STAGES AND DURATIONS OF POST-STORM BEACH RECOVERY, SOUTHEASTERN TEXASCOAST, USA

Severely eroded beaches of the southeastern Texas coast monitored for ten years following a category 3 hurricane reveal four time-dependent stages of recovery. The dominant processes during the four stages of r ecovery are as follow (1) rapid forebeach accretion, (2) backbeach agg radation, (3) dune formation, and (4) dune expansion and vegetation re colonization. Only undeveloped beaches experienced all four stages of post-storm recovery. Developed beaches reached stage 2, hut additional recovery was prevented because beach widths seaward of the houses wer e too narrow to permit colian transport and construction of dunes. Pos t-storm recovery lasted four to ave years before the beaches of Galves ton island began responding to local events that dictated subsequent c hanges in beach volume. Only two of seven profile sites experienced co mplete recovery in terms of sand volume gained, compared to the volume lost during the storm. Partial recovery at the other sites ranged fro m 7% to 71% of the volume eroded during the storm. After the four- to ave-year period of partial recovery, several beach segmenta entered an erosional phase that reflects the long-term trend of beach behavior. Post-storm beach responses at individual sites were highly variable an d included the following: (1) erosion and continuous loss of beach vol ume. (2) partial recovery and subsequent erosion, (3) complete recover y, and (4) continuous gains in beach volume that greatly exceed the vo lume eroded by the storm. Some of the factors that locally controlled beach response were interactions with shoals at an adjacent tidal inle t the adverse effects of updrift coastal structures, and along-shore m igration of shoreline rhythms that alter sand supply. The maximum cumu lative recovery of sand occurred four years after the storm when appro ximately 67% of the eroded sand could be accounted for, os storm washo ver terraces deposited on the barrier flat (12%) or se beach and dune sand returned during the recovery phase (55%). Apparently the remainin g volume of sand eroded from but not returned to the beach, Has transp orted downdrift and stored on the shoreface where it has contributed t o spit accretion on Galveston Island