'nly access route to Sabine Pass and Sea Rim State Park
         from either direction. Retreat of the Gulf shoreline over the
         previous decades has resulted in periodic landward relocation
         of the highway. At present, about 16 miles of Highway 87 is
         impassable due to tide and wave damage to the road surface.
         The closed portion of the highway begins just west of the en-
         trance to Sea Rim State Park and continues west to the inter-
         section with Highway 124 near High Island. Thus, there is no
         coastal route to High Island or the Bolivar Peninsula from the
         east. There is presently no vehicular access to the public beaches
         along the closed route other than by driving on the sand at
         low tide. Access to oil and gas facilities is also impeded. The

                                                         49











                     "'Improvement" is a                  marshes of Sea Rim State Park and McFaddin National Wild-
                             relative term.               life Refuge are also impacted by the retreating shoreline. Loss
                   When Q river or stream is              of marsh area and the heightened threat of saltwater intrusion
                        "improvEd" for flood              are major concerns. An additional portion of Highway 87 be-
                        control purposes or               tween Sabine Pass and Port Arthur, the only emergency es-
                          channel banks are               cape route from Sabine Pass and Sea Rim State Park, is suscep-
                         armored to protect               tible to flooding and damage because of erosion of the bank of
                   adjacent development, an               the Sabine-Neches Ship Channel.
                        important source of
                   sediment for downstream                Presumed Causes: A deficit of sediment is the primary cause
                   reaches may be reduced.
                   Not only is this Q factor in           of shoreline retreat along the Jefferson County coastline. A sec-
                    the landward retreat of               ondary cause is relative sea level rise resulting from land sub-
                       Gulf beaches, but it is            sidence and compaction. The sediment deficit is a consequence
                   possibly more siqnificant              of httoral barriers (especially the Sabine jetties) and the reduc-
                    to the onqoinq submer-                tion of fluvial sediment supply from the Neches River and
                     qence of tormerly pro-
                   ductive coastal wetlands.              Sabine River watersheds. Sediment supply to the marshes land-
                                                          ward of Highway 87 is also impacted by the Gulf Intracoastal
                      Examples of improve-                Waterway (GIWW), which cuts off a number of natural drain-
                          ments that reduce               ages, is a source of erosive wakes and waves, and acts as a
                   sediment supply include.               sediment sink in the region. Erosion along the Sabine-Neches
                                 - levees that
                   reduce overbank tloodinq               Ship Channel is primarily caused by ship wakes.
                      (and consequent sedi-
                           ment deposition),              Desired Outcome: Shoreline retreat should be stopped or
                             - lininq at chan-            slowed to a manageable rate to minimize damage and subse-
                       nels with concrete or              quent loss of extremely productive marsh and wetland habi-
                                other armor,
                            detention basins              tat. Access to 16 miles of public beaches and marsh areas should
                     that reduce peak flood               be restored. Emergency ingress/egress and economic and rec-
                   flows and trap sediment                reational benefits should also be restored.
                                  - reservoir
                     development for water                Recommendation for Erosion Response: The state highway
                      supply and other pur-
                                        poses,            should be reconstructed along an alignment that is sufficiently
                                  impervious              landward of the present shoreline to allow for continued shore-
                         surfaces within the              line retreat. A dune restoration plan for the area seaward of
                                    tloodplain.           the new highway alignment should be implemented along with
                                                          mitigation of wetland loss. Long-term sediment management
                                                          of the Sabine and Neches watersheds and ship channels along
                                                          with the effects of navigation jetties should be explored as part
                                                          of the response strategy for this area.

                                                          Much of the required documentation has already been pre-
                                                          pared for a highway relocation project (Horizon, 1992). Op-
                                                          portunities exist for enhancement of degraded wetland areas
                                                          and creation of habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife

                                                                         so










            in association with highway reconstruction and protection.

            Funding Alternatives

            Local - Beach user fees; impact fees; funds from counties that
            would benefit from a reopened highway, including Jefferson,
            Chambers, and Galveston counties; county transportation
            funds; City of Port Arthur economic development funds.

            State - TxDOT state highway construction and maintenance
            funds; TxDOT beneficial use participation; CMP grant pro-
            gram; TPWD Sea Rim State Park revenue; GLO surface dam-
            age account; TNRCC SEP program; legislative appropriation.

               Note: TxDOT road construction funding can possibly in-
                   clude funds for a protective dune buffer seaward of the
                   highway just as road construction funds are used to
                   protect state highways from various other threats, such
                   as flooding and channel scour. Reconstruction of High-
                   way 87 will improve public safety (emergency routes),
                   public health, access to oil production facilities and
                   spills, hunting and fishing access, and public beach ac-
                   cess . Each of these interests contains potential funding
                   sources and involves virtually every state agency

            Federal - USFWS funds through the Endangered Species Act
            or for the protective value of the project improvements to
            McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge; COE funding if additional
            project benefits can be quantified that were not included in
            previous COE benefit/cost analyses or if less expensive solu-
            tions can be developed; congressional appropriation.


            Critical Erosion Area: Lower Neches River Marsh                          Lower Neches
            Problem Description: Between the mid-1950s and 1978, about               River Marsh
            9,400 acres of marshes were displaced primarily by open wa-              Orancle County
            ter along an approximately 10-mile stretch of the lower Neches
            River Valley north of Sabine Lake (White and Calnan, 1990).
            The annual rate of loss of vegetated wetlands was over 100
            acres per year between 1956 and 1987 for the portion of the
            lower Neches valley studied (White and Calnan, 1990).


                                                           51









                                             Presumed Causes: Marsh loss in the Neches River valley re-
                                             sults from a combination of factors including subsidence, di-
                                             rect and indirect effects of dredged canals and navigation chan-
                                             nels, reduction of fluvial sediment due to upstream reservoirs,
                                             and artificial levees which inhibit overbank flooding (White
                                             and Tremblay, 1995).

                                             Desired Outcome: Appropriate soil elevations within the marsh
                                             should be restored and maintained to allow reestablishment
                                             of marsh vegetation.

                                             Recommendationfor Erosion Response: Dredged material from
                                             the Neches River channel, GIWW, and elsewhere should be
                                             used to raise soil elevations. Long-term management of Neches
                                             River watershed sediment should be implemented.

                                             Funding Altematives

                                             Local - Impact fees from municipalities, channel users, oil/
                                             gas producers.

                                             State - CMP grant program; TxDOT beneficial use participa-
                                             tion; TNRCC SEP program; GLO surface damage account;
                                             pending natural resource damage assessment funds.

                                             Federal - USFWS National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
                                             Grant program; COE Continuing Authorities Program (Sec-
                                             tion 1135); COE Planning Assistance to States (Section 22); con-
                                             gressional appropriation.



                   South Padre               Critical Erosion Area: Northern 1.6 miles of Gulf beach within
                            Island,          the Town of South Padre Island.
             Cameron County                  Problem Description: The Town of South Padre Island is lo-
                                             cated on the southern portion of South Padre Island, a low-lying
                                             depositional sandy barrier island with many washover chan-
                                             nels and relatively high historical erosion rates (greater than
                                             five feet per year). There is a large financial investment along
                                             the shoreline in the high-density development immediately ad-
                                             jacent to the public beach. These structures are at a high risk
                                             for damage from storm surge during hurricanes because most

                                                           52










          of the natural dunes on the beachfront properties have been
          altered.


          Presumed Causes: In general, the beaches of South Padre Is-
          land have been eroding continuously since the late 1800s
          (Morton, 1993). The jetties at the Brazos Santiago Pass have
          influenced the littoral processes by trapping sand, resulting in
          accretion along approximately two miles of the shoreline north
          of them. Further northward, though, the amount of sand in
          the littoral drift is decreased, and the result is erosion of the
          Gulf shoreline.


          Desired Outcome: The goal of the erosion response project is
          to provide a wider public beach and dune field that will pro-
          tect private property as well as comply with the requirements
          of the Town's master plan.

          Recommendation for Erosion Response: The master plan
          adopted by the Town of South Padre Island proposes a beach
          nourishment and dune restoration project along the Gulf shore-
          line within the Town's northern limits. The project will create
          a stable dune area approximately 75 to 100 feet wide and, sea-
          ward of the dune field, a 200-foot-wide beach.

          Funding Alternatives

          Local - Beach user fees; impact fees on new development;
          hotel occupancy taxes; seawall tax/breakwater authority.

          State - Beach Maintenance Fund; CMP grant program; GLO
          surface damage account; TNRCC SEP program; TDOT benefi-
          cial use participation; TWDB flood control fund; legislative ap-
          propriation.

          Federal - COE Section 933 if additional benefits or reduced
          costs can be identified; FEMA grant program; congressional
          authorization.


          Critical Erosion Area: Gulf and San Luis Pass shoreline in the             Treasure Island,,
          Treasure Island Subdivision                                                WazoTia County
          Problem Description: The Treasure Island Subdivision is lo-

                                                          53










                                               cated along the west shoreline of San Luis Pass (an
                                               unmaintained natural pass) on Follets Island. Historical shore-
                                               line changes here have varied from erosion between the
                                               mid-1800s and 1950s to accretion during the 1960s. Erosion
                                               rates were greatest (60 feet per year) between 1974 and 1982
                                               (Paine and Morton, 1989). The present shoreline trend is ero-
                                               sion at greater than ten feet per year (Morton, 1993). The Gulf
                                               section of the subdivision was platted in 1962 during more
                                               stable shoreline conditions. Today, waves are threatening a
                                               private roadway and shorefront homes.

