[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
=~~~~=-~~~~~r:~ ~ �:,~b~,~ ~~ IN7 ~.~~~" i ~P76o I cnlSuffolk -989 r 1989 irk ~~LONG ISLAND SOUTH S#O"f a b:AZARD HNA;aO[H[T PROGRAM Long Island Regional Planning Board �. z~~. 2ks~or /4~~I -,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:: .- H : TC 224 of� PnOPOS!D P76 ~rnSd Suffolk LONG IslOnDr WUot Sfio1n 1989 r Prepared by: Long Island Regional Planning Board I R M nCHN OG M Proposed Long Island South Shore Hazard Management Program PROPOSEDLONG ISLAND SOUTH SHORE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Dr. Lee E. Koppelman Project Director DeWitt S. Davies Project Coordinator December 1989 Long Island Regional Planning Board H. Lee Dennison Office Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788-5401 in cooperation with the New York Coastal Program Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization New York Department of State This report was prepared for the New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, with financial assistance from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration, provided under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (Grant-in-Aid Award No. NA-82-AA-D-CZ068; New York Comptroller's Contract Numbers C005563, C005564 and C005565). '~'~ ~~~~~~~~U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER ,_1 'w a 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE 4'tu-~ Ca ~CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Property of CSC Library LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD Morton Certilman, Esq. John J. Hart, Esq. Chairman Vice Chairman Patrick F. Caputo Dr. Frank Cipriani Dr. Carl L. Figliola John Wickham Dr. Lee E. Koppelman Executive Director NASSAU COUNTY SUFFOLK COUNTY Ex Officio Ludwig Hasl Joseph Hurley Commissioner Commissioner Department of Public Works Department of Public Works Peter T. King Joseph Caputo Comptroller Comptroller Advisory Honorable Thomas S. Gulotta Honorable Patrick G. Halpin County Executive County Executive Honorable Joseph N. Mondello Honorable Donald Blydenburgh Presiding Supervisor Presiding Officer County Board of Supervisors County Legislature County Coordination Herbert J. Libert Arthur Kunz Director Director County Planning Commission County Planning Department iv State of New York Long Island Regional Planning Board Dear Reader: Nowhere is the conflict between nature and man more evident than along our developed ocean shoreline. Navigational and safety hazards in inlets, homes on stilts in the surf zone, rising sea levels, and massive storm-induced destruction, as evidenced by Hurricane Hugo attest to the severity of this conflict. On Long Island's South Shore alone, thousands of lives and approximately $10 billion worth of property are at risk. Therefore, the Department of State and the Long Island Regional Planning Board identified the need for a comprehensive and coordinated response to flooding and erosion problems occurring along Long Island's South Shore. Several public objectives guided the direction of this investigation. First, government has an obligation to protect the health and safety of the public and to reduce the risk to life and property. Second, public responsibility for and subsidy of continued private exposure to risks from erosion and flooding must be reduced, if not eliminated. Third, the south shore headlands and barrier islands constitute a dynamic, i~nterrelated system, which must be treated as such. An action proposed at one section of the shoreline must be considered in light of its impacts on adjacent areas. The recommendations set forth in this document will be discussed with municipal officials, scientists and citizen groups, keeping in focus the several public objectives listed above. Through this interaction among agencies and the public, it is our goal to arrive at a consensus on the most effective management techniques to resolve these issues. Sincerely, Gail S. Shaffer Lee E. Koppelman Secretary of S ~~~~~~Executive Director New York Ste Long Island Regional Planning Board V STUDY PARTICIPANTS STUDY PARTICIPANTS Project Director Dr. Lee E. Koppelman Report Preparation DeWitt S. Davies Lauretta R. Fischer Ronald Verbarg Christine Viladesau Michael Volpe Technical Advisors New York Sea Grant Program Jay Tanski Marine Sciences Research Center SUNY Center @ Stony Brook Dr. Henry Bokuniewicz Support Staff Sandy Martin Jeanne Widmayer Cartographic and Publication Anthony Tucci Carl Lind Thomas Frisenda Accounting Lucille Gardella vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgements umerous individuals from both the public and private sectors contributed to the preparation of this report. Personnel from the New York State Dept. of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization provided extensive input during the entire course of this project. Special thanks are extended to George Stafford, Charles McCaffrey, Paul Bjorklund, and Sally Ball for their expertise and counsel. The teams of coastal experts that participated in the workshops convened by the New York Sea Grant Program added invaluable technical insight to the conduct of the work. The team of coastal engineers consisted of Dr. Robert G. Dean, Dept. of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; Dr. Craig Everts, Moffatt and Nichol, Engineers, Long Beach, CA; Dr. Nicholas C. Kraus, U. S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS; and Dr. Choule J. Sonu, Tekmarine, Inc., Pasadena, CA. Members of the coastal geologist team included Dr. Timothy W. Kana, Coastal Science & Engineering, Inc., Columbia, SC; Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman, Laboratory for Coastal Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD; Dr. Larry McCormick, Natural Sciences Division, Long Island University, Southampton, NY; and Dr. Gary Zarillo, Dept. of Oceanography, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL. The staff of the Long Island Regional Planning Board also acknowledges the assistance of the following people who contributed data/information and/or views on various aspects of the project: John Bennett - Town of Southampton Silvio Calesi - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, NY District Larry Cantwell - Village of East Hampton Schuyler Corwin - Suffolk County Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Larry Cocchieri - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, NY District Dick Curry - Fire Island Association William Daley -NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Edward Davida - Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Randall Davis - NYS Emergency Management Office Thomas Doheny - Town of Hempstead Edward Eaton - City of Long Beach Ronald Foley - NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Jean Gilman - Town of Babylon George Gorman, Jr. - NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Nathan L. Halpern - East Hampton Beach Preservation Society, Inc. George Hill - Village of Saltaire Clifford Jones - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, NY District Jeffrey Kassner - Town of Brookhaven vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jim Kelley - NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Nancy Nagle Kelley - Group for the South Fork Jerry Kemp - Village of Southampton Joan Kesner - Town of Oyster Bay Darrel Kost - NYS Dept. of Transportation Lisa Liquori - Town of East Hampton Kevin McDonald - Group for the South Fork Blair McCaslin - Town of Southampton Julia Noeldechen - Town of Islip T. Decker Orr - Village of Quogue Noel Pachta - Fire Island National Seashore Larry Penny - Town of East Hampton Glenn Pisano - Town of Brookhaven Crouse Powell - Village of Ocean Beach John Sheridan - Suffolk County Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Gerard Stoddard - Fire Island Association Thomas Thorsen - Town of Southampton Anthony Tohill - Village of Westhampton Beach Ivan Vamos - NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Paul Weberg - Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 11 Deanna Weiss - Village of Atlantic Beach In addition the staff would like to acknowledge the assistance rendered by New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission, Scientific Advisory Committee: Dr. Peter J. R. Buttner - Director of Environmental Management; (Chairman) NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Dr. Nicholas K. Coch - Department of Geology; Queens College Dr. Robert Fakundiny - NYS Museum and Science Service Education Dept; Cultural Education Center Robert Fickies - NYS Museum and Science Service Education Dept; Cultural Education Center Frances A. Hyland, RE - L.I. State Park, Recreation and Historic Park Preservation Dr. Robert Johnson - Department of Biology; Hofstra University Gilbert K. Nersesian, P.E. - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District Dr. John E. Sanders - Columbia University; Barnard College Dr. Manfred P. Wolff - Department of Geology; Hofstra University viii PREFACE Preface The exposure and vulnerability of Long Island's south shore to the ravages of severe storms were clearly Tdocumented in the Long Island Regional Planning Board's Hurricane Damage Mitigation Plan published in October 1984. That report, which contains strategies to reduce erosion- and flood-related damage, indicated that Long Island has the potential to become the next site of the Nation's costliest hurricane disaster. Less than a year later, Hurricane Gloria scored a direct hit on Long Island. However, as a result of fortuitous circumstances, the intensity and forward speed of the storm decreased as it approached the south shore, and it hit near the time of low tide at noon on 27 September 1985. While damages in coastal areas were minimal, wind damage throughout Long Island was severe. Gloria caused an estimated $530 million in damages and losses in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. At about midnight on 21 September 1989, Hurricane Hugo slammed into Charleston, South Carolina packing 135 mph winds and a storm surge of over 17 feet. Damage to shoreline resort development, suburban and urban areas and natural resources was devastating and could amount to more than $5 billion when final estimates are tallied. One need not wonder about the havoc that a storm like Hugo would wreak on Long Island. The need for improved management of Long Island shoreline areas is clearly evident. The proposed recommendations in this hazard management program address the long-term concerns associated with shoreline stability and flooding problems, which have the potential of becoming even more severe, should the rate of global sea level rise accelerate. The recommendations are driven by land use and hazard planning policies, and are based on an assessment of available datalinformation on coastal processes and the forces that cause coastal change. Implementation will result in a decrease in the possible loss of life which may result from severe storms; reduced cost to the public for various forms of disaster assistance; a basis for providing better predictability of public costs associated with attempts to maintain the barrier islands and inlets; protection of natural resources; protection of the mainland; an overall reduction in the intensity of shoreline use; and an increase in public open space and access opportunity. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Chapter Page 1 Introduction ..................................................1-1 1.0 Geographic Setting and Scope ...................................... .. 1-1 1.1 Study Components .............................................. 1-1 1.2 New York Sea Grant Program Workshops ................................. . 1-2 1.3 South Shore Erosion and Flooding-related Problems ............................ 1-3 2 South Shore Coastal Processes and Natural Resources .......................... 2-1 2.0 Introduction .................................................. 2-1 2.1 Coastal Processes ............................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Trends in Shoreline Migration ..................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Shoreline Changes Due to Storms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 2-3 2.1.3 Volumetric Shoreline Changes/Sediment Budgets .......................... . 2-3 2.1.4 Dune Morphology and Dynamics ................................... 2-3 2.1.5 Effects of Structures .......................................... 2-3 2.1.6 Wave Climate ..............................................2-8 2.1.7 Sea Level Rise ............................................. 2-11 2.1.8 Storm Surges and Tides ........................................ 2-11 2.1.9 Longshore Sediment Transport ..................................... 2-11 2.1.10 Cross-shore Sediment Transport .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 2.1.11 Inlet Processes ................. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 2.1.12 Overwash Processes .......................................... 2-16 2.1.13 Bluff Erosion ..............................................2-16 2.2 Natural Resources Inventory ................... ......................2-16 2.2.1 West, Middle and East Hempstead Bays and Oyster Bay Natural Resources . . . . . . . . .... 2-18 2.2.2 Great South Bay Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 2-18 2.2.3 Moriches Bay Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 2-19 2.2.4 Shinnecock Bay Natural Resources .................................. 2-19 2.2.5 Coastal Poncs Natural Resources ................................... 2-19 2.2.6 Napeague Nptural Resources ..................................... 2-20 2.2.7 Montauk Natural Resources ...................................... 2-20 2.2.8 Colonial Waterbird and Piping Plover Populations ........................... 2-20 3 Hazard Management Program ........................3-1 3.0 Introduction ................ .................................3-1 3.1 South Shore Land Use Plan Maps ...................................... 3-1 3.2 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ...................................... 3-1 3.3 Assessment of Erosion Management Options ................... ............. 3-1 3.4 Generic Hazard Management Recommendations - Longshore Transport, Inlet Management and ..... 3-1 Closure of New Inlets ............................................ 3-4 3.5 Coastal High Risk Zone ........................................... 3-5 3.6 Sea Level Rise and Natural Resource Protection .............................. 3-6 3.7 Bulkhead Construction and Armoring of Coastal Bluffs ........................... 3-7 3.8 Detailed Recommendations by Shoreline Segment ............................. 3-9 x TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 3.8.1 Atlantic Beach/Long Beach Segment ................................. 3-9 3.8.1.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ....................... 3-9 3.8.1.2 Land Use Plan Goals ... ................................... 3-9 3.8.1.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ............................ 3-9 3.8.1.4 Policy Justification ...... .......... .............. ......... ...... .. 3-9 3.8.1.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.8.2 Jones Inlet Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.8.2.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ........................ 3-13 3.8.2.2 Land Use Plan Goals ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.8.2.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.8.2.4 Policy Justification . ....................1.............. 3-13 3.8.2.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options .............................. 3-15 3.8.3 Gilgo Beach Segment ........................ 3-15 3.8.3.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures . . ............... 3-15 3.8.3.2 Land Use Plan Goals ................................. 3-19 3.8.3.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies. ..... 3-19 3.8.3.4 Policy Justification ................ ....................... 3-19 3.8.3.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . 3-19 3.8.4 Fire Island Inlet Segment ....................... . 3-20 3.8.4.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures . ... .... .. . .. 3-20 3.8.4.2 Land Use Plan Goals . ........................... 3-20 3.8.4.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies .............................. 3-20 3.8.4.4 Policy Justification ... ................... 3-20 3.8.4.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options .; ................... 3-20 3.8.5 Ocean Beach Segmen .. ......................................... 3-22 3.8.5.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ........................ 3-22 3.8.5.2 Land Use Plan Goals .. . .............. . 3-22 3.8.5.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................... .............. 3-22 3.8.5.4 Policy Justification .... ... ................................. . 3-22 3.8.5.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options ............................ 3-24 3.8.6 Central Fire Island Segment .................................... .. 3-25 3.8.6.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ....................... 3-25 3.8.6.2 Land Use Plan Goals ........................................ . 3-25 3.8.6.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................................. 3-25 3.8.6.4 Policy Justification .................................... . 3-25 3.8.6.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options ......................... ... 3-25 3.8.7 Fire Island National Seashore Wilderness Segment .......... . 3-25 3.8.7.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures . . ...................... 3-25 3.8.7.2 Land Use Plan Goals ............................ .............. 3-27 3.8.7.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies. ................................. 3-27 3.8.7.4 Policy Justification .3.................. .................. . 3-27 3.8.7.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options .............................. 3-27 3.8.8 Moriches Inlet Segment ....................................... . .. 3-27 3.8.8.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures . ............ 3-27 3.8.8.2 Land Use Plan Goals ........ ........... 3-30 3.8.8.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................... ... .. 3-30 3.8.8.4 Policy Justification ............................... 3-30 3.8.8.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options . ....................... . 3-30 xi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 3.8.1 Atlantic Beach/Long Beach Segment ................................. 3-9 3.8.1.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ....................... 3-9 3.8.1.2 Land Use Plan Goals .......................................... 3-9 3.8.1.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies . .................................. . 3-9 3.8.1.4 Policy Justification ....... .................... ..... . 3-9 3.8.1.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.8.2 Jones Inlet Segment .......................................... 3-13 3.8.2.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures .................... 3-13 3.8.2.2 Land Use Plan Goals . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.8.2.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies .................................. . . . . . 3-13 3.8.2.4 Policy Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.8.2.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options ................... . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15 3.8.3 Gilgo Beach Segment .......................................... . 3-15 3.8.3.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ..................... 3-15 3.8.3.2 Land Use Plan Goals ................... 3-19 3.8.3.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................ ... 3-19 3.8.3.4 Policy Justification ...................................... 3-19 3.8.3.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options ........ ................3-19 3.8.4 Fire Island Inlet Segment ...................... .3-20 3.8.4.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures .................. ..... 3-20 3.8.4.2 Land Use Plan Goals. ....................... 3-20 3.8.4.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ..................... 3-20 3.8.4.4 Policy Justification ............................. 3-20 3.8.4.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options . . ......... .... 3-20 3.8.5 Ocean Beach Segmen ......................................... 3-22 3.8.5.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ........................ 3-22 3.8.5.2 Land Use Plan Goals ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22 3.8.5.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................................... . 3-22 3.8.5.4 Policy Justification ....................................... 3-22 3.8.5.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options ............................. . 3-24 3.8.6 Central Fire Island Segment ............... . 3-25 3.8.6.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ....................... 3-25 3.8.6.2 Land Use Plan Goals. ....................................... . 3-25 3.8.6.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................................. 3-25 3.8.6.4 Policy Justification ......................................... . 3-25 3.8.6.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options .............................. 3-25 3.8.7 Fire Island National Seashore Wilderness Segment .......................... 3-25 3.8.7.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ........................ . 3-25 3.8.7.2 Land Use Plan Goals ....................................... . 3-27 3.8.7.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................................ . 3-27 3.8.7.4 Policy Justification ................... ................ . 3-27 3.8.7.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options ............................. ...... 3-27 3.8.8 Moriches Inlet Segment ........................................ 3-27 3.8.8.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ............. ... . . . 3-27 3.8.8.2 Land Use Plan Goals ................... ..... .... 3-30 3.8.8.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ........................ .. 3-30 3.8.8.4 Policy Justification ............. 3-30 3.8.8.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options ........................... . ... . 3-30 xi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 3.8.9 Westhampton Beach Segment ..................................... 3-31 3.8.9.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ........................ 3-31 3.8.9.2 Land Use Plan Goals ........................................ 3-31 3.8.9.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................. ............... 3-31 3.8.9.4 Policy Justification ......................................... 3-31 3.8.9.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options .............................. 3-35 3.8.10 Shinnecock Inlet Segment .............. ................... . 3-35 3.8.10.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ........................ 3-35 3.8.10.2 Land Use Plan Goals ........................................ 3-37 3.8.10.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................... .............. 3-37 3.8.10.4 Policy Justification . 3-3. ................... . . . 3-37 3.8.10.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options .............................. 3-37 3.8.11 Coastal Ponds Segment ................... . . ................... 3-37 3.8.11.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ........................ 3-37 3.8.11.2 Land Use Plan Goals ........................................3-38 3.8.11.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................................. 3-38 3.8.11.4 Policy Justification ......................................... 3-38 3.8.11.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options .............................. 3-38 3.8.12 Napeague Segment ................... ................... ..... 3-40 3.8.12.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ........................ 3-40 3.8.12.2 Land Use Plan Goals ........................................ 3-40 3.8.12.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................... .............. 3-40 3.8.12.4 Policy Justification . 3-4. ................... . . . 3-41 3.8.12.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options .............................. 3-41 3.8.13 Montauk Segment ...........................................3-41 3.8.13.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ........................ 3-41 3.8.13.2 Land Use Plan Goals ........................................ 3-41 3.8.13.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies ................... .............. 3-41 3.8.13.4 Policy Justification ................... ................... ... 3-41 3.8.13.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options .............................. 3-41 4 Implementation Needs ............................................ 4-1 4.0 Introduction ............................................... 4-1 4.1 Erosion Monitoring Element .................................... ... . . 4-1 4.1.1 Technical Data and Information Needs ................................. 4-3 4.1.1.1 Characterization of Coastal Features and Changes ........................ 4-3 4.1.1.2 Physical Forcings Affecting Coastal Change ............................ 4-4 4.2 Recommended Changes in Government Programs ............................. 4-4 4.2.1 The National Flood Insurance Program ............................... . 4-4 4.2.2 New York State Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act ................... ....... 4-6 4.2.3 Coordination of Erosion Management Activities ................. 4-7 4.2.4 Eliminate Casualty Loss Deductions ................ . ............... 4-7 4.2.5 Disclosure of Flooding and Erosion Hazards .............................. 4-8 4.2.6 Federal and State Disaster Assistance ........................ ..... .... 4-8 4.2.7 Exclusion of Sensitive Areas in Local Setbacks .................... ....... 4-8 4.2.8 State Coastal Barrier Resources Act ................... ...............4-8 Glossary . .................. ....................................G-1 References .. .......... R-1 xii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Figure Page 2-1 Annualized long-term rates of shoreline recession (-) and accretion (+) . ............ 2-2 2-2 Maximum and average annual variations in the mean sea level intercept based on surveys at selected locations .... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2-3 Annualized net longshore transport rates and net shoreline volume changes for period 1955 - 1979 from sediment budget study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 2-4 Annualized net shoreline volume changes by lens and total net change . ........... 2-6 2-5 Locations, dates of construction and approximate lengths of groins and jetties in the study area 2-7 2-6 Annualized fill placement and net volume change (1955 - 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 2-9 2-7 Significant wave heights based on Wave Information Study 20-year shallow-water wave hindcast data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10 2-8 Estimates of annualized net sediment loss by a lens due to sea level rise and total observed net volume changes for the period 1955 - 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 2-12 2-9 Mean tidal ranges and storm surge water level elevations for 10, 50, and 100-year storms . 2-13 2-10 Location of historical inlets based on data from Leatherman and Allen (1985) for the area east of Fire Island Inlet and Taney (1961) for the area west of Fire Island . . . . . . . . .... 2-15 2-11 Annualized volume losses due to washovers for the period 1955 - 1979. . . . . . . . . .... 2-17 3-1 General location of South Shore shoreline segments ...................... 3-2 List of Tables Table Page 1-1 South Shore Coastal Erosion-related Problems ......................... 1-3 2-1 Estimates of Inlet Bypassing. .................................... 2-14 2-2 Natural Resources Map Series Ebayment/Area, Natural Resources Map Number(s) and Shoreline Segment Name(s). ................................... . 2-19 3-1 Shoreline Segment Names, Boundaries and Land Use Plan Map Reference Number(s) .... 3-3 3-2 Long Beach Barrier Island: Partial Shoreline Construction History . .............. 3-12 3-3 Pay Quantity and Disposal Area for Maintenance Dredging of the Jones Inlet Federal Navigation Channel ..... ........................... . 3-16 3-4 Suffolk County Dredging and Construction Projects at Moriches Inlet . ............. 3-30 3-5 Westhampton Barrier Island: Shoreline Construction History . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 3-34 3-6 Government Projects at Shinnecock Inlet . ...............� ........ 3-38 xiii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Photographs Photo Page 3-2 City of Long Beach, May 1989. Recently constructed dunes immediately east of boardwalk . . 3-10 3-3 City of Long Beach, May 1989. Dunes constructed immediately west of boardwalk . . . . .. 3-10 3-4 Village of Atlantic Beach, May 1989. Removal of windblown sand adjacent to cabanas and concession stands ...................................... .. 3-11 3-5 City of Long Beach, May 1989. Man-made dunes fronting high density residential use east of boardwalk. ...........................................3-11 3-6 Point Lookout, May 1989. Town of Hempstead recreation pavilion damaged by erosion of feeder beach west of Inlet ................... ................ 3-14 3-7 Point Lookout, May 1989. Sand starved feeder beach ..................... 3-14 3-8 Eroded portion of Gilgo Beach, July 1989 ............................ 3-17 3-9 Gilgo Beach, March 1973. View looking west with Gilgo pavilion in background Photo courtesy of LISPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. 3-17 3-10 Tobay Beach, May 1989. Recently reconstructed pavilion located seaward of Ocean Parkway 3-18 3-11 Jones Beach State Park, December 1974. Erosion and subsequent abandonment of Parking Field #9.Photo courtesy of LISPC .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 3-12 Overlook Beach, July 1989. Excessive accretion of sand and ponding rendered beach unsafe for bathers ............................................3-21 3-13 Fire Island Inlet, July 1989. Accretion of sand at Democrat Point and shoaling in Inlet .... . 3-21 3-14 Village of Ocean Beach, June 1989. Partially constructed rubble-core dunes ......... . 3-23 3-15 Dunewood, June 1989. Lack of protective dune .............. .......... 3-23 3-16 Fire Island Pines, June 1989. Note housing and pools in what once was the primary dune line 3-26 3-17 Fire Island National Seashore Wilderness Area, July 1989. Dunes up to 25 feet in height and extensive wetland areas ................................... 3-26 3-18 Moriches Inlet, July 1989. Note scour area immediately west of the Inlet . . . . . . . . .... 3-28 3-19 Cupsogue County Park, July 1989. Facility is currently inaccessible due to severe erosion west of the Westhampton Beach groin field . .......................... 3-28 3-20 Smith Point County Park, July 1989. Note dune blow-outs . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 3-29 3-21 Smith Point County Park, July 1989. Looking east at former site of Forge River Coast Guard Station. Note extremely low dune profile and close proximity of Ocean and Bay ........ 3-29 3-22 Area west of the Westhampton Beach Groin Field, July 1989. Barrier at this point is only 300-500 ft. wide and has been subject to repeated washover . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 3-32 3-23 Westhampton Beach, July 1989. Note severe erosion down drift of westernmost groin ..... 3-32 3-24 Eastern portion of Westhampton Beach groin field, July 1989. Note extensive beach width and medium and high density development ........................... 3-33 3-25 Eastern portion of Westhampton Beach groin field, July 1989. . . . . . . . . . . 3-33 3-26 Shinnecock Inlet, July 1989. Note accretion and erosion on east and west sides of Inlet respectively ...................................... ......3-36 xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS Photo Page 3-27 Southampton Barrier Spit, July 1989. Note extensive beach width immediately updrift of Shinnecock Inlet and newly constructed mansions located in CBRA designated area ......3-36 3-28 Sagaponack Lake, July 1989. Typical coastal pond surrounded by low density residential use. Note flood tidal delta in lake ...................................3-39 3-29 Bluffs at Montauk, July 1989 ...................................3-39 List of Maps Map Natural Resources Waterbird Colonies Land Use Plan xv / MASSACHUSETTS NW YORK co NN E~-TICUT PENNSYLVANI ,2~~~~~~~~~~~~ON NEW JERSEY AV NEW YORK LOCATION MAP Site of the South Shore Hazard Management Program xvi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary the longshore transport of sand. Inlet bypassing is the he need for a comprehensive, coordinated, long-term most important erosion management strategy reconm- response to the erosion and flooding problems occurring mended for the south shore, and should be imple- along Long Island's south shore is clearly evident. The mented at East Rockaway, Jones, Fire Island, proposed structural and non-structural recommendations con- Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets. Federal, State and tained in this hazard management report address this need, and local governments must make every effort to ensure should be used in discussions to develop a consensus for that sand obtained from bypassing projects performed support of a positive response to south shore development, by the COE at ocean inlets not be disposed of off- erosion control and flooding problems. shore, but rather utilized as beach nourishment for downdrift beaches. The Proposed Long Island South Shore Hazard � Closure of New Inlets. Given the investment society Management Program contains: has already made in the existing inlets and the mag- � a compilation and assessment of existing data/informa- nitude and nature of the environmental changes as- tion on coastal features and processes; and on the sociated with the formation of new inlets along the physical forces, e.g., waves, that drive coastal change. south shore, the creation of new inlets is unacceptable. � a description and map inventory of south shore natural Steps should be taken to prevent new inlets from form- resources and significant fish and wildlife habitats. ing. If they do form, and do not close naturally, they � a land use plan with a planning horizon of the year should be closed artificially. 