                                               Presumed Causes: The causes of the erosion are mostly natu-
                                               ral coastal processes such as wave activity, littoral currents,
                                               sea level rise, and possibly the shifting of the natural pass fol-
                                               lowing Hurricane Alicia in 1983. No studies have been con-
                                               ducted to determine the historical movement of the main chan-
                                               nel within the pass and the changes in the ebb tidal delta. This
                                               information would be helpful in identifying the inlet hazard
                                               area adjacent to the pass and could assist in the planning of
                                               new coastal developments and erosion response.

                                               Desired Outcome: The erosion response should reduce the
                                               threat of damage to the private road and structures.

                                               Recommendation for Erosion Response: Homeowners in the
                                               subdivision should work with the local municipal utility dis-
                                               trict, the county, and state authorities to develop a plan for
                                               protecting the roadway and homes.

                                               The following are actions for consideration:

                                                  1. Temporarily place riprap at the edge of the private road-
                                                      way until a beach nourishment project is completed.

                                                   2. Deposit sand obtained from the San Luis Pass ebb tidal
                                                      delta on the eroding beaches.

                                                   3. Determine the feasibility of relocating the private road-
                                                      way and the threatened homes.

                                               Funding Alternatives

                                               Local - Beach user fees; seawall tax/breakwater authority.

                                                             54










        State - GLO beach maintenance fund; CMP grant program;
        TWDB flood control fund; legislative appropriation.

        Federal - FEMA grant program; COE Continuing Authority
        Program (Section 103); congressional appropriation.







































                                                  55








                     Literature                   Bales, J., and E.R. Holley, 1985. Evaluation of Existing Conditions
                       Cited and                       and Possible Design Alternatives at Rollover Fish Pass, Texas.
                                                       Center for Research in Water Resources Report No. 210, De-
                    References                         partment of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Aus-
                                                       tin, 198 pp.

                                                  Clark, J. R., 1996. Coastal Zone Management Handbook. CRC Press,
                                                       Inc., 694 pp.

                                                  Division of Emergency Management, September 30,1987. Disaster
                                                       Recovery Texas, 101 pp.

                                                  Engitech, Inc., 1991. Lake Buchanan Dredging Feasibility Analysis.
                                                       Report to the Lower Colorado River Authority, 4 pp.

                                                  Genega, Stanley G., Major General, U.S. Army, Director of Civil
                                                       Works. Letter to Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro, June
                                                       19,1995.

                                                  Germiat, S. J., 1988. An Assessment of Future Coastal Land Loss in
                                                       Galveston, Chambers, and Jefferson Counties, Texas. Masters
                                                       thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 128 pp.

                                                  Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association, February 1995. The GICA Link.

                                                  Hayes, M. 0., 1967. Hurricanes as Geological Agents: Case Studies
                                                       of Hurricanes Carla, 1961, and Cindy, 1963. University of Texas
                                                       at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investiga-
                                                       tions No. 61, 54 pp.

                                                  Horizon Environmental Services, Inc., 1992. Draft Environmental
                                                       Assessment-Proposed State Highway 87 Relocation Project,
                                                       Jefferson County, Texas. Prepared for Jefferson County Com-
                                                       missioners Court and Texas Department of Transportation,
                                                       Beaumont, Texas, 57 pp. plus appendices.

                                                  Houston, J. R., 1995. Beach Nourishment. Shore and Beach, vol. 63,
                                                       No 1, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, pp.
                                                       21-24.


                                                  Houston, J. R., 1996. The Economic Value of Beaches. Proceedings
                                                       of the 9th National Conference on Beach Preservation Technol-
                                                       ogy, St. Petersburg, Florida, pp.271-280.

                                                  Kraus, N.C. and C. A. Brown, 1995. Coastal Processes Assessment
                                                       for Dredging Requirements Reduction at the Piper Channel En-


                                                                56












                 trance, Port Aransas, Texas. Kraus and Associates Technical
                 Report 95-1, 35 pp.

            Leadon, M., 1996. Hurricane Opal: Damage to Florida's Beaches,
                 Dunes and Coastal Structures. Proceedings of the 9th National
                 Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, St. Petersburg,
                 Florida, pp. 313-328.

            Marlowe and Company, November 15,1995. Energy & Water Ap-
                 propriations Bill Approved by Congress. Washington Coastal
                 Watch Newsletter, vol. 1995, No. 11.

            McGowen, J. H. and J. L. Brewton, 1975. Historical Changes and
                 Related Coastal Processes, Gulf and Mainland Shorelines, Mat-
                 agorda Bay Area, Texas. University of Texas at Austin, Bureau
                 of Economic Geology, 72 pp.

            Militello, A. and N. C. Kraus, 1995. Field Data Collection for Circu-
                 lation and Vessel-Induced Flow Studies, Aransas National Wild-
                 life Refuge, Sundown Bay, Texas. Conrad Blucher Institute for
                 Surveying and Science, Corpus Christi, Texas, 50 pp. plus ap-
                 pendix.

            Morton, R. A., 1975. Shoreline Changes Between Sabine Pass and
                 Bolivar Roads-An Analysis of Historical Changes of the Texas
                 Gulf Shoreline. University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Eco-
                      i Geology Geological Circular 75-6,43 pp.
                 nomic


            Morton, R. A., 1993. Shoreline Movement Along Developed Beaches
                 of the Texas Gulf Coast: A Users' Guide to Analyzing and Pre-
                 dicting Shoreline Changes. University of Texas at Austin, Bu-
                 reau of Economic Geology Open-File Report 93-1, 79 pp.

            Morton, R. A. and J. G. Paine, 1985. Beach and Vegetation-Line
                 Changes at Galveston Island, Texas: Erosion, Deposition, and
                 Recovery from Hurricane Alicia. University of Texas at Aus-
                 tin, Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 85-5, 39
                 PP.

            Morton, R. A. and J. G. Paine, 1990. Coastal Land Loss in Texas: An
                 Overview. Transactions, Gulf Coast Association of Geological
                 Societies. vol. 40, pp. 625-634.

            National Research Council, 1990. Managing Coastal Erosion. Na-
                 tional Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 182 pp.



                                                              57












                                                  National Research Council, 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protec-
                                                       tion. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 334 pp.

                                                  Paine, J. G. and R. A. Morton, 1989. Shoreline and Vegetation-Line
                                                       Movement, Texas Gulf Coast, 1974 to 1982, University of Texas
                                                       at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 89-
                                                       1, 50 pp.

                                                  Ramsey, K. E., 1991. Rates of Relative Sea Level Change in the North-
                                                       ern Gulf of Mexico, in Coastal Depositional Systems in the Gulf
                                                       of Mexico, Twelfth Annual Research Conference Gulf Coast
                                                       Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Miner-
                                                       alogists Foundation Program with Extended and Illustrated
                                                       Abstracts, December 5,1991, pp. 204-210.

                                                  Recreation Executive Report, June/July 1995. License Plates Raise
                                                       Money for Environment.

                                                  Reichel, M. M., 1991. The Role of Mitigation Funds in Mitigating
                                                       Residual hnpacts in Coastal Zone '91.

                                                  Roop, S. and D. Burke, August 28, 1991. Economic Impacts of an
                                                       Interruption in Service on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at
                                                       Sargent Beach. Report prepared by the Texas Transportation
                                                       Institute for the Coalition to Save the Gulf Intracoastal Water-
                                                       way.

                                                  Sharp, Jr., J.M. and D.W. Hill, 1995. Land Subsidence along the North-
                                                       eastern Texas Gulf Coast: Effects of Deep Hydrocarbon Pro-
                                                       duction. Environmental Geology, vol. 25, pp. 181-191.

                                                  Skaggs, L.L. and F.L. McDonald (eds.), 1991. National Economic
                                                       Development Procedures Manual, Coastal Storm Damage &
                                                       Erosion, IWR Report 91-R-6. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers,
                                                       Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

                                                  Special Committee on Texas Coastline Rehabilitation, 1989. 1987
                                                       Report and Recommendations and 1989 Update, 41 pp. plus
                                                       appendices.

                                                  Stronge, W. B., 1993. The Economic Analysis of Beach Restorations:
                                                       The State of the Art. Proceedings of the 1993 National Confer-
                                                       ence on Beach Preservation Technology, May 1993. pp. 9-23.

                                                  Texas General Land Office, 1991. Dune Protection and Improvement
                                                       Manual for the Texas Gulf Coast. Austin, Texas, 24 pp.


                                                                 58










          The Office for Strategic Studies in Resource Policy, 1990. The Future
                of the Texas Gulf Coast: Strategies for Managing Shoreline Ero-
                sion and Dune Protection, Texas A&M University Report pre-
                pared for the Texas General Land Office, 69 pp.

          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973. National Shoreline Study: Texas
                Coast Shores Regional Inventory Report, Galveston District, 27
                pp. plus appendices.

          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991. Sediment Transport Study,
                Brazos River Basin, Fort Worth District Special Report, 25 pp.

          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994. Port Aransas, Texas, Section
                111 Initial Appraisal, Galveston District, 9 pp.

          Wang, Y H., 1989. A Technical Report on Preliminary Designs of
                Improvements at Rollover Pass and Vicinity, Bolivar Peninsula,
                Texas, 148 PP.

          White, W. A., and T. R. CaInan, 1990. Sedimentation and Historical
                Changes in the Fluvial-Deltaic Wetlands along the Texas Gulf
                Coast with Emphasis on the Colorado and Trinity River Del-
                tas. Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at
                Austin, 124 pp.

          White, W, A. and T A. Tremblay, 1995. Submergence of Wetlands as
                a Result of Human-Induced Subsidence and Faulting Along
                the Upper Texas Gulf Coast. Journal of Coastal Research, Vol.
                11 No. 3, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, pp. 788-807.

          Zhang, J. et al., 1993. Bank Erosion on the Gulf Intracoastal Water-
                way at the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. Dept. Civil Engi-
                neering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 138 pp.














                                                            59









                APPENDIX A                          Coastal Erosion
                       Laws and                     TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½16.320 - This provision, added by the 72nd
                                Rules               Legislature in 1991, authorizes the Commissioner of the General Land
                                                    Office to "perform all acts necessary to develop and implement a
                     Addressinq                     program for certification of structures subject to imminent collapse
                            Coastal                 due to erosion."
                  Erosion and                       TEX. NAT. RFs. CODE ANN. ï¿½ï¿½33.601-33.604 - These sections establish
                                                    the General Land Office as the lead agency for the coordination of
                    ChronoloqY                      coastal erosion avoidance, remediation and planning, and direct the
                    of Changes                      General Land Office to engage in erosion demonstration projects
                                                    and studies in conjunction with other state agencies, local govern-
                                                    ments, and federal agencies. These provisions were added by the
                                                    72nd Legislature in 1991 and became effective June 7,1991.

                                                    TEX. NAT. REs. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.059 -Authorizes the School Land Board
                                                    to study various coastal engineering problems, including the pro-
                                                    tection of the shoreline against erosion. This provision was added
                                                    by the 63rd Legislature in 1973.

                                                    Open Beaches Act

                                                    TEX. NAT. REs. CODE ANN. ï¿½6 1.011 - This statutory provision declares
                                                    that it is the public policy of the state to ensure the public's right of
                                                    access to and use of public beaches and directs the commissioner to
                                                    promulgate rules for the "protection of the public easement from
                                                    erosion caused by development or other activities on adjacent land
                                                    and beach cleanup and maintenance" (TEX. NAT. REs. CODE ANN.
                                                    ï¿½61.011(d)(2)). The provision declaring the public policy was first
                                                    enacted by the second called session of the 56th Legislature in 1959.
                                                    This provision directing the commissioner to promulgate rules was
                                                    added in 1991 by the 72nd Legislature.

                                                    TEX. NAT. REs. CODE ANN. ï¿½61.022 - This exemption for certain struc-
                                                    tures was enacted by the 56th Legislature in 1959. This section was
                                                    amended in 1991, by changing the heading and adding additional
                                                    subsections. The provision regarding the exemption for certain struc-
                                                    tures by the state or U.S. was not altered.

                                                    Dune Protection Act

                                                    TEX. NAT. REs. CODE ANN. ï¿½63.001 - The Dune Protection Act (ï¿½63.001
                                                    through ï¿½63.181) requires the commissioners' court of any county
                                                    bordering on the Gulf of Mexico to establish a dune protection line
                                                    on the gulf shoreline. In ï¿½63.001(7), the legislature declared that
                                                    "vegetated stabilized dunes help preserve state-owned beaches and

                                                                   60










           shores by protecting against erosion of the shore."" The Dune Pro-
           tection Act was enacted by the 63rd Legislature in 1973. Many pro-
           visions were amended in 1985 by the 69th Legislature and in 1991
           by the 72nd Legislature. Section 63.001(7) was added in 1985.

           House Bill 1536

           Section 3 of House Bill 1536, passed by the 74th Legislature in 1995,
           amends TEX. NAT. REs. CODE ANN. art. 5415e-2 by adding Section 6A
           which allows for the Texas Transportation Commission to cost-share
           with the federal government for the beneficial use of dredged mate-
           rial.


           Beach/Dune Rules

           In 1993, the Texas General Land Office adopted the rules for the
           management of the beach/dune system (31 TAC ï¿½ï¿½15.1-15-10). These
           rules became effective February 17, 1993. The provisions sections
           below address erosion:

               ï¿½15.1(5) - The General Land Office identified as a goal the pre-
               vention of the destruction and erosion of public beaches and en-
               couragement of sound erosion response methods.

               ï¿½15.1(10) - The General Land Office identified as a goal the
               education of the public about coastal issues, including erosion.

               ï¿½15.3(e) -The General Land Office identified all dunes and dune
               complexes located within 1,000 feet of mean high tide of the Gulf
               of Mexico as critical dune areas. This identification is based on
               the determination that the protective functions served by these
               dunes is essential to the protection of public beaches, submerged
               lands, and state-owned lands from erosion.

               ï¿½15.3(m) - Local government plans must demonstrate local co-
               ordination on erosion response.

               ï¿½15.4(d) - A local government may approve a dune protection
               permit application if it has determined that the proposed con-
               duct will not reduce the effectiveness of any dune as a means of
               protection against erosion, Among other things, the local gov-
               ernment must find that the activity will not result in runoff or
               drainage patterns that aggravate erosion on or off the site.
               ï¿½15.4(d)(2).

               ï¿½15.4(f)(2)(B) - This subsection requires that local governments
               require permittees to minimize construction and pedestrian traf-

                                                              61











                                                       fic on or across dune areas, accounting for trends of dune move-
                                                       ment and beach erosion.


                                                       ï¿½15.4(f)(2)(D) - This subsection directs local governments to only
                                                       authorize construction of artificial runoff channels if the chan-
                                                       nels are located in a manner which avoids erosion.


                                                       ï¿½15.4(f)(3) - If the local government determines that adverse
                                                       effects to dunes will occur, the permittee is required to repair,
                                                       rehabilitate, or restore the affected dunes and dune vegetation
                                                       to be superior or equal to the pre-existing dunes and dune veg-
                                                       etation in providing protection against erosion.

                                                       ï¿½15.6(b) - Local governments shall not allow any construction
                                                       which may aggravate erosion.

                                                       ï¿½15.6(c) - Local governments shall not issue a permit or certifi-
                                                       cate allowing construction of an erosion-response structure.

                                                       ï¿½15.6(d) - Local governments shall not issue permits or certifi-
                                                       cates authorizing maintenance or repair of existing erosion-re-
                                                       sponse structures on the public beach or the enlargement or im-
                                                       provement of such construction within 200 feet landward of the
                                                       natural vegetation line. There is an exception should it be shown
                                                       that failure to repair the structure will cause unreasonable haz-
                                                       ard. ï¿½15.4(d)(1) and ï¿½15.4(d)(2).

                                                       ï¿½15.6(f) - Addresses requirements for construction in eroding
                                                       areas.


                                                       ï¿½15.6(g) - Construction affecting natural drainage patterns shall
                                                       not cause erosion.


                                                       ï¿½15.7(b) - This provision directs local governments to encour-
                                                       age beach nourishment and sediment bypassing for erosion re-
                                                       sponse management and to prohibit erosion-response structures
                                                       within the public beach and 200 feet Landward of the natural
                                                       vegetation line.

                                                       ï¿½15.7(e) - Because sand dunes-natural, created, or restored-
                                                       may aid in slowing beach erosion, this subsection allows local
                                                       goven-unents to allow restoration of dunes on the public beach
                                                       under certain listed conditions.







                                                                 62












            Land Resources

            Chapter 155 of Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code, relating to
            the management of the surface state in coastal public lands, became
            effective January 1, 1976. These rules set forth the practice and pro-
            cedure for administration by the School Land Board in granting a
            lease, easement, permit, or registration of a structure on coastal public
            lands. The following provisions address erosion:

            ï¿½155.3(g)(4)(A) - This provision instructs the School Land Board to
            analyze a plan for construction of a jetty, groin, or breakwater to
            ensure that the structure does not create adverse sediment transpor-
            tation patterns that induce erosion.

            ï¿½155.3(g)(7)(c) - This provision instructs the School Land Board to
            consider an application for an easement for a landfill on coastal public
            lands so that the perimeter of the fill is provided with vegetation,
            retaining walls, riprap, or other mechanisms for erosion prevention.

            ï¿½155.24(c)(15)(A)(iii) - The School Land Board may require that a
            draft environmental impact statement be prepared for a project con-
            sidered by the board to have a significant impact on the environ-
            ment. If the proposed activity involves dredging, excavating, fill-
            ing, or dredged material disposition, the statement must describe
            the measures which will be taken to reduce adverse environmental
            impacts, such as keeping erosion at the lowest possible level.

            Texas Coastal Management Program

            The Coastal Management Program (CMP) was developed to make
            more effective and efficient use of public funds and to more effec-
            tively manage coastal natural resource areas. The directive for de-
            velopment of the CMP was the Coastal Coordination Act, passed by
            the Texas Legislature in 1991 and amended in 1995. This Act estab-
            lished the General Land Office as the lead agency for the develop-
            ment of the CMR The CMP was submitted to NOAA for approval
            on October 19, 1995. Listed below are several of the CMP provi-
            sions addressing erosion. The cites are to Title 31 of the Texas Ad-
            ministrative Code:


                ï¿½501.2(7) - The Coastal Coordination Council finds that the coast
                is subject to waterfront construction, including erosion response
                projects (31 TAC ï¿½501.2(a)(7)). Because of possible adverse af-
                fects from these projects, the council finds that special manage-
                ment of these uses of the coast is necessary for continued bal-
                anced development of the coast (31 TAC ï¿½501.2(b)).