2025. Minimize Public Exposure to Financial Loss within the * a description of preferred management program recom- Coastal High Risk Zone mendations by coastal segment that identifies areas where new development is acceptable; where develop- There is minimal public interest in making government expendi- ment should be relocated and other non-structural ac- tures for maintaining private development located within the tions may be needed; and where structural measures Coastal High Risk Zone, which has been defined to include the may be needed for erosion control. Jones Beach, Fire Island and Westhampton Beach barrier is- � an outline of implementation needs involving the con- lands, the Southampton spit, and that portion of the headland duct of an erosion monitoring component and selected section of the south shore from Southampton to Montauk Point regulatory programs. located within the V Zone as shown on flood insurance rate maps Hazard Management Recommendations Applicable to the and/or the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. When private struc- Entire South Shore tures located within the coastal high risk zone are damaged to a level greater than 50% of their replacement value due to either � Longshore Transport. The continuity of the longshore severe storm occurrence or long-term shoreline erosion, action transport of sand must be maintained along the entire should be taken to prohibit re-development in those locations south shore. Mechanisms for bypassing or restoring and configurations that would result in recurring public costs to sand transport must be inaugurated and maintained at cover repeated damages or threaten the integrity of the barrier locations where sand transport has been (or will be) in- islands. Should regulation and other actions described in terrupted, e.g., at stabilized inlets and seaward of groin Section 4.2 when implemented fail to prevent redevelopment, fields. finletanageen Iletds. playdomigovernment should acquire the damaged structures and private � Inlet Management. Inlets play a dominant role in the property as a last resort. the processes affecting coastal change. Many of the most severe long-term erosion trends found along the Sea Level Rise and Natural Resource Protection south shore are associated with inlets. Effective management programs for inlets must be designed Sea level rise poses a serious threat to the shoreline and and implemented, not only to stabilize navigation chan- associated development in low lying areas. This threat is mag- nels, but also to incorporate provisions for maintaining nified if the rate of sea level rise accelerates in the future. The xvii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY policy of strategic retreat from vulnerable coastal areas is the' in accord with the generic recommendation for severely rational approach to follow. While it is not recommended that damaged structures located in the Coastal High Risk Zone. wholesale abandonment of existing public facilities and private Robert Moses State Park should continue to serve as an inten- development located in coastal areas should occur in advance sively used recreation facility and the east-central portion of the of actual sea level rise acceleration, structures should be barrier should remain as a wilderness area. Smith Point County removed from vulnerable locations over the long-term when Park should continue to serve as an intensively used recreation subject to substantial damage from erosion and flooding im- area near the pavilion/parking lot portion of the park. pacts. Where engineered shoreline structures, roads, bridges, etc. are required, they should be designed with sea level rise in I t will b e necessary to implement the following coastal hazard mind. policies in this reach: mind. The generic and site specific recommendations in the program Maintain adequate beaches for recreational use at Robert Moses State Park and maintain the location of are compatible with efforts to protect natural resources and New t seline a a int thati s o York State Designated Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitats. th e shoreline at a point that will serve to protect this Implementation over the long-term will help to stabilize south facility. Since this shoreline has been accreting, no im- mediate intervention is envisioned. shore bay/coastal pond environments and, hence, ensure their mediate intervention is envisioned. From Kismet to Davis Park, the coastal hazard policies continued use for recreational and commercial purposes. r to as reata pi ci s are to emphasize regulation of private activity as the Summary of Recommendations by Shoreline Reach primary means for protecting structures and coastal features, and to maintain the continuity of the barrier. LONG BEACH REACH ~~~~~~~~~~LONG BEACH REACH *From Davis Park to Moriches Inlet, the policy is to The hazard management program for this highly developed maintain the existence and continuity of the barrier. barrier accepts that high density residential use will continue to WESTHAMPTON BEACH REACH be the predominant land use. Recreation and open space areas will also continue to be intensely used. It will be necessary to The goal in this reach is to terminate residential occupancy of implement a coastal hazard policy that will serve to maintain the Westhampton Beach west of the westernmost groin to Cup- location of the shoreline to protect these uses. It is recom- sogue Beach, and to phase out private development on the mended that the existing 43 groins be maintained and possibly barrier island in accord with the generic recommendation for heightened and lengthened to create a wider and higher beach; severely damaged structures located in the Coastal High Risk a protective dunefield for the entire barrier island should be Zone. It is recommended that all of the undeveloped land north completed. of Dune Road within the Village of Quogue and stretching ~~~~~~JONES BEACH REACH ~eastward to Tiana Beach, in addition to some of the oceanfront JONES BEACH REACH land within the Tiana Beach Coastal Barrier Resource System The program recommends maintenance of the town and State unit and immediately east, be purchased for recreation and open recreation facilities located on Jones Beach barrier island and a space. The program also reflects an expansion of the County- phase out of leases for Town of Babylon property on the barrier owned docking facility accommodating commercial fishing ves- and bay islands. Considering the intense use of the public sels. recreation facilities, the tremendous public investment in beach facilities and Ocean Parkway and connecting bridges, as well as The overall coastal hazard planning policy for the Westhampton two large municipal sewage treatment plant outfall pipes that Beach barrier island is to maintain the existence and continuity traverse the barrier island, the erosion planning policy for Jones of the barrier island. In order to maintain the continuity of the Beach calls for maintaining the location of the shoreline and narrow, highly eroded section between Cupsogue County Park adequate beaches for recreational activities. The preferred soeiepsto emitie.Tepeerdapoc o adequate beaches for recreational activities. The preferred and the groin field, it is essential that, at a minimum, the present management option for the beach erosion problem at Gilgo shoreline position be maintained. The preferred approach for Beach is periodic beach nourishment and dune building utilizing the area downdrift of the groin field involves the use of artificial sand bypassed from Fire Island Inlet. It is also recommended beach fill and dune building in conjunction with a modification of sand bypassed from Fire Island Inlet. It is also recomdthgrifelinsmfo.Itsrcmmended ta ec that the impact of removal or restoration of the Sore Thumb the groin field in some form. It is recommended that beach revetted sand dike on shoreline stability be assessed through nourishment in conjunction with regularly scheduled sand thattheimpct o reova or estraton o th Soe bnourishment in conjunction with regularly scheduled sand reveted and ike n sorelne sabilty e asesse thrughbypassing at Shinnecock Inlet be utilized to mitigate the erosion application of suitable hydrographic/sediment transport models, bypassing at Shinnecock Inlet be utilized to mitigate the erosion and that an engineered shore hardening structure replace the problem west of the Inlet. concrete rubble strewn along the shore at Oak Beach. Mainland Shoreline/Coastal Headlands Reach FIRE ISLAND REACH The program for this primarily seasonal, low density residential The program for the western portion of this barrier envisions a reach recommends that this continue to be the predominant land phase out of existing medium density, seasonal residential uses use. It is recommended that government acquire some xviii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY shorefront property in the vicinity of Montauk hamlet for open and enforced certain minimum floodplain management regula- space purposes. The policies applicable to this reach are: tions. This protection has been afforded to structures located on barrier islands, and in effect encourages a cycle of repeated emphasize regulation ofo private activity as the primary flood losses and policy claims. Thus, the elimination of federal means for protecting structures and coastal features flood insurance coverage for structures located on barrier is- and; lands and spits must be considered. Should Congress � maintain the existence and continuity of barrier spits maitaeinth est con sty ar spos reauthorize the NFIP, it is recommended that section 1362 be adjacent to coastal ponds. funded to allow the purchase of storm damage structures and The preferred erosion management alternative for this reach property and that the Upton-Jones amendment be modified so involves the retreat/relocation of structures out of the Coastal that it can be applied to the area west of the groin field in High Risk Zone. If this alternative cannot be implemented, it is Westhampton Beach. Pursuant to the Upton-Jones amend- recommended that shore hardening structures be built by private ment, NYS should take steps to identify areas of imminent property owners only under special circumstances and as a last collapse. resort for protection of their property against catastrophic events. Property owners should not adversely impact coastal processes Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act to the detriment of adjacent shoreline areas. The NYS Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act (Article 34 of the Erosion Monitoring Element Environmental Conservation Law) imposes an additional The data/information base on coastal processes must be im- responsibility on NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation proved to enable the development and selection of cost effective (NYSDEC) and local communities with no additional funding to erosion management projects. The components of a needed administer a coastal erosion management program. NYSDEC erosion monitoring element (data base maintenance, beach personnel with coastal erosion control expertise should be profile surveys, aerial photography, wave gauge deployment, added to the staff of Region I on Long Island to assist local shoreline response modelling) are outlined in this report. The administrators of Article 34. NYS Dept. of State should convene a conference attended by representatives of interested Federal, State and local agencies Coordination of Erosion Management Activities and noted experts in the fields of coastal engineering and geology for the purpose of preparing the specifications for the The DOS should further the Proposed South Shore Hazard tasks to be accomplished, parties assigned to accomplish same, Management Program by incorporating its recommendations sources of required funding, etc. into the New York Coastal Management Program. As a result, through the consistency provisions of the State and Federal National Flood Insurance Program Coastal Acts, navigation and beach erosion control projects will Since 1968, the Federal government has made subsidized flood be evaluated for comnpatibility with the South Shore Hazard insurance available to individuals in communities that adopted Management Program. xix INTRODUCTION Chapter One INTRODUCTION he New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) iden- nants of glacial drainage channels are located in this area. T tified the need for a comprehensive, coordinated response Glacial till bluffs 40 to 60 feet high are found adjacent to narrow to: beaches along the easternmost 10 miles of this section. * acute and chronic erosion problems occurring along The geographic scope of this investigation is limited to the south Long Island's south shore as a result of severe storm shore barrier islands and spit in the Towns of Hempstead, Oyster events, long-term geomorphic changes, inlet stabiliza- Bay, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven and Southampton; and the tion programs, and erosion control projects; and Atlantic Ocean shoreline, inland to the nearest road, along the * flood hazard conditions that are exacerbated by headlands section in the Towns of Southampton and East development situated in high risk locations. Hampton. Past management efforts have been typically characterized as 1.1 Study Components short-term responses to crisis situations at specific locations. NYSDOS called for the preparation of a land and water use The Long Island South Shore Hazard Management Program management program containing policies and strategies for a regional coordinated response to these problems by Federal, * Compilation and assessment of existing data and infor- state and local interests; and with funds provided under the mation on south shore coastal features, processes and Federal Coastal Zone Management Program, contracted the changes; and on the physical forces, e.g., wave Long Island Regional Planning Board (Board) to address this climate, that drive sediment dynamics resulting in coas- task. This program report, prepared during the period from 30 tal change. Coastal data/information have been sum- June 1988 to 30 September 1989, constitutes the final contract marized and portrayed in formats that are amenable to product. policy decision-making with reference to land use, regulation and coastal protection activities. 1.0 Geographic Setting and Scope * Identification of gaps in coastal data/information. The The Atlantic Ocean coast of Nassau and Suffolk Counties is a components of a recommended erosion monitoring pro- major physiographic feature; it extends from East Rockaway gram that address the data/information shortfall have Inlet to Montauk Point - a distance of about 106 miles. The been outlined. barrier island portion of this coastline from East Rockaway Inlet * Description of natural resources and constraints, exist- to Southampton is 73 miles long. The 33 mile headland portion ing land use, activity patterns, economic factors and of the south shore extends from Southampton to Montauk Point shore protection practices; and the identification of (Taney 1961). coastal segments having similar characteristics. * Evaluation of applicable Federal, state and local The barrier system is composed of four separate islands (from management and regulatory programs and activities, west to east: Long Beach, Jones Beach Island, Fire Island and including land use controls, impacting development Westhampton Beach) bounded by five inlets (from west to east: and use of the south shore. East Rockaway Inlet, Jones Inlet, Fire Island Inlet, Moriches * Discussion of alternative non-structural and structural Inlet, and Shinnecock Inlet). A barrier spit is located between measures for coordinated and effective management Shinnecock Inlet and the headlands in Southampton. The sys- of ocean and barrier island shorelines. The feasibility tem has widths that range from a low of 300 feet (to the west of of employing structural erosion control techniques the westernmost groin in the groin field at Westhampton Beach) (e.g., shore hardening structures, shore process alter- to a high of about 1 mile (at the urbanized areas of Long Beach ing structures, beach nourishment) was based on the and Jones Beach State Park). The Long Beach and Jones availability and adequacy of existing shoreline and Beach barrier islands front an extensive lagoonal-wetland area. coastal process data and information. Such wetlands are not as extensive in the bays in back of the * Development of management program recommenda- Fire Island and Westhampton Beach barriers (Wolff 1982). tions by coastal segment that identify areas where: - new development would be acceptable on the basis The headland portion of the coast is comprised of eroded glacial of favorable environmental conditions, the probable outwash features. Brackish, shallow ponds occupying the rem- success of erosion control strategies and public benefit; CHAP 1-1 INTRODUCTION - no development or re-development should occur, coastal engineering and coastal geology was recognized since i.e., where the concepts of retreat (movement of recommendations pertaining to coastal erosion and flooding structure to a less vulnerable location on the same management options must be based on an understanding of parcel), re-location (movement of structure to a par- coastal processes, the forces that drive these processes, and cel located outside a high risk area), public acquisi- engineering feasibility. It was of utmost importance for the Board tion of private property and abandonment of public to secure an independent, professional view of Long Island facilities and infrastructure should be employed; and south shore coastal erosion and flooding problems and potential - a structural program for erosion control should be solutions which was unhampered by agency affiliation and politi- implemented to maintain natural protective cal influence. landforms, mitigate human interference with coastal processes, and prevent damage to intensively The assistance of noted experts in the fields of coastal engineer- developed or used areas. ing and geology was secured via a subcontract agreement between the Board and the Research Foundation of the State A land use plan at a scale of 1" = 2000' with a planning horizon University of New York at Stony Brook. Under the auspices of of the year 2025 has been prepared. Alteratives to reduce the New York Sea Grant Program, Mr. Jay Tanski and Dr. Henry development density in areas of high risk after catastrophic Bokuniewicz assembled a team of coastal engineers and a team storm occurrence are discussed. of coastal geologists that participated in a series of workshops. The approach used to prepare this management program dis- The experts were selected on the basis of their reputation in the tinguishes it from other investigations on Long Island south respective fields, as well as their familiarity with Long Island shore erosion and flooding conditions for the following reasons: coastal conditions as a result of having conducted research and/or studies in this particular geographic area. (The names pyThe focuns of the program is on long-term regional of the individuals on both teams are identified in the Acknow- policy that responds to these problems on the basis of ledgements section of this report.) the scale and magnitude of the coastal processes oc- curring along the south shore. Actions can be effective Mr. Tanski and Dr. Bokuniewicz convened a series of three only if they are applied to relatively long sections of the workshops as described below, and documented the discus- coast. sions held in three proceedings reports (Tanski and Bokuniewicz �The program includes an analysis of jurisdictional 1989a; 1989b; 1989c). responsibilities, an evaluation of different management Workshop #1 - Identification and Assessment of Technical Workshop #1 - Identification and Assessment of Technical philosophies and the development of a regional ap- philosophies and the development of a regional ap Information Requirements for Developing Coastal Erosion proach for shoreline management based on an under- Management Strategies - February 24-25, 1989. The objectives standing of natural processes. standing of natural processes.Management Strategies - February 24-25, 1989. The objectives � Land use goals and related erosion planning policies f this workshop were to: constrain the choice of appropriate erosion control op- � define the technical information needed to identify, tions. The land use recommendations are coupled develop and evaluate sound erosion management with other non-structural measures and structural strategies; erosion control techniques in a management approach � identify the specific data required to provide the neces- involving the three levels of government with authority sary information; over land use control and the implementation of shore � and delineate why that information was needed and, to protection projects. the extent possible, how it would be used. This program enunciates public policy and regulatory practices The team of coastal engineers outlined the generic information to manage the use of south shore resources. It should be used and data needed to characterize coastal features, processes to develop a consensus for support of a positive response to and change; and describe the physical forces, e.g., wave south shore development, erosion control and flooding climate, that drive sediment dynamics. See Tanski and problems. When that consensus is achieved, the policies of the Bokuniewicz (1989a) and sections 3.7 and 4.1.1 of this report. state coastal program will be amended to reflect the agreed upon consensus. It is recognized that consensus does not imply total Workshop #2 - An Overview and Assessment of the Coastal agreement by all parties on all aspects of the program. It is Processes Data Base for the South Shore of Long Island - April expected that opinions will diverge on issues that arise on a local 20-21, 1989. There were three objectives of this workshop: scale. � identify the basic coastal processes data that are 1.2 New York Sea Grant Program Workshops presently available for the south shore of Long Island, based on the information needs identified in During the initial phase of program development, the need to Workshop #1; supplement Board staff capability with expertise in the fields of CHAP 1-2 INTRODUCTION * assess the quality and coverage of the available data - Need for periodic sand-by passing at inlets, im- in terms of their utility for developing management proved inlet management, and navigation project im- strategies; and plementation on a re'gular basis. * identify critical gaps in the coastal processes data base. - Need for on-shore as opposed to offshore disposal of material dredged from inlet navigation channels. This workshop, attended by the team of coastal geologists, of material dredged from inlet navigation annels. provided a regional synopsis of data and information on coastal -Threat to development located in erosion and flod- features, processes, and physical forces keyed to locations position of the shoreline at along the south shore. The relative magnitude of coastal change some locations due to the intensity of existing attributable to different factors was also discussed. See Chapter development and/or recreational usage. 2 for a summary of the proceedings of Workshop #2 (Tanski and -Lack of coastal dunes; need for dune restoration Bokuniewicz 1989b). and maintenance. Workshop #3 - A Preliminary Assessment of Erosion Manage- --Adverse impacts of shore protection structures on ment Strategies for the South Shore of Long Island, New York - downdrift beaches; flanking of existing structures. June 22-24, 1989. The objectives of this workshop were to: - Need for repair of some shore protection structures (groins, revetments, jetties). * use available data to identify the most promising and - Coastal bluff recession. appropriate regional erosion management options for - Need for long-term policy on infrastructure protec- the south shore; tion (highways, sewer outfall, park facilities). * to identify unresolved questions that affect the selec- - Ill-conceived shore protection strategies, e.g. dis- tion-of options; and posal of concrete rubble. * to develop recommendations on technical data needs - Different management philosophies of agencies and appropriate programs to meet these needs. having jurisdiction over various portions of the shore. This workshop was attended by both teams of coastal experts; - Loss of access to public beach facilities and private staff from the Board and NYSDOS also actively participated in homes as a result of erosion and flooding. the discussions. Alternative strategies involving non-structural - Lack of post-disaster plans that address areas destroyed by storm events. and structural measures for coordinated and effective manage- destroyed by storm events. - Pressure to develop remaining vacant parcels in ment of erosion and flooding problems for different segments of -P s re to develop remaining vacant parc els In coastal areas for residential and commercial use; ad- the shoreline were evaluated. For details, see Chapter 3 and ~Tanski and Bokuniewicz (1989c). ~verse impacts of bay shoreline development on marine wetlands and water quality. 1.3 South Shore Erosion and Flooding-related Problems - Local government action that has encouraged the occupancy of public lands in vulnerable locations. During the course of study, many coastal erosion and flooding- -Illegal conversion of single family dwellings to multi- related management problems were noted by agency person- family units; change from seasonal to year-round oc- nel, NYSDOS and Board staff, and other interested parties. cupancy. Table 1-1 lists these problems without reference to relative - Existence of non-conforming uses in coastal com- severity or location. Generic and location-specific recommen- munities. dations that address many of these problems are discussed in - Lack of opportunity to re-locate oceanfront struc- Chapter 3. Program implementation needs from the perspective tures threatened by coastal recession. of government activties are outlined in Chapter 4. - Fortification of private oceanfront property to protect TABLE 1-1 structures that pre-date implementation of the FEMA flood insurance program. South Shore Coastal Erosion-related Problems. - Regulation of private project construction, e.g., revet- - Localized shoreline erosion hot spots due to ments, designed to protect coastal dunes and bluffs. --Adverse impacts of off-road vehicle travel on regional coastal processes and/or human inter- -A dverse impacts of off-road vehicle travel on beaches and dunes. ference with same. CHAP 1-3 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter Two SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES 2.0 Introduction T he first section of this chapter provides an overview of Island Inlet. The erosion protection plan and data on shore available data on south shore coastal processes and the conditions for Jones Beach Island are contained primarily in a physical forces that drive these processes; it summarizes the 1964 beach erosion study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1965). proceedings report prepared for New York Sea Grant Program Researchers from CERC have also analyzed data from monthly Workshop #2 held on April 20-21, 1989 in support of this study subaerial beach profiles taken between 1962 and 1974 (Everts (Tanski and Bokuniewicz 1989b). Of special interest are the 1973; Morton et al. 1986). figures that relate the values of various parameters to The only data available from the Corps for the shoreline between geographic locations along the south shore. Jones Inlet and East Rockaway Inlet is in a draft hurricane and Natural resources along the south shore of Nassau and Suffolk beach erosion protection study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Counties are addressed in the second section of this chapter. A 1966). The Corps is apparently updating and analyzing the map series is presented and natural resources are discussed by available data and conducting a new storm protection study for embayment or area. In addition, the locations of waterbird this area. colonies and piping plover nesting sites in these coastal areas In addition to the Corps-related work, there have been a number are shown on maps and discussed. of other studies and reports done on the south shore by various 2.1 Coastal Processes groups and individuals. For the most part, these studies focus Most of the data and information on coastal processes available on specific, relatively small sections of the coast during different forthe south shore of Long Island are largely the result of studies time periods. done by or for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of its 2.1.1. Trends in Shoreline Migration hurricane protection, beach erosion, and navigation projects. hurr ican e protection, beach erosion, and navigation projects. Studies of the long-term trends in shoreline position have been Several regional studies of the geomorphology and sediments conducted by Taney (961) and Leatherman and Allen (1985). .f .he .outh shr aebe prconducted by Taney (1961) and Leatherman and Allen (1985). of the south shore have been performed by the Coastal En- Taney compared the position of high water for various time gineering Research Center (CERC). periods using several sets of Coast and Geodetic Survey charts For the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point reach, several federal and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maps and ranges dating from projects resulted in preparation of general design memoranda 1934 to 1955. Leatherman and Allen developed maps of the and reports including the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point mean high tide shoreline based on Coast and Geodetic Survey hurricane and beach erosion protection project (U.S. Army charts and aerial photographs, and compared the shoreline Corps of Engineers 1977), navigation projects at Shinnecock, position for four time periods (1834/1838, 1873/1892, 1933, and Moriches and Fire Island Inlets, and groin construction at 1979) to calculate annual recession/accretion rates for the area Westhampton and East Hampton. Quantitative data for the east of Fire Island Inlet. Data from these two studies are plotted littoral zone is skewed to those areas where projects have been together in Figure 2-1. However, there are problems in interpret- undertaken. The detailed studies that have been done were ing this data on long-term shoreline position changes which are restricted to specific areas and limited time periods. Two studies discussed in Tanski and Bokuniewicz (1989b). of note, because of their comprehensive coverage, include a rtof note, because of their comprehensive coverage, includte a Data on the short-term fluctuations of shoreline positions have regional sediment budget analysis (Research Planning Institute, been developed for a limited number of locations where sub- been developed for a limited number of locations where sub- Inc. 1985) and a geomorphic analysis of the shoreline (Leather- aerial beach profiles had been surveyed at least several times man and Allen 1985). per year (Jones Beach Island, Ocean Beach, Fire Island Pines, Data on coastal processes west of Fire Island are less com- and East Hampton). An examination of the available profile data prehensive and not as well documented in comparison to that indicated that the maximum annual horizontal variations in the available for the eastern section of the study area. Most of the mean sea level intercept for individual profiles ranged from 148 available studies relate to the federal dredging project at Fire feet to 270 feet (with an average value over a decade of 183 CHAP 2-1 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-1 - Annualized long-term rates of shoreline recession (-)and accretion (+). (A)- data from Taney(1961) (B) - data from Leatherman and Allen (1985). Eost Hompton t Point Southompton Westhampton Beachc s Shinnecock Inlet Fire Islond ~ Moriches Inlet East Rockaway Inlet L ong Beach Jones Beoch I LongBeach Fire Island Inlet Jones Inlet 20.5 2B 21. 20.0 -- 1933-1951/55 (A) I-5.0 1933-1979 (B) o 10.0 -- 5.0 -- 50.0 - 0.0 II6 -5.0 -- O -10.0 -s.o _ ' -20.0 ---22.2 -21.1 - (B) 20.0 -- -c~~~~~~ (A) ~~~~~~~~~~~1873/80-1951/55 (A) o 15.0 - 1873/92-1979 (B) O 10.0 -5.0 -- o -10.0 - -20.0 -- -2.2 -232. -25.0 CHAP 2-2 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES feet), and the mean annual range varied from 100 feet to 169 Information on seasonal and short-term volumetric changes is feet (with an average value over a decade of 122 feet) at the limited to those few areas described previously where regular different locations. beach profile monitoring programs have been undertaken. In addition, the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commis- The uncertainty associated with the calculated long-term annual sion Scientific Advisory Committee has been monitoring a por- recession/accretion rates due to the interannual variations in hreieosioa tion driesd fo the pinerana visown in tion of eastern Jones Island by surveying the position of the drift shoreline position derived from the profile data is shown in line since 1985 in connection with the emergency threat posed Figure 2-2. The maximum and average range of annual by shore erosion to Ocean Parkway (Lehman 1988). It is shoreline position (as indicated by horizontal changes in the maseahorlvelinterpoiti ( ndiced by theo s in the important to note that such studies have only involved measure- mean sea level intercept) divided by the number of years in the ments of the subaerial beach. As a result, they do not provide associated period of record are indicated by the boxes at there information on changes occurring below mean sea level, where four locations. As can be seen, the average short-term varia-nsport occurs. most sediment transport occurs. tions can account for shoreline change rates of �1 to �+7 feet per year depending on the location and time period. With the data 2.1.4 Dune Morphology and Dynamics presently available, reliable estimates of the long-term changes No systematic studies of dune morphology have been done for No systematic studies of dune morphology have been done for can only be established if they exceed the magnitude of these the area even though much of the data needed to develop this the area even though much of the data needed to develop this short-term variations. information could be obtained from available topographic maps. 2.1.2 Shoreline Changes Due to Storms Changes in dune morphology could also be obtained by digitiz- ing contours on large scale topographic maps surveyed in 1955 Quantitative data on the response of the shoreline to storm ing contours on large scale topographic maps surveyed in 1955 and 1979, but the changes are likely to be small and uncertain. events are extremely limited due to the paucity of measurements and 1979, but the changes are likely to be small and uncertain. during periods of storm activity. Morton et al. (1986) in a study A study of the aeolian sediment budget for shores east of Fire on Jones Beach Island analyzed beach volume changes based Island Inlet was done by McCluskey et al. (1983). The volume on comparisons of sequential, subaerial profiles for eight storms of sediment transported by aeolian processes for the entire area occurring between 1968 and 1971. Although the shoreline was calculated to be on the order of 250,000 cubic yards per response was variable along this stretch of the coast, they found year with over 90 percent of this transport occurring seaward of that winter storms consistently reduced the volume of sand on the dune (or shore parallel ridge) crest and in an easterly the subaerial beaches with losses of sand ranging from 4 cubic direction. Based on sand trap data, the amount of sand yards per foot of beach to 21 cubic yards per foot. However, transported across the crest of the dune from the seaward they also reported that these volume losses were nearly corn- direction was estimated to be approximately 0.08 cubic yards pletely recovered within one month of the storm activity. DeWall per foot of dune per year. This volume comprised less than 1 (1979) reported similar results for Westhampton Beach indicat- percent of the bulk of a prototype dune having a volume of 37 ing that the rapid storm recovery of the subaerial beach is typical cubic yards per foot. of the south shore beaches. This phenomenon was primarily 2.1.5 Effects of Structures attributed to natural onshore transport of sediment and the relatively low frequency of occurrence of storm waves in the area The locations of 69 groins and jetties in the study area are plotted (Morton et al. 1986). in Figure 2-5. The highest concentration of groins is on Long Beach, which has a total of 43. Impacts of concern associated No quantitative information on storm-induced changes of the with these structures include the amount of sand trapped by the beach below mean sea level are available due to the lack of structures the amount of sand tre d the structures, the amount of sand bypassing the structures, and the sequential surveys extending offshore. degree of downdrift erosion they cause. 2.1.3 Vollumetric Shoreline Changes/Sediment Budgets 2.1.3 Volumetric Shoreline Changes/Sediment Budgets The effects of the Westhampton Beach groin field are evident in A total of 135 profiles were analyzed to develop the sediment the data on long-term shoreline changes (Figure 2-1) and the budget for the 1955-1979 period. For the area east of Fire Island net volume changes (Figures 2-3 and 2-4). The sediment Inlet, long-term data on the total net annual shore volume budget data indicate the coastal compartment containing the change and net longshore transport are plotted in Figure 2-3; groins gained an average of 190,000 cubic yards per year (8 Figure 2-4 shows the net annual volume changes for the portions cubic yards/foot/year) between 1955 and 1979 with a consider- of the shoreline above mean water, in the intertidal zone and able portion of this increase (about 78,000 cubic yards per year) between mean low water and -24 feet MLW. The data show, for occurring below MLW. Downdrift of these structures there was example, that the large increase in the longshore drift at Fire an average loss of 55,000 cubic yards per year (4 cubic Island Inlet appears to be due to the reworking of the old Fire yards/foot/year) with most of the loss occurring below MLW. The Island Inlet ebb tidal delta to the east of the inlet. Unfortunately, amount of sand actually bypassing these structures is not similar information for comparative time periods has not been known. Although estimates could probably be derived from a developed for the shoreline west of Fire Island Inlet. more detailed analysis of the data used in the sediment budget CHAP 2-3 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-2 - Maximum and average annual variations in the mean sea level intercept based on surveys at selected locations. East Hampton Montauk Point Southompton Westhampton Shinnecock Inlet Fire Island 'Moric.hes Inlet East Rockaway Inlet . ~Inlet L ~~Jones Beach I Long Beach Fire Island Inlet ' Jones Inlet 20.0 -- o 15.0 -- :: _ --------(2) (3) (4) 5.0 -- oo Ro R -5.0 .o -10.0- -10.0 -- 150 - 20.0 -- 0 15.0 - (, 10.0 - o (1) 5.0 - (2) (3) (4) 00 -=R R n o :I (2) (Tanski, 1983). 150 (3) (Bokuniewicz. 1986). -20.0 - (4) (6okuniewicz et al., 1980). CHAP 2-4 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-3 - Annualized net longshore transport rates and net shoreline volume changes for period 1955 -1979 from sediment budget study (Research Planning Institute Inc. 1985). East Hampt Montauk Point Southampton Westhampton Beach * Shinnecock Inlet Fire Island Inlet East Rockaway Inlet Jones Beach . Long Beach Fire Island Inlet Jones Inlet 10.0 --- 10~~~~~~~~~~.0 -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~NET SHORE VOLUME CHANGE d_ (1955-1979) 5.0 -- .0.0 % -- -oo -5.0 -- -10.0 -- -- ~~~~~~~~~~800b~~~~~ ~~~~~ -- ~~ ~~NET LONGSHORE TRANSPORT 700~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~(TO THE WEST) 700 -- Panuzio, 1968 600 -- v 400 400 Ho \ RPI, 1985 &,< 300 -- /*>\ 500 200-- 100 -- 0 CHAP 2-5 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-4 - Annualized net shoreline volume changes by lens and total net change (Research Planning Institute Inc. 1985). East Hampto ontauk Point Southampton Westhompton Beach_ Shinnecock Inlet Moriches Inlet Fire Island East Rockaway Inlet Jones Beach 1 Long Bech Fire Island Inlet Jones Inlet NET VOLUME CHANGE BY LENS BASE LINE TO MEAN HIGH WATER 0.o -- -5.0 -0.0 -- -10.0 -- 10.0 -- MEAN HIGH WATER TO MEAN LOW WATER 5.0 - 0I _ -o.o -- 10M0 MEAN LOW WATER TO -24.0 FEET 5.0 10.0 m 10---0 NET SHORE VOLUME CHANGE -0.0 -- 00CHAP 2-6 CHAP 2-6 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-5 - Locations, dates of construction and approximate lengths of groins and jetties in the study area. East Hampton Point So utho mpton Westhompton Beach / Shinnecock Inlet Fire Isla~nd Moriches Inlet East Rockaway Inlet Long Beach Jones Beach . c I Long Beech Fire Island Inlet Jones Inlet 4250 5200 5000 470 ,363 1000 - SHORE-NORMAL STRUCTURES 01 800 - T (~ � 600 - _ ' r 400 - i 200 - a a 0 (1930-1961) 0) 10'o -NET SHORE VOLUME CHANGE (1955-1979) 5.0 _0.0 -10.0 -- CHAP 2-7 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES and from Corps records and surveys, such calculations may not effects of this activity on erosion on the north side of the inlet reflect the current conditions, since the efficiency of sand trap- could be studied. During this hiatus the downdrift beaches ping and the rate of bypassing would be expected to change as experienced severe erosion. Two emergency dredging projects the structures age. in 1985 and 1987 resulted in a total of about 1.2 million cubic The locations of all of the inlets in the study area have been fixed yards of sand being placed offshore of Jones Beach in waters as a result of jetty construction. Shinnecock and Moriches Inlets 16 feet deep. In 1988/89 approximately 1 million cubic yards of are both stabilized with pairs of jetties that were constructed sand was dredged from the vicinity of the inlet and placed at between 1952 and 1954. Fire Island, Jones and East Rockaway Gilgo Beach. The data for this area plotted in Figure 2-6 repre- Inlets are each stabilized with single jetties on the east (updrift) sent approximate volumes andlocations of the fill projects. side of the respective inlets. These jetties were constructed in Corps records (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1966) show that 1939-1944 at Fire Island; 1953-1959 at Jones Inlet; and 1933- approximately 550,000 cubic yards of material dredged from the 1934 at East Rockaway Inlet (Panuzio 1968). Evidence of the bay were placed on Long Beach between 1959 and 1962. impacts of the stabilization of the inlets on the down drift However, recent information on the history of fill projects along shoreline can also be seen in Figures 2-1,2-3, and 2-4. this segment has not been compiled or summarized. These data Little data on the impacts of shore parallel structures built on may be contained in a Corps report scheduled for future release. Long Island's south shore, e.g., revetments, seawalls, are avail- Detailed monitoring information on dredge and fill operations in able. In fact, the location and extent of these structures along the study area is not readily available. Additional effort would be the shoreline have not been documented. However, the effects needed to prepare a meaningful analysis of the performance of of structures on the overall sediment bud6et are probably small the various fill projects. in that portion of the study area east of Jones Inlet, given that structures cover only a small stretch of the total coast (estimatedve to be 3 to 5 miles). Data on direct measurements of the wave climate are extremely In the East Hampton area, revetments are usually almost entire- sparse. In situ wave gauge data are either short in duration, not ly buried with sand and do not influence short-term beach available or non-existent (Morton et al. 1986). One non-direc- changes. They have been effective in preventing inland erosion tional gaugethat operated intermittently between 1950 and 1954 during severe storms (Bokuniewicz et al. 1980). Here and in at several locations in the area of Jones Beach, indicated waves other places on the eastern part of the shoreline, old bulkheads higher than 6 to 10 feet occurred less than 1% of the time, and have occasionally been exposed by unusually severe erosion. a maximum wave height of 13.4 feet (Panuzio 1968). These structures were apparently built several decades ago The only directional, long-term near shore wave measurements (presumably in response to local erosion), subsequently buried available for the study area are visual observations collected at with sand and forgotten until uncovered by recent storm events. several points along the shore including Jones Beach, Fire As part of the sediment budget study, Research Planning In- Island, Westhampton, and Southampton. Some of these obser- stitute examined Federal, state and local records in an effort to vations were made as part of CERC's Beach Evaluation Pro- identify dredge and fill projects undertaken along the shoreline gram in the 1970's. Unfortunately these data have not been east of Fire Island Inlet between 1955 and 1979. Although summarized for the entire study area. Twenty-year hindcasts of substantial amounts of fill were added to the beach (an es- the shallow water wave climate done as part of CERC's Wave timated 12 million cubic yards over the 24 year period), it Information Study are also available for 10 mile segments along appears most of the material was dredged from the back barrier the entire south shore (Jensen 1983). The average and largest bays and placed on the beach. In many cases, the primary significant wave heights from this data set are plotted in Figure objective of these activities was probably dredged material 2-7. It is emphasized that the hindcast data do not take into disposal.ratherthan beach nourishment. Precise information on account wave aassociated with tropical storms. Hindcasts may the boundaries of the disposal areas was often lacking. Figure be adequate for some design needs or 2-dimensional shore 2-6 indicates the volume added to the different compartments models, but their use in other applications may be limited. The only way to im3rove this information would be to install at least by these projects in terms of cubic yards per foot of a beach per only way to io ve this infort ation would be to install at least year for the period 1955 to 1979. two directional wave gauges in the-study area; one in the east year for the period 1955 to 1979. and one in the West. and one in the west. As part of a combined inlet navigation and beach erosion control project, approximately 7 million cubic yards of sand dredged For project design, the Corps of Engineers uses deepwater from Fire Island Inlet were placed on feeder beaches located wave statistics from a number of sources. Based on these data, approximately 1 mile west of the inlet on Jones Beach in 5 a design wave for hurricane conditions with a deep water wave separate projects between 1959 and 1977 (Galvin 1985). How- height of 17 feet (20 foot breaking wave) and a period of 13 ever, dredging activities were suspended until the potential seconds, which has an exceedance probability of 1 percent, was ever, dredging actHvites were suspended unt2-8 the potential CHAP 2-8 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-6 - Annualized fill placement and net volume change (1955-1979) East Hampto a Point Southampton Westhampton Shinnecock Inlet Fire Island 'Moriches Inlet East Rockaway Inlet L ong B each Jones Beach , Long Beach r~~~ ~ ~ Fire Island Inlet Jones Inlet 1o.o -- DREDGE FILL PLACEMENT 5.0 -- (approx.) X o.o -I I '- -. <(1955--1988) - (1955-1979) -5.0 -- -10.0 -- 10.0 -- NET SHORE VOLUME CHANGE (1955-1979) 5.0 -- 0.0 ~"~.. -- I I I -5.0 -- -10.0 -- -9 CHAP 2-9 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-7 - Significant wave heights based on Wave Information Study 20-year shollow-water wave hindcast data (Jensen 1983) East Hampton Montouk Point Southampton Westhampton Beach Shinnecock Inlet Fire Island let East Rockaway Inlet Jones Beach Jones 1 Long Bech Fire Island Inlet Jones Inlet 0.75 -- AVERAGE SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT 0.70 -- 0.65 -- 0.60 -- 0.55 -- 0.50 0.45 -- 0.40 -- 0.35 -- 0.30 -- 0.25 4.50 -- LARGEST SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT 4.25 -- - T - '3 4.00 -- 3.75 -- 3.50 CHAP 2-10 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES selected for Westhampton Beach (U.S. Army Corps of En- According to most projections, the increase in the rate of sea gineers 1980). level rise, if it occurs, will not occur in a linear fashion. Rather, 2.1.7 Sea Level Rise the change will start slowly and increase more rapidly in the distant future. Based on the National Research Council projec- Long-term tide gauge records in both New York Harbor and New tions, accelerated sea level rise could increase present water London, CT, indicate an average rise in sea level on the order level elevations along the south shore 4 to 5 cm (0.13 to 0.17 of 0.01 feet per year. Since these gauges are on bedrock, it is feet) by the year 2000 compared to an increase of 2.5 cm (0.08 likely that the relative rise on Long Island may be somewhat feet) if the present rate of sea level rise continues. By the year higher due to compaction and subsidence. There are no ac- 2025 the increase due to atmospheric warming could be 13 to curate estimates of relative sea level rise available for the area. 24 cm (0.42 to 0.75 feet), while the expected increase if present According to McCormick (1973) sea level rise may not play a conditions persist would be about 8 cm (0.25 feet). For 2050, an accelerated sea level rise could result in water elevations 41 significant role in controlling erosion on the south shore. As part of the sediment budget study (Research Planning Institute, Inc. to 50 cm (1.3 to 1.8 feet) higher than present compared to an 1985), the Hands (1982) model was applied to estimate the increase of 26 cm (0.5 feet) under current conditions. While the possible sediment loss resulting from profile readjustments in rate of sea level rise may increase more rapidly beyond 2050, response to a sea level rise of 0.01 feet per year. The results of these projections, already subject to a great deal of uncertainty, become less reliable with time. Because of these uncertainties, this analysis in terms of annualized volume losses per foot of shoreline for the portion of the profile above and below MLW are a rgorous assessment of the management implications of future plotted in Figure 2-8. These changes are for the most part much sea level rise is required. less than the total net volume changes reported in the study. In To account for potential increases in the rate of sea level rise, it addition, there is evidence that offshore sources contribute sand was suggested the present rate could be doubled or tripled for to the near shore sediment budget (McCormick and Toscano erosion management purposes. However, even this increase 1980; Research Planning Institute 1985; Niedoroda et al. 1985; would probably have a relatively small impact on the observed Williams and Meisburger 1987) indicating that the Bruun Rule rate of erosion compared to the magnitude of shoreline changes (upon which the Hands model is based) may not be applicable caused by storms and disruptions in the nearshore sediment in this area (Wolff 1982). If this is the case, even the relatively transport systems resulting from man's activities. small volume losses caused by sea level rise shown in Figure 2-8 may be overestimates. In the absence of profile readjust- ment, Morton et al. (1986) estimated that in the Jones Beach Mean tide ranges and still water storm surge elevations for the area, the present observed rate of sea level rise over a period 10, 50, and 100 year storms are plotted in Figure 2-9. Models of 10 years would result in a landward displacement of the that incorporate wave run up and beach and dune dynamics to waterline of approximately one foot (0.1 feet per year). The determine storm surge penetration in coastal areas are of more degree to which sea level rise contributes to the total erosion value for planning purposes than models that only calculate occurring along the south shore is of secondary importance in still-water storm-surge elevations. The Corps of Engineer's Sea, comparison to other processes operating in the area, especially Land, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model when considered in the context of this program's 35 year plan- results are done for the New York Basin. These model results ning horizon. are accurate descriptions of the storm surge elevations which A number of studies, such as Wolff, Radcliffe and Merguerian can be expected from hurricanes of various sizes and intensities. (1987), indicate that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect could result in an accelerated rate of sea level rise in the 2.1.9 Longshore Sediment Transport future. However, the timing and magnitude of future sea level efutuare. However, the timing and magnitude of futur e sea level 'Estimates of the net rate of longshore sediment transport based rise are uncertain. While a detailed review of the causes of sea on the Research Planning Institute (1985) sediment budget level rise is not in the scope of this study, it should be pointed study are shown in Figure 2-3. Estimates of the gross longshore out that global warming could also dramatically alter the frequen- transport and relative volumes moving east and west are also transport and relative volumes moving east and west are also cy of severe storms in the North Atlantic region. Warmer ocean extremely important, especially for inlet areas where local devia- temperatures could shift the location of tropical cyclone genesis tions can be large and the direction of net drift can reverse due to higher latitudes. This could result in an increase of hurricane . Although attempts to calculate frequency and intensity in the Long Island area over the long- these values based on available wave statistics have been terrm. made, the results have not agreed with the estimates obtained A National Research Council (1987) study of the engineering by using measurements of sand impoundment at- structures implications of sea level rise examined three possible sea level and/or inlet migrations. More data and information on wave rise scenarios to the year 2100; rises of 0.5 m, 1.0 m and 1.5 m. CHAP 2-11 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-8 - Estimates of annualized net sediment loss by lens due to sea level rise and total observed net volume changes for the period 1955-1979 based on data from (Research Planning Institute ,Inc. 1985). East Har Monta uk Montauk Point Southampton Westhampton seac h , Shinnecock Inlet Fire Island Mariahas Inlet East Rockaway Inlet Jones Beach l Long Beach Fire Island Inlet Jones Inlet 10.0 -- LOSS TO SEA-LEVEL RISE MEAN HIGH WATER TO MEAN LOW WATER 0.0 --- o.o -- -5.0o -- - 1o.o -10.0 10--.0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ~MEAN LOW WATER TO -24.0 FEET 0- o.0 -s.o -- -- -10.0 -- - -o.o --- 0lo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.0o~~~~~~ -- .NET SHORE VOLUME CHANGE > :-- rA Z~- 0.0 -5.0 -- - CHAP 2-12 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-9 - Mean tidal ranges and storm surge water level elevations for 10, 50, and 100-year storms (based on FEMA flood insurance studies) East Hampton Montouk Point Southampton/ Westhampton Beach Shinnecock Inlet Fire Island _Moriches Inlet East Rockaway Inl L ong Beach ach ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dInlet I Lang ~ ne Bench~:;~~~: Fire Island Inlet Jones Inlet 5.00 -- 5 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~-00~~~~ ~~~~~TIDAL RANGE 4.00 - 3.00 -- 2.00 -- 1.00 -- 0.00 20.0 -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~20.0 -- ~~~~~~~~~~STORM SURGE ELEVATION 100-YEAR STILLWATER + MAXIMUM WAVE CREST 15.0 ---= = =.-*-*_-� - - 100-YEAR STILLWATER 10.0 - i = =a -- =50-YEAR STILLWATER 5.0 - - 10-YEAR STILLWATER m- 0.0 CHAP 2-13 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES characteristics along the south shore are needed to develop TABLE 2 -1 reliable estimates. Estimates of Inlet Bypassing. 2.1.10 Cross-shore Sediment Transport Inlet Net Longshore Amount Bypassing Sediment exchange between the shore face and inner continen- Transport (cu. yds./yr) (cu. yds./yr.) tal shelf does occur, but more data are needed to develop E. Rockaway 400,000a 150,000b quantitative estimates of the onshore transport of sand. A single Jones 550,000a 10,000b offshore bar located about 500-1500 feet offshore with a crest ? 10 to 15 feet below NGVD is present along much of the coast Fire Island 600,000C between Fire Island Inlet and Montauk Point. Although two Moriches 304,500C 250,000C short-term, site-specific studies of this feature have been under- Shinnecock 300,000e 247,000e taken at East Hampton (Shipp 1980) and at Fire Island (Allen Sources: and Psuty 1987), the scale and variation in bar morphology and aPanuzio (1968); the effects of bar geometry on the shoreline have not been bU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1966); CResearch Planning Institute, Inc. (1985); documented. Pre-and post storm profiles along the coast may dGalvin (1985); ann be especially useful in defining the behavior of the offshore bar eU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1987). and sediment transport patterns. 2.1.11 Inlet Processes The recent dredging history of Fire Island Inlet was previously described in the section on the effects of structures. Some 8 The five inlets in the study area exert a dominant influence on million cubic yards of material have been dredged from the inlet the coastal changes occurring along the shore. As can be seen and placed on the downdrift beaches or in the nearshore area in the plots of long-term shoreline recession/accretion rates in six separate projects undertaken between 1954 and 1989. (Figure 2-1) and, to a lesser extent, the plots of volume changes (Figures 2-3 and 2-4), the most dramatic variations are as- Inlets function as large sinks of sand in the near shore system. sociated with inlets. With the exception of the Westhampton The ebb and flood tidal deltas associated with Moriches trapped groin field, the most acute erosion problems are the result of the 1 to 2 million cubic yards of sand with most of this material stored groin field, the most acute erosion problems are the result of the interruption of sand transport patterns and inadequate sand in the ebb tidal delta (Research Planning Institute, Inc. 1985). intmrruptionofandtragemenst practices ant inadlets. Although not quantified, similarly large ebb tidal deltas are also associated with the other inlets in the area (Leatherman and The amount of sand bypassing occurring at the inlets is of critical Allen 1985). importance in determining the effects of these features on imshortaeline inero mining the effects of these features on The impacts and processes associated with the inlets are vari- shoreline erosion. While estimates of the bypassing taking able with time. Because of their complexity and importance in place at the various inlets have been made (Table 2-1), the accuracy of these figures is somewhat questionable due to the the coastal sediment system, detailed sand budgets are needed paucity of these dfigures issomewhat questiona. due to the for each of the inlets. The amount of sand naturally bypassing the inlets and the volume of the flood and ebb deltas and their For the most part, south shore inlet dredging projects are done rates of change should be documented. This information should in response to navigation needs, rather than for erosion control be used to construct models of local inlet behavior which can be purposes. There is no program of regular artificial sand bypass- used to guide management decisions. ing. At Shinnecock and Moriches Inlets most of the dredging ing. At Shinnecock and Moriches Inlets most of the dredging The locations of historical inlets along the eastern section as work has focused on maintaining channels through the flood tidal deltas bayward of the inlet channels, and much of the suggested by Leatherman and Allen (1985) are shown in Figure tidal deltas bayward of the inlet channels, and much of the resultant dredged material has been placed on the emergent 2-10 According to their geomorphic analysis, sediment portion of the flood delta (Kassner and Black 1982). The only transport associated with inlet creation is an important process portion of the flood delta (Kassner and Black 1982). The only dredging in the channel or seaward of the channel at Shinnecock in the migration of the eastern section of the barrier system Inlet since its position was fixed by jetty construction was the (between Southampton and a point about 10 miles west of emergency removal of 162,000 cubic yards of material in 1984 Moriches Inlet). The inlet formation and sediment transport (U Army CorpsofEngineers1987)and83,000cubic yards of materain 1processes that drive barrier migration in this section operate intermittently at 50-75 year intervals. The central and western 1988. This sand was placed offshore at a depth of 10 feet below intermittently at 50-75 year intervals. The cen and western MLW downdrift of the inlet. No dredging in the channel or sections of the Fire Island have been axially stable for hundreds MLW downdrift of the inlet. No dredging in the channel or seaward of the channel has been done at Moriches Inlet since of years (Leatherman and Alien 1985). From a management standpoint, the relative stability of the barrier island over long it was stabilized in the 1950's. The inlet has been legally closed standpoint, the relative stability of the barrier isand over long to navigation for a number of years due to severe shoaling time periods indicates that concerns regarding disruption of to navigation for a number of years due to severe shoaling barrier island migration by inlet processes may be of secondary importance compared to the other more immediate impacts CHAP 2-14 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-10 - Location of historical inlets based on data from Leatherman and Allen (1985) for area east of Fire Island Inlet and Taney (1961) for the area west of Fire Island. East Hamptk X Point Souat he on Westhampton / Shinnecock Inlet Fire Island M ~x Moriches Inlet East Rockaway Inlet Jones Beach _ Long Beach Fire Island Inlet Jones Inlet 19B5 - HISTORICAL INLET LOCATIONS 1935 - V 1885 - LJJ hi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1835 - 1785 - ? 9 1735 CHAP 2-15 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES importance compared to the other more immediate impacts features is transported by littoral processes. The larger fraction associated with the formation of new inlets. of the material remains in place, while the finer sediments are dispersed offshore. In addition, the inhomogeneities in the Site-specific information on the potential impacts of new inlets dispersed of fshore. I n addition, the inhomogeneities in the along. the. sou . composition of the bluff also result in an irregular shoreline, along the south shore is largely limited to one modeling study The further complicating estimates of longshore transport. The (Pritchard and DiLorenzo 1985) which was done in response to geomorphic configuration of the headland and orientation of a breach that occurred in 1980 just east of Moriches Inlet. This breach grew to a width of 2900 feet before it was artificially numerous pocket beaches in this area indicate the longshore rclsed one year after it opened (Schmeltz et al. 1982). The transport of material to the west is probably significantly less closed one year after it opened (Schmeltz et al. 1982). The than the volume derived from erosion processes. Although results of the modeling suggested that a large breach would more information on bluff composition and actual bluff recession increase. normal tidal ranges in Moriches Bay by about 60 increase normal tidal ranges in Moriches Bay by about 60 rates (rather than shoreline recession rates) is needed, it is percent and short-period (hurricane) storm water level eleva- tions by 35 to 40 percent. The mtodeling study also indicated estimated that the actual total contribution from the bluff section of coast to the longshore transport system is on the order to that the tidal exchange between Moriches Bay and the ocean is 20,000 to 40,000 cubic yards per year, or less than 10 percent not great enough to maintain two inlets indefinitely. The shoaling of the transport estimated to occur at Fire Island Inlet. problems presently occurring at Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets tend to support this finding. Although reliable estimates of the 2.2 Natural Resources Inventory potential lifetimes and possible closure rates of new inlets are Long Island south shore natural resources are shown on a series not available, the formation of new inlets could adversely affect shoaling rates at the existing inlets due to limited tidal flow in thi s chapter. The development of this map s eries constitutes in this chapter. The development of this map series constitutes No known studies have focused on the possible effects of new an update of the Natural Resources Inventory Map series com- inlets on shoreline erosion. It is reasonable to infer that these pleted as part of the Long Island Regional Element New York features could have significant impacts in terms of accelerated State Coastal Management Program (Long Island Regional downdrift erosion. About 750,000 cubic yards of material from Planning Board 1979) the longshore sediment system were trapped on the flood tidal Mapping units were divided into the following categories: fresh- delta of the Moriches breach during the 11 months it was open water wetland, tidal wetland, forest, maritime flora, dunes, (Research Planning Institute, Inc. 1985). The loss of such large beach old field farmland bluff and developed areas. Sources volumes of material from the near shore sediment budget can volumes of material from the near shore sediment budget can of information for the 1979 map series for areas other than the result in significant downdrift shoreline changes. South Forkwere April 1976 aerial photographs (scale 1 " = 1000') 2.1.12 Overwash Processes flown by the Aerographics Corp. of Bohemia, N.Y. and staff field checks. Vegetation information forthe South Fork was obtained Based on the sediment budget study, only about 35,000 cubic yards of sediment p er year are m oved by overwash processes from the Group for America's South Fork Map Series. Sources yards of sediment per year are moved by overwash processes of information for freshwater wetlands included the NYS Dept. east of Fire Island Inlet, indicating this mechanism is a minor of Environmental Conservation (NYS Freshwater Wetland agent in terms of overall sediment transport. Annual overwash Maps); Bureau of Water Pollution ControlNassau County Health volumes (cubic yards per foot) for different sections of the coast Maps); Bureau of Water Pollution ControlNassau County Health Dept.; and Town of Hempstead Dept. of Conservation and are shown in Figure 2-11 for the period 1955-1979. The impor- Waterways. Tidal wetland information was obtained from the tance of overwash depends on the migration rate of the barrier Town of Hempstead Dept. of Conservation and Waterways and island. Since Long Island's barriers are relatively stable as NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (NYS Tidal Wetland compared to those along the south Atlantic coast, overwash processes are probably not that important especially in terms of Maps) management time scales of 30 to 50 years. Tidal wetlands were mapped as one unit that included low 2.1.13 Bluff Erosion marsh, intertidal marsh, high marsh, and coastal fresh marsh. Freshwater streams, tidal streams, ponds, lakes, estuaries, The volume of material contributed to the longshore sediment bays, and other surface waters were also delineated on the system by bluff erosion in the eastern headlands section of the maps. In addition, New York State Designated Significant Fish south shore is small. Based on historic shoreline recession and Wildlife Habitats (New York State Dept. of State 1987) were rates, bluff elevations and subtidal volume changes, the sedi- identified in this updated map series. ment budget study indicated that 133,000 cubic yards of sedi- ment per year are derived from erosion along the bluff section Whenever there was an overlap between two mapping units, the of the coast (Research Planning Institute, Inc. 1985). However, predominant feature/characteristic was repreented; for ex- not all of this material is moved to the west in the longshore ample, the presence of bluffs took precedence over vegetation, transport system. Because of the varied composition of the dunes took precedence over maritime vegetation, etc. Transi- transport system. Because of the varied composition of the tional areas, such as formerly connected tidal wetlands and bluffs, only a portion of the material released by erosion of these CHAP 2-16 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 2-11 - Annualized volume losses due to washovers for the period 1955-1979 from (Research Planning Institute, Inc. 1985) East Hampton Point southamptoo Westhampton Beach o Shinnecock Inlet Fire Island Moriches Inlet East Rockaway Inlet L gaJones Beach I Long Bech Fire Island Inlet Jones Inlet 10.0 VOLUME LOSS TO WASHOVER 5.0 -- 5.0 -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10.0 -- ~~~~~~~~~~NET SHORE VOLUME CHANGE 5.0 ---- '+- 0.0 _ _ -5.0 -- -10.0 -- CHAP 2-17 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES drained freshwater wetlands, are represented as they appear on in the creation of man-made dunes (see photos in chapter 3). the aerial photos unless more specific site information was Long Beach is almost entirely developed, however, a tidal wet- available. land area exists along the back bay area of the eastern portion of this barrier island. Numerous tidal wetland islands are located Certain dredge spoil sites, particularly those located on islands of this barrier island. Num erous tidal wetland islands are located within the coastal embayments were initially mapped as within Oyster Bay, and virtually the entire area of West, Middle within the coastal embayments, were initially mapped as developed areas in 1976. However, there are no structures, and East Hempstead Bays is interspersed with idal wetland islands. The mainland area north of West, Middle and East etc., on these sites and a clarification of these maps was necessary. Therefore, if the site had maritime shrubland, or tidal Hempstead Bays and Oyster Bay is densely developed, al- wetland (whether sparsely or fully vegetated), etc., it was desig- though a few tidal wetlands remain intact. nated as such. The barrier beach and dune formations are predominant natural features along the Jones Island oceanfront with extensive tidal interpretation of the 1976aeria photographs lisconducted bel through wetlands in the back bay area. This island is entirely publicly owned and has been developed primarily for recreational use. Town Year Scale New York State Designated Significant Fish and Wildlife Hempstead 1980 1" = 2000' Habitats within the area south of Montauk Highway include: Oyster Bay 1980 1" = 2000' East Hempstead Bay; Middle Hempstead Bay; West Babylon 1980 1" = 2000' Hempstead Bay; South Oyster Bay; Silver Point Beach; Nassau Beach; Short Beach, Jones Beach State Park; West End, Jones Islip 1984 I1" = 1000' Beach State Park; Storehouse, Jones Beach State Park; Cedar Brookhaven 1987 1" = 1000' Creek County Park; and Tobay Sanctuary. Southampton 1988 1" = 1000 There has been no evident loss in vegetation in this area during East Hampton 1988 1" = 1000' the period from 1976 to 1980. The area updated on the 1989 maps only includes that portion 2.2.2 Great South Bay Natural Resources of the coast south of Montauk Highway (Route 27A) in Suffolk The barrier beach/dune system is the most prominent natural County. In Nassau County, Merrick Road was the northern map feature along the oceanfront in this area. The eastern portion is boundary until it meets Sunrise Highway (Route 27) in Rockville undeveloped and exhibits extensive beach, dune, tidal wetlands Centre. Sunrise Highway was then used asthe northerly bound- along the back bay area, as well as tidal wetland islands scat- ary west to the New York City boundary. (It should be noted that tered in Great South Bay. Largetidal wetland islands are located the Natural Resources map series does not show a portion of in the back bay areas along Jones Island to the west. Develop- the area updated near the northern map boundary in Nassau ment on Fire Island is concentrated in a number of summer County, as well as a part of the Suffolk County mainland south communities. Loss of dune formations along the oceanfront of of Montauk Highway.) certain communities is evident. Public recreation uses on Overall, sections of western Suffolk County and Nassau County western Fire Island and Jones Island have precluded extensive were almost entirely developed as of 1976 and further develop- development along the oceanfront in these areas. Recent ment was minimal during the last 13 years. The areas of beach nourishment along certain areas of Jones Island has greatest loss of vegetation occurred within the Towns of Brook- aided in dune building and widening of the beach. The mainland haven, Southampton and East Hampton. on the north side of Great South Bay contains two large river systems with extensive tidal and freshwater wetlands: Carmans The following discussion of natural resources is