                                                                 63











                                                         ï¿½501.14(d)(1)(D) - Hazardous waste land treatment facilities,
                                                         waste piles, storage surface impoundments and landfills shall
                                                         not be located within 1,000 feet of an area subject to active coastal
                                                         shoreline erosion.



                                                         ï¿½501.14(d)(1)(F) - Piers, docks, wharves, bulkheads, jetties,
                                                         groins, fishing cabins, and artificial reefs shall be limited to the
                                                         minimum necessary and shall be constructed in a manner that
                                                         does not interfere with the natural coastal processes which. sup-
                                                         ply sediments to shore areas or otherwise exacerbate erosion of
                                                         shore areas.



                                                         ï¿½501.14(d)(1)(N) - Nonstructural erosion response methods
                                                         such as beach nourishment, sediment bypassing, nearshore sedi-
                                                         ment berms, and planting of vegetation shall be preferred in-
                                                         stead of structural erosion response methods.


                                                         ï¿½501.14(d)(1)(Q) - Erosion of beaches and coastal shore areas
                                                         caused by construction or modification of jetties, breakwaters,
                                                         groins, or shore stabilization projects shall be mitigated to the
                                                         extent that the costs of mitigation are reasonably proportionate
                                                         to the benefits of mitigation.


                                                         ï¿½501.140)(2)(A)(ii) -Adverse effects from dredging and dredged
                                                         material disposal and placement can be minimized by control-
                                                         ling the location and dimensions of the activity and by locating
                                                         and designing projects to avoid adverse disruption of erosion
                                                         and accretion processes.


                                                         ï¿½501.140)(2)(C)(i) - Adverse effects from dredging and dredged
                                                         material disposal or placement can be minimized through the
                                                         use of containment levees and sediment basins designed, con-
                                                         structed, and maintained to resist breaches, erosion, slumping,
                                                         orleaching.


                                                         ï¿½501.140)(4)(B)(i) - Dredged material is a potentially reusable
                                                         resource and must be used beneficially. Factors to be consid-
                                                         ered in determining whether the costs of the beneficial use are
                                                         reasonably proportionate to the benefits include erosion preven-
                                                         tion benefits.



                                                                   64











               ï¿½501.140)(4)(C)(i) - Beneficial use of dredged material includes
               projects designed to reduce or minimize erosion or to provide
               shoreline protection.


               ï¿½501.140)(8) - Mining of sand, shell, marl, gravel, and mudshell
               on submerged lands shall be prohibited unless there is an affir-
               mative showing of no significant impact on erosion within the
               coastal zone and no significant adverse effect on coastal water
               quality or terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat within any
               coastal natural resource area.


               ï¿½501.14(k)(1)(E) - Nonstructural erosion response methods such
               as beach nourishment, sediment bypassing, nearshore sediment
               berms, and planting of vegetation shall be preferred instead of
               structural erosion response methods. Subdivisions shall not au-
               thorize the construction of a new erosion response structure
               within the beach/dune system, except for a retaining wall lo-
               cated more than 200 feet landward of the line of vegetation. Sub-
               divisions shall not authorize the enlargement, improvement, re-
               pair or maintenance of existing erosion response structures on
               the public beach. Subdivisions shall not authorize the repair or
               maintenance of existing erosion response structures within 200
               feet landward of the line of vegetation except as provided in
               ï¿½15.6(d) of this title (relating to Concurrent Dune Protection and
               Beachfront Construction Standards).


               ï¿½501.14(l)(2) - Development in Coastal Hazard Areas. Pursu-
               ant to the standards and procedures under Texas Natural Re-
               sources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapter H, the GLO shall adopt
               or issue rules, recommendations, standards, and guidelines for
               erosion avoidance and remediation and for prioritizing critical
               erosion areas.



               ï¿½501.14(p)(1)(A) - Transportation Projects. Pollution preven-
               tion procedures shall be incorporated into the construction and
               maintenance of transportation projects to minimize pollutant
               loading to coastal waters from erosion and sedimentation, use
               of pesticides and herbicides for maintenance of rights-of-way,
               and other pollutants from stormwater runoff.






                                                               65








             APPENDIX 8                         The GLO issues coastal easements, coastal leases, and surface
             General                            leases for erosion response structures.
             Land Ottice                        1. To determine if a proposed project will require authoriza-
             Application                        tion from the state, contact the Texas General Land Office field
             Procedures                         representative in your area for a preliminary decision.
             for Bai4                           2. If the project will be located on state-owned land, an apph-
                                                cation packet will be mailed. To minimize delays in process-
             Erosion                            ing the application, applicants must follow the instructions
             Response                           carefully and supply all requested information. For most
             Projects                           projects, applications must be accompanied by:
                                                    * labeled plat or diagram of the project indicating all asso-
             Modified trom                            ciated structures and dimensions;
             "Texas State-Owned                     * deed or tax statement as proof of ownership of littoral
             Coastal Lands,                           property; and
             Permitting                             * vicinity map showing the project location;
             Requirements, 1991"                    9 application fee.

                                                3. When the completed application form with required attach-
                                                ments is received by the appropriate field office:

                                                    ï¿½ the application will be reviewed to confirm that state-
                                                      owned submerged land is involved in the project;
                                                    ï¿½ an on-site inspection and environmental assessment of
                                                      the project site will be made; and
                                                    ï¿½ a fee for the project will be assessed based on the current
                                                      rate schedule.


                                                4. If the project is approved:

                                                    ï¿½ two original contracts will be mailed to the applicant for
                                                      review and signature;
                                                    ï¿½ the signed contracts should be returned with the required
                                                      fees to the GLO for execution by the commissioner; and
                                                    ï¿½ one executed contract will be returned to the applicant,
                                                      and the other will be kept on file in the GLO.






                                                              66








          For the areafrom the Colorado River to the Sabine River:              GLO
             Texas General Land Office/Upper Coast Field Office                 Field Offices
             1181 North D Street
             La Porte, Texas 77571-9135
             Phone (713) 470-1191

          For the area from the Colorado River to the Rio Grande:

             Texas General Land Office/Lower Coast Field Office
             Natural Resources Center, Suite 2400
             6300 Ocean Drive
             Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5599
             Phone (512) 980-3030

          GLO World Wide Web page:
          http:/ /www. glo. state. tx. us



























                                                      67








              APPENDIX C                           Accretion - May be either natural or artificial. Natural accretion is
              Glossarq                             the buildup of land, solely by the action of the forces of nature, on a
                                                   beach by deposition of water or airborne material. Artificial accre-
                                                   tion is a similar buildup of land by human actions, such as accretion
                                                   formed by a groin, a breakwater, or beach fill deposited by mechani-
                                                   cal means.


                                                   Applicant - Any person applying to a local government for a per-
                                                   mit and/or certificate for any construction or development plan.

                                                   Bar - A submerged or emerged embankment of sand, gravel, or
                                                   other unconsolidated material built on the sea floor in shallow wa-
                                                   ter by waves and currents.

                                                   Bay - A recess in the shore or an inlet of a sea between two capes or
                                                   headlands, not as large as a gulf but larger than a cove.

                                                   Beach - The zone of unconsolidated material that extends land-
                                                   ward from the low water line to the place where there is marked
                                                   change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of perma-
                                                   nent vegetation (usually the effective limit of storm waves). The
                                                   seaward limit of the beach-unless otherwise specified-is the mean
                                                   low water line. A beach includes a foreshore and backshore.


                                                   Beach Access - The right to use and enjoy the public beach, includ-
                                                   ing the right of free and unrestricted ingress and egress to and from
                                                   the public beach.

                                                   Beach[Dune System - The land from the line of mean low tide of
                                                   the Gulf of Mexico to the landward limit of dune formation.


                                                   Beachfront Construction Certificate - The document issued by a
                                                   local government that certifies that the proposed construction is con-
                                                   sistent with the local government's dune protection and beach ac-
                                                   cess plan.

                                                   Beach Maintenance - The cleaning or removal of debris from the
                                                   beach by handpicking, raking, or mechanical means.

                                                   Beach Nourishment - The process of replenishing a beach. It may
                                                   be brought about naturally by longshore sediment transport or arti-
                                                   ficially by deposition of dredged materials.

                                                   Beach Profile - The shape and elevation of the beach as determined
                                                   by surveying a cross section of the beach.

                                                   Beach-related Services - Reasonable and necessary services and

                                                                 68










           facilities directly related to the public beach which are provided to
           the public to ensure safe use of and access to and from the public
           beach, such as vehicular controls, management, and parking (in-
           cluding acquisition and maintenance of off-beach parking and ac-
           cess ways); sanitation and litter control; lifeguarding and lifesaving;
           beach maintenance; law enforcement; beach nourishment projects;
           beach/dune system education; beach/dune protection and restora-
           tion projects; providing public facilities such as restrooms, showers,
           lockers, equipment rentals, and picnic areas; recreational and refresh-
           ment facilities; liability insurance; and staff and personnel neces-
           sary to provide beach-related services. Beach-related services and
           facilities shall serve only those areas on or immediately adjacent to
           the public beach.

           Beach User Fee - A fee collected by a local government in order to
           establish and maintain beach-related services and facilities for the
           preservation and enhancement of access to and from and safe and
           healthy use of public beaches by the public.

           Bottom - The ground or bed under any body of water.

           Breakwater - A structure protecting a shore area, harbor, anchor-
           age, or basin from waves.

           Bulkhead - A structure or partition to retain or prevent the sliding
           of the land. A secondary purpose is to protect the upland against
           damage from wave action.

           Channel - (1) A natural or artificial waterway of perceptible extent
           which either periodically or continuously contains moving water or
           which links two bodies of water; (2) the part of a body of water deep
           enough to be used for navigational purposes; (3) a large strait, as the
           English Channel; (4) the deepest part of a stream, bay, or strait
           through which the main volume or current of water flows.

           Coastal Easement - A GLO easement on coastal public land is-
           sued to an owner of adjacent littoral property for purposes associ-
           ated with the ownership of that property or to the owner of mineral
           or surface interests in coastal public lands.

           Coastal Lease - A GLO nontransferable lease of coastal public land
           issued to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department or to an eligible
           city or county for public recreation.

           Coastal and Shore Protection Project -A project designed to slow
           shoreline erosion or enhance shoreline stabilization, including, but
           not limited to, erosion response structures, beach nourishment, sedi-

                                                               69










                                                   ment bypassing, construction of man-made vegetated mounds, and
                                                   dune revegetation.

                                                   Construction - The causing or carrying out of any building,
                                                   bulkheading, filling, clearing, excavation, or substantial improve-
                                                   ment to land or the size of any structure. "Building" includes, but is
                                                   not limited to, all related site work and placement of construction
                                                   materials on the site. "Filling" includes, but is not limited to, dis-
                                                   posal of dredged materials. "Excavation" includes, but is not lim-
                                                   ited to, removal or alteration of dunes and dune vegetation and scrap-
                                                   ing, grading, or dredging a site. "Substantial improvements to land
                                                   or the size of any structure" include, but are not limited to, creation
                                                   of vehicular or pedestrian trails, landscape work (that adversely af-
                                                   fects dunes or dune vegetation), and increasing the size of any struc-
                                                   ture.


                                                   Coppice Mounds - The initial stages of dune growth formed as
                                                   sand accumulates on the downwind side of plants and other ob-
                                                   structions on or immediately adjacent to the beach seaward of the
                                                   foredunes. Coppice mounds may be unvegetated.

                                                   Critical Dune Areas - Those portions of the beach/dune system
                                                   as designated by the General Land Office that are located within
                                                   1,000 feet of mean high tide of the Gulf of Mexico that contain dunes
                                                   and dune complexes that are essential to the protection of public
                                                   beaches, submerged land, and state-owned land, such as public roads
                                                   and coastal public lands, from nuisance, erosion, storm surge, and
                                                   high winds and waves. Critical dune areas include, but are not lim-
                                                   ited to, the dunes that store sand in the beach/dune system to re-
                                                   plenish eroding public beaches.

                                                   Cumulative Impact - The effect on beach use and access, on a criti-
                                                   cal dune area, or an area seaward of the dune protection line which
                                                   results from the incremental effect of an action when added to other
                                                   past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless
                                                   of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumula-
                                                   tive effects can result from individually minor but collectively sig-
                                                   nificant actions taking place over a period of time.

                                                   Dedication - Includes, but is not limited to, a restrictive covenant,
                                                   permanent easement, and fee simple donation.

                                                   Downdrift - The direction of predominant movement of littoral
                                                   materials.


                                                   Dune - An emergent mound, hill, or ridge of sand, either bare or
                                                   vegetated, located on land bordering the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

                                                                  70











            Dunes are naturally formed by the windward transport of sediment,
            but can also be created via man-made vegetated mounds. Natural
            dunes are usually found adjacent to the uppermost limit of wave
            action and are marked by an abrupt change in slope landward of
            the dry beach. The term includes coppice mounds, foredunes, dunes
            comprising the foredune ridge, backdunes, and man-made vegetated
            mounds.


            Dune Complex or Dune Area - Any emergent area adjacent to the
            waters of the Gulf of Mexico in which several types of dunes are
            found or in which dunes have been established by proper manage-
            ment of the area. In some portions of the Texas coast, dune com-
            plexes contain depressions known as swales.

            Dune Protection and Beach Access Plan - A local government's
            legally enforceable program, policies, and procedures for protect-
            ing dunes and dune vegetation and for preserving and enhancing
            use of and access to and from public beaches, as required by the
            Dune Protection Act and the Open Beaches Act.

            Dune Protection Line - A line established by a county commis-
            sioners court or the governing body of a municipality for the pur-
            pose of preserving, at a minimum, all critical dune areas identified
            by the General Land Office pursuant to the Dune Protection Act,
            ï¿½63.011, and ï¿½15.3 (f) of this title (relating to Administration). A mu-
            nicipality is not authorized to establish a dune protection line un-
            less the authority to do so has been delegated to the municipality by
            the county in which the municipality is located. Such lines will be
            located no farther than 1,000 feet landward of the mean high tide of
            the Gulf of Mexico.


            Dune Vegetation - Flora indigenous to natural dune complexes
            and growing on naturally-formed dunes or man-made vegetated
            mounds on the Texas coast and can include coastal grasses and her-
            baceous and woody plants.

            Easement - A legal or contractual right to use property owned by
            another person.

            Eroding Area - a portion of the shoreline which is experiencing a
            historical erosion rate of greater than two feet per year based on pub-
            lished data of the University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic
            Geology. Local governiments may establish an "eroding area bound-
            ary" in beach/dune plans; this boundary shall be whichever is greater;
            200 feet, or the distance determined by multiplying 60 years by the
            yearly erosion rate (based on the most recent data published by the
            University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology)

                                                                71










                                                   Erosion - The wearing away of land or the removal of beach and/
                                                   or dune sediments by wave action, tidal currents, wave currents,
                                                   drainage, or wind. Erosion includes, but is not limited to, horizon-
                                                   tal recession and scour and can be induced or aggravated by human
                                                   activities.


                                                   Erosion Response Structure - A hard or rigid structure built for
                                                   shoreline stabilization which includes, but is not limited to, a jetty,
                                                   retaining wall, groin, breakwater, bulkhead, seawall, riprap, rubble
                                                   mound, revetment, or the foundation of a structure which is the func-
                                                   tional equivalent of these specified structures.

                                                   Estuary - (1) The part of a river that is affected by the tides; (2) the
                                                   region near a river mouth in which the fresh water of the river mixes
                                                   with the salt water of the sea.


                                                   FEMA - The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. This
                                                   agency administers the National Flood Insurance Program and pub-
                                                   lishes the official flood insurance rate maps.

                                                   Foredunes - The first clearly distinguishable, usually vegetated,
                                                   stabilized large dunes encountered landward of the Gulf of Mexico.
                                                   On some portions of the Texas Gulf Coast, foredunes may also be
                                                   rare, unvegetated, and unstabilized. Although they may be large
                                                   and continuous, foredunes are typically hummocky and discontinu-
                                                   ous and may be interrupted by breaches and washover areas.
                                                   Foredunes offer the first significant means of dissipating storm-gen-
                                                   erated wave and current energy issuing from the Gulf of Mexico.
                                                   Because various heights and configurations of dunes may perform
                                                   this function, no standardized physical description applies.
                                                   Foredunes are distinguishable from surrounding dune types by their
                                                   relative location and physical appearance.

                                                   Foredune Ridge - The high continuous line of dunes which are
                                                   usually well vegetated and rise sharply landward of the foredune
                                                   area but may also rise directly from a flat, wave-cut beach immedi-
                                                   ately after a storm.

                                                   Groin - A shore protection structure built (usually perpendicular
                                                   to the shoreline) to trap littoral drift or retard erosion of the shore.

                                                   Habitat - The environment occupied by individuals of a particular
                                                   species, population, or community.

                                                   Habitable Structures - Structures suitable for human habitation
                                                   including, but not limited to, single or multi-family residences, ho-
                                                   tels, condominium buildings, and buildings for commercial pur-

                                                                  72











           poses. Each building of a condominium regime is considered a sepa-
           rate habitable structure, but if a building is divided into apartments,
           then the entire building, not the individual apartments, is consid-
           ered a single habitable structure. Additionally, a habitable structure
           includes porches, gazebos, and other attached improvements.

           Hurricane - An intense tropical cyclone in which wind tends to
           spiral inward toward a core of low pressure, with maximum surface
           velocities that equal or exceed 33.5 meters per second (75 miles per
           hour) for several minutes or longer.

           Inlet - (1) A short, narrow waterway connecting a bay, lagoon, or
           similar body of water with a large parent body of water. (2) An arm
           of the sea (or other body of water) that is long compared to its width
           and may extend a considerable distance inland.

           Jetty - A structure extending into a body of water, designed to pre-
           vent shoaling of a channel by littoral materials and to direct and
           confine the stream or tidal flow. jetties are built at the mouths of
           rivers or tidal inlets to help deepen and stabilize a channel.

           Levee - A dike or embankment to protect land from inundation.

           Line of Vegetation - The extreme seaward boundary of natural
           vegetation which spreads continuously inland. The line of vegeta-
           tion is typically used to determine the landward extent of the public
           beach.

           Littoral - Of or pertaining to a shore, especially of the sea.

           Littoral Drift - The sedimentary material moved in the littoral zone
           under the influence of waves and currents.


           Littoral Transport - The movement of littoral drift in the littoral
           zone by waves and currents. Includes movement parallel (longshore
           transport) and perpendicular (on-offshore transport) to the shore.

           Littoral Zone - In beach terminology, an indefinite zone extending
           seaward from the shoreline to just beyond the breaker zone.