presented by River and Connetquot River. Other public holdings adjacent to embayment or area (East End) along the south shore. Table 2-2 lists the embaymentor s/areast aond thei r r espective Natural 2- Great South Bay have forested areas and tidal wetlands, but the lists the embayments/areas and their respective Natural Resources Map number(s), as well as the appropriate shoreline area is primarily developed with a few parcels of maritime shrubland, old field and farmland in the eastern portion of the segment name(s) for ease of identification. area. area. 2.2.1 West, Middle and East Hempstead Bays and Oyster New York State Designated Significant Fish and Wildlife Bay Natural Resources Habitats within the area south of Montauk Highway include Minimal natural dune formations existonthe eastern end of Long Great South Bay East, Great South Bay West, Beaverdam Beach Barrier Island; virtually no dunes are evident on the Creek, Swan River, Carmans River, Connetquot River, western end. Although the 1980 aerial photos and natural Champlin Creek, Orowoc Creek, Cedar Beach, Gilgo Beach and resource maps do not indicate the presence of natural dunes, Sore Thumb. the Town of Hempstead and the City of Long Beach are involved CHAP 2-18 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES TABLE 2-2. Natural Resources Map Series - Embayment/Area, Natural Resources Map Numbers(s) and Shoreline Segment Name(s). Natural Resources Embayment/Area Map Number(s) Shoreline Segment Name(s) West, Middle and 1, 2, 3 Atlantic Breach/Long Beach; East Hempstead Bay, Jones Inlet, Gilgo Beach Oyster Bay Great South Bay 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Gilgo Beach; Fire Island Inlet; 16,17,18 Ocean Beach; Central Fire Island; FINS Wilderness Moriches Bay 7, 8, 9 Moriches Inlet; Westhampton Beach Shinnecock Bay 9,10, 11 Shinnecock Inlet Coastal Ponds 11,12,13 Coastal Ponds Napeague 13, 14 Napeague Montauk 14,15 Montauk Continued development infilling occurred on the mainland in this which has experienced minimal changes overall during this time area from 1976 to 1980, 1984 and 1987 (Towns of Babylon, Islip period. The extensive land area in County ownership retains and Brookhaven, respectively). However, larger areas of natural vegetation in the vicinity of Moriches Inlet and west along natural vegetation were lost in the eastern portion of the main- the Fire Island barrier beach. land as compared to the western portion, which was almost completely developed as of 1976. Minimal losses of vegetation occurred on Jones Island and Fire Island barrier beaches during The barrier beach with its continuous dune system is the this time period. predominant natural feature in this area. Beach width is general- ly consistent along the oceanfront. There are significant tidal wetlands in the back bay area of both the Quogue/Tiana and The barrier beach/dune system is the most dominant natural Southampton barrier beaches and several tidal wetland islands feature along the oceanfront in this area. The Dune Road area are situated in Shinnecock Bay. The Tiana Beach section of the in Westhampton Beach is highly developed; west of Moriches barrier beach is in County ownership and is primarily un- Inlet the barrier beach is undeveloped with extensive dune, developed. The mainland area along the northerly boundary of beach and back bay wetlands. Significant losses of beach and Shinnecock Bay is predominantly developed. Some farmland dune formations are evident in the oceanfront area west of the and old fields exist in the Southampton area. The Shinnecock last groin in Westhampton Beach. A few tidal wetland islands Hills area exhibits mostly maritime shrubland vegetation, and are situated within Moriches Bay. The mainland along the there is a scattering of forested parcels in the Hampton Bays northern boundary of Moriches Bay provides numerous stream and Quogue areas. corridors with associated tidal and freshwater wetlands. Over- New York State Designated Significant Fish and Wildlife all, this area is approximately two-thirds developed. The remain- Habitats within the area south of Montauk Highway include ing undeveloped land is a mixture of farmland, old field, forest, Southampton Beach, Tiana Beach, Shinnecock Bay, Dune Road Marsh, Far Pond and Middle Pond Inlets and a portion of the New York State Designated Significant Fish and Wildlife Quantuck Creek and Quogue Refuge. Habitats within the area south of Montauk Highway include Moricheabitats Bay, Smith Point County Park, Cupsogue County Park The greatest loss of vegetation from 1976 to 1988 occurred in M oriches Bay, Smith PoinuntCouty Park, Cupsogue Co unty Park the maritime shrubland category in the Shinnecock Hills area; and a portion of the Quantuck Creek and Quogue Refuge approximately three quarters of this area is now developed. More losses in farmland occurred to the east. Major losses of There have been extensive losses from 1976 to 1987/88 (Towns forest were evident in the Quogue area. New development of Brookhaven and Southampton, respectively) of vegetation on occurred along the dune system of the barrier beach particularly the mainland (approximately one-third of the area). Some loss in the Quogue area south of Dune Road. of tidal wetlands has also occurred along the barrier beach, CHAP 2-19 SOUTH SHORE COASTAL PROCESSES AND NATURAL RESOURCES 2.2.5 Coastal Ponds Natural Resources New York State Designated Significant Fish and Wildlife Coastal ponds and their associated freshwater wetlands are Habitats within the area south of Montauk Highway include a dispersed throughout this area. It is important to note, however, portion of the Oyster Ponds Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat. that a few of these ponds are tidally influenced, and sub- Other significant habitats nearby include: Montauk Harbor, Fort sequently contain tidal wetland habitats as well as freshwater Pond and Hither Hills Uplands. wetland habitats. The upland area is dominated by farmlands From 1976 to 1988, loss of forest and maritime shrubland and the dunes along the oceanfront are narrower than in the vegetation occurred primarily adjacent to the existing developed Napeague area to the east. Small areas of forest, old field and areas. Scattered large lot residential development in the Mon- maritime shrubland are interspersed throughout. Developed tauk Point area was also evident. The loss of freshwater wet- areas include portions of the incorporated Villages of East lands was minimal. Hampton and Southampton. 2.2.8 Colonial Waterbird and Piping Plover Populations New York State Designated Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitats within the area south of Montauk Highway include the A large number of colonial waterbirds including herons, egrets, gulls, skimmers, terns, wading birds, cormorants, oyster- Atlantic Double Dunes, Long Pond Greenbelt, Mecox Bay and catchers, and piping plovers breed in Long Island's coastal Beach, and a small portion of Shinnecock Bay Significant Fish areas. Due to increasing pressure from human activity, the and Wildlife Habitat. health of colonially nesting waterbird populations has been a Significant losses in farmland were evident in this area from focus of concern throughout the northeastern United States. In 1976 to 1988. Roughly one-third of the area was subject to new 1983, the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation listed the residential development in this period. least tern (Sterna antillarum) and roseate tern (Sterna dougal- lii) as Endangered Species in New York State. In addition, the 2.2.6 Napeague Natural Resources common tern (Sterna hirundo) and piping plover (Charadrius The predominant features include the extensive dune formations melodus) were listed as Threatened Species. The roseate tern adjacent to the ocean shoreline in Hither Hills and Napeague is a federally endangered species for the southeastern coastal and the Atlantic double dune area of Amagansett. Maritime portion of New York State. Effective in 1986, the United States shrubland and freshwater wetlands are also interspersed within Fish and Wildlife Service granted federal threatened status to the Atlantic coast population of the piping plover. Additional these areas. Immediately east of the Village of East Hampton concern has been voiced concerning population trends in other are farmlands along with developed areas north of Bluff Road. coastal colonial waterbird species. Further east, developed areas exist along the oceanfront to Napeague State Park and then, again, south of Napeague In response to the need for current colonial waterbird population Harbor. data, the Long Island Least Tern and Piping Plover Survey was initiated in 1983 by the Seatuck Research Program in coopera- New York State Designated Significant Fish and Wildlife tion with the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation. The Habitats within the area south of Montauk Highway include goal of the survey was to provide a systematic method for Napeague Beach and Atlantic Double Dunes. Another sig- monitoring the population status of Long Island's colonial water- nificant habitat nearby includes Napeague Harbor. birds. This has been accomplished by expanding the survey each year since 1983 to the present. The location of waterbird Scattered parcels throughout the area were developed during colonies and piping plover nesting sites along the south shore the period from 1976 to 1988 and involved losses in farmland, of Nassau and Suffolk Counties as of 1986 was mapped on the maritime shrubland and dunes. Public holdings along the Waterbird Colonies Map included in this chapter. This informa- oceanfront at Hither Hills, Napeague and Amagansett minimized tion was obtained from MacLean and Litwin (1987). Other losses of vegetation in this area. information collected at each colony includes: ownership, site characteristics, nesting substrate, vegetation coverage, causes of disturbance and protection measures being undertaken at the The predominant feature adjacent to the ocean in this area is a site. It is important to note that these data are continuing to be bluff coastline. The upland is primarily a mature forest, along collected on an annual basis. New sites are added to sub- with areas of maritime shrubland vegetation and significant sequent surveys as additional information is obtained. freshwater wetlands. Dunes are not predominant here, and the According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Day 1988), beach is narrow from Montauk Point west to the area south of certain mitigation measures to protect colonial waterbirds have Fort Pond Bay. From Fort Pond Bay west to Napeague, the been developed for coastal construction projects. The U.S. Fish beach widens and dune formations are apparent; bluffs are no and Wildlife Service's Mitigation Policy requires that, for beach longer evident. Developed areas include Ditch Plains, Montauk nourishment projects, no placement of material should occur and Montauk Beach. during the period April 1 to September 1 in locations where shorebirds/waterbirds nest. CHAP 2-20 I I I I 1 , , - , , I I -;, 1 I -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ONCIU - - - - --- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I S S C.Id nnnn II S A N M~no~d SlnCo 0 SUN 0 life.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I Jnhlot ... ... Ki~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g,~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ WIdilt lnb \~ t~ilS HEMNSTIA 5%Ua,,Cbo Middl. I.lond a Inv ta B A 4' NH, M-1n X. , waoknnoN P I W.- nota Go, S.1do Bid ' ,.h. Floo P.,k Ran. .................. OtnlHill. -onoo - on -oan~~ - ooti - C-. .. S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oot~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *~*oI IOt 0 aOO A I.N a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. Fmain 0 P.,ktor N/ E M " Innn Itdto~ Innnf B, ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OWETi......K CON~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MEE A N ST ~~~~~~~~~- - ---a - --- L~~~~~~~~~~~~ONNETIU I S AN P~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lock ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ay 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EE P B~~~~~~~ I 0 5 N 0 1 A 5 ~~~~~~~~~~j I Eon 0 I c 0 C E A N -LEGEND- 3; Freshwater Wetland _] Tidal Wetland _l_ Forest 3j Maritime Flora 3 Dunes 3 Beach E Old Field Farmland Bluff 3 Significant Fish & Wildlife Habitats Boundary E-~~~~~Jl ~ ~ -t08, -~,llg "i /pNl ~~~~~~~~~~NI XA Cre~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ei ~~~~~taP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%(~~~~~Sa I ~ ead ft ~~~~Ijijt~~~~~, C~9 C, MIDL HEg/'yjiU - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A~~~~~~~~~~~~~I0 ~ 4AF.W,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~ ID L '9 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ceek SAL WIN 00~~~~~~~O ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~LI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z~~~~~~~~~~/~~~P 7. '1'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0~~~~~ ICk, Pt 'W14* aeeCk Pt.. 00~~~~~~~~~~~~~o ~~~~~~~~~~~~ . EDC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E~~~~~~~~4C~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~ Leaa~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~% 00 YS- R cc. o,,&,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ oo~~~~~c o%. ~~~~~~~~...~~~~~~00.. ,0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~G O ,00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R 6>!~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ az" *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SOUTH~~~~~~ O Y S !TER RRYn Rulk4~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~,i'./~ ~~�j'fl 6>7 / 4 '~~~~~~~~~6asua ~~~~~~~w ~~~~~~~~~~on SElNTUAR Sadt Pol;~~~~~~~~LJIk '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ANN panglwG LOT 9 (JONES BEACH ST. PK)~~~~~~~~~~000 ,,~~id JIL- ..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~. ';~ '''A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IJ. ....2 41 - Q<--;�l"I ---- - ]~~~~~~~~~~~~~K7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -. ~- -/ -1 - - - - 4----. .~~-------- rn~~~~~~~~~~~~~" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 Illri U0t C N lam~ I�I-i~ ftAA n ' ,.>r'- y4'~~'.~ V a 4'pO /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,'r .I AAA STATE BOATCHNE A r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'A I I \ 1 1 1 1 1 ) \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CA' -000-00 .9 --A 0 o~~~~~o~~~o%%%%~~~~~~~ AAAAA~~~~I II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AI " ~~~oo~'wo". I 00 o~o%%0o%0o~o4000 A A'.'. ".%% %oif o 40000 %0%E oa0 CA000to" "-�-��-~~~~~~~~~---� p~~~~~~~~~~a~~~o ~~~~eE ~ ~ ~ ~ "'. -4-'' - 0 0 .-e;fl.-&o -� 00 -'-o--oo-..� - - 0 0 47 00 '*0 C R E A T 4 \ 0i0&0 xx � B A \ 4%4044%*4044 X o $0 00,00--c 00"0000004 . - 0000 000 - - 0 to-oroo 4000 0000 - 00 00 0 %%%" 40 f00o0oOoOoo0o%0 40090% OP0P%($0 cPco 4-00 0004 44040% 0 900 oo0o% o% 0 00. 000 0 00 0 04 0.000 0 0 9 '00 00 0400 00000044 00 - 00% 444044 o4V'o -% oo40 4040oooooo 000o00000 400000000400 0 40 000 040490000000 9004 -----4-*.-0 0400 00 0 0$09% 0000 o0o0oPo0o0ooo%0o oooooooooo,oooooooooo -. - o-0.ol.K(-n tO ''0 -. - 040 'oo0o'oo% %00o0o0oo0P oooooW>oo40 00004 00000 300 4 4000 000900 oc-&'-,0o0o 0 000000 40000040000 00000000 0,Po,0..0 0oo3P<> '-0o4o0o%0d oooPooo%0o0o4o0 4044 00. 0000000 0000, %0. 0. 000 0-0 4, 4009 0040% .9090% ear BeaO' a 000 0-0 OI( 040 00 p004 00)0 .0 0 0 S.cw- T $0 0. .00. / .0 'p 4 4 4". 4' 0 0'00 44 I 0$ o404-oo00 - '.90..p000000900..0 0'00'00 - ;I...0o-o. 2zo.o-o. '-0 .-.o ,o*-'-. oo. O000.- - ~i .'E S 0 U T H . Y gw~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e P-~0 1.00 00 000 ~~~~5l~~~~~~~~~ia~~~~~~~~~ n~~~~~~~~~sd~~~~~~~~~ss;~0000000 �~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~OO00O~ 0 ofi~o 0000 .oo .' 0 bo.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '�b`:~~~~~~~~' '4- A A C' <A 11 A A ,-'> A - A A A A A' AA AA A .AAAAAA' A AAA 6?' A P A44A'APAO A A'VJ A A AAA A -4 A A AAAk .A AAA'4AA.'AAA A (A (A(AAAAAA AX AAIA1AAA (A Q - AAAAAAA l .2 A/ 44"AP'A 0-A / I AAA Aj IiP Aj ) 1/ bAA $ 090 0 00 gA!Ao I A 0090 0 A A OOPOAp F-' AA4A I '9 1AAAAAAA AlA Al A AlA AA A A A / A A / AAA�4AA / A APAASL / A ShoalS A A A A A A. A A AAA9A,.A . . A A A X A9'A'AAJ A A / A A A I "A fAA A A A ,' - "'-'"A AA A A'0 0 - A A' 'A A AAA4AAA Al I, - .AA,AA ,A A I .4 'A, 'liii 000 ooo > ''0AA dAP A' I A I I A'AAI ('A, A 'At K'w, 0000 '0- -o 'o'po ta 0 , 0/00*0000 A A I A AI r' '0(AAA'I p ,.00000, oOooOO A A A go" 09,AAAl0$00O0O0%%A/J A j j A .AAAA/00 -Aodo -rK I A, ''A r % l-0'0 000000 AlA A . I A A All liii OoOo% 000 o ____ L. 'i/k$AAA5 00 0 t 00000000 0 00 I,,,A,. A ' I I A'A 00 %090AF'lF. "A" -- I I I I A1I' A I IA 'A' "00 0.00.0..00 0 0 o'o4"""AAP0o0oAPI I I&.' o oI' A p ',A,,,A I II A A AAA' "o.o, bIo I All Ij'l0'", AI 0 .lA ..:A:. /AA , 0. 00 I A A A%'APAA A AAAAAAlVAA 'AA0'AA 0 A I A jAA I I,O6A 1A AIJL A 1ijI 'Ill .1 I Jn//,0,AA',o. A Al---" 000 00 'A/A( IA A 4 'TA I A"'I lA.4A/44J SOUTH *'AAAAA.,./' A. 4. t/Ap)t '4'.oA..Oooo. OAAAOOI* AIAlA A Tr IJO '-'A OCEAN (A.',," A' A <A . A ,A AA 'A A A AA0 A AAAAl' A '' AO." A- AAAAA.AA, ...,A.AAA. . PA AAfl-A.4?c'.'r.A AA.AA A '.' AOA"AAO *AAAAAAA 4,.,.,.. .,., .,,..A.A..A."A/ .C.&..4.AA'AA.AA,AA '$ A' 'AAAAAAYAAAA.I 4'AAAA"A""A A'A'Al-.'A 'AA'AA'AAA .AA'4A',AAAAAAAA.A' AAAAAA'A'AAAA AA'A.A.AAAA*AAAAAA,. AC l-A/ A"0 "' , AAAAAA(AAA A -, 'A-',-,A' '' A-A. AAA" y4AAAAlAAA . (AACAfA'Aj/ AA'.'AT" .A' '''AAA..? .A..AAA Gstc-:A If Sou 66; 41 151 1( -------------- ,p- go'.-g- L - .10 A WCEAT SOUTH SAIN -OST at s0 H d) I, / / II If I, I, I, I,, "I I, 1/ I,, I,! - /7, I, /7/ I H 555 At I? A / 5*555. 555.sf--s 5555-.- /5555 55l55 V.> .555-.- 45 >5 55 ss-5- ___ -- OCEAN ATLANTIC 555555 - : : - > S 5- 5- 55. 55 - - S - -' 5 ;-.: 7: > >4>5-I 5 5 5.. 5 j, r.- "2, kl"- mg !WNIN M I 'IN OWN RAN. SEAVERDSM CREEK 's", y-" "j..'mvo" Ar 11 C- Pi T S 0 LI T H Pi Y E A S T _Q* E A C H TH E A ~~1. -~~~~ ~~~C& L~~~~4 ~~~~~~~~~ .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 oI*/)t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lea~~epth. '- . ..- .. M'.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, la~~~~~U1 j ~~~~~~~~~LJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 U01~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 EZ * 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N 7 - N Ml -~~~~~~~~ ~ W~~~St.'PITCUHYPR K,. ::Zz~~~~~~~~~~~~~C ---- y~~~~ ~~~~~ ~. ....... 0~~~~ C - A~ 8~' ZV -,own oO zz fie,, z=== zz. zz. MoRicilEs BRY PO. AN" '-.44, .44.44'. *444-44 J .4444 7 444 4 .444-' / 4'4444. 4444 44- 444"J4 -- '44444 .4; '.44/ / -- - "4� 04/ 44.444; 44 444444 '4' / 44 4"" 44 I - _ K 444444 '4" 444. .4'444 4'444 ../1 1U4 44 '4 4444444 4444 4 44 444444.4 hA.. "''7 44444 4 4"' 4 44 -4 AW 44 '4 4K' *. 44444 0 ,81ec,.1,F---- ' 4 ' N 44 0c4 K N N 44 - . V'A 4' QU '"u 444' Li -- 44444444444444.4444444 444444'. 44""' 44444444444 '44 44 4444 44.'..4444 '4444 444 4;444"' 444444-' 444.4 .44"44- 44444444444.44.444.444*444 .44444'.4444'4'444..44 . -'.4..' 4444444444444444444444'4444444444 ..4' . '.4.4- 4444 4.444>'44.' 444444444 '444> 4 4444 ' '44'.. 444444 444>'4-4'44 4444 4444444444444444' 44444 '44..,44 4.4>- -V'-444'* 44-4' 44.44'4'4444'44'' 444.44.'444..444 .444444"'4444'4''444'44'.444 4-44>4 >444 " "'--'.4>' 4.44,4-4".4444444>4 '4-44444 444>444.4' 444...44 ,;444- 444444444444 44 '4444 444, 44>4444.444" '44"4.4. >44.4444444 .4 .444>4.44. "444'444..4'44'4444-44444444, >''4444'.4 ....'4>'4"44<4>4A" '4>'44444'.44 . ... ..''44' 4.44444>44,44 4"'4->, 444477S4 44 44444444 4*�V"444444*44,.44444444444-' 444.44'44444,4...4444444. .4N.'44>444 >44- 444" 44>;;.44.'4.. 4. .. "'44 44>444 '44 '' 4444444444444'44 "4>44'44"''4444'4'4' '444444" "'444>.4"4-44'. "'"- 4.444.444 4>44-444 444.' *44;44>4 '4>... 444 444"'44"'44'4444'. 4 .4'-" '4'.>..4.4. '.44>',. /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1- - - ~ -I - N~~~~~~~~~~~~~SIfccmSN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . . . . / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~u ROA .*4~~~no ~~~~Timm ''Oc * ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IC C K-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 Ar t'-r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nt -.4,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;W,,, EAN SOUTH~~~~~~~~~~~~iVIPTON REACH~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 se~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~ 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~..... .4 Fnn POND MIDLE INVfTS ------------- OUTHAlMPTON &ACH , A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p ATLANTIC OCEAN /4"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U /~~~~~~~I-W 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~al ESP:~~~~~~ mi-oxBY C ~~mm~~~~ gm -gi~~~~~~~ A',, Asp Ax A' EU '4 '4,,, V - 4 4 0 -'4 - # ""' A 4'. -A - - - -----'-- E A TLAN TIC OC A. 44' ''AA"-*-*'-' - .T'''tA 44-41 - .- - 'iA C'A"'P''444-4- "",'4-' 'A'-' -4A44" 'A' -. ' "' 4-..'.4..4AA'4-A-JA'$' "A' "A--A 4"'i''i 'A-A- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I lk~ MIS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ / ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Win/ ! L N PODGEEBL -~~~~~CD ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 Beru.111 1:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C - /~~~Al .4,'4 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i RI East HamPtOfl <'p. AT~~~~~RLANTICDwe UE 7,'~~~ ~ ~~~ T 7ANT' .43~74477. "*474"7 'pp4' M C~ ,.. ','m47 4,.~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~N N7,. A .7.7pp7j,'7,7 4 4,~774~'I4 74/7 I/.~;7. .'. ~ 4 '7 7' 7,747~ ,, ~4I ~.4I77,/14$f ~ 7< 777 77 444 /7,'447,7744 ~ ~ 4~'74'44~ ~ 44~ ~ imo~~44'4' '4iK7.7MA; ...77.'7777~ ~ ,. 7 v4 ! ,.>477 _.7 - ( ?\ .4 I '- ) N / 10 N .4. 4.5 4.4.. 44. / 0 4.44 's-I.; L0 /- iV -4 --- .4.55 '44 -k Sc .;' - V -5- 4. 555 5- -, -4 4. 4. 4. 'N -- / 5-'.47 5- N 7 5 o 1- %55.- I; i- /1 ' '5 4/s '5 * / \\x4-s. .-ss4 I V 'S 4.- ;v5-5- - 5-5-555.5 -5/5-55- 11 . . (k4 L=;Lj!.;UjLL f/s' 55// 13 4.'5-5s5s -' '-5 5N"'-i ,s-'/s 5- .-7's-?5'S''sP 54.4 * ** I. * ** * *'* '* --"-* '4' A' - \' '�\ '4 ii Got/p 421 � 4' ?? "j" 4 4 4" 4 4 4 4 4? N 9; 4 NI 4 4 4 'St St 4 'N 'S 4' 4'44 ,NktA 4' '494 44 ae. P 4, 4 9 4 ry4<# 4 4-4444 . 4 "'4-f' 4< 445444.,' _ a I, 444 ,tJc 4a,. -*1 - '"' 4' PP '5' '47' S / 4' 14'; 4 54 <A. .44N' *4<"' 44s4,s s-�,s'v'4 '' c4N'4' 5' ..A-4"Y44�N - s4't44vr'<>''4 "4"""""t4 '94%5tt14: �4A* '' "'4"' A?"'*' ,/A<><4454'$44$''''4" - ' ''"4'" <' ""4AQ'4'" '"'.44" -"< 4"-4"" '-'-N-'' "�"'A'%"A'>''-"'4"' 'I'."', 4z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -�;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- :ir-~~~~~~~~~~4 )C~~~ N'a~~Wtp~ peague U~EI ] ,> g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9 a4~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T 6. �k p-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~C~~~~~~~~Y, `----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ P-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- " w= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"~~~~~4 g-ui,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 " C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-, II~~~~~~~~~~t a d 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T // I 8,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4- Y�~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r8,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- u\\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bt 8 //S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ts At ~ 4p ~~y, -v -U T C3D 14~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4~~1 5 'NL' --44=;==-- 1 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~44 B -111N~~~~~~ Ni4 i' 1100~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~oTPN A T L A N T I C 0 C E A N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LOCK ILAN SOUN & 'LI rf L CE E D IDO N D 5~~~~A 1~~~~~~~~C 0ER PN p~~~~~~~~~~K - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~361~~~~~~~~~~~~~C141 " &' 4~~~~~~~~~~~~z- - Ai~~~~~ *b (ABCE MONMU14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 A? : 4o4~~~~1 io 0',~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ILL r~~~~~~~~~~~~r 7-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, -- N,~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~N I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NN, ,MRA""', l..** \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i RI rry~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ p.~ ~~~~10' I- - PN,. ------- L ------- -, - - . - ----------- ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GET SOUTH4SAY WEST I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ yy L-1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LT %Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2~~~~~~~~~~~~E~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~. j: :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . .. ~~11,LJL1\\ * LD~~~~~~~~~~~ ~Y V ~~~~~~~~4 GREAT" SOUTH 13AY - WEST~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ / ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ R' Jj *~~~~ IL >---. LL-~~~~~~~~~~~z * ~ ~ ~ ~ -: /~~~~k . .. s~~~~~~~~~~~o f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ e /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I "I ".fr"/ /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l /~~~~~~~~~RA SOT EAS ~~~-~~~~~'~~~~' 7 "~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~mp I 4 I.4 _ � I / ___ 1/ U .4 'I Ii, .1' 4, 4 r2 � 77 LJ /; / I. I / /44 /7 7 *44444 Z5jj 4// .7, .A?#i hi 'I I,, 444 if 14'e /4' 18 .7. /4,444 4.... 44'44<.4.4444<444<4 W4'444444"o".744.77X444744.444Y4r<42.Y/44'4S.4><-ig4. 4 <44 4444,<.4,4 ;-<4.$44.7<� 41.7 44 <44.,444444444.7,.74444, -. - -444.4 444 .44. <4 4. <4444 4 4 ,4 4.7 4,4< 444< >4.74444.44444< 47 44 444'444%47<./4<4<44i< f.f .7 '4<' '4< 44'- 444 d4444r/444444i<4/4'4444'444'4444'4.444...77) ,<.7. 44<44,4 ...<4,,4..7 -- ......4.....-. '"-< 4 < 4 47'44.4'4 444 4.7444444444',4 �44.74.44<4 77 4<4 44/.44i).444444,I7l4/4 4> 44 444 44<.7<4'444 ,,-47IW' 44444444 44444 .4444., 4 '4< 44<.' i t r r i i:: � i. �B�: L 1 "UJatrbd`Colony Sites �� �;I r .t 82e4 B,2e2W>; U / it ~1E ,t a , , < NORTHR 2*t 2,, S 2 2 2 �n: i; E A ' . u22 IF . 2 8 A Y i~~an~as~~Bt ~: .�ES ISL~~AND m, P~r~ s 'i ,p R H~~~w �-~~~'~~,~ a~~~~~~~ g Wicks~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~it~~~PlaiW i0T 2~~~~~~~~ ~ . , ,kf$2 1b aS22N'itr S,,~,~'~_ ' PE�rsaSyde Hiassc GI ISAND ';'~~~~~~aSa BbacH TEo~aY! Saggg ncit22aRYe & ;ghN B2EacHs2 *�~~a�-br �kl9~".- * e - = iV; d>8d2r tT L (o 2. v~ tr~~~~~e~~o gEa.<%2.r (i2<S,.j2~fp-ez2adasd-w;.~r~M...... CEDAR CREE2 P~l~i i CuLL\ NEDS ISAND ' NORTH 9iEE-#222eV Se ,a; , | SEDGE I9AND v2 �/ M i S p. ,5TE 2; NORTW LINE ISLAND b LAWRXCE01;,@ntl4f~ast pi&,QiQ; gentra OYERS ISLAD | | / MIWDLE LINE ISLP GUEL isLaNDs NW DE TOBAY TOWER NoRtH CnI IsLaND IONES BEacH, LOT AlDEr ISLAN~ I- East CROWIs~ -,w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o ~. '" "'"" '~~~ SMTHMeadow I . --: '- � jn\ BX\ OESACH, Lot 3' Ben. G, WESt END 2 -i, odI~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~. : IOESi BEACH~, LOT I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r�'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ':?-.' ~~~~~~~SOUTH PINE MAR-SH I ' -- _\ AO OB!~ CA. WAY ?: ' , ',:i":RE I~E~ '~jC.jk ~ . .. S- . : - ;" - ~~~LOOP CAUSEWNAY I ONES B:EACH, WEST END 1I t : : " ' : ' ' '-' ': :gvai L~~~i CE D AR CCIGid PAIM --8B; - - g - ; > L'~NEs ISLAND TOL BOt ~~~NORTH ID ILN ILN N O OA WE ALD~ ~~~~~ PERS ISLAND MIDDLE LINE ISLAESTCIH~lS~~D LAWR R o ckville cntfo IW ::.;I;Y:~-t lNES~iAC~61 .. . ;.~fSTENDZ (I : b<.- ~ ~',,,...t~SBU\Ei~LU ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .:-- SWT 'IEMA- . ,_~w\e 2' 'WA ,- j fX. - -� idC* IS, L A ND .. " . - ^ @ ~AAST CHANEU ~~~~~~~~ frBISLAND S ANSE11S, 1� A aib 4as~I,,; a .0,.~ �~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ' EASA T f-T S 0 " Wi NAZERAS ISLANB ~t~,~..4 d.4.. ?j; g Ti MBERv OINT n~~ r;T ,> .vr wgii 1'--~; W$~'~'% ~ .... .,. m ,: � Bp~~n�~~DE~diRAT PON 4444444 18)l L a # ~~jivCEDA BE~ACHoa WEST OF CEDA BEACHv aty Si t Cin ud 4 1 12 4I " 'Y Wx .1 "i '. f p,$~ P p 9 4 ~~~e. ,, ED,,fr~. r y~r,,r x~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 EAST CSLIP PA TC H O GU' E �-�i;:NAZERAS ISLANh,~ MARI T IMBER POINT GRASS ISLANI SEGARUI THATCH ISGe 4,44' -, -'ISLIP SPOIL ISLAND 4444 44444, 44444.4 4444J4,4 45~Y WATCH HILL, FIRE ISLAND DEM6CRAT POINTSEXTON ISLAND � ~~~~~SORE THUMB CAPTREE IS. CEDAR BEACH WEST OF CEDAR BEACH i ~~~~~~~~~~~~Waterbird Colonyl Sites (Continued) 0 C EA N I i 'laz ke 6slaild B B B V� e i�elar 5 ' I W t Q , E$ t tstjti S iy a sg tpp O '" 'ra"'�'a' ve DUNE AD, QUO GU�% Sr~'bh~' et ' - . 'r .. e .. 43"" ;'�f' a 'COUNTY PARK WESTHAMPTON BEACH $5\ COUNTY PARK QUANCH CREEK, FIRE ISLAND CENTERS ISLAND Waterbird Colony Sites NEW MADE ISLAND (Continued) .A ~F�T A, N T I C a, '"'66 ,,* / % Sousht;BB...� I .4~'",' " ~ " 43 d i 1 "'"+ �....' \'-'� i, ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "t 2"' *' 4"'..,2'" ~?-,�?-:"',:6 '4 � . C~~~~~~' ''" 616 66 66 4' -2, 'IP~~~~~~~GGC PO ND I .....Wtc .. ~.~T orh or V.W a' 6 4�E 46e ~~~~~Baad� '""' ~~ " "i a ba$r 4 '2- -k 6"2A4 41 '6,4N Al' "~~~~~~~~ 2% ... 6" M IDDL POND. N . -' : "t4 '' A,. /!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J .~~~~~~~~~~~~Ow . . . . % 66~~~~~66'~~ ~ 4%', 6:446,,, .. ,, , .'' P I PON EC �~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,�~ X~~~~~~~~- ,.:. ;,.;�.-, 6'6636':- ';"% FAI RF, IE D PONDLN :~.]~,,�.�.�,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 -~ ....'"6 %. 6'' GREATER~~ ~...... G --SGA OACKS A u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' .IL POND P16 fl4 '6 64 . ,. '' ....',:,i S#OUT H 62A6MPTON6 BEACH RD' INE SOTAMPTO BECHRD.D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SGPONQUOGU INLET \SOUTHAMPTON BEACH RD. F LANES-TIANA EAST TIANA BEACH WEST OF TIANA BEACH Waterbird Colony Sites HOT DOC BEACH ~~~~~(Continued) 0C E AN k"~~~~~~~~~ 01 '-"" \26Nf ''-4~'' 2'2 gS6 %h" '-44o'r hdn'44 4'4j''g~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6'.mV6 '666~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l 1)'2'' '?2l 6 e, p-6666,Zn GERGC PN '14$ 6' ~~~~~~~~~ 616% r'5'-"~~~~~~~~~~~"'0 WN Y"'?,~~~~~6 da e RI 4f" GREATER GRMB'KSA� '66"4266t~6*46t 4~ '-'6~'~ MIDDLE POND INLET X ~~~ 6 '4~~WARNER % > SRabtr1 4\' PLIMPTONS BEACH 4 ~~~ISLANDS ' S 6,, 41 FAIRF~~~~AIELD POND LANE :1~~~~~~~~~ 644 c,6 k' - '. SAMS CREEK 46' %6' ~ 6' 266 ~ MECS SAGAPONACK >6" 6%v6'~~~~~~~~f ~PHILLIPS POND 066 6'' SINNECOCKSOUTHAMPTON BEACH RD. C INLET SOUTHAMPTON BEACH RD. D PONQUOGUE SOUTHAMPTON BEACH RD. F TIANA BEACH Wiebr ie WEST OF TIANA BEACH Wt r rdColonySie HOT DOG BEACH (Continued) 0 (C E A N4 -~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. �- t �I� -. - � .�: ��� . ~~~~~~~~~~~~� -n J$' - ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 IO~~~~~~~~~~r 1*'*411 4' am \ ax,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4. 