           Local Government - A municipality, county, any special purpose
           district, any unit of government, or any other political subdivision
           of the state.


           Man-Made Vegetated Mound - A mound, hill, or ridge of sand cre-
           ated by the deliberate placement of sand or sand trapping devices in-
           cluding sand fences, trees, or brush and planted with dune vegetation.

                                                               73










                                                       Mean High Water - The average height of the high waters over a
                                                       recent 19-year period.

                                                       Mean Higher High Water - The average height of the higher high
                                                       waters over a recent 19-year period. For shorter periods of observa-
                                                       tion, corrections are applied to eliminate known variations and re-
                                                       duce the result to the equivalent of a mean 19-year value.

                                                       Miscellaneous Easement -A GLO grant of right-of-way across pub-
                                                       lic lands for an oil, gas, sulfur, or water pipeline, telephone line, elec-
                                                       tric transmission line, power line, irrigation canal or lateral, road or
                                                       any other purpose the commissioner (of the General Land Office)
                                                       considers to be in the best interest of the state.

                                                       Mitigation Sequence - The series of steps which must be taken if
                                                       dunes and dune vegetation will be adversely affected. First, such
                                                       adverse effects shall be avoided. Second, adverse effects shall be
                                                       minimized. Tbird, the dunes and dune vegetation adversely affected
                                                       shall be repaired, restored, or replaced. Fourth, the dunes and dune
                                                       vegetation adversely affected shall be replaced or substituted to com-
                                                       pensate for the adverse effects.

                                                       National Flood Insurance Act - 42 United States Code ï¿½4001 et seq.

                                                       Natural Resources - Land, fish, wildlife, insects, biota, air, surface
                                                       water, groundwater, plants, trees, habitat of flora and fauna, and
                                                       other such resources.


                                                       Nearshore (Zone) - The area from mean low tide extending sea-
                                                       ward across the bar and trough topography with a seaward limit at
                                                       wave base.


                                                       Nearshore Sediment Berm - A bar located in the nearshore zone
                                                       formed by the deposit of dredged material.

                                                       Pass - (see Inlet)

                                                       Permit or Certificate Condition - A requirement or restriction in a,
                                                       permit or certificate necessary to assure protection of life, natural
                                                       resources, property, and adequate beach use and access rights (con-
                                                       sistent with the Dune Protection Act) which a permittee must sat-
                                                       isfy in order to be in compliance with the permit or certificate.

                                                       Permittee - Any person authorized to act under a permit or a cer-
                                                       tificate issued by a local government.

                                                       Person - An individual, firm, corporation, association, partnership,

                                                                      74











            consortium, joint venture, commercial entity, United States Govern-
            ment, state, municipality, commission, political subdivision, or any
            international or interstate body or any other governmental entity.

            Pile - A long, heavy timber or section of concrete or metal driven
            into the earth or seabed to serve as a support or protection.

            Practicable - In determining what is practicable, local governments
            shall consider the effectiveness, scientific feasibility, and commer-
            cial availability of the technology or technique. Local governments
            shall also consider the cost of the technology or technique.

            Public Beach - "Public beach" as defined in the Texas Natural Re-
            sources Code ï¿½61.013 (c).

            Recession/Transgression - (1) A continuing landward movement
            of the shoreline; (2) A net landward movement of the shoreline over
            a specified time.

            Retaining Wall - A structure designed to contain or which prima-
            rily contains material or prevents the sliding of land. Retaining walls
            may collapse under the forces of normal wave activity.

            Revetment - A facing of stone, concrete, etc., built to protect a scarp,
            embankment, or shore structure against erosion by wave action or
            currents.


            Riprap - A protective layer or facing of quarrystone, usually wen
            graded within wide size limit, randomly placed to prevent erosion,
            scour, or sloughing of an embankment of bluff; also the stone so
            used. The quarrystone is placed in a layer at least twice the thick-
            ness of the 50 percent size, or 1.25 times the thickness of the largest
            size stone in the gradation.

            Sand Budget - The amount of all sources of sediment, sediment
            traps, and transport of sediment within a defined area. From the
            sand budget, it is possible to determine whether sediment gains and
            losses are in balance.

            Sand Bypassing - Hydraulic or mechanical movement of sand from
            the accreting updrift side to the eroding downdrift side of an inlet
            or harbor entrance. The hydraulic movement may include natural
            movement as well as movement caused by man.

            Seawall - An erosion response structure specifically designed to
            prevent erosion and other damage due to wave action.


                                                                 75













                                                 Seaward of a Dune Protection Line - The area between a dune
                                                 protection line and the line of mean high tide.

                                                 Shoal (noun) - A detached elevation of the sea bottom, composed
                                                 of any material except rock or coral, which may endanger naviga-
                                                 tion.


                                                 Shoal (verb) - (1) To become shallow gradually; (2) to cause to be-
                                                 come shallow; (3) to proceed from a greater to a lesser depth of wa-
                                                 ter.


                                                 Structure - Includes, without limitation, any building or combina-
                                                 tion of related components constructed in an ordered scheme that
                                                 constitutes a work or improvement constructed on or affixed to land.

                                                 Subsidence - The sinking of the land surface.

                                                 Surface Lease - A GLO lease of upland property for agriculture,
                                                 recreation, hunting, grazing, or a combination of these uses; in the
                                                 coastal area, surface leases are used to authorize projects on sub-
                                                 merged lands not associated with littoral property, including oil and
                                                 gas platforms.

                                                 Surf Zone - The area of wave activity between the outermost
                                                 breaker and the limit of wave uprush.

                                                 Swales - Low areas within a dune complex located in some por-
                                                 tions of the Texas coast which function as natural rainwater collec-
                                                 tion areas and are an integral part of the dune complex.

                                                 Updrift - The direction opposite that of the predominant move-
                                                 ment of littoral materials.

                                                 Washover Areas - Low areas that are adjacent to beaches and are
                                                 inundated by waves and storm tides from the Gulf of Mexico.
                                                 Washovers may be found in abandoned tidal channels or where
                                                 foredunes are poorly developed or breached by storm tides and
                                                 wind erosion.


                                                 Wetlands - Areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwa-
                                                 ter at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of
                                                 vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil, generally in-
                                                 cluding swamps, marshes, bogs, bottomlands, and similar areas.





                                                                76












             Most definitions taken or adaptedftvm:

                 General Land Office Rules for Management of the Beach/Dune System
                 (TAC ï¿½ï¿½15.1-15.10).

                 Lewis, R. R. 1989. Wetland Restoration/Creation/Enhancement Termi-
                 nology: Suggestions for Standardization, in J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula,
                 eds. Wetlands Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island
                 Press. Washington, D.C.

                 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Shore Protection Manual. Vol. II.
                 Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Gov-
                 ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.








































                                                                     77








                APPENDIX D                      1. JEFFERSON COUNTY
                              Local                 Hon. Robert Stroder         Jefferson County Judge
                                                                                Jefferson County Courthouse
                     Authorities                                                1149 Pearl Street
                   Responsible                                                  Beaumont, Texas 77701-3619
               for Permitting                   2. PORT ARTHUR
                                                    Mr. Dale Watson             Director of Planning
                    Post-Storm                                                  City of Port Arthur
                                                                                P.O. Box 1089
                    Emerqcnct4                                                  Port Arthur, Texas 77641-1089
                       Response                                                 (409) 983-8138
                         Projects               3. CHAMBERS COUNTY
                                                    Mr. Don Brandon             County Engineer
                                                                                PO. Drawer H
                                                                                Anahuac, Texas 77514-1708
                                                                                (409) 267-3571

                                                4. GALVESTON COUNTY
                                                    Mr. G. Mike Fitzgerald      Galveston County Engineer
                                                                                123 Rosenberg, Suite 4157
                                                                                Galveston, Texas 77550-1403
                                                                                (409) 766-2257

                                                5. CITY OF GALVESTON
                                                    Mr. Harold Holmes           Director of Urban Planning
                                                                                City of Galveston
                                                                                823 Rosenberg, Suite 401
                                                                                Galveston, Texas 77553-2198
                                                                                (409) 766-2106

                                                6. VILLAGE OF JAMAICA BEACH
                                                    Ms. Sharon Turnley          City Administrator
                                                                                Village of Jamaica Beach
                                                                                P.O. Box 5264
                                                                                Jamaica Beach, Texas 77554-5264
                                                                                (409) 737-1142

                                                7. BRAZORIA COUNTY
                                                    Ms. Penny Sturdivant        County Floodplain Administrator
                                                                                131 W. Live Oak, Room 105
                                                                                Angleton, Texas 77515-4684
                                                                                (409) 849-5711, extension 1295




                                                             78













          8. VILLAGE OF SURFSIDE BEACH
              Mayor Lary Davison            Village of Surfside Beach
                                            1304 Monument Drive
                                            Surfside Beach, Texas 77541-9999
                                            (409) 233-1531

          9. VILLAGE OF QUINTANA
              Mayor Debbie Alongis          Village of Quintana
                                            814 N. Lamar
                                            Quintana, Texas 77541
                                            (409) 233-0848

          10. MATAGORDA COUNTY
              Hon. George Deshotels         County Comrnissioner, Precinct 2
                                            RO. Box 571
                                            Matagorda, Texas 77457-0571
                                            (409) 863-7861

          11. NUECES COUNTY
              Hon. Richard M. Borchard      Nueces County Judge
                                            901 Leopard Street, Room 301
                                            Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-3697
                                            (512) 888-0329