'c4 0 -l -4' o l,' / - GERARD -K 41 - PON" D A apeague Bay~~acl G GERA* DRIVE '9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~� /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ACABONAC/HARBOR NAPAGU BEAHHCSILN Gar(inue d) Say~ y GERARD tARK / OYSTER POND k rCBOA HARBOR ~iO;i~ ~~~e~ r~g "~~-~[ h~~~ C'N POINT Amn1gr-nsitk .1EAU BEACH EAST NAPEAGUE BEACH HICKS ISLAND ~MAIDSTONE BEACH Wciterbird ColonyI Sites (Continued) -HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Chapter Three HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 3.0 Introduction his chapter includes land use and coastal management Coastal hazard planning policies that reflect long range land use recommendations that address erosion and flooding goals were developed and assigned to the 13 shoreline seg- problems on the south shore of Long Island Both generic and ments by the Board staff. (The specific assignments are dis- location-specific recommendations are discussed The generic cussed later in section 3 8 ) These policies are summarized as recommendations refer to situations that could develop at any follows or most locations along the south shore study area. Site specific * Maintain Shoreline Position' The policy of maintaining recommendations have been made for the 13 shoreline seg- the location of the present shoreline was assigned to ments that comprise the study area with reference made to the those locations where the desire Is to protect high den- Land Use Plan Map Series in this chapter. Policy justifications sity development and/or substantial public infrastruc- and preferred erosion management options for each segment ture are also ncluded. * Maintain the Beach Adequate beaches for recreation- 3.1 South Shore Land Use Plan Maps al activities should be maintained In those areas sub- ject to high Intensity recreational use. This policy does This chapter contains the Land Use Plan Map Series at a scale not imply that the beach must also provide hurncane of 1" 2000', which depicts the following categories of land use' protection Residential * Maintain Barrier Islands: The existence and continuity of barrier islands, spits, bars, etc should be main- * 1 dwelling unit or less/acre (low density) tained to protect bay environments and mainland * 2-4 dwelling units/acre shoreline areas. This policy does not necessarily imply * 5-10 dwelling units/acre maintaining the actual position of the shoreline * 11 dwelling units or more/acre (high density) � Regulate Private Development and Erosion Control Commercial Projects: This policy emphasizes regulation of pnvate construction and erosion control activities as the Industrial pnmary means of protecting coastal features and Institutional development In those areas where this policy is ap- plicable, there is not a sufficient public interest In main- Open Space and Recreational taining shoreline position, beaches or coastal landforms to warrant public expenditures. Transportation and Utilities The intent of the South Shore Hazard Management Program Is This map senes Is based on an analysis of existing land uses, to protect coastal resources and publc amenities from mpacts development trends, natural resource considerations and other associated wth shoreline erosion and flooding Management study components. Detailed descriptions of the map series and recommendations made for each of the 13 shoreline segments land use plan goals are contained in section 3.8 must be compatible with the hazard planning policy(ies) above 3.2 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies and the overall intent of the program To facilitate the identification of preferred hazard management 3.3 Assessment of Erosion Management Options options, the study area was divided into 13 shoreline segments, Based on the hazard planning policy(les) assigned to each averaging about 8 miles in length, on the basis of land use shoreline segment, and the available data and information on patterns and geomorphic and physical criteria, such as shoreline coastal features/changes and the physical forces that cause type, inlet location, etc The names and general location of the such changes, the teams of coastal engineers and geologists shoreline segments are shown In Figure 3-1; boundary descrip- were asked to Identify those erosion management options that tions and a key referencing segment location on the Land Use they felt were most reasonable, promising or preferable, given Plan Map Series are located in Table 3-1. the conditions extant In each segment. Eight erosion manage- ment options were considered CHAP 3-1 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Montouk Point Figure 3-1 General Location of South Shore Shoreline Segments East Hampto Southamto Westhampton Bleach Shinnecock inlet Moiches Inlet Fire Island Jones Beach Long Beach East Fire sland InltA Rockavwoy Frones Inlet Inlet I C., z( I 0 z .1 w L w z z Z 3:LLJ z .j 0 - z 0 c c Z W o t o LU 4Z a < E a. 0 -j z Z U w C 0a. wU 0 z W.1 m CJa W a -J < 0 CD -~~~( Z Cc Z ~< (<I Z C z LU 0 < I- I- E z U UZ U)~ z z ZO [3 OW O I CO Z - crow~~~~ ~ w a. 0 jE 00 0 z CHAP 3-2 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TABLE 3-1 Shoreline Segment Names, Boundaries and Land Use Plan Map Reference Number(s). Land Use Plan Shoreline Segment Name Segment Boundaries Map Number(s) ATLANTIC BEACH/LONG BEACH Jetty at East Rockaway Inlet to the No. 1 easternmost groin at Long Beach JONES INLET Easternmost groin at Long Beach to the easternmost No. 2 parking lot at Jones Beach near Zach's Bay GILGO BEACH Easternmost parking lot at Jones Beach near Zach's Bay No. 3 & 4 to the west side of Cedar Beach FIRE ISLAND INLET West side of Cedar Beach to the west boundary of Kismet No. 4 OCEAN BEACH West boundary of Kismet to the east boundary of No. 5 Point O'Woods CENTRAL FIRE ISLAND East boundary of Point O' Woods to east boundary of No. 5 & 6 Davis Park FINS WILDERNESS East boundary of Davis Park to west boundary No. 6 & 7 of Smith Pt. County Park MORICHES INLET West boundary of Smith Pt. County Park to No. 7 & 8 east boundary of Cupsogue County Park WESTHAMPTON BEACH East boundary of Cupsogue County Park to the Village No. 8 & 9 of Westhampton Beach - Village of Quogue boundary SHINNECOCK INLET Village of Westhampton Beach - Village ofQuogue No. 9, 10 & 11 boundary to Halsey Neck Lane in Village of Southampton COASTAL PONDS Halsey Neck Lane in Village of Southampton No. 11, 12 & 13 to the eastern boundary of the Village of East Hampton NAPEAGUE Eastern boundary of the Village of East Hampton No. 13 & 14 to the eastern boundary of Hither Hills State Park MONTAUK Eastern boundary of Hither Hills State Park to No. 14 & 15 Montauk Pt. CHAP 3-3 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM � Do nothing the 13 shoreline segments depends on the premise that the � Shore hardening generic erosion control strategy recommendations described � Groins below will be implemented along the south shore coast as a � Breakwaters whole. � Beach nourishment/dune building � Sand bypassing * Sand bypassing � Longshore Transport. The integrity and continuity of � Relocation/retreat the longshore transport of sand must be maintained � Insufficient data to decide through each segment. Where the transport of sand has been or will be interrupted, a mechanism for Team participants were allowed to select combinations of the bypassing or restoring sand transport must be in- above as a single alternative. augurated and maintained. In segments where the The deliberations and findings made by the coastal engineers continuity of long shore transport has been disrupted in and geologists form the basis of the discussions on the preferred the recent past, some additional nourishment may be and geologists form the basis of thenecessary to re-establish the sand budget. Sand erosion management options for each shoreline segment in- n ecessary to re-establish the sand budget. Sand cluded in this chapter. The options are subject to important trapped in tidal d eltas at stabilized inlets oraccumu- lated in shoals seaward of groin fields may need to be qualifications. The teams were asked to make a preliminary ated n oa seac rd mane relocated back on to the beach. A prudent manage- independent assessment of the most appropriate options for elate co o e budn anae ment strategy could employ dune building and over- managing erosion based on the available, often incomplete or mt strateg a epese an o wash mitigation strategies as an inexpensive means of dated, technical information. The shoreline segments dis- helping to maintain the longshore transport system. All cussed earlier were selected to be large enough to allow for the of the preferred options identified for the coastal seg- of the preferred options identified for the coastal seg- development of a comprehensive, regional erosion manage- ments must incorporate appropriate plans for sand ment strategy. Very small stretches of the coast, on the order of bypassing. This strategy would also apply to the hundreds of yards in length, cannot be managed independently western boundary of the study area. The continuity of in a regional strategy. However, in certain cases extenuating longshore transport across East Rockaway Inlet to circumstances such as site-specific land use, social/economic New York City beaches to the west should be main- factors, and/or pre-existing structures may require erosion tained. management decisions to be made on this smaller scale. Al- � Inlet Management. Proper management of inlets is of though such cases were not ignored, a detailed analysis of critical importance since inlets play a dominant role in site-specific erosion control options for relatively small stretches the processes affecting coastal change. Many of the of coast is beyond the scope of this program. Local exceptions most severe coastal erosion problems along the south to the preferred strategy as detailed for each shoreline segment shore are associated with inlets. The loss of large may be required; however, such smaller-scale projects should volumes of sand into inlet deltas appears to be a prin- be compatible with the regional approach. cipal cause of shoreline recession. In addition, the stabilization of the inlets has resulted in large ac- On the other hand, the shoreline segments were not made so cumulations of sand updrift of the jetties. Based on large as to preclude discrimination among segments where cu mulations of sand updrift of the jetties. Based on long-term shoreline changes, the erosion and accretion different tactics should be applied. Care must be taken to insure processes associated with south shore inlets seem to processes associated with south shore inlets seem to that any options implemented in one segment are compatible increase in magnitude from east to west. with those in adjacent segments. Because the coast operates as a dynamic system, changes in one segment, whether natural Presently, most inlet dredging projects are undertaken or man-made, may require a revision of selected erosion in response to navigation concerns. In keeping with management options in other segments. The recommendations the longshore transport recommendation above, effec- made in this program are not static, and should be periodically tive management programs for inlets should be adjusted to accommodate expected, or unexpected, changes. designed not only to stabilize channels for navigation, 3.4 Generic Hazard Management Recommendations - but also to incorporate provisions for maintaining the longshore transport of sand across the inlets. Inlet Longshore Transport, Inlet Management and Closure of longshore transport of sand across the inlets. Inlet New Inlets bypassing is the single most important erosion New Inlets management strategy recommended for the south The segment-by-segment analysis that was conducted to select shore, and should be implemented at East Rockaway preferred management options recognized that several erosion- Inlet, Jones Inlet, Fire Island Inlet, Moriches Inlet and related problems transcended segment boundaries, and that Shinnecock Inlet. resolution of the problems would require a consistent approach applied to the entire shoreline of the study area. The relative Longshore transport is not unidirectional along the success of the preferred management options keyed to each of south shore especially in the vicinity of inlets. Both the eastward and westward drift of sand must be accom- CHAP 3-4 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM modated at different times. The development of the inlets. The expected increased rate of shoaling most appropriate, cost-effective bypassing plan would would adversely affect channel maintenance opera- require a detailed analysis of the physical charac- tions and could eventually preclude the use of exist- teristics of each inlet. Such a plan should provide for ing inlets for navigation purposes. Given the the periodic dredging and bypassing of sand to investment society has already made in the existing downdrift beaches on a regular basis; structures may inlets and the magnitude and nature of the changes be included in the plans for some inlets to facilitate the associated with the formation of new inlets along the bypassing operations. Impoun'dment basins and/or 6south shore, the occurrence of these features Would small, perhaps tapered, groins in the area immediately be unacceptable from a management standpoint. downdrift of the inlet could help retain material on the Steps should be taken to prevent new inlets from beach in the shadow of the downdrift jetty (where such forming. If they do form, and do not close naturally, ,etties exist), and prevent sand fro bein tra ported they losedartificially. This can ac- " '': rq.g~i~li'?nto?~he inlet by'T ca liZ" . ~iZec-'finhc o -OS c i mically if action is toaen � ' : of longshore transport caused by wave refraction. " prmptly while the ilet is small. At existing inlets, historical shoreline migration rates In addition to the three general recommendations showing the degree of downdrift recession after the previously mentioned, an erosion management inlet formed could be used in conjunction with profile monitoring program should be implemented for the measurements to estimate the quantity of sand that south shore. The details of the recommended would be needed to replace that amount lost as a monitoring program are described in Chapter 4. result of the disruption of the longshore transport. This information could then be used to evaluate the volume of sand that should be artificially bypassed to provide The Coastal High Risk zone includes that area encompassed by the downdrift area with a supply of sand equal to that any of the following: the V zone on Flood Insurance Rate Maps entering the updrift area in the vicinity of the inlet. The (FIRMs); the CoastalErosion HazardArea as identified on maps results of this type of analysis could then be used to prepared by New York State Dept. of Environmental Conserva- modify bypassing requirements and help identify the tion, and theJones Beach, Fire Island, Westhampton Beach most efficient bypassing techniques. Barrier Islands and the Southampton barrier spit. Closure of New Inlets. The formation of new inlets along the barrier island section of the south shore is of Private interests owning structures and/or-property on the Jones critical concern, and could severely affect biological Beach, Fire Island and Westhampton Beach barrier islands and resources and human uses of the south shore bays Southampton spit should bear the burden of the loss of such and adjacent shorelines. As indicated in section structures and/or property due to erosion and flooding. Within 2.1.11, the disruption of barrier island migration by inlet this Coastal High Risk Zone, there is minimal public interest in processes may be of secondary importance compared making government expenditures for maintaining private to the impacts associated with the formation of new in- development. lets. New inlets could cause substantial, rapid chan- When private structures located within the Coastal High Risk ges in the coastal environment and have more Zone are damaged to a level greater than 50% of their replace- immediate management implications especially in ment value due to either severe storm occurrence or long-term terms of the 35 year planning horizon of this program. shoreline erosion, action should be taken to prohibit re-develop- ment in those locations and configurations that would result in Impacts associated with new inlets could include: recurring public costs to cover repeated damages or threaten the integrity of the barrier islands. Should regulation and other - increased flooding and erosion on the mainland actions described in Section 4.2 when implemented fail to shoreline due to increased water levels and wave prevent re-development, government should acquire the action in the bays; damaged structures and private property at fair market value as -changes in shoaling patterns, water circulation, a last resort. Fair market value should also reflect relocation temperature, and salinity that could significantly costs. It must be emphasized that the prohibition on re- alter existing bay ecosystems; and development in the Coastal High Risk Zone would be imple- - disruption of the longshore transport of sand along mented as structures are lost over time to either chronic erosion the ocean shoreline that would result in increased or as a result of a severe storm event. Since it is impossible to downdrift erosion. predict the locations.where such losses will occur in advance, re-development patterns associated with these locations are not In addition, new inlets would also change the tidal shown on the Land Use Plan Map. It is anticipated that the exchange between the bay and ocean at stabilized process by which portions of the Coastal High Risk Zone are CHAP 3-5 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM transformed into open space will be evolutionary in nature. This The potential impacts of sea level rise on bays and coastal ponds process will be further delayed if hazard management program would probably be most dramatic in the displacement and recommendations for sand by-passing and inlet maintenance possible elimination of coastal habitats, including freshwater are implemented. wetlands and tidal wetlands. The mechanisms responsible for It is recommended that post-storm community re-development these effects are described as follows (Titus, Henderson and plans be prepared in advance to deal with those instances where Teal 1984): a severe storm event destroys a large portion of a community ....Sea level rise increases the frequency of tidal flood- and government can neither prevent re-development through ing throughout a salt marsh, causing the system to regulation nor acquire properties because of a lack of financial migrate upward and landward. If no inorganic sedi- resources. Such plans will help to ensure that re-development ment or peat is added to the marsh, the seaward por- will minimize exposure to repeated flood and erosion losses. In tions become flooded so frequently that marsh grass general, the intensity of private re-development located in coas- drowns and marsh soil erodes; portions of the high tal areas should not increase above levels shown on the Land marsh become low marsh; and upland areas immedi- Use Plan maps. ately above the former spring tide level are flooded at spring tide and become high marsh. No public expenditures for infrastructure should be made that spring tide and become high marsh. ..The net impact of sea level rise on total marsh would encourage private development or increase the intensity ....The net impact of sea level rise on t otal marsh acreage also depends on the slopes of the marsh and of such uses on the coastal barriers. The focus of public upland areas. If the land has a constant slope upland areas. If the land has a constant slope expenditures for infrastructure repair, erosion control, etc., throughout the marsh and upland, the area lost to should be to provide access to water dependent uses in these marsh drowning will equal the area gained by the marsh drowning will equal the area gained by the areas, e.g., parks, public bathing beaches, marinas, and com- landward encroachment of spring high tides. mercial fishing facilities. Throughout most marshes, however, the slope above 3.6 Sea level Rise and Natural Resource Protection the marsh is steeper than the marsh; thus, a rise of sea level will cause a net loss of marsh acreage. The discussion in section 2.1.7 indicates that the degree to which sea level rise contributes to the total erosion occurring Shoreline development can undermine the ability of wetlands to along the south shore is of secondary importance in comparison adjust to a rising sea level. Efforts to protect structures via to other processes operating in the area, especially when con- bulkheading and other hard structures could prevent the sidered in the context of this program's 35 year planning horizon. landward migration of wetland systems, thus exacerbating tidal Moderate increases in the rate of sea level rise would probably wetland losses. have a relatively small impact on the observed rate of erosion Planning at the state and local levels can help address the compared to the impacts caused by storms and disruptions in problems posed by rising seas. Public awareness is of the the longshore transport resulting from man's activities. From a utmost importance. Permit procedures and environmental im- planning perspective, the submergence of low lying areas pact analyses can be used to help assure that wetlands have around the south shore bays due to sea level rise is probably a room to migrate landward. This focuses on the need to maintain more critical problem than the potential for increased ocean front buffer areas between shoreline habitats and upland areas (Titus erosion. A study of the implications of sea level rise along back 1984). The policy of strategic retreat from vulnerable coastal bay shorelines should be initiated. It is concluded that a cautious areas in light of potential acceleration in the rate of sea level rise approach toward shoreline management that preserves options and subsequent flooding of low lying coastal areas is the rational for dealing with potential acceleration in the rate of sea level rise approach to follow. Where engineered shoreline structures, is the most prudent path to take at this time. roads, bridges, and causeways are required, they should be Impacts of accelerated sea level rise could include: designed with sea level rise in mind. The alternative of gradual retreat is involuntary retreat as a result of disaster situations. � beach erosion and dune line recession; � mobilization of new sediment in the littoral system, ... Although retreat from the shoreline should not be which may be lost to restore areas; adopted as a simple, rigid rule for all situations, the � gradual inundation of coastal structures, e.g., time has come to adopt it as a general policy, around bulkheads, revetments, docks; which other policies and regulations would be shaped. � flooding of low lying coastal areas and extension of Statedsimply, wheneverpossible, whereverpossible, flood zone areas inland; and as soon as possible development should be � displacement of coastal habitats, e.g., tidal wetlands; moved away from the shoreline. (Matthiessen 1989:13) � increased salinity in tributaries; and The land use and hazard planning recommendations in this � interference with gravity flow systems, e.g. storm water report, e.g., gradual elimination of development in the Coastal drainage. CHAP 3-6 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM High Risk Zone, are in conformance with the philosophy pre- verse impacts on adjacent properties that may be unac- viously stated. ceptable or require mitigative measures. If, on the other hand, the shoreline is relatively stable, the im- While it is not recommended that wholesale abandonment of pacts associated with the potential narrowing of the pacts associated with the potential narrowing of the existing public facilities and private development located in beach over the long-term would most likely be mini- coastal areas should occur in advance of actual sea level rise mized or eliminated. mized or eliminated. acceleration, structures should be removed from vulnerable What is the active beach profile or short-term variability locations over the long-term when subject to substantial damage of the beach? How frequently will storms expose the from erosion and flooding impacts. bulkhead, and to what extent will it be exposed? By The generic and segment-specific erosion and flood-related preventing erosion of the dune or upland during recommendations in this chapter are compatible with regulatory storms, will the structure be depriving the beach and efforts to protect south shore natural resources and New York adjacent areas of sand, thus aggravating erosion? State Designated Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitats as The information from beach profile surveys, water described in Chapter 2. With regard to erosion management, level measurements, wave observations and studies of the regional geology (sediment grain size dis- the implementation of the recommendations over the long-term studies of the regional geology (sediment grain size dis- tributions) provides the answers to these questions. will help to stabilize south shore bay/coastal pond environments tributions) provides the answers to these questions. and, hence, ensure continued use for recreational and commer- These answers are important for several reasons. In These answers are important for several reasons. In cial purposes. Efforts to protect the integrity of the barrier certain areas, erosion of the upland or the dune certain areas, erosion of the upland or the dune beaches and spits may lead to opportunities for the creation of (depending on the topography and composition of the wetland environments through the judicious placement of material) may provide sand to the adjacent areas dredge spoil. through erosion during storms. If this is the case, the 3.7 Bulkhead Construction and Armoring of Coastal bulkhead, by preventing the movement of this material, Bluffs may cause a local sand deficit equal to the volume of sand that would be lost if the structure was not there. Structural solutions to coastal erosion problems found primarily This in turn may adversely affect adjacent areas by along the headland portion of the south shore are discussed in depriving them of material they would normally receive this section with a view toward showing how different types of during extreme conditions. Where this volume of sand information can be used to improve the decisionmaking process. is a significant component of the local sediment The situations presented involve the proposed construction of a budget, the installation of the bulkhead may be condi- bulkhead on an ocean beach to protect a structure, and the tioned on stipulations that require the owner to mitigate proposed armoring of the toe of a coastal bluff. potential adverse impacts by artificially placing a quan- tity of sand equal to that lost to the system on a A number of questions should be addressed in the permit review tity of sand equal to that lost to the system on a to protect a private yearly basis, as is done in certain situations in Florida. process for the installation of a bulkhead to protect a private romes fonr the oenastalation sor dag ea Where the dune volume is minimal or upland erosion is home on the open ocean coast against storm damage. not a significant source of suitable sediment (due � What is the cause of the erosion problem resulting in to volume or composition), these impacts on adjacent the need for the structure? Is there a public works areas could be minimal and the project may be war- project or other structure updrift exacerbating the prob- ranted. lem? Is the structure filling a gap between other struc- tures? Will it advance the line of building? In general, A knowledge of the changes in shoreline configuration these are management related questions that would be (from profile measurements) in response to physical answered with information on land use conditions in factors (waves and water level variations) could be the area. used to predict how often the structure would be ex- � Is the shoreline experiencing long-term retreat? At posed and provide an estimate of the potential impacts what rate? When will the shoreline reach the struc- on the beach and adjacent areas over time. This infor- ture? The answers to these questions can be obtained mation could then be employed to develop appropriate from the analysis of long-term shoreline trends. This set back requirements for locating structures to mini- information allows one to project the long-term impacts mize adverse impacts. Obviously, this type of informa- of the proposed action, especially in terms of its poten- tion would also be beneficial in developing tial effects on future beach width. If the shoreline structural design criteria (tce penetration requirements, shows chronic landward migration, the stabilization of height, strength of materials, etc.). the back beach area could result in a narrowing of the What magnitude of storm is the house (i.e., the struc- beach as the shoreline moves landward. If the water ture to be protected) designed to withstand? What is line migrates landward of the structure it could have ad- the specific purpose of the structure (to protect the CHAP 3-7 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM house or dune)? In Florida, if the house is built to 100- erosion than undercutting at the toe in bluffed areas. year Federal Flood Insurance standards, shore har- Although a geotechnical analysis would be required to dening is usually not permitted, since the house alone make a full analysis of the exact processes causing the should withstand a major storm without the structure. erosion and their relative magnitude, some measure of Shore hardening devices generally are not favored for the importance of undercutting may be obtained by ex- the protection of dunes only, and may not be warranted amining profiles and aerial photographs. Recession of if that is their stated purpose. These structures may be the toe over the long-term, or the presence of scarps at a viable alternative to protect older houses that do not the base of the bluff after storms would tend to indicate meet present flood standards. In Florida, if the struc- that wave undercutting is occurring and some type of tures are allowed, they are required to be placed as toe protection might be necessary to slow own the close to the house as possible (usually landward of the erosion. If processes acting within or on the bluff face dune if there is one) and, depending on the particular are the cause of the erosion, coastal engineering struc- situation, may have to incorporate mitigative tures at the toe would have little effect. This measures, such as toe scour protection. analysis could also help identify possible factors, such � Will the structure inhibit the recovery or growth of the as lawn watering, septic leakage, etc., which may be dune by interrupting the aeolian sediment transport? exacerbating the problem and rectified relatively easily. What structural changes should be made to ameliorate � What is the rate of erosion and the height of the bluff? adverse impacts on dune building processes? Is artifi- What is the composition of the material? How rapidly cial dune restoration necessary? is material eroded from the bluff removed from the � What is the land use configuration in the vicinity of the beach? Information from profiles, historic recession project? What are the uses of the beach, and who rates and data on regional geology would be required needs access (fishermen, bathers, etc.)? Will the struc- to answer these questions. This information and data ture significantly change the configuration of the beach could be used to determine if the bluff is indeed supply- (in terms of beach width, for example) and, if so, inhibit ing the type of material needed to maintain the access or use? beach and longshore sediment transport system and, if so, at what rate. If erosion of the bluff is not a sig- Although the situation considered above involved the installation awat re f eri o o the owdi nificant source of material found along the downdrift of a specific type of shoreline hardening device (a bulkhead), the beaches, because the material is too fine or the questions asked and information needed to answer these ques- material is too large to be moved by the processes ac- tions would also be required to evaluate other types of shore ting in the area; or the volume eroded is small hardening devices commonly used in coastal areas.tignthar;orhevlmeoddssal hardening devices commonly used in coastal areas. (due to a low recession rate or low bluff height), then The second situation considered is the proposed armoring of these impacts would probably be minimal and the the toe of a coastal bluff with a revetment to protect an individual project may be justified. However, if bluff erosion is a upland structure. Because there are a number of similarities significant source of beach-sized material, the between this type of project and the previously described situa- proposed armoring may have adverse impacts on tion involving bulkheading, many of the considerations in surrounding areas. This information could so be used categories previously mentioned would be pertinent. However, to develop mitigative measures, such as requiring the there are also fundamental differences between the two situa- applicant to supply a quantity of beach compatible tions. Among the more important differences are the following: material from an upland site equal to the volume lost due to the armoring. � unlike the dunes, bluffs are a relic feature and cannot � Could the building to be protected be relocated or set- be expected to recover after an erosional event; backs established to preclude the need for the struc- � the erosion of bluffs may have a more important role in ture? Information on the bluff composition, profile the sediment budget (depending on their size and com- (height) and lot size would be required to determine a position) than the role of dune erosion; and prudent setback and whether relocation is feasible. � the erosion processes on bluffed coasts may be sig- � Where along the bluff does the erosion occur? Does nificantly different than those occurring along other the beach have to be eroded before the bluff is attack- parts of the shore. ed? This information could be obtained from post- storm surveys and/or aerial photographs, wave and In addition to the questions and information described in the storm surveys and/or aerial photographs, wave and water level data, and data on regional geology. In discussion on the bulkhead, the following questions should be water level data, and data on regional geology. In some areas of California, the erosion of bluffs considered in assessing a proposal to armor the toe of a bluff: some areas of California, the erosion of bluffs during storms often occurs at a point below the eleva- Is the structure addressing the primary causes of tion of the beach after the beach has been removed by erosion? In many cases, other factors such as the waves. If this does happen in an area, armoring of groundwater may be a more dominant cause of the toe of the bluff above the elevation of the active CHAP 3-8 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM beach profile, as is often proposed, would provide Commercial activity in the Village of Atlantic Beach is recreation- little benefit, and special consideration would have to oriented consisting primarily of private beach clubs located on be given to the design of the structure in terms of re- Ocean Blvd. Retail activity dominates the Long Beach commer- quired depth of penetration. cial area located on East and West Park Street. 3.8 Detailed Recommendations by Shoreline Segment 3.8.1.2 Land Use Plan Goals: Since residential land use in this 3.8.1 Atlantic Beach/Long Beach Segment shoreline segment is classified as intermediate and high density within a highly urbanized setting, little opportunity exists to 3.8.1.1. Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures: minimize vulnerability from coastal storms or erosion by re- Both the Village of Atlantic Beach and the City of Long Beach directing development or re-development away from flood are highly urbanized with year-round populations, as of January and/or erosion prone areas. Thus, the land use plan goals 1, 1989, of 1,939 and 36,519 respectively. The predominant recognize this fact and envision the continuance of intermediate land use is moderate density residential development (5-10 and high density residential uses. This goal would permit re- dwelling units/acre) followed by high density residential develop- development at higher densities utilizing clustering of single ment (>10 dwelling units/acre). The moderate density residential family units away from more vulnerable coastal locations, such development consists principally of single family units and 2-3 as in West Long Beach. This goal requires that maximum story condominiums. The high density residential development protection from coastal storms be provided. consists principally of high-rise (5-10 story) apartments and condominiums located in the vicinity of Shore Road, East and A second land use goal involves the continued use of beaches West Broadway. High density single family residential develop- for ereation/bathing activities. Appropriate units of govern- ment is located in West Long Beach between Clayton and New ment should ensure that adequate beach is available for such York Avenues. activities. Recreation and open space uses in this segment include Silver 3.8.1.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: The coastal hazard Point County Park, which is leased to concessioners who run planning policies for the Atlantic Beach/Long Beach segment two private beach clubs containing 1674 cabanas and 250 reflect the land use plan goals identified above. Since these lockers. Access to the park, which accounts for approximately goals recognize that intermediate and high density uses will 50% of the ocean shoreline owned by Nassau County, is limited continue, the appropriate policy to implement these goals is to to club members. There are no maintenance costs incurred by maintain the shoreline location, that is, the land/sea interface, the County for Silver Point County Park, since all costs for not necessarily at precisely the existing location, but at a point operation and maintenance of the park are the obligation of the to be determined by detailed study. This policy would serve to concessioners. The income derived by the County from the protect structures from erosion hazards, and could maximize concessioners was $789,352 in 1989. In addition, there are protection of structures from the hazards associated with coastal public bathing beaches south of the boardwalk in both the Village flooding. and City. The beaches in this segment are heavily utilized The second coastal hazard planning policy applicable to this although beach attendance has not been recorded. The City of segment requires the maintenance of beaches of adequate Long Beach receives $1,151,000 in direct revenue from the width for recreation activities. This policy will require that all issuance of seasonal and daily beach passes. municipalities involved must refine their recreation planning The City of Long Beach in cooperation with the Town of activities to determine existing peak beach attendance and Hempstead has implemented a dune construction wprogram capacity, and balance this attendance with the desire and/or The City requires that material from building excavations be need to utilize beach area for dune creation. It will also require placed in the vicinity of the proposed dunires. Theat material is then the establishment of a locally suitable beach attendance density plgraded and snow fencing is erected upon the graded material in standard that is compatible with beach recreation and dune graded and snow fencing is erected upon the graded material in poeto betvs a "Y" formation to capture windblown sand. In addition, the piles protection objectives. of sand are planted with beach grass to provide stability. Dunes 3.8.1.4 Policy Justification: This shoreline segment is highly have been constructed from the City's eastern boundary to the urbanized and almost fully developed as evidenced in the eastern terminus of the boardwalk and from the western ter- description of existing land use. Residential land use densities minus of the boardwalk west to the City's western boundary. are among the highest in the bi-county region. It is also impor- In addition to the dune construction program, Federal, state and tant to note that as of 1980, 92.2% of the housing stock in this local governments have constructed 43 groins to provide segment is occupied year-round. Thus, it is imperative that the erosion and hurricane protection. These groins extend from Lido shoreline of this segment be stabilized to afford protection to Beach to Atlantic Beach. Table 3-2 summarizes the erosion more than 15,700 housing units. In addition, this shoreline control construction activities undertaken along Long Beach segment contains a full complement of infrastructure including Island. roads, bridges and utilities. As for the extensive back bay tidal CHAP 3-9 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-2 - City of Long Beach, May 1989. Recently constructed dunes immediately east of boardwalk FIGURE 3-3 - City of Long Beach, May 1989. Dunes constructed immediately west of boardwalk CHAP 3-10 ll~~~~~~ S �ig I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . < u i ~~~~~+ | ; gf 4gg 4 f 'f<,f :fif C H A 3-10 ; z@0 tX,-fWi.g t.; 0 0t t0if .ii'< HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-4 - Village of Atlantic Beach, May 1989. Removal of windblown sand adjacent to cabanas and concession stands FIGURE 3-5 - City of Long Beach, May 1989. Man-made dunes fronting high density residential use east of boardwalk. CHAP 3-11 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TABLE 3-2 Long Beach Barrier Island: Partial Shoreline Construction History. Project Date Description Area %Complete Cost FEDERAL-U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1. East Rockaway Inlet 1930 Dredge channel 12 ft. deep 100% $603,969 Channel Improvement 250 ft. wide, .6 mile long. Construct 4,250 ft. jetty on eastern side. 2. East Rockaway Inlet to Jones 1965- Multiple purpose beach erosion 10 miles of 0% $45,000.000 Inlet Beach Erosion Control Proposed control and hurricane protection ocean shoreline project (proposed) and Hurricane Protection 1972- plan featuring: hurricane not plan barriers, reconstruct groins, authorized dropped construct new groins and closure levees, and periodic beach nourishment. 3. Lido and Long Beach 1962 Emergency beach rehabilitation 4,500 feet ocean 100% $260,000 project. shoreline STATE AND LOCAL Atlantic Beach 1954-58 14 Stone Groins, 4 Contracts Total 100% $2,400,500 Atlantic Beach 1959-60 Hydraulic Fill of 382,320 cu. yds. 100% 317,172 East Atlantic Beach 1950-51 2 Stone Groins 100% 207,000 East Atlantic Beach 1949 Hydraulic Fill 100% 80,599 Long Beach (West End) 1955 Hydraulic Fill 100% 81,000 City of Long Beach 1960 2 Stone Groins 100% 474,340 City of Long Beach 1945-46 3 Stone Groins 100% 276,866 City of Long Beach 1946-47 2 Stone Groins 100% 208,727 Jones Inlet (Fed. Coop.) 1953-59 Stone Jetty Hydraulic Fill of 334,397 cu. yds. 100% $3,645,049 Pt. Lookout 1952-53 3 Stone Jetties 100% 750,000 Pt. Lookout 1972 Hydraulic Fill of 130,000 cu. yds. 100% 258,000 Source: Appears as Table 3-4 in Long Island Regional Planning Board (1984). CHAP 3-12 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM wetlands of West and Middle Hempstead Bays, they should This segment is heavily used by the public for beachfront recrea- remain undeveloped/undisturbed in order to provide maximum tional activity. There are five oceanfront parks (one owned by flood protection to the highly urbanized mainland to the north. the County of Nassau and four by the Town of Hempstead) with 3.8.1.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: The high a combined parking lot capacity of 8,800 parking spaces located degree of development and the large number of groins already on the eastern one-third of Long Beach Island. The entire portion of Jones Island within this coastal segment is within the in place along this segment of the coast requires a strategy of beach nourishment and maintenance of the existing groins in boundaries of Jones Beach State Park. The nine major parking order to meet the planning objectives of maintaining both the fieldsprovideatotalofapproximately22,000automobileparking shoreline position and adequate recreational beach. Because spaces for the 10 million people who visit Jones Beach State the beach elevation and volume in this area are relatively low, Park every year Along the back bay area of Jones Island and the present beach probably provides minimal storm protection. a portion of Long Beach, in the vicinity of Lido Beach, there are extensive tidal wetland areas. In addition, there are many tidal To provide a high degree of protection against storm damage, the groins would most likely have to be extended to increase the wetland islands throughout Middle and East Hempstead Bays, beach width and height and to provide adequate room for dune as well as Oyster Bay. building. With the exception of three stone groins at Point Lookout and There is little quantitative information on the behavior of beaches the stone jetty on the east side of Jones Inlet, this coastal in this area. An assessment of the costs and benefits associated segment is free of shore protection structures. The Town of Hempstead Dept. of Conservation and Waterways has had a with alternative approaches requires a more detailed analysis of Hempstead Dept. of Conservation and Waterways has had a physical processes and beach changes, and the development long st anding pr ogram of constructing dunes, planting beach of site specific structural designs. grass on dunes, and erecting snow fencing on the beach during the off-season. These efforts have proven to be effective in The lack of a protective dune system in portions of Long Beach, trapping windblown sand. the Village of Atlantic Beach and the unincorporated portion of Atlantic Beach means greater exposure to the destructive forces pl an map closely resembles existing land use plan map closely resembles existing land use conditions. This of severe storm events. Hurricane protection is necessary for coastal segment has the highest number of beach visitations on this segment, since the existing beach has a low profile and Long Island and, considering the large public investment in Long Island and, considering the large public investment in volume. Dune construction would add to hurricane/flooding volume. Dune construction would add to hurricane/flooding beach facilities and access infrastructure to such facilities, will protection; groin extension would also provide the needed beach wtfdncsui. a saeoroee continue to provide oceanfront access to a large segment of the width for dune construction. Seawalls are not recommended, public. The land use plan recommends maintenance of existing since they may hamper maintenance of recreational beaches of he land use plan recommends maintenance of ~~~~~adequate width.~~ ~heavily used public recreation facilities, including Town of Hempstead and County of Nassau beach facilities and Jones 3.8.2 Jones Inlet Segment Beach State Park. The plan also reflects the existing residential development at Lido Beach and the existing residential develop- 3.8.2.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures ment and commercial activity at Point Lookout. The Jones Inlet segment covers the eastern third of Long Beach barrier island, including the hamlet areas of Lido Beach and Point Lookout, and the western portion of Jones Island barrier beach up to and including the most easterly parking lot (#6) of * maintain the location of the shoreline, i.e. land/sea in- Jones Beach State Park. Lido Beach and Pt. Lookout are the terface; and only two residential areas within this segment. These two * maintain adequate beaches for recreation activities. year-round residential communities consist primarily of single 3.82.4 Policy Justification: The large public beach facilities and two-family residential structures on lots of 1/4 acre or less (town, county and state) located in this segment are heavily in size; their January 1989 population is estimated at 4,900. In utilized by metropolitan area residents. The development and 1980, there were 1332 single and two-family residential struc- maintenance of large beach facilities and roadway access rep- tures (120 in the V zone and 1212 in the A Zone), as well as 426 resents a major public investment. Since the initiation of con- dwelling units (378 in the V and 48 in the A Zone) within struction of Jones Beach State Park in the late 1920s, a multi-family residential structures, located in Lido Beach and substantial public investment has been made in the infrastruc- Point Lookout (Long Island Regional Planning Board 1984). A ture of the park. A massive report compiled by American small strip of commercial development (approximately 60,000 Appraisal Associates (AAA) lists all of the fixed assets owned sq. ft.) along Lido Blvd. [n Point Lookout serves local needs. by New York State as of 1987. The replacement cost calculated Marine commercial activity, including four marinas with about by AAA for all of the buildings at Jones Beach State Park is $55 400 boat slips, is located adjacent to Reynolds Channel in Point million. LISPC staff feel this estimate is extremely low, consider- Lookout. CHAP 3-13 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-6 - Point Lookout, May 1989. Town of Hempstead recreation pavilion damaged by erosion of feeder beach west of Inlet FIGURE 3-7 - Point Lookout, May 1989. Sand starved feeder beach CHAP 3-14 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ing that this replacement cost figure includes reproduction-in- through the outer bar is generally dredged to a total depth of 16 kind of the unique monumental buildings at Jones Beach includ- feet below MLW. The 16 foot depth represents a 12 foot project ing the Marine Theatre, East and West Bath Houses and Water plane, 2 foot advance maintenance and a 2 foot contractual Tower (Francis Hyland pers. comm.). New York State has spent overdredge allowance. Actual construction by large dredges in $30 million since 1982 renovating facilities at Jones Beach State the inlet results in average depths after contract of about 16.8 Park. feet. While the authorized width is 250 feet, the reality of the 3.8.2.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: The inlet regime and regional shoaling rate result in construction of 3.8.2.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: The a channel 350 feet in width. preferred erosion management option for the portion of the a channel 350 feet in width. shoreline downdrift (west) of Jones Inlet involves the coupling of The Jones Inlet Federal navigation channel has required main- beach nourishment and dune building with sand bypassing tenance dredging in 18 of the 30 years from 1960 through 1989. using material from the dredging projects in Jones Inlet. Of the 3.2 million cubic yards dredged due to maintenance work, Provisions should be made to place the material on the beach 55%was disposed of offshore; 33%was used for beach nourish- (as opposed to offshore) and far enough to the west so the sand ment (Point Lookout/Lido Beach); 6% was placed upland is not transported eastward back into the inlet by localized wave (Meadow Island); and 6% was sidecasted (Table 3-3). In addi- refraction associated with the inlet shoals. Costs for inlet tion, the material dredged during the 1963 channel realignment bypassing operations are highly dependent on the distance (331,371 cubic yards) was placed on the beach east of the inlet. material has to be transported. material has to be transported. A model analysis of wave refraction in Jones Inlet is needed. The net westerly littoral drift rate at Jones Inlet is estimated to COE navigation and beach protection projects should be be approximately 550,000 cubic yards per year. Longshore coupled to provide for sand bypassing at Jones Inlet with place- transport of sand in this area may be rapid and variable in ment of material on the beach face as opposed to offshore. The direction due to the localized effects of the inlet processes. As COE has concluded that a deposition basin 750 feet wide and a result, any beach fill projects should be monitored closely and 16 feet deep is the best overall method of maintaining the inlet the results used to adjust bypassing operations. Because of the (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1985). It would provide a clear accretionary trend associated with the jetty on the updrift portion 250 feet wide channel for a longer time between maintenance of the shoreline east of the inlet, no action is needed in this area cycles (about 2 years); would have less potential risk to adjacent at this time. shorelines, and is reversible should unforeseen circumstances occur. It is also cost-effective and would reduce the Federal Severe erosion of the feeder beach immediately west of the occur. It is also cost-effective and would reduce the Federal three groins at Point Lookout is undermining a Town of Government's average annual cost through reduction of annual three groins at Point Lookout is undermining a Town of mobilization and demobilization costs. Disposal would be es- Hempstead beach pavilion. This problem is due to a number of mobilization and demobilization costs. Disposal would be es- the location and volume of shoals in sentially the same as for current practices, i.e., disposal at Point potential factors, including the location and volume of shoals in Lookout, at an area and time mutually acceptable to both the Jones Inlet (ebb tidal delta), the alignment of the Jones Inlet o, n e and te al e et Town, NYSDEC and the Federal government. navigation channel, the trapping of sand by the east jetty and updrift transport toward Jones Inlet. 3.8.3 Gilgo Beach Segment The east jetty at Jones Inlet, which was completed in 1959, was 3.8.3.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures: constructed by the Federal Government to stabilize the inlet and The Gilgo Beach segment includes the middle section of Jones reduce shoaling in its entrance. Prior to the construction of the Island from the eastern end of parking field #6 at Jones Beach Federal jetty, the inlet was migrating to the west and was variable State Park up to, but not including, the Town of Babylon bathing in width. Navigation within the natural channel of the inlet was facilities at Cedar Beach and Overlook. Although this entire limited due to the ocean bar traversing the entrance at 7 feet stretch of barrier beach is publicly owned, it is not heavily below MLW. The inlet has stabilized and not moved further west developed with beach facilities except for the Town of Oyster as a result of the construction of the east jetty. The trapping Bay (Tobay) facility and the Town of Babylon beach and boat capacity of the jetty was estimated to be 7,000,000 cubic yards. basin at Gilgo. Tobay and Gilgo Beach have a parking lot Using a linear regression analysis of past trends, the Corps of capacity of approximately 2,500 and 500 parking spaces, Engineers (COE) estimated that the jetty was fully impounded respectively. Both town beach facilities have parking lots lo- with sand by the end of 1985, and from that time on the inlet cated north of Ocean Parkway with an underpass providing navigation channel shoaled at a rate of approximately 165,000 pedestrian access to the ocean shorefront. No buildings or cubic yards per year. COE records show that the predominant shore protection structures are situated in this segment seaward location of the shoal was at the southern end of the channel near of Ocean Parkway, except for the recently constructed Tobay the seaward end of the east jetty. Beach pavilion. The COE has maintained the navigation channel on an annual All along the back bay area of Jones Island are extensive tidal basis and even more frequently. The portion of the channel wetlands as well as numerous tidal wetland islands in Oyster CHAP 3-15 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM "TABLE 3-3. Bay and Great South Bay. Dune formations and beachfront are the predominant natural features along the Jones Island Pay Quantity and Disposal Area for Maintenance Dredging oceanfront. Of note in this segment are Cedar Beach and Tobay of the Jones Inlet Federal Navigation Channel. Beach Sanctuary which are relatively large breeding/nesting PAY QUANTITY AND DISPOSAL AREA areas of colonial waterbirds, especially terns and piping plovers. Fiscal Year Offshore Beach Upland Sidecasted A portion of Jones Island and some adjacent bay islands contain the residentially developed communities of West Gilgo Beach, 1960 54,700 Gilgo Beach, Oak Beach, Oak Island and Captree Island. The 1961 132,100 communities of West Gilgo and Gilgo Beach are located in the 1962 54,200 Gilgo Beach segment, while Oak Beach lies in the Fire Island 1963 (1) Inlet segment. The structures in these communities are privately 1964 150,600 owned, but are located on land leased from the Town of Babylon. 1965 44,900 In three of these areas (West Gilgo Beach, Oak Island and a 1966 (2) portion of Oak Beach) homeowner associations lease all or large 1967 portions of the communities from the Town of Babylon. The 1968 homeowner associations, in turn, have leased parcels to in- 1969 dividuals who have subsequently constructed single family 1970 173,500 homes. 1971 The Town has leased property on the barrier island within these 1972 158,100 195,500 communities since the late 1800s. In the mid-1i 970s the Town 1973 453,500 renewed the leases on the existing barrier and bay island 1974 166,200 6,400 residential lots for a period of 25 years. Although the current 1975 90,700 50,000 leases do not expire until the turn of the century, the Town is now 1976 34,800 16,300 considering new long-term leases (possibly for 35 years), effec- 1977 22,300 56,400 tive from date of agreement, not necessarily when the leases 1978 152,400 47,000 expire. 1979 199,100 1980 156,931 It is important to note that all of the development on the barrier 1981 island is located entirely in the V zone as defined by FEMA and 1982 93,478 much of the development pre-dates floodplain management 1983 regulations required of communities participating in the National 1984 Flood Insurance Program. Hence, development in the wave 1985 196,880 velocity zone (V zone) can be subject to damage not only from 1986 stillwater flooding, but also from wave action. 1987 449,000 Of the 418 residential structures located on the barrier and bay 1988 islands in the Town of Babylon, 246 (59%) are used on a 1989 seasonal basis according to the 1980 Census. The 1960 Cen- 1990 (3) sus data list 351 of the 402 homes (87%) on the barrier and bay islands in the Town of Babylon as seasonal. Conversion of Totals 1,732,000 1,051,389 195,500 176,100 seasonal dwellings to year-round residences on town-owned Percentotal Vof 55% 33% 6% land has been on the rise and can be expected to continue considering the existence of year-round utility service and (1)Channel realigned - 331,371 cubic yards dredged and placed on vehicular access to the mainland via nearby bridge access. beach east of inlet. The Town of Babylon Dept. of Environmental Control (TOBDEC) (2)Insufficient data. conducted a survey of the town-owned vacant lots on the barrier and bay island in December of 1988 to determine their suitability (3)Projection for FY 1990 - 300,000 cubic yards to be dredged and for development (Town of Babylon Dept. of Environmental Con- disposed of at the Town of Hempstead beach. trol 1988). None of the 322 vacant lots on the barrier and bay Source:Campbell, Thomas J. et al. (1983) and islands were considered suitable for habitation due to the poten- Thomas M. Creamer pers. comm. tial for loss of life and damage to structures from a major storm. However, TOBDEC identified a total of 18 vacant lots at West CHAP 3-16 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-8 -Erodedportion of Gilgo Beach, July 1989 Id~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:' Ax~~~ a FIGURE 3 9 - Gilgo Beach, March 1973. View looking west with Gilgo pavilion in background Photo courtesy of LISPC CHAP 3-17 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-10 -Tobay Beach, May 1989. Recently reconstructedpavilion located seaward of Ocean Parkway FIGURE 3-11 - Jones Beach State Park, December 1974. Erosion and subsequent abandonment of Parking Field #9 Photo courtesy of LISPC CHAP 3-18 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Gilgo Beach and Oak Beach (west end) where impacts from existing inlets, and additional shore erosion problems (downdrift construction were considered minor. of any newly formed inlets). 3.8.3.2 Land Use Plan Goals: Although this entire segment is The 108" diameter outfall pipe from the Cedar Creek STP at publicly owned, the land use plan shows some change from Seaford crosses the barrier island between Zachs Bay and existing land use conditions at West Gilgo and Gilgo Beach. The Tobay and extends 2.5 miles offshore. The Cedar Creek STP Town of Babylon should phase out all leases on town-owned service area contains over one-half million residents in property on the barrier and bay islands. Consideration should southeastern Nassau County and currently treats sewage also be given to government acqusition of structures situated on amounting to 55 mgd. The STP is now being upgraded to handle leased land based on fair market value. Fair market value should a design flow of 76 mgd projected for the year 2005. At the also reflect relocation costs. Government should not encourage present time, the top of the outfall pipe lies 8 feet below the sand residential occupancy within the Coastal High Risk Zone for the at the surf zone and does not appear to be threatened by coastal following reasons: erosion. The top of the 72" diameter outfall pipe from the * potential for loss of life and damage to structures from Southwest Sewer District STP, however, has only 2-3 feet of occurrence of severe storm events (leaseholder sand cover in the surf zone and, as a result, the County of Suffolk development on Jones barrier island is located in the V plans to undertake a construction project in the fall of 1990 to zone and thus subject to damage not only from protect the outfall from further beach erosion. The Dept. of stillwater flooding, but also from wave action) Public Works intends to install sheet steel bulkheading on both * the barrier island is an inherently fragile, dynamic sides of the pipe and cover the pipe with a concrete cap (Edward landform Davida pers. comm.). The protective measure will cover ap- * possible contamination of glacial aquifer and surface proximately 700 feet of pipe from the dunes seaward. The outfall water from on-site waste disposal systems pipe extends 2.5 miles offshore from the barrier beach and was * damage to leaseholder property from severe storm constructed in 1982 at a cost of $41 million. The Southwest events could increase cost to the public for various Sewer District covers portions of Babylon, Islip and Huntington, forms of disaster assistance. and the STP is designed to process 30 mgd of sewage for A full discussion of these reasons can be found in LIRPB (1984), approximately 250,000 people. Nearly 80% of the houses in the Town of Babylon DEC (1988), and Town of Babylon DEC (1989). SWSD are now connected to the STP After the phase-out of the leases and the removal of the struc- Ocean Parkway connects with the Robert Moses Causeway, tures, the Town could provide facilities for additional public Wantagh, Meadowbrook and Loop Parkways and provides recreational use and implement programs for natural resource beach users direct vehicular access from either Nassau or protection where appropriate. Suffolk County to any of the south shore beach facilities from Jones Beach State Park to Robert Moses State Park. Since the The State and towns of Oyster Bay and Babylon should maintain Jones Beach State to Robert Moses State ark. Since the removal of the tolls on the parkways leading to Ocean Parkway existing open space and recreational facilities atTobay and Gilgo some years ago, Ocean Parkway has also served as an alter- Beaches. Should the newly constructed ocean beach pavilion nate route for commuters who, in the absence of Ocean at Tobay be lost to erosion and/or storm damage, reconstruction Parkway, would probably resort to using Southern State of a new pavilion should not occur south of Ocean Parkway. Parkway. If the Jones Beach barrier island were allowed to 3.8.3.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: Maintain the loca- erode to the point where Ocean Parkway becomes severed, not tion of the shoreline i.e, land/sea interface. only will beach access be impacted, but commuters using Ocean Parkway would have to use alternate, congested routes such as 3.8.3.4 Policy Justification: The fixed location of Ocean SouthernStateParkway. LISPC,NYSDOTandNYSDEChave Parkway, its proximity to the eroding ocean beach, and the been trying to prevent Ocean Parkway. LISPC NYSDOT abeing undermined narrowness of the barrier island preclude any retreat option for from erosion and, as a res ve spent $1.7 million over the from erosion and, as a result, have spent $1.7 million over the this segment of shoreline. The location of two functioning last several years on emergency measures to ensure the in- sewage treatment plant outfall pipes, which traverse this seg- o ea ment of barrier island, in addition to the above mentioned tegrty of Ocean Parkway. reasons dictate that the continuity of the barrier beach be 3.8.3.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: The most maintained andthatthe ocean shoreline not be allowed to retreat preferred approach to the beach erosion problems in this seg- to the point where it threatens to undermine Ocean Parkway or ment is periodic beach nourishment and dune building utilizing the integrity of the STP outfall pipe(s). It is necessary to maintain sand bypassed from Fire Island Inlet. The need for bypassing the continuity of the Jones Beach barrier island not only for the sand from Fire Island Inlet to maintain the beaches in this area operation of Ocean Parkway, but also to prevent flooding of the was also identified by other investigators (Morton et al. 1986) mainland, disruption of the longshore transport of sand, un- based on detailed survey studies of the area. The materials desirable salinity changes in the bay, increased shoaling at should be placed on the beach far enough west to prevent it from being transported back into the inlet by local wave refraction CHAP 3-19 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM patterns associated with shoaling at the inlet. Continued The entrance to Fire Island Inlet is the site of two large coastal monitoring of the fill operations and beach behavior should be structures built by the Federal government. The jetty con- done to better define estimates of the actual amount of material structed at Democrat Point, Fire Island in 1940-1941 success- that should be bypassed to provide protection. It is anticipated fully halted the historical westward shift of the inlet entrance for that the beach to the west of the inlet in 1990-1991 by NYSDEC approximately a decade. Foroveracentury priorto construction and CDE and should cover the outfall pipes. of the jetty, the inlet entrance had migrated westward at a rate The Ocean Parkway and the two sewage outf ails that cross the in excess of 200 feet per year. In response to the severe erosion beach in this area are of particular concern. If beach nourish- at Oak Beach resulting from tidal currents, the COE constructed ment associated with bypassing is not implemented, relocation a 1/2 mile closure dike (now known as the Sore Thumb) in 1959 or shore hardening may be required if the parkway is to be across the channel adjacent to Oak Beach. A series of short maintained. If nothing is done, debris from the collapse of the groins were also constructed along the Oak Beach shoreline. road could affect the beach in much the same manner as a shore The Sore Thumb has successfully alleviated the severe tidal hardening structure. Any alternative involving abandonment or scour along the shore of Oak Beach, but the sand dike had to relocation of the parkway should also incorporate provisions for be revetted in late 1960 (Galvin 1985; Kassner and Black 1983). the removal of concrete debris. Structural solutions involving 3.8.4.2 Land Use Plan Goals: Although this entire segment is sheet piling and armoring would most likely be necessary to publicly owned, the land use plan shows some change from ensure the protection and integrity of the SWSD outfall pipe in existing land use conditions at Oak Beach. It is recommended the absence of regularly implemented beach nourishment that the Town of Babylon phase out all leases on town-owned projects. If this structure became exposed due to continued property on the barrier and bay islands. After the phase-out of erosion of the beach it would tend to act as a groin. Additional the leases and the removal of the structures, the Town could beach fill would be needed to minimize potential adverse im- provide facilities for additional public recreational use and imple- pacts. The fill would have to extend over a substantial portion ment programs for natural resource protection where ap- of this section of shoreline to be effective, perhaps 1 to 1.5 miles, propriate. and would require periodic renourishment. The State and the town of Babylon should maintain existing 3.8.4 Fire Island Inlet Segment recreational facilities at Cedar Beach, Overlook Beach, Cedar 3.8.4.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures: Beach Boat Basin, Oak Beach, Captree State Park and Robert The Fire Island Inlet segment covers the eastern end of Jones Moses State Park. Beach barrier island and the western end of Fire Island. This 3.8.4.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: segment is all publicly owned and contains a number of recrea- tional facilities owned and operated by the Town of Babylon � Maintain the location of the shoreline, i.e.,land/sea in- (Cedar Beach, Overlook Beach, Cedar Beach Boat Basin and terface. Oak Beach), N.Y.S. (Captree State Park Boat Basin and Robert Maintain adequate beaches for recreation activities. Moses State Park) and the Federal government (that portion of 3.8.4.4 Policy Justification: Similar to the Gilgo Beach seg- FINS containing the Fire Island Lighthouse). Similar to the ment, the fixed location of Ocean Parkway and the Robert preceding coastal segment, the residential community of Oak Moses Causeway bridge, the proximity of Ocean Parkway to the Beach and two commercial establishments are privately owned, shoreline at Oak Beach, and the narrowness of the barrier island but exist in this coastal segment on land leased from the Town at Oak Beach preclude any retreat option for this coastal seg- of Babylon. (See section 3.8.3.1 for description of barrier beach ment. It is necessary to protect the large public investment in and bay island leases.) infrastructure that allows for the heavy usage of both Town and The Robert Moses Causeway provides vehicular access from State recreational facilities located on the barrier islands. As the mainland to the Town of Babylon and LISPC recreational mentioned in the Gilgo Beach segment, a break in Ocean facilities within this coastal segment. The Town of Babylon Parkway will not only impact beach users, but also commuters. recreational facilities within this segment have a combined park- It is necessary to maintain the continuity of the barrier island for ing lot capacity of 1,700 parking spaces. The four large parking the operation of Ocean Parkway and Robert Moses State Park, fields at Robert Moses State Park provide automobile parking but also to prevent flooding of the mainland, disruption of the spaces to accommodate the 3 million people who visit the park longshore transport of sand, undesirable salinity changes in the each year. In this segment there are a number of large tidal Great South Bay, increased shoaling at Fire Island Inlet, and wetland islands in Great South Bay as well as tidal wetlands additional shore erosion problems (downdrift of any newly along the back bay areas of Jones Island and Fire Island. The formed inlets). predominant natural features found along the ocean shoreline 3.8.4.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: The recom- of both Jones and Fire Island are dune formations and mended approach to the beach erosion problems in this seg- beachfront. ment is periodic sand bypassing at the inlet with beach CHAP 3-20 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-12 - Overlook Beach, July 1989. Excessive accretion of sand and ponding rendered beach unsafe for bathers FIGURE 3-13 - Fire Island Inlet, July 1989. Accretion of sand at Democrat Point and shoaling in Inlet CHAP 3-21 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM nourishment for the shoreline west of the inlet. Although it may munities provide lifeguard protection along their oceanfront and be more economical to facilitate routine bypassing operations a few also provide this service for bay bathing activities as well. by using a system of breakwaters to form an impoundment area, The most common beach stabilization measure employed in this such a determination would require a more in-depth analysis of th e ueoswfnitorpidln sd in the relatively complicated inlet system and site-specific condi- segment is th use of snow fencing to trap windblown sand in an attempt to enhance or create dunes. The Village of Ocean tions. Much of the information needed to perform such an Beah has constructed two small groins and has created dunes analysis is contained in reports prepared by the U.S. Army Bahhscntutdtosalgon n a rae ue analysis is contained in reports prepared by the U.S. Army using unsightly concrete rubble as core material. Some com- Corps of Engineers for this area. munities have sought permits to scrape sand off the summer Similar to the situation at Jones Inlet, the portion of shoreline berm and use it to create dunes. immediately updrift of Fire Island Inlet appears to be accreting 3.8.5.2 Land Use Plan Goals: The land use plan for this based on the available long-term shoreline change data. As a segment rec ognize s t he presence of single family, seasonally resut, o acionis rquied fr tis aea t ths tmesegment recognizes the presence of single family, seasonally result, no action is required for this area at this time. used dwelling units, but also recognizes the hazards and large used dwelling units, but also recognizes the hazards and large The structural failure of the Sore Thumb revetted sand dike has potential liabilities faced by all units of government due to coastal raised the question whether the coastal structure should be occupancy. Therefore, the long-term land use plan seeks to removed or restored. It appears that removal would reduce phase out occupancy of Fire Island in the event that dwelling sand transport to the west, creating a negative impact on units are destroyed as a result of erosion and/or severe storms. downdrift beaches. Given the uncertainty of the impacts, This is in accord with recommendations for the Coastal High removal may be worse than restoration. The impact of removal Risk Zone discussed in section 3.5. Government should not or restoration on shoreline stability should be assessed through intervene to protect or otherwise enhance this occupancy. application of suitable hydrographic/sediment transport models. Government intervention is warranted only when the continuity Erosion at Oak Beach is current induced; the bypassing of sand of the barrier island is threatened. Thus, another goal for this at Fire Island Inlet will not exacerbate this condition. While the segment is to maintain the continuity of the barrier. deposition of massive concrete rubble along the shore at Oak 3.8.5.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: Although the ul- Beach provides some level of protection, an engineered shore timate goal is to phase out development on the Fire Island, it is hardening structure would provide both a higher level of protec- anticipated that existing residents may request permits for coas- tion and aesthetic benefits as well. tal erosion measures to protect their property. Therefore, an appropriate coastal hazard planning policy for this coastal seg- .3.8.5 Ocean Beach Segment ment is to emphasize regulation of private activity as the primary 3.8.5.