          12. PORT ARANSAS
              Mr. Tom Brooks                Port Aransas City Manager
                                            P. 0. Drawer I
                                            Port Aransas, Texas 78373
                                            (512) 749-4011

          13. CORPUS CHRISTI
              Mr. Brandol Harvey            City of Corpus Christi
                                            Planning Department
                                            P.O. Box 9277
                                            Corpus Christi, Texas 78469-9277
                                            (512) 880-3232

          14. WILLACY COUNTY
              Hon. Eustoho Gonzales         Willacy County Judge
                                            190 N. 3rd Street
                                            Raymondville, Texas 78580-1940
                                            (210) 689-2710






                                                           79













                                             15. CAMERON COUNTY
                                                Mr. Michael Martin          Cameron County Engineer
                                                                            1150 East Madison
                                                                            Brownsville, Texas 78520-5854
                                                                            (210) 548-9555



                                             16. SOUTH PADRE ISLAND
                                                Mr. B.J. Page               Director of Planning
                                                                            Town of South Padre Island
                                                                            RO. Box 3410
                                                                            South Padre Island, Texas
                                                                                          78597-3410
                                                                            (210) 761-1025





































                                                          80









           STATEAGENCIES                                                                     APPENDIX E
           Texas General Land Office (GLO)                                                   Aocncq
           The Texas General Land Office, in conjunction with the School Land                Contacts for
           Board, manages the state's coastal public lands. The commissioner                 Say and Gulf
           of the GLO may issue permits for geological, geophysical, and other               Erosion
           investigations within the tidewater limits of the state. The commis-
           sioner may also grant easements or leases for rights-of-way across                Response
           state lands for pipelines and other transmission lines. In addition,
           the commissioner is responsible for technical assistance and com-                 Projects
           phance under the Dune Protection Act and for implementation of
           the Texas Coastal Preserve Program with the Texas Parks and Wild-
           life Department. The GLO was designated by the legislature and
           the governor as the lead agency for development of a coastal man-
           agement program for the state and as the agency to administer the
           program after entry into the federal Coastal Zone Management Pro-
           gram. In October 1995 Governor Bush submitted the Texas Coastal
           Management Program to the Department of Commerce for approval
           under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

           Address:            Coastal Division
                               Texas General Land Office
                               1700 N. Congress Avenue, Room 617
                               Austin, TX 78701-1495
           Telephone:          (512) 463-5001 or (800) 85-BEACH
           Fax:                (512) 475-0680
           Website:            http: / /wwwglo.state.tx.us


           School Land Board (SLB)

           The School Land Board, in conjunction with the GLO, manages the
           state's coastal public lands. The Board may grant leases to certain
           governmental bodies for public purposes; leases for mineral explo-
           ration and development; easements to littoral. landowners; channel
           easements to surface or mineral interest holders; leases to educa-
           tional, scientific, or conservation interests; and permits for limited
           use of previously unauthorized structures (fishing cabins).

           Address:        1700 North Congress Avenue
                           Austin, TX 78701-1495
           Telephone:      (512) 463-5016





                                                               81













                                                     Soil and Water Conservation Board

                                                     The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board has the respon-
                                                     sibility to plan, implement, and manage programs and practices for
                                                     abating agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint pollution. The board
                                                     also administers a voluntary conservation program with and through
                                                     212 local soil and water conservation districts which encompass over
                                                     99 percent of the surface acres of Texas. With a voluntary program,
                                                     conservation practices are being applied by over 215,000 cooperat-
                                                     ing landowners on more than 120 million acres.

                                                     Address:           311 N. 5th St.
                                                                        P.O.Box 658
                                                                        Temple, TX 76503
                                                     Telephone:         (817) 773-2250


                                                     Texas Parks and Wildlffe Department (TPWD)

                                                     The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department operates the state parks
                                                     system and wildlife refuges. Apermit must be obtained from TPWD
                                                     for the disturbance or dredging of sand, shell, or marl in public wa-
                                                     ters not authorized by other state or federal agencies. Public waters
                                                     are defined as all the salt and fresh waters underlying the beds of
                                                     navigable streams under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Wildlife
                                                     Commission. The TPWD is responsible for reviewing and comment-
                                                     ing on state and federal pen-nits affecting Texas wildlife resources
                                                     and for protection of endangered or threatened species.

                                                     Address:           4200 Smith School Road
                                                                        Austin, TX 78744
                                                     Telephone:         (512) 389-4800















                                                                   82











           Texas Department of Transportation MDOT)

           TxDOT is responsible for road construction and planning. The
           agency administers federal funds for mass transit and may plan,
           purchase, construct, lease, and contract for public transportation
           systems in the state. TxDOT contracts and maintains bridges and
           ferries, serves as the state sponsor of the Gulf Intracoastal Water-
           way, and can acquire easements and rights-of-way from GLO for
           channel expansion, relocation, or alteration.

           Address:            Dewitt C. Greer State Highway Building
                               125 E. 11th Street
                               Austin, TX 78701-2483
           Telephone:          (512) 305-9509


           Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC)

           The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission is respon-
           sible for the protection of surface and groundwater quality In addi-
           tion to this responsibidity, the Commission oversees surface water
           rights administration, dam safety management, the National Flood
           Insurance Program (NFIP) and flood control improvement project
           administration, injection well program administration, waste mini-
           mization initiatives, and water district supervision. (Effective Sep-
           tember 1, 1993, the Texas Water Commission was combined with
           the Texas Air Control Board to form the Texas Natural Resource
           Conservation Commission)

           TNRCC has the authority to develop and enforce regulations affect-
           ing strearnflow to the Gulf. These regulations are contained in sec-
           tions 11.147 and 11.152 of the Texas Water Code. The 69th Texas
           Legislature assigned the responsibility for water rights permitting
           to TNRCC and authorized the TPWD to be a party in hearings on
           applications for permits to store, take, or divert water-actions that
           can change the pattern or quantity of freshwater inflow. The Legis-
           lature directed the TNRCC to consider effects on bays and estuaries
           of all water rights permits, with a specific directive to include pro-
           tective provisions in certain permits by applying a performance stan-
           dard when making decisions concerning water rights on rivers and
           streams leading to bays and estuaries.

           Address:        12100 Park 35 Circle, Bldg. A
                           P.O. Box 13087
                           Austin, TX 78711-3087
           Telephone:      (512) 239-1000


                                                               83











                                                      Texas Antiquities Committee

                                                      The Texas Antiquities Committee, created by the Texas Antiquities
                                                      Code, is responsible for preserving and protecting the state's his-
                                                      torical and archaeological resources. It requires pen-nits for activi-
                                                      ties involving salvage or study of state archaeological landmarks,
                                                      including historical sites and artifacts of interest such as sunken ships,
                                                      buried treasure, and art works. The Antiquities Committee issues
                                                      eight types of permits covering virtually every aspect of historical
                                                      and archaeological investigation, including reconnaissance, testing,
                                                      excavation, and destruction.


                                                      Address:            108 W. 16th Street
                                                                          P.O. Box 12276
                                                                          Austin, TX 78711-2276
                                                      Telephone:          (512) 463-6096


                                                      Texas Attorney General's Office

                                                      The Texas Attorney General's Office is not a regulatory agency, but
                                                      it has a role in resource management as the state's enforcement
                                                      agency for the Open Beaches Act and other coastal law. The office
                                                      protects the public's beach access rights and can bring suit on behalf
                                                      of other state agencies to enforce state laws.

                                                      Address:            209 West 14th Street
                                                                          P.O. Box 12548
                                                                          Austin, TX 78711-2548
                                                      Telephone:          (512) 463-2100


                                                      Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG)

                                                      The Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Aus-
                                                      tin is responsible for much of the mapping of coastal resources, en-
                                                      ergy, minerals, land, geology, and biology It also monitors erosion
                                                      along the Texas Gulf Coast.

                                                      Address:            University Station, Box X
                                                                          Austin, TX 787134508
                                                      Telephone:          (512) 471-1534






                                                                      84











            Governor's Office of Budget and Planning

            The Governor's Office of Budget and Planning prepares recommen-
            dations for the state budget and administers state review and com-
            ment procedures for all federal or federally funded projects.

            Address:           State Capitol, Room 2S.1
                               Austin, TX 78701
            Telephone:         (512) 462-2000


            FEDERALAGENCIES

            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

            Federal interest in shore protection began officially in 1930 with the
            enactment of PL 71-520, which authorized and directed the U.S.
            Army Corps of Engineers to engage in shore protection studies in
            cooperation with state agencies and to establish a special board, the
            Beach Erosion Board (BEB), to furnish technical assistance. The
            present-day shore protection program under the COE is applicable
            to the shores of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Gulf of Mexico,
            the Great Lakes, and the estuaries and bays directly connected with
            each of the states; the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and Northern
            Marianas Islands; the Territories of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam,
            and American Samoa; and the Federated States of Micronesia and
            the Marshall Islands. The COE's authority for shore erosion control
            activities extends up tributary streams only as far as it can be dem-
            onstrated that the dominant causes of erosion and damage are ocean
            tidal action (or Gulf of Mexico or Great Lakes water motion) and
            wind-generated waves. Its erosion control authority does not ad-
            dress erosion at upstream locations caused by stream flows or ves-
            sels. Lake flood protection activities are generally limited to the
            Great Lakes, or as otherwise specifically authorized under public
            law.