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures: means for protecting structures and coastal features. Several This Segment includes Kismet, the Village of Saltaire, Fair communities in this segment have requested permits -for such Harbor, Lonelyville, Atlantique, Robbins Rest, Corneille Estates, erosion control measures as beach scraping, installation of Village of Ocean Beach, Seaview, Ocean Bay Park and Point seascape and construction of dunes consisting of a concrete O'Woods. The primary land use in these communities is rubble core. Government agencies must be in a position to residential at a density ranging from 5-10 dwelling units per acre. properly regulate these activities based upon a better under- The vast majority of residences in these communities is used standing of the causes and effects of observed shoreline be- only during the summer vacation season. Indeed, according to havior. An adequate understanding of the coastal processes the 1980 census, the year-round population of all Fire Island and shoreline responses is essential for addressing a number communities is approximately 500 people. However, it is es- of critical questions that affect the selection of management cot imated that the summer resident population swells to ap- options in different areas. Reliable estimates of such factors as timated that the summer resident population swells to ap- thersoariksomvunablyadteexcedege proximately 21,600. It should also be noted that municipal the erosional risk, storm vulnerability and the expected degree of recovery after an erosional event for different areas are investment in infrastructure is minimal since vehicle use is essential components of any coastal erosion management pro- severely restricted by permit. Access to the communities is essential components of any coastal erosion management pro- gram. gained via ferry service or private boat. Boardwalks link residen- ces to one another and the beach. The second policy applicable to this segment relates to the creation of new inlets by erosional forces or severe storm events. Although this segment is primarily developed, theNational Park It is imperative that the existence and continuity of the barrier Service owns several naturally vegetated ocean to bay strips of island be maintained. It will be necessary to closely monitor land. They are located within the hamlet of Kismet and east of weak points in the barrier to prevent the opening of a new inlet. Atlantique. Wetlands exist adjacent to Clam Pond, a portion of It will also be necessary to close a new inlet as soon as possible, which is owned by the Village of Saltaire. The Town of Islip owns if it does not close naturally. and maintains a 184'slip marina and beach facility at Atlantique. Both the Village of Ocean Beach and Saltaire own property for 3.8.5.4 Policy Justification: Development located on barriers Birecreational activities within their boundaries Most com- will be subject to the full force of severe storm events. Indeed, recreational activities within their boundaries. Most corn-3-22 CHAP 3-22 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-14 - Village of Ocean Beach, June 1989. Partially constructed rubble-core dunes FIGURE 3-15 - Dunewood, June 1989. Lack of protective dune CHAP 3-23 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM major losses have been associated with hurricanes and north- posed iand inhibit sand transport patterns to the detriment of east storms in the last 50 years (Long Island Regional Planning downdrift property owners. Board 1984). Residential occupancy of the barrier will probably The policy of reliance on regulation of private activity leads to result in increased requests for government aid to stabilize the the question, 'What private or local community erosion control shoreline as structures become threatened. efforts would result in the greatest protection for oceanfront It is necessary to maintain the existence and continuity of the dwellings andyet minimize adverse downdrift impacts?" Dune barrier for several reasons. First, a new inlet will cause sand to creation, possibly utilizing the technique employed by the Town be lost from the littoral system causing adverse downdrift im- of Hempstead in which snow fencing is placed in a Y formation, pacts. Second, a new inlet may cause shoaling in existing inlets; and the trapped sand is planted with beach grass the following and, third, a new inlet may increase bay salinity levels, thus spring, could be initiated. This technique, however, requires causing adverse environmental impacts on the hard clam adequate beach width especially if vehicles are going to con- fishery. tinue to be given permits to drive on the beach face. It is 3.8.5.5 Preferred Erosion Management tions: Erosion problematical whether this technique can be implemented given 3.8.5.5 Preferred Erosion Management options: Erosion teofsao eiua ec rfi nti ra management in this shoreline segment should be limited to the off-season vehicular beach traffic in this area. beach nourishment and dune building. The density of develop- In general, soft solutions should be considered the primary ment has precluded the implementation of structure relocation response; groins and shore parallel structures should be used and/or the enforcement of setback requirements. only in those situations where the continuity of the barrier is threatened. Homeowners wishing to provide additional protec- A relatively high erosion rate was identified in this segment. tion formtheir structures should consider meeting current flood Profile data taken between 1955 and 1979 indicate large sand insurance program standards concerning elevation on pilings. volume losses in the area offshore of this segment, probably the Revetments, if permitted at all, should be built at the most result of littoral forces eroding relict ebb tidal delta deposits landward position possible, to minimize exposure and for storm associated with Fire Island Inlet when it was located several associated with Fire Island Inlet when it was located several protection purposes (rather than as a technique for dealing with miles to the east of its current location. As this source of sand chronic erosion). Before government considers approval of is depleted, erosion'rates along this segment may increase permits for the construction of process altering or shore parallel rapidly in the future. structures it will be necessary to understand 'the causes and Identification of the most effective alternative will require a effects of observed shoreline behavior. This is necessary in detailed cost-benefit analysis, and an answer to a more fun- order to estimate the effectiveness and potential impacts of any damental question: "Why is there apparently a high erosion rate proposed solution. here?" Although the problem may be alleviated by better Beach scraping and replacement of sand in front of oceanfront management of other coastal compartments, the causes of homes has been conducted at some Fire Island locations. This erosion and the physical processes operating at the site need to activity removes sand from the active littoral zone and places it be diagnosed to determine the exact nature of the problem and in temporary storage, and can result in steepening of the beach potential means for addressing it. -profile. If conducted on a community-wide basis, the approach This segment suffers from the lack of a protective dune system offers a small degree of temporary protection until the con- in some communities. In an attempt to create dunes, the Village structed dune is removed by storm wave attack. If the down- of Ocean Beach has deposited concrete rubble seaward of the and updrift areas can withstand the beach loss as a result of oceanfront homes, covered the rubble with sand and planted shoreline adjustment, then this approach is acceptable. Super- beach grass on the piles of sand. The NYS Dept. of Environ- vision and monitoring of this activity are required. mental Conservation issued a permit for this activity with the Another coastal erosion problem in this segment relates to the condition that the rubble be encased in wire fencing. Fire Island two groins located in the Village of Ocean Beach. These groins National Seashore personnel objected to this activity because it have impacts on adjacent beaches; the zone of influence can is incompatible with the Fire Island National Seashore Land extend more than four to five times the length of the groins (250 Protection Plan which states: ft.) in both the up- and downdrift directions. Beaches near the ...lf the dune is to provide any protection from storms, groins may now be in equilibrium. The communities of Robbins it must be maintained in a natural condition with Rest, Corneille Estates and Seaview are found in an area that native vegetation. is experiencing an erosion trend, which may be due to the fact Seashore personnel indicated that hard core dunes are merely that a relict ebb tidal delta offshore is no longer supplying sand Seashore personnel indicated that hard core dunes are merely t bah ri eol ud t tr i suton shore hardening structures. Such structures if located on an to the beach. Groin removal would not alter this situation. eroding beach may, after a severe storm event, become ex- CHAP 3-24 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 3.8.6 Central Fire Island Segment environmental conditions in the bay (i.e. water circulation, shoal- ing, salinity and water temperatures) and increased downdrift 3.8.6.1.There are five developed, seasonally used communities in S tructures: erosion due to the disruption of the longshore transport of sand. There arline segment (Cherry Grove, Fire Island Pines, Water These types of changes would probably be substantial and could shoreline segment (Cherry Grove, Fire Island Pines, Water severely affect the biological resources and human uses of the Island, Blue Pt. Beach and Davis Park). Moderate density (5-10 d.u./acre) residential land use is the primary land use in these present bay environment (including the mainland shoreline), as communities. In contrast to the Ocean Beach segment, the well as the barrier island and the existing stabilized inlets. communities located in the Central Fire Island segment are Because of the nature and magnitude of the associated impacts, separated by areas of open space owned by the National Park the occurrence of new inlets would be unacceptable in terms of Service. In fact, the Fire Island National Seashore has two areas the present uses of the mainland shoreline, bay and barrier that are open to the public. One is Sunken Forest, a nature island. Management programs should incorporate provisions sanctuary; and the other is Sailor's Haven, a public marina and for preventing the formation of new inlets and for closing new beach facility. Public access to the beach is achieved via ferry from the mainland to the communities in addition to two town Specific areas particularly susceptibleto breaching (as indicated parks, including an 80 slip Town of Islip marina and beach facility by such factors as island width, elevation, dune morphology, and at Barrett Beach and a 214 slip Town of Brookhaven marina and back bay bathymetry) should be identified. Because the beach facility at Davis Park. presence of wetlands on the bay side of the barrier appears to inhibit inlet breaching, the creation of wetlands in areas ex- The most common beach stabilization measure employed in this segment is the use of snow fencing to trap windblown sand in periencing bay side erosion is one approach to this problem. san attempt to enhance or create dunes. Some communities heusMaterial from bay dredging projects, which usually is not suitable have sought permits to scrape sand off the summer berm and for ocean front beach nourishment, may be used to raise the bay use it to create dunes. The community of Fire Island Pines has bottom up to an elevation that would allow for wetland creation use it to create dunes. The community of Fire Island Pines has installed plastic seaweed in an offshore location in an attempt to along the bay shoreline. Although ocean beach nourishment trap sand to build an offshore bar to dissipate wave action. may not be practical for the entire length of shore, dune building efforts should also be considered to minimize the potential for It is important to note that over one-half of this barrier island breaching. segment is undeveloped. It has predominately maritime shrubland vegetation, fresh and tidal wetlands predomin the back bay ritime The principal coastal erosion problem in this segment is the lack shrubland vegetation, fresh and tidal wetlands in the back bay of a protective dune system in some communities. The policy areas, as well as a double dune system in some locations (e g of a protective dune system in some communities. The policy Sunken Foreas, as well as a double duremaine system in some locations (e.g., of reliance on regulation of private activity leads to the question, Sunken Forest) that have remained intact. "What private or local community erosion control efforts would 3.8.6.2 Land Use Plan Goals: The land use plan goals for this result in the greatest protection for oceanfront dwellings and yet segment are similar to those applicable to the Ocean Beach minimize adverse downdrift impacts?" For the response to this segment. This discussion can be found in section 3.8.5.2. question see the discussion on soft solutions, groins and shore 3.8.6.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: The coastal hazard parallel structures, and beach scraping in section 3.8.5.5. planning policies for this segment are the same as those ap- 3.8.7 Fire Island National Seashore Wilderness Segment plicable to the Ocean Beach segment. This discussion can be found in section 3 8 5 3. 3.8.7.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures: found in section 3.8.5.3. This segment includes the area extending from east of Davis 3.8.6.4 Policy Justification: The policy justification is also the Park to Smith Point County Park. The area is owned almost same as that for the Ocean Beach segment (section 3.8.5.4). exclusively by the National Park Service (NPS) where there are a few residential structures in existence. However, these struc- 3.8.6.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: Because of tures will be removed by the NPS after 1992. There are four the relatively low overall density of development and low, long- term shoreline erosion rate, setback and relocation strategies public access points in this segment: Watch Hill, Bellport Beach (Village facility), Old Inlet and Smith Point. No vehicular access should be pursued. The selection of this approach is predicated is permitted during summer months. Seasonal ferry service is on the assumption that bypassing operations at the inlets to the east would be implemented. provided to Watch Hill and Bellport Beach where lifeguard protection is provided. All recreation activities are of low inten- However, it was also noted that certain areas in this segment sity. Recreational vehicle access to the NPS wilderness area may be susceptible to breaching and inlet formation during west of Smith Point is strictly regulated during off-season storms. As described previously, the formation of new inlets months. The predominant land use category found in this would probably have a number of impacts including: shoaling segment is open space. There are extensive maritime of the stabilized inlets, increased flooding and erosion on the bay shrubland vegetation and dune systems as well as tidal wetlands shoreline due to increased water level elevations, changes in CHAP 3-25 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-16 - Fire Island Pines, June 1989. Note housing and pools in what once was the primary dune line FIGURE 3-17 - Fire Island National Seashore Wilderness Area, July 1989. Dunes up to 25 feet in height and extensive wetland areas CHAP 3-26 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM throughout the segment. There are no shore hardening struc- appears to inhibit inlet breaching, the creation of wetlands in tures employed within in this segment. areas experiencing bay side erosion is one approach to solving 3.8.7.2 Land Use Plan Goals: The land use plan goal for this this problem. Material from bay dredging projects, which usually segment is to retain open space as the predominant land use. is not suitable for oceanfront beach nourishment, may be used to raise the bay bottom up to an elevation that would allow for 3.8.7.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: The coastal hazard wetland creation along the bay shoreline. Although ocean policy applicable to this segment relates to the creation of new beach nourishment may not be practical for the entire length of inlets as a result of erosion or severe storms. It is imperative shore, dune building efforts should also be considered to mini- that the existence and continuity of the barrier island be main- mize the potential for breaching in these areas. tained. Barrier islands protect back bay environments and 3.8. Moriches Inlet Segment development from direct wave attack. Thus, it will be necessary to closely monitor weaknesses in this portion of Fire Island to 3.8.8.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures: prevent the opening of a new inlet. It will also be necessary to The Moriches Inlet segment covers all of Smith Point County close a new inlet as soon as possible should it notclose naturally. Park on the eastern end of Fire Island and all of Cupsogue County Park on the western end of Westhampton Barrier Island. 3.8.7.4 Policy Justification: It is necessary to maintain the existence and continuity of the barrier island for several reasons. Al though the entire segment is owned by the County of Suffolk and dedicated for park purposes, public access is limited to First, a new inlet will cause sand to be lost from the littoral system Smith Point County Park (and Great Gun Beach located within causing adverse downdrift impacts. Second, a new inlet may the confines of the park). The 220 acre Cupsogue County Park, cause shoaling in existing inlets; and, third, a new inlet may which has a beach pavilion and 500 car parking lot, has been increase bay salinity levels thus causing adverse environmental inaccessible to the public since 1984 because of repeated impacts to the Great South Bay hard clam fishery. washovers of Dune Road. Smith Point County Park covers approximately 2,300 acres and annually draws over one-half 3.8.7.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: Because of approximately 2,300 acres and annually draws over one-half million bathing beach visitors. The family campgrounds and the very low overall density of development limited primarily to t bah ing accutor a il atos a outer beach camping account for additional visitations to the recreation facilities, and the low, long-term shoreline erosion rates in this segment, the recommended coastal erosion park. The 5,000 car parking lot at Smith Point County Park is rates in this segment, the recommended coastal erosion accessible via Smith Point Bridge/William Floyd Parkway. management option is for very limited government intervention. T ement tion is forverlited govrnmt itheretion. Travel by 4-wheel drive vehicles between the former Forge River This recommendation is predicated on the assumption that sing reommeationis p cat the assption theeast Coast Guard Station and Moriches Inlet is limited to the Burma bypassing operations at the inlets to the east would be imple- Road because of ocean shoreline erosion. Extensive back bay ~~~~~~~~~~~~~mented. tidal wetlands exist along this segment with a few tidal wetlands However, it was also noted that certain areas in this segment situated within Moriches Bay itself. The dune formations are the may be susceptible to breaching and inlet formation during most dominant natural feature along this relatively undeveloped storms. As described previously, the formation of new inlets oceanfront. would probably have a number of impacts including: shoaling This segment is free of shore protection structureswith the of the stabilized inlets, increased flooding and erosion on the bay shoreline due to increased water level elevations, changes in exception of the east and west jetties at Moriches Inlet, which shoreline due to increased water level elevations, changes in were reconstructed in 1987 and 1988, respectively, as a result environmental conditions in the bay (i.e. water circulation, shoal- of the implementation of Mo rich es Inlet Navigation Project. The of the implementation of Moriches Inlet Navigation Project. The ing, salinity and water temperatures) and increased downdrift project was authorized by Congress under the River and Harbor project was authorized by Congress under the River and Harbor erosion due to the disruption of the longshore transport of sand. Act of 1960. These types of changes would probably be substantial and could severely affect the biological resources and human uses of the In January 1980, a coastal storm caused a break in the barrier present back bay environment, (including the mainland island at Cupsogue County Park approximately 1000'east of the shoreline) as well as the barrier island and the existing stabilized Moriches Inlet jetties. Under a COE Emergency Action, the inlets. The occurrence of new inlets would most likely be unac- 2,600' breach in the barrier island was repaired in February 1981 ceptable in terms of the present uses of the mainland shoreline, with 1.2 million cubic yards of sandfill. The repair of the breach bay and barrier island. Management programs should incor- was a major concern of Suffolk County, and to help forestall the porate provisions for preventing the formation of new inlets and occurrence of a similar event in the future, the County elected for closing new ones as quickly as possible. to participate with the State of New York in the construction of a rock revetment in 1981-1982 on the bayside of the closure area, In this segment, a specific area particularly susceptible to beginning at the east jetty of Moriches Inlet and extending 1600' breaching (as indicated by such factors as island width, eleva- eastward. tion, dune morphology, and back bay bathymetry) is Old Inlet. Because the presence of wetlands on the bay side of the barrier CHAP 3-27 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-18 -Moriches Inlet, July 1989. Note scour area immediately west of the Inlet FIGURE 3-19 - Cupsogue County Park, July 1989. Facility is currently inaccessible due to severe erosion west of the Westhampton Beach groin field CHAP 3-28 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIUE32 mthPitCut arJl199Noednbowut FIGURE 3-21 - Smith Point County Park, July 1989. Looking east at former site of Forge River Coast Guard Station. Note extremely low dune profile and close proximity of Ocean and Bay CHAP 3-29 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 3.8.8.2 Land Use Plan Goals: The land use plan calls for by dredging a cut across the barrier island between the jetties. recreational use and maintenance of existing facilities at Smith Since 1953, both inlets have been open and jettied. At both Point and Cupsogue Beach County Parks. Vehicular access to inlets the jetties are approximately parallel and spaced about Cupsogue Beach via Dune Road should be re-established. 800' apart (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1983). 3.8.8.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: Maintain existence The County of Suffolk has been heavily involved in the stabiliza- and continuity of barrier islands. tion of Moriches Inlet and the maintenance of the shoreline on 3.8.8.4 Policy Justification: The two recreational facilities the barrier beach in the vicinity of the inlet. Table 3-4 illustrates comprising this segment are the only active bathing beach that since 1934, Suffolk County was directly involved in 12 facilities on the Atlantic Ocean that are owned and operated by construction and dredging projects in the inlet area. Over 2.3 Suffolk County. Continuity of the barrier islands with provision million cubic yards of material were dredged from the inlet and for vehicular access to the County parks is essential for the deposited on adjacent beaches. In addition to the projects maintenance and resumption of recreational activity at Smith shown in Table 3-4, Suffolk County cooperated with NYS and Point and Cupsogue Beach County Parks, respectively. Be- the Federal government in 1980 in the execution of an $11 million sides the recreational aspect, it is necessary to maintain the emergency project for closure of the breach flanking the east existence and continuity of the barrier island to mitigate flooding jetty of the inlet. In 1981-82, the County also participated with NYS in the construction of a 1,600' rock revetment at the site of of the mainland (which Is in close proximity along Narrow Bay), the breach. The County contribution for the closure of the disruption of the longshore transport of sand, undesirable salinity changes in Moriches Bay, increased shoaling at Moriches Inlet, and additional shore erosion problems (downdrift TABLE 3-4 of any newly formed inlets). Suffolk County Dredging and Construction Projects at 3.8.8.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: Sand Moriches Inlet. bypassing at Moriches Inlet is the most preferred approach for County addressing shoreline erosion problems at Smith Point County Year Activity Expenditure Park west of the inlet. Due to the narrow width of the barrier island and the lack of protective dunes and tidal wetlands at 1931 Moriches Inlet opened. certain locations, a number of potential overwash sites exist at 1934 Land crane evacuation at inlet. $1,000 Smith Point County Park, particularly around the site of the 1947 Revetment construction west side, former Forge River Coast Guard Station located south of the and dredging. 200,000 William Floyd Estate. Dune building, as well as marsh creation 1952 Construction of east jetty. 307,517 on the bay side, can be used to minimize the potential for new 1952 Construction of west jetty. 412,140 inlets in areas susceptible to breaching. If monitoring indicates 1953 Channel dredging; 747,310 cu. yds that additional action is necessary, supplemental beach nourish- spoiled on east side of inlet. 190,442 ment in conjunction with relocation of threatened park buildings 1954 Extension of both jetties. 340,000 would be a reasonable approach for this area. (bid price) Historical shoreline data show that the beach west of Moriches 1958 Channel dredging; 365,715 cu. yds. Inlet has experienced severe erosion. The quantity of sand lost spoiled on east side. 141,897 from the beach in recent time is about equal to the net longshore 1966 Channel dredging, northwest cut; transport rate, estimated at 350,000 cubic yards per year. Sand 677,850 cu. yds. spoiled on west side. 464,367 bypassing at Moriches Inlet will not restore the volume of sand 1969 Channel dredging; 150,957 cu. yds. that has been lost to the beach, but will help to stabilize the spoiled on east side. 101,896 existing configuration of the shoreline. 1973 Channel dredging; 138,315 cu. yds. spoiled on east side. 91,565 Moriches Inlet, historically, has been a temporary coastal fea- 1978 Channel dredging; 218,478 cu. yds. ture. Just prior to 1931, neither Moriches nor Shinnecock Inlets (113,606 spoiled at Pikes Beach; existed. A storm opened Moriches Inlet in 1931 and a hurricane 104,862 cu. yds. spoiled on east opened Shinnecock Inlet in 1938. Moriches Inlet closed natural- side of inlet). 594,310 ly in 1951, so during the period 1938 to 1951, both inlets were 1987 Emergency fill of scour area just open and unjettied. By 1953, two jetties were built at Shin- east of rock revetment; 20,000 cu. yds. 57,200 necock Inlet and two jetties were built across the barrier island near the location where Moriches Inlet was closed in 1951. Source:Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works, Yaphank, New York. From 1951 to 1953, therefore, Shinnecock Inlet was open and Moriches Inletwas closed. In 1953 Moriches Inletwas reopened CHAP 3-30 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM breach and the construction of the rock revetment was ap- was impacted again by the northeast storms of February 1978 proximately $1 million and $0.6 million, respectively, and March 1984. Records kept by the Office of the Fire Marshall, In addition to the recent reconstruction of the jetties at Moriches Town of Southampton, show that 18 houses have been destroyed since 20 December 1982, and about 30 additional Inlet, the Moriches Inlet Navigation Project will provide for the destroyed since 20 December 1982, and about 30 additional dredging of a navigation channel through the inlet in the spring houses, located in extremely vulnerable locations, are now dredging of a navigation channel through thinle uninhabitable. There have been frequent breaches and uninhabitable. There have been frequent breaches and of 1990. Maintenance of the navigation channel will include washovers along this section, leaving the Town of Southampton sand bypassing at the inlet at scheduled intervals. Part of the wit h large road maintenance and security expenditures. In project maintenance costs will cover a monitoring program toa itin a cestCu ge C uty Penered ascertain the rate of shoaling in the inlet, the results of which will addition, access to Cupsogue County Park has been severed. be utilized to determine the frequency and volume of future A summary of beach erosion control projects can be found in be utilized to determine the frequency and volume of future Tbe35 Table 3-5. dredging operations in the inlet. The bypassed sand will be deposited approximately one mile west of the inlet, beyond the 3.8.9.2 Land Use Plan: The long-term program goal is to shadow effect, in the nearshore zone (16' - 18' depth of water) terminate residential occupancy of Westhampton Beach west of by use of a hopper dredge (Gilbert Nersesian pers. comm.). the westernmost groin to Cupsogue County Park. The section the barrier island immediately east of of barrier between the westernmost groin and the Town of Scouring of the bayside of the barrierislandimmediatelyeastofSouthampton park at Pikes Beach has been regularly over- the rock revetment adjacent to the east jetty at Moriches Inlet t opped and is the most ikely site for a break in the barrier. willcontnueto ocur o te exentwher chanelcurrnts topped and is the most likely site for a break in the barrier. will continue to occur to the extent where channel currents Removal of residential structures will eliminate exposure to impinge on the shoreline. The configuration of the flood tidal rep eated flood losses and cla ims, provide opportunities to ex- delta and bay bottom bathymetry will generally determine the p and repeated flood losses and claims, provide opportunities to ex- delta and bay bottom bathymetry will generally determine the location of the scour area. Scour line growth should be pand recreational facilities and aid government efforts to imple- monitored. Armoring the unprotected bay shoreline will be ment projects designed to maintain the continuity of the barrier mnonitored. Armoring the unprotected bay shoreline will beisadPucseoprvtlowdltsbwenCsgu island. Purchase of privately owned lots between Cupsogue necessary if scouring remains active. County Park and the westernmost groin by government is ad- 3.8.9 Westhampton Beach Segment visable. 3.8.9.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Structures: It is recommended that for the remainder of the Westhampton The principal land use in this shoreline segment is medium Beach segment, redevelopment should not be permitted. This density residential use. Overall segment shoreline length is is in accord with recommendations for the Coastal High Risk approximately 33,000 ft.; of this total, 25,000 ft. (75%) is oc- Zone discussed in section 3.5 It is recommended that post- cupied by medium density residential use; 3,500 ft. (11%) by low storm community redevelopment plans be prepared in advance density residential use; 3,000 ft. (9%) by commercial-recreation to deal with those instances where a severe storm event use; 500 ft. (1%) by open space and recreation use and 1,000 destroys a large portion of Westhampton Beach and government ft. (3%) by high density residential use. There are tidal wetland can neither prevent redevelopment through regulation nor ac- areas interspersed with some residential development along the quire properties because of a lack of financial resources. Such back bay area in this segment and only a few tidal wetland plans will help to ensure that redevelopment will minimize ex- islands exist in Moriches Bay. Significant losses of beach and posure to repeated flood and erosion losses. The Village of dune formations are evident in this segment. Westhampton Beach has zoned almost all of the barrier beach R-1 Residential, which allows for single family dwellings on lots Erosion has been a significant and persistent problem since the of 40,000 square feet. Most residential lots on the barrier beach areawas everly ipactd byflooing urin the1938hur- of 40,000 square feet. Most residential lots on the barrier beach area was severely impacted by flooding during the 1938 hur- ricane. The area also experienced severe flooding during the within the Village are slightly less than 1 acre in size. Motels ricane. The area also experienced severe flooding during theancodmiusestgonhebrerechwhnte March 1962 northeast storm. In response to the shore erosion and condominiums existing on the barrier beach within the and flooding problem, the COE began work on the Fire Island Village are now considered as non-conforming uses by the Inlet to Montauk Point Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Village. Protection Project, which resulted in a two stage construction of 3.8.9.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: The coastal hazard 15 groins located within the Village of Westhampton Beach and planning policy applicable to this coastal segment is to maintain the Town of Southampton. Stage one consisted of a field of 11 the integrity of the barrier recognizing that the location of the groins that was completed in October, 1966. In stage two of the shoreline to be maintained in the critical erosion area remains project, an additional field of 4 groins was built immediately west to be determined. of the 11 groins and completed in November 1970. The original project design included groin stabilization to Moriches Inlet; it 3.8.9.4 Policy Justification: The coastal erosion planning was nt designed for incremental construction. Absent the policies for this segment recognize the extremely fragile condi- otdesign ed forincrementalconstruction.Ab the 7tion of the barrier island west of the westernmost groin. As noted protection provided by the groins, erosion in the 700 and 800 in Tanski and Bokuniewicz (1988) the do nothing approach block portion of Dune Road proceeded at a rapid rate. The area CHAP 3-31 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-22 - Area west of the Westhampton Beach Groin Field, July 1989. Barrier at this point is only 300-500 ft. wide and has been subject to repeated washover FIGURE 3-23 - Westhampton Beach, July 1989. Note severe erosion downdrift of westernmost groin CHAP 3-32 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-24 - Eastern portion of Westhampton Beach groin field, July 1989. N~ote extensive beach width and medium and high density development FIG URE 3-25 - Eastern portion of Westhampton Beach groin field, July 1989. CHAP 3-33 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TABLE 3-5 Westhampton Barrier Island:Shoreline Construction History. Date of Study or Project Authorization Description Area % Complete Cost FEDERAL-U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1.a. Phase 1-Fire Island Inlet to 1960a 11 stone groins constructed in 3.5 miles 100% $6,000,000 Montauk Pt. Beach Erosion 1966; 4 additional groins Control and Hurricane Protection constructed in 1970; 2 million yd of sand used to fill in groin field and rebuild beach b. Phase II- Interim Project at 1977s 4 million yd3 to fill existing 2 miles 0% $50-75 million Westhampton Beach field; 4 million yd3 to nourish (proposed) beach east of western-most (1984 Cost groin-widen beach to 100 ft. Estimate) increase dune to 16 ft. c. Phase III 1977s Beach and dune construction for 12 miles 0% $55-80 million remainder of Island; up to 8 (proposed) additional groins are authorized (1984 Cost Estimate) 2. Emergency Shore Protection 1962i Repair of beach and dune erosion 5 miles 100% $970,000 370,000 yds. of sand fill 3. Moriches Inlet Channel Improvement 1960s Excavate entrance channel, inner 0% $20,000,000 channel, repair existing jetties, (proposed) construct 300 ft. deposition basin, (1984 Cost place dredged sand downdrift of inlet Estimate) 4. Emergency Fill Project 1983i 1600 ft. stone revetment built and 100% $1,500,000 sand filled (70% Fed.) 5. Emergency Shore Protection 1984i Dune Road rebuilt and 125,000 yd3 1.3 miles Anticipated $900,000 used to create dune protection Completion (Anticipated 6/84 Cost) STATE AND LOCAL 1. Emergency Dune Repair 1938i Dune fill by Suffolk County following 100% $180,000 hurricane of 1938; bulkheading on west side of Shinnecock to stabilize inlet 2. Westhampton Beach 1951 i Dune fill and beach grass to close 100% $193,000 inlet formed by storm 3. Westhampton Beach 1958i 380,000 yd3 and 250,000 yd3 of dune 100% $184,300 1967i fill 4. Westhampton Beach 1983i Emergency bulldozing of sand to open 100% $40,000 and maintain Dune Rd. a - authorization date s - study date i - implementation date Source:Appears as Table 3-14 in Long Island Regional Planning Board (1984). CHAP 3-34 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM would decrease the width of the island west of the groins. Southampton, and either vacant or recreational and open space Temporary inlets and massive washovers would drive this por- for those areas between the Villages of Quogue and tion of the island landward during major storms. In addition, as Southampton. the barrier west of the groin field recedes, the land and structures to the east behind the westernmost groins may be threatened Two federally designated Coastal Basegmer Resources System by scouring and flanking around the groins during severe storm units (CBRS) are located in this segmen t he Village Tiana Beach events. This erosion could eventually cause the groins to fail in CBRS unit, which s situated between the Village of Quogue and sequence from west to east. The shifting of the barrier west of the Tiana Beach holding, owned by Suffolk County, encompas- ses about 1.5 miles of ocean shoreline that is characterized as the groin field would lead to breaching and the formation of new primarily vacant. The Southampton CBRS unit, also ap- inlets. In addition, a new inlet would sever vehicular access to primarily vacant. The South, lies eas t of Shinnecock Inlet Cupsogue County Park. proximately 1.5 miles in length, lies east of Shinnecock Inlet within the Village of Southampton, and is now almost fully It is necessary to maintain the location of the barrier for several developed with huge, seasonal homes on lots 2-5 acres in size. reasons. First, a new inlet will cause sand to be lost from the littoral system causing adverse downdrift impacts. Second, a The County of Suffolk has a large undeveloped holding of 475 new inlet may cause shoaling in existing inlets; third, a new inlet acres at Tiana Beach; Town of Southampton bathing beach nemay incrlet may cause bay shoalinity levels thus causing adverse environ- facilities are located to the west and east of the County property. may increase bay salinity levels thus causing adverse environ- The Shinnecock East County Park, approximately 60 acres in mental impacts; and fourth, a new inlet may increase the The Shinnecock East County Park, approximately 60 acres in mental impacts; and fourth, a new inlet may increase the size and located between the inlet and the Village of proablility of mainland flooding. size and located between the inlet and the Village of Southampton, is heavily utilized for camping by those county 3.8.9.