            Address:           U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston
                               Attn: CESWG-PL-R
                               R 0. Box 1229
                               Galveston, TX 77553-1229
            Telephone:         (409) 766-3899







                                                               85











                                                    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

                                                    FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program, which
                                                    provides federally subsidized insurance protection in many coastal
                                                    and flood-prone areas of the U.S. FEMA maps flood-prone areas,
                                                    establishes criteria for land management and use, and gives plan-
                                                    ning recommendations for flood- and erosion-prone areas. FEMA
                                                    and the designated state agency liaison assist local communities with
                                                    the development of quality floodplain management programs.

                                                    Address:            FEMA-Region VI
                                                                        Federal Center
                                                                        800 N. Loop 288
                                                                        Denton, TX 76201-3698
                                                    Telephone:          (817) 898-9162


                                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

                                                    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has primary roles in sev-
                                                    eral aspects of the Section 404 (Clean Water Act) program, including
                                                    development of the environmental guidelines by which permit ap-
                                                    plications must be evaluated; review of proposed permits; prohibi-
                                                    tion of discharges with unacceptable adverse impacts; approval and
                                                    oversight of state assumption of the program; establishment of the
                                                    jurisdictional scope of waters of the U.S.; and interpretation of Sec-
                                                    tion 404 exemptions. The COE and EPA share responsibility for
                                                    enforcing the Section 404 Program. The EPA can also enforce against
                                                    noncompliance with permit conditions.

                                                    Address:            EPA - Region VI
                                                                        1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
                                                                        Dallas, TX 75202-2733
                                                    Telephone:          (214) 655-6444














                                                                   86











             U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
             Service (NRCS)

             The Natural Resource Conservation Service is the U.S. Department
             of Agriculture's primary technical agency in the areas of soil and
             water conservation and water quality. The NRCS focuses its assis-
             tance on nonfederal land. It works primarily with private landown-
             ers in planning and applying measures to reduce soil erosion, con-
             serve water, protect and improve water quality, and protect other
             renewable natural resources, such as plants and wildlife. The guid-
             ing principle is the use and conservation treatment of the land and
             water in harmony with capabilities and needs.

             The NRCS has an office in almost every county in the U.S., where it
             works closely with local subdivisions of state government called soil
             and water conservation districts. The conservation districts are gov-
             erned by local people and typically have legislative mandates to plan
             and implement comprehensive soil and water conservation pro-
             grams within their boundaries. These boundaries usually coincide
             with county lines.

             The NRCS's basic authorities were created by P.L. (74)- 46, P.L. (83) -
             566, and P.L. (78) -534. Program authorities were added under vari-
             ous farm bills including those enacted in 1961 (Resource Conserva-
             tion and Development), 1988 (Swampbuster, Sodbuster, Conserva-
             tion Compliance, and Conservation Reserve Program) and 1990
             (Wetlands Reserve Program and others). Under the Swampbuster
             provisions, NRCS helps landowners identify and protect wetlands.
             Loss of USDA benefits and severe economic consequences can re-
             sult for agriculture producers who convert wetlands to make pos-
             sible the production of agricultural commodities.

             The NRCS conducts soil surveys and operates a system of 27 plant
             material centers for selecting, developing, testing, and releasing
             plants for use in conservation programs. It also works with private
             landowners and others to preserve, protect, and restore wetlands
             and to develop wildlife and fisheries habitat.

             Address:            101 S. Main Street
                                 Temple, TX 76501-7682
             Telephone:          (817) 774-1261







                                                                 87








             APPENDIX F                     On July 12, 1995, the GLO hosted a meeting of the volunteer
           Notes from the                   advisory committee and staff from state, federal, and local
                                            governments to discuss coastal erosion problems with local
                       Erosion              experts. Presentation topics included how to define critical
           Response Plan                    erosion, mapping shoreline changes, results of a national study
                                            on beach nourishment, and management objectives. Advisory
                     Advisory               members and guests shared their knowledge and personal
                   Committee                experience with the coastal experts on erosion response in
                                            "brainstorming" sessions. The following is a list of con.clu-
                       Meeting              sions and recommendations of the advisory committee mem-
             July 12, 1995                  bers.
                                            For an eroding area to be defined as critical, there must be a
                                            high rate of erosion that poses a threat to:

                                                ï¿½ public infrastructure or areas of national importance
                                                ï¿½ public and traffic safety
                                                ï¿½ individual property and property value
                                                ï¿½ beach access and recreation
                                                ï¿½ habitat
                                                ï¿½ level of human activity

                                            Criteria for ranking critical erosion areas should include:

                                                - private/ personal losses
                                                * public losses/ investments
                                                - public access
                                                * commerce/economical impact
                                                * urban areas
                                                * rural areas
                                                * erosion rate
                                                o threatened wildlife areas /endangered species
                                                o threatened storm evacuation routes
                                                - threatened historical sites, archaeological sites, cultural
                                                  resources
                                                o public safety
                                                o human activity

                                            Critical gulf shore and bayshore erosion areas (not ranked):

                                            o Sargent Beach, Matagorda County
                                            - Corpus Christi Ship channel at Port Aransas, Nueces County


                                                         88










                ï¿½ North Padre Island Seawall, Nueces County
                ï¿½ Bolivar Peninsula (Caplen Beach), Galveston County
                ï¿½ Northern section of the Town of South Padre Island and
                  Andy Bowie Park, Cameron County
                ï¿½ Indianola Historical Site, Calhoun County
                ï¿½ McFaddin Beach, Jefferson County
                ï¿½ West Galveston island, Galveston County
                e Aransas Wildlife Refuge, Aransas County
                ï¿½ Sabine Neches Channel, Jefferson County

            Information needed to determine the appropriate erosion re-
            sponse method:

                ï¿½ historical wave climate, ecology, building types data base,
                  engineering history - dredging
                ï¿½ surf zone dynamics
                ï¿½ beach profile shape
                ï¿½ sediment texture, sediment budget, sediment transport-
                  modelling
                ï¿½ depth and width of channels, how they affect the wake
                  of ships
                ï¿½ causes of erosion in that area (document or quantify the
                  causes)
                ï¿½ land use strategies
                ï¿½ cost/benefit analysis
                ï¿½ Shoreline movement (quantify)
                ï¿½ value of upland that is threatened
                ï¿½ value of the beach as recreation
                ï¿½ purpose of protection-based on cultural and economic
                  factors
                ï¿½ location of borrow source


            Identified data gaps:

                ï¿½ beach/nearshore profile
                ï¿½ wave climate
                ï¿½ bay and estuarine coastal processes
                ï¿½ wave measurements, layers of types of sediments, veg-
                  etation types, measure of waves /wave-induced currents
                  by winds
                ï¿½ types of shoreline configuration for upper bays and bay-
                  ous
                ï¿½ composition, morphology, shoreline type

                                                           89










                                                  ï¿½ sediment forcing (hydrodynamic) waves, wind, current,
                                                   water level
                                                  ï¿½ location of and quality of sand resources

                                              Regional data gaps:

                                                 ï¿½ West End Galveston beach surveys
                                                 ï¿½ bay shorelines in the critical erosion areas
                                                 ï¿½ human impacts on reestablishing the dune line

                                             Estimated costs of projects:

                                                 ï¿½ seawalls and bulkheads - $50 to $500/ft ($2 mil/mile for
                                                   Port Aransas bulkheads)
                                                 ï¿½ Christmas trees - low initial cost, higher for upkeep
                                                 ï¿½ armoring - $500-$5000 / ft, can buy the land for $1000
                                                 ï¿½ beach nourishment - $,100-$500/ft
                                                 ï¿½ public education - minimal materials available $10,000
                                                   to produce video
                                                 ï¿½ planting vegetation - $15-$18 per running foot
                                                 ï¿½ groin and detached breakwaters - $500-1000/ft groin
                                                 ï¿½ geotextile bags - $300-500/ft
                                                 ï¿½ hybrid (mix of structural and nonstructural measures) -
                                                   $1000/ft

                                             Funding sources:

                                                 ï¿½ sales tax to pay for bonds
                                                 ï¿½ percentage from hotel/motel tax
                                                 ï¿½ ad valorem tax increase
                                                   issue bonds
                                                   statewide obligation bonds
                                                   grants from agencies
                                                   private enterprise
                                                   establish erosion districts
                                                 ï¿½ environmental fines
                                                 ï¿½ tourist development tax
                                                 ï¿½ general revenue as a state funding source
                                                 ï¿½ cigarette tax
                                                 ï¿½ lottery proceeds
                                                 ï¿½ assistance from the Corps of Engineers - Sec. 933, to dis-
                                                   pose material in least cost method and environmentally
                                                   acceptable manner (local sponsor can share the additional

                                                           90











               cost with the COE)
             ï¿½ ISTEA
             ï¿½ user fees for beach use
             ï¿½ charge entities if they are found to cause shoreline ero-
               sion
             ï¿½ establish groups to get congressional appropriations for
               COE projects, erosion prevention districts can have their
               own lobbyists
             ï¿½ establish conservation reclamation districts to act as a
               funding entity

          Other beach management recommendations:

             ï¿½ Streamline the process for acquiring easements for veg-
               etation planting projects.
             ï¿½ Use a programmatic approach to address more than in-
               dividual (or named) sites, but address cumulative sites;
               e.g., an entire bay area (many areas are too small to be
               addressed individually).

























                                                        911







                                                         NOTES
























                              .JIMMINION
                                3 6668 14100 8765