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: The groin residents owning off-road vehicles. The Village of Southampton field and its associated downdrift impacts are of primary concern owns a number of ocean beach access points along the barrier in this segment. A more detailed analysis of the situation at spit as well as some wetlands on the bay side of the spit. Westhampton Beach and the options available for dealing with NYSDEC is acquiring most of the remaining privately owned this problem are contained in a separate report by Tanski and wetlands on the barrier spit. There are extensive County-owned Bokuniewicz (1988). Some action is needed to avoid a breach tidal wetlands along the back bay area of the Tiana Beach barrier in the area downdrift of the groin field. Incorporating artificial island, as well as some tidal wetlands interspersed with residen- beach fill'and dune building, in conjunction with a modification ces along the back bay area of the Southampton barrier spit of the groin field in some form, could resolve the erosion problem mentioned above. The predominant natural feature along the at this site. oceanfront of both the Tiana and Southampton barrier beach and Surveys indicate that the groins have trapped approximately 2 spit is the dune formations and associated maritime shrubland million cubic yards of sand in an offshore shoal suggesting that vegetation There are several tidal wetland islands located in artificial bypassing of some of this material could be used to help restore longshore transport and the downdrift beaches. Comn- The home port of the Shinnecock commercial fishing fleet is plete restoration of the downdrift beach to pre-groin field condi- located immediately west of Shinnecock Inlet on the bay side of tions may not be feasible due to the extent of the past erosion, the barrier island. Approximately $1 million of federal and however, a continuous shoreline is necessary. Modification of county funds were spent in 1984 to construct the commercial the groin field to enhance bypassing may be feasible. Attempts fishing dock which accommodates about two dozen commercial to modify these structures would require more detailed studies fishing vessels. to adequately ascertain the potential impacts before this option was employed. Access from the mainland to Dune Road, which runs the entire length of the Westhampton barrier island, is via Jessup Lane Closure of a breach west of the groin field could be accomplished Bridge and Beach Lane Bridge in the Village of Westhampton most effectively and economically if action was taken while the Beach, Post Lane Bridge in the Village of Quogue, and the newly inlet was small. For this reason, a contingency plan for filling constructed Ponquogue Bridge near Shinnecock Inlet, which any breaches in this area should be developed until longer-term cost approximately $12.5 million as of December 1989. Access measures are implemented. to Dune Road east of Shinnecock Inlet is through the Village of 3.8.10 Shinnecock Inlet Segment Southampton. 3.8.10.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection This segment is free of shore protection structures with the Structures: The Shinnecock Inlet segment extends from the exception of the east and west jetties at Shinnecock Inlet, which boundary between the Villages of Westhampton Beach and were constructed in 1953-54. Implementation of the Shin- Quogue to Halsey Neck Lane in the Village of Southampton. necock Inlet Navigation Project in the near future, which was The predominant land use within this segment is seasonal, low authorized by Congress under the River and Harbor Act of 1960, authorized by Congress under the River and Harbor Act of 1960, The predominant land use within this segment is seasonal, low will provide for the rehabilitation of the jetties. density residential development in the Villages of Quogue and CHAP 3-35 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-26 - Shinnecock Inlet, July 1989. Note accretion and erosion on east and west sides of Inlet respectively FIGURE 3-27 - Southampton Barrier Spit, July 1989. Note extensive beach width immediately updrift of Shinnecock Inlet and newly constructed mansions located in CBRA designated area CHAP 3-36 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 3.8.10.2 Land Use Plan Goals: The existing low density analysis would be needed to identify the most effective bypass- residential use in the Villages of Quogue and Southampton ing procedures. remains unchanged in the plan. It is recommended that all of themai un chadevelopnged land north of Dune Road wIt is recommended th ate Vill of Similar to Moriches Inlet, Shinnecock Inlet historically has been the undeveloped land north of Dune Road within the Village of a temporary coastal feature. The County of Suffolk, along with Quogue and stretching eastward to Tiana Beach, in addition to the Town of Southampton, New York State and COE, have been the Town of Southampton, New York State and COE, have been some of the oceanfront land within the Tiana Beach CBRA unit involved in the stabilization of Shinnecock Inlet and the main- and immediately east, be acquired by the public for recreation . . . and opimmediately east, be acquired by the public for reflects an expansion tenance of the shoreline on the barrier beach in the vicinity of and open space purposes. The plan also reflects an expansion the inlet. Table 3-6 lists all of the government projects at of the County-owned docking facilities accommodati ng commer- cial fishing vessels and the establishment of the Okeanos Shinnecocknletsince it openedin1938. marine research facility west of Shinnecock Inlet. Congress recently passed an appropriation bill that included $5.3 million for implementation of the Shinnecock Inlet Naviga- 3.8.10.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: tion Project, which calls for rehabilitation of the jetties and a * Maintain existence and continuity of barrier island and major dredging of Shinnecock Inlet. The entire project is ex- spit. pected to cost $11.8 million. Of that amount, $9.2 million will be * Emphasize regulation of private activity as the primary paid by the Federal Government (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers means for protecting structures and coastal features. 1987). 3.8.10.4 Policy Justification: It is necessary to maintain the Maintenance of the navigation channel will include sand bypass- existence and continuity of the barrier island to mitigate flooding ing at the inlet at scheduled intervals. Part of the project main- of the nearby mainland, disruption of the longshore transport of tenance costs will cover a monitoring program to ascertain the sand, undesirable salinity changes in Shinnecock Bay, in- rate of shoaling in the inlet, the results of which will be utilized creased shoaling at Shinnecock Inlet, and additional shore to determine the frequency and volume of future dredging opera- erosion problems (downdrift of any newly formed inlets). tions in the inlet. It is anticipated that the dredge spoil from this Maintenance of the shoreline position with public money is project will be deposited on the beach west of the inlet, or if in unnecessary where there is minimal government infrastructure the surf zone, at a depth no greater than 8-10 feet. Dredge spoil to be protected. However, that portion of the shoreline immedi- will also be placed at the bay end of the east jetty behind 1,000' ately west of Shinnecock Inlet is experiencing the worst erosion of revetment to be constructed at this location because of a scour within this segment and is also the area with the greatest public problem. investment in infrastructure. Therefore, it will be necessary to Severe erosion immediately west of Shinnecock Inlet threatens maintain the shoreline position between Ponquogue Bridge and access to a publicly-owned commercial fishery dock and other Shinnecock Inlet. private marine commercial uses. With implementation of the Seasonal residences in the Villages of Quogue and Shinnecock Inlet Navigation Project, regularly scheduled sand Southampton are located on parcels of sufficient size to permit bypassing at Shinnecock Inlet will help to alleviate this severe their landward retreat in the event of a receding shoreline. It is erosion condition, which is due to currents and wave diffraction recognized that property owners may wish to protect their at the stabilized inlet. Fill will probably not remain on the beach property, although in doing so, they should not adversely impact for a long period A breakwater and/or short groins to retain coastal processes to the detriment of adjacent or nearby material could be considered at this location as conditions shoreline areas. It is anticipated that property owners within this dictate. shoreline segment will request permits for the construction of The available data indicates that the porticn of the shoreline east erosion control measures should their property be threatened. (updrift) of the inlet is accreting due to the influence of the 3.8.10.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: Beach eastern jetty suggesting that no action is needed at the present nourishment in conjunction with regularly scheduled sand time. bypassing at Shinnecock Inlet is the recommended alternative 3.8.11 Coastal Ponds Segment for dealing with .shoreline erosion problems west of the inlet. Because the beach immediately west of the inlet is subject to 3.8.11.1 Existing Land Useand Shore Protection Structures: increased erosion due to disruptions and reversals of sediment This segment etends from Halsey Neck Lane in the Village of transport associated with the shadowing effect of the inlet, this Southampton to the eastern boundary of the Village of East transport associated requithe shadowing effo Feqet o fin ine this aHampton. The primary land use in this segment is low density area may require special efforts. Frequent filling in this area or the use of structures such as small tapered groins, may be residential (less than 1 d.u./acre). The majority of residences in the use of structures such as small tapered~ groins, may be required-to retain bypassed material on the beach and prevent this segment are used only during the summer vacation season. it from returning to the inlet. As with the other inlets, a detailed CHAP 3-37 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM village parks) and areas of agriculturally used land. Access is bulkheads to protect their residences. Four publicly funded primarily at the road ends along the ocean front. groins have been constructed in the vicinity of Georgica Pond. There is some evidence indicating that these groins have caused erosion downdrift at Wainscott Beach. TABLE 3-6 3.8.11.2 Land Use Plan Goals: The goal for this segment Government Projects at Shinnecock Inlet. envisions low density residential use as the predominant land Year Project Agency use. Parcels in this segment are significantly larger than that located on the barrier islands, and therefore, there is room to 1947 Stone revetment and groin, NYS, Suffolk re-locate structures away from the shoreline should they be west side, 800' and 130' County and Town threatened by erosion. In addition, Figure 3-1 reveals that this long, respecively of Southampton shoreline segment is one of the most stable. Indeed, portions 1951 Channel 9' deep, 100' wide, Suffolk County of this segment have exhibited long-term shoreline accretion. 2,000' long at inner sand bar resulted in 110,500 3.8.11.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: The coastal cubic yards of spoil used hazard planning policy for this coastal segment is to emphasize as beach nourishment regulation of private activity as the primary means for protecting 1953- Construction of east jetty NYS, Suffolk structures and coastal features. Residents in this segment have 54 1,363' long, riprap 700' County and Town requested permits for such erosion control measures as rock long. West jetty 850' long, of Southampton revetments and sheet steel bulkheads to protect their property. extension to total length Government regulators must be in a position to properly regulate this activity based upon a better understanding of the causes 1968 Dredging of 270,300 cubic Suffolk County and effects of shoreline behavior. An adequate understanding yards of spoil of the coastal processes and shoreline responses is essential 1969 Dredging of 113,000 cubic Suffolk County for addressing a number of critical questions that affect the yards of spoil selection of management options in different areas. Reliable 1973 Dredging of 250,900 cubic Suffolk County estimates of such factors as the erosional risk, storm vul- yards of spoil nerability and the expected degree of recovery after an erosional 1982 The pile crib revetment was Suffolk County event for different areas are essential components of any coastal replaced by a rubble mound erosion management program. jetty on west side of Inlet and 170' of original jetty 3.8.11.4 Policy Justification: Reliance is placed on the regula- was reconstructed tion of private activity, which is the primary means for protecting 1984 Emergency dredging performed U.S. Army Corps structures and coastal features because: by hopper dredge resulted in of E ngineers the removal of shoals hazard- * residences in this segment are on parcels of sufficient ous to navigation immediate- size to allow retreat; ly seaward of the Inlet. Approx- * this coastal segment has exhibited long-term stability; imately 176,000 cubic yards of * there is generally no broad public interest associated dredged material was depos- with government actions to maintain the shoreline in ited by the hopper dredge in this segment; and the surf zone west of the Inlet * there is minimal investment in existing public infrastruc- 1988- Emergency dredging of 83,240 Suffolk County ture. 89 cubic yards of material in ocean just south of jetties. It is recognized that property owners may wish to protect their Spoil placed downdrift of property, although in doing so, they should not adversely impact inlet close to shore coastal processes to the detriment of adjacent or nearby Sources: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1987). shoreline areas. Suffolk County Planning Dept. (1985). 3.8.11.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: Although There is a substantial dune system along most of the entire beach nourishment and dune building are generally the length of this segment. Coastal ponds and their associated preferred options for this segment, the lack of adequate informa- freshwater wetlands are dispersed along this segment, a few of tion on the sources, rate, timing, and direction of sand transport which are tidally influenced on an intermittent basis. Property along the eastern portion of the south shore resulted in different owners, especially in the Villages of Southampton and East perceptions of the nature of the problem and alternatives for Hampton, have constructed rock revetments and sheet steel dealing with it. Of particular concern was whether erosion of the CHAP 3-38 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FIGURE 3-28 - Sagaponack Lake, July 1989. Typical coastal pond surrounded by low density residential use.Note flood tidal delta in lake FIGURE 3-29 -Bluffs at Montauk, July 1989 CHAP 3-39 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM shoreline in this area supplied the entire downdrift sand transport Section 3.7 identifies topics that should be addressed in the system, or whether there is an offshore source contributing to regulatory process involving the construction of bulkheads. the sediment budget. Available data were insufficient to resolve Homeowners should be required to construct revetments as far this question. landward as possible, while avoiding disturbance of any dunes. New structures should be built on piles, rather than relying on segment and the one further east precludes the use of inlet inth revetments for protection. If a revetment is destroyed, the right segment and the one further east precludes the use of inlet . . . . n bypassing as a viable option for addressing erosion on a regional to re-build It should not be guaranteed In any permit process. In basis. However, maintaining the continuity of longshore general, revetments should not be a problem over the short- transport is still important. Proper management of the coastal term. If the shoreline recedes over the long-term, such struc- tures will be exposed continuously, and subject to failure due to ponds found in this area could help alleviate some of the more localized erosion problems associated with these features. Sand lost from the near-shore system from overwash and for- 3.8.12 Napeague Segment mation of flood-tidal deltas as a result of storm events and 3.8.12.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection dredging activities should be returned to the beach to help Structures: This segment extends from the eastern boundary restore the transport of material along the beach. This should of the Village of East Hampton to the eastern boundary be done after major storms, and/or in conjunction with the of the Village of East Hampton to the eastern boundary of Hither Hills State Park. The primary land use in this shoreline segment periodic dredging that is usually undertaken to control water Hi StatePark. Theprmarylandusen thisshorelinesegment levels and water quality in the ponds. is open space and recreation. Open space can be found prin- cipally in Amagansett, Napeague and Hither Hills. The Town of Effective beach nourishment projects cannot be implemented by East Hampton, the Nature Conservancy and the Federal individual property owners; smaller-scale measures are the only government are the major owners of open space in the vicinity feasible alternatives for individuals or small communities. of Amagansett. The Federal government has designated nearly Relocation/retreat and instituting appropriate setbacks are the 5,000 feet of ocean-front shoreline as a Coastal Barrier Resour- recommended alternatives in cases involving individual struc- ces System unit in Napeague. This open space is used primarily tures. They are particularly suitable in this segment because as a nature sanctuary. New York State owns approximately lots are generally large. State participation in a recently-imple- 12,500 linear feet of shoreline at Napeague State Park and mented program (known as the Upton-Jones Amendment) of the approximately 7,500 linear feet of shoreline at Hither Hills State National Flood Insurance Program could provide incentives for Park. The shoreline length of this segment is approximately homeowners to relocate. This program allows the use of flood 47,000 feet, of which 56% or 26,500 feet is in the open space insurance funds for voluntarily moving erosion-threatened struc- and recreation category. Both state parks have limited facilities tures. and are therefore not intensely used. Attendance at Napeague State Park was approximately 170,000 in 1988. Attendance A special erosion problem encountered in this segment is at State Park was approximately 170,000 in 1988. Attendance Wainscott Beach. Itappears that both improper inlet manage- figures for Hither Hills State Park, which provides camping Wainscott Beach. It appears that both improper inlet manage- facilities, were combined with those for Montauk Point State ment and the groins immediately to the east at Georgica Pond ment and the groins immediately to the east at Georgica Pond Park. Attendance at both parks totaled approximately 1.3 million have caused erosion of this beach. people. Approximately 30% of this attendance, or 387,000, can Periodic inlet maintenance at Georgica Pond should be control- be attributed to Hither Hills State Park. led to mitigate downdrift erosion. The alternative of shortening the two existing federal groins should also be considered. As density remainder of the segment shoreline is in low and medium far as beach protection is concerned, pond iniets should be farclosed after flushing is obtaincerned. Channels should not be al- should be noted that these residences are used primarily during closed after flushing is obtained. Channels should not be al- the summer vacation season. The commercial-recreation use the summer vacation season. The commercial-recreation use is located immediately west of Hither Hills State Park and The construction of rock revetments and other shore parallel occupies approximately 1500 linear feet of shoreline. structures by homeowners attempting to protect their individual properties is another special erosion problem in this segment. Revetments are relatively benign as compared to groins, but space land use is the recommended predominant land use in they do accelerate erosion in areas adjacent to the structures the Napeague predominant residential use ~~~~~~~~~during storms. During seve pre stdominantrms, revesidtments cial use ex- ino the is segment. No during storms. During severe storms, revetments can be ex- posed and undermined . If built in an eroding beach situation, expansion of the existing commercial-recreation uses should posed and undermined. If built in an eroding beach situation, occur narrow beach width could be a problem; a revetment could function like a groin if located in the surf zone. 3.8.12.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: The planning policy for this coastal segment is to emphasize regulation of private activity as the primary means for protecting structures CHAP 3-40 HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM and coastalfeatures. Itis not recommended that NewYorkState Thus, where possible, recreation/open space land use should take any measures to protect the two parks in state ownership, be expanded. This can be accomplished by government ac- since little infrastructure and few facilities are found here. The quisition of a 34-acre oceanfront site immediately west of Mon- one exception is the need to prevent further bluff erosion at the tauk hamlet. In addition, low density residential use should be site of the Montauk Point lighthouse, which is discussed in the the predominant residential use in this segment. This would next segment. allow consideration of retreat/relocation as an alternative response to shoreline erosion. 3.8.12.4 Policy Justification: Reliance is placed on the regula- response to shoreline erosion. tion of private activity, which is the primary means for protecting 3.8.13.3 Coastal Hazard Planning Policies: It is anticipated structures and coastal features, because there is generally no that residents may request permits for coastal erosion measures broad public interest associated with government actions to to protect their property. Therefore, the appropriate coastal maintain the shoreline in this segment, and there is minimal hazard planning policy for this coastal segment is to emphasize investment in existing public infrastructure. It is recognized that regulation of private activity as the primary means for protecting property owners may wish to protect their property, although in structures and coastal features. doing so, they should not adversely impact coastal processes to doing so, they should not adversely impact coastal processes to 3.8.13.4 Policy Justification: The policy justification is similar the detriment of adjacent or nearby shoreline areas. to that for the Napeague segment found in section 3.8.12.4. to that for the Napeague segment found in section 3.8.12.4. 3.8.12.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: Although 3.8.13.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: No sngle 3.8.13.5 Preferred Erosion Management Options: No s~ngle beach nourishment and dune building are generally the beach nourishment and dune building are generally the erosion management alternative is recommended in this seg- preferred options for this segment, the lack of adequate informa- preferred options forthis segment, the lack of adequate informa- ment. This is largely due to questions regarding the role of bluff tion on the sources, rate, timing, and direction of sand transport erosion in supplying sand to the littoral system. Although the erosion in supplying sand to the littoral system. Although the along the eastern portion of the south shore resulted in different available data indicate the volume of material supplied by bluff available data indicate the volume of material supplied by bluff perceptions of the nature of the problem and alternatives for erosion to longshore transport is relatively small compared to orosion to longshore transport is relatively small compared to dealing with it. Of particular concern was whether erosion of the estimates of the rate of sand transport further west, more ostimates of the rate of sand transport further west, more shoreline in this area supplies the entire downdrift sand transport detailed information on the composition, height, and actual detailed information on the composition, height, and actual system, or whether there is an offshore source contributing to recession rates of the bluffs, as well as better wave information, recession rates of the bluffs, as well as better wave information, the sediment budget. Available data were insufficient to resolve would be required to make a more precise determination of the would be required to make a more precise determination of the this question. ~~~~~~~~this question. ~actual contribution of bluff erosion to the sediment budget and Relocation/retreat and instituting appropriate setbacks where thus, the most suitable options for this area. possible are the preferred alternatives for protection of private Relocation and the institution of setbacks are viable options due Relocation and the institution of setbacks are viable options due structures. Shorefront lots are generally large in this segment. to the generally larger lot sizes and less dense development For more information on this topic see section 3.8.11.5. t h eeal agrltszsadls es eeomn For more information on this topic see section 3.8.11.5. found in this area, but where this strategy is not possible, shore 3.8.13 Montauk Segment hardening alternatives might also be appropriate. The decision 3.8.13.1 Existing Land Use and Shore Protection Struc- to allow shore hardening, however, must be made for each site based on the bluff height, composition, recession rate, location tures: In land use terms, the Montauk segment can be charac- of the structure, and an analysis of the type and amount of sand terized as being primarily low density residential; however there thtcu e d y the e ansot sn is a significant amount of open space, vacant land and commer- that could be moved by the longshore transport system in a particular area. Topics that should be addressed in the cial land use. In terms of shoreline length approximately 21,000 particular area. Topics that should be addressed in the feet (48%) is utilized by low density residential; 16,500 feet regulatory process governing structural bluff protection are dis- cussed in section 3.7. (38%) by open space and recreation; 3,500 feet (8%) in the cussed in section 3.7. vacant category; and 3,000 feet (7%) by commercial activity. The special erosion problem in this segment is located at Montauk Point where bluff erosion threatens Montauk Montauk State Park represents the largest parcel of open space Montauk Point where bluff erosion threatens Montauk in this segment and was visited by approximately 900,000 Lighthouse. A project to stabilize the bluff through grading, people in 1988. The park shoreline is primarily high bluffs which vegetation planting, drainage control and toe protection is un- derway with support provided by the private sector and NYS is the predominant natural feature in this segment. Shore derway with support provided by the private sector and NYS thepredomiantaeture in this segment are located at Mon- .Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Armoring protection structures found inththe Montauk bluffs will reduce the volume of sand made avail- tauk Point and Ditch Plains. Gabions have been utilized at Mtauk Point and Ditch Plains. Gabions ha ve been utilized at able to the littoral zone, but only to an insignificant degree. Montauk Point to protect the toe of the bluff from wave attack Should erosion control measures fail, relocation of the ligh- and there is a small groin in Ditch Plains immediately east of the thouse should be considered a nd studied. Stabilizing the thouse should be considered and studied. Stabilizing the East Hampton Town Park. ~~~East Hampton Town Park. ~promontories to the west could help retain the pocket beaches 3.8.13.2 Land Use Plan Goals: The land use plan goal for this located between these features. segment is to minimize the intensity of uses along the shoreline. CHAP 3-41 LAND USE PLAN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C-NNILI ----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~nn~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t I O LONG 1. ISLAN i i i r s I~~~~~~~ A N D I~ BonieLodytI Bd~rnynr~cd Glen Lone 1S U o"' 5.4hr.- S.Yo~mB~) yyo~~rbon ~ OvoynBo SJtooken Jefllersn Pron Xmi.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~on Si. Pontoen, R I A J . . . . R.-k.r PoyOngi Boo.,.I~tbonerof Hortn , Stony Snoo Greotynno SI tntHlon H MioPnSTEAD r~~~~~~~l~~~~~~ll~Snco a~ yoynrnSoe 'nnn Bonoonet BB x \ SB- S1 -to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Du HUBillF-iil I R 0 flodO WU11116rOY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I H-onoovn Etootyon AnoebeI Sn i.- eM.- BllhP11~ ~ ~AI I 0 9 b l ~~~l l, ~ Dr yr l .~ y o o pon loo n. � rotor Pork I o, y BEBI BN E AR Gknont~ Lotben trtn1~*� k~.l(�I� .. ... Loketonkdoeto b M llla I' ll~IL) ~ ll yornroovelo L A N T I Ctop EB D Blac Wendote~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 Ur~lorr - I s l a n d g Bolht*~1sy a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~en '.S'tZ~ S&J Snte Por R-0.S BaynE H~~~~~~~~~~ EL A N I Wilddl. Hl.. d ...arY~l . �� ~�... ~ ~~OE-N Index~~~~~~~~~~~~~- to Lad UsePla ,!,h.. B X ~1 M a p S h e e t s ~ 0 S A T A T I Cton a C E A N Inlet~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ntlu Booby ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ooarm I . Bion0 noo n, F Lelrn dr Sep1 ecnnc Entoera DBlc Pep~~~~~~ket tl t~~~slo EBO InextoLndUs Pa '~~~*"" I .�~~~ CardinerPronOB Bo 't~~On Map heet ~~te~~lole~~ AlLrr� A NIB C I rlroOCENirIln -LEGEND- Residential , 1 D.U. & Less/Acre m;~ 2-4 D.U./Acre W: 5-10 D.U./Acre 11 D.U. & Over/Acre ___ Commercial 3I(L Industrial Institutional 1 Open Space & Recreational Transportation & Utilities -S c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I C~~~~~~~~~~, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a A. O .0~~~~~~~~~~-- -' 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1r -. 44** 44' 4..4'4�� 444.iY4 4. 4 .44;4 .444>< 4' 'e1.e ' 44 'a. /' Chaq Qree - - .4 - IfN .444 4.4. ,... A)-... 0 4 / 4.4..,4 'VI 44' 1 z 44. 444, 0N 4 ' F..,. 444 -, 4 ' - ..., 44* 4... * F4 --4- 4 4 44'..4j$ 4 4 2 44 .4... 44 4 441 - 44,4, 4.4 4444' 4.44 4444' 44 444 4 �44 I 4.444 U 4444444'44444444 44 ,,..- 44444444444. 4.44444..4444 . 44'44 444'%444444444'4 4.4 .44444 '4444.44 4444.4444.444444 . '!'.444 .4444 .44.44 44444.. .44,44.44.44444444444. ''4,4.444,44 " '<44,....,, """' ' ...44'4 . 444444444* ..,4......,,.,-.,.. .-. '.. - 444, ... 4:4 44444. 44 4444 .,44..,4 444.4., 4.44 &4444444444 .4 444..4 44.44.44 4, 44 4.4 4 ..... 444" 4.44,4444.44 444.444444 4. 4,4>444.444 , 4 44" . . .4, 444.4;.. .44.44. 444444, .. . 444.44 444.44444.4 4444*444, .4.4. 4.4.4. 4444, 4444...444,4 444.. 44..', -.4, 4.4 .. 444 .44444 ;44-4.4 44......44444'.. *4.444.44.. 444 4444,. 44 - 4 4444>44 4. 444 44444, "44 4 "'2 .'. '44.4'4444'..44 - 44444 444)44444.44 , .4444.4444.444 '<,>' '44.444444.4.44.4.4' 44444444. ,. .4 *, ,* 444.44444,,, .4 444444. ,44444 44.. .4444444.4.'4.444.44,..4444.4 44 4. '444 .44.4.444 444'44'4444'4.4444 44 444444.4>444 - 7. . . ~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~c __ e vvnmv ~ �.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3C up~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CCve0e Yv~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LL 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, , ~ -4 -~~~~ '--------H NN ~~f~1 ~Se //~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Iii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... A" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~0 44. ~~~~~~ .. i. 4 ...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :2 . $*.-~~~~~~~~~~~. 44..4~~~~~~~~2...4.J . .22.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:{4.. 44,~~f~,' -. ~ 444 4~ . ,'.'.4 -4, Isa-. . . ...... . -~~~~~~. .4 .St ...... .- . '~ ...... .44 .. . .. - .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~aeneck~ It 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 . .. ... Jo pt 444 Pt.4- ~~~~~~~~~~~&A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~44 -J~~~~~~~~~~4 P4,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4> coast~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f.. t~~j~ -, -~~ plot I i 44-4/ 4444~~~~~~~ quaw~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r >0 o 2~~~~~~~ 0000~~~~A' 0 00000 o ; UJ~~-Al /o ~~~0o~~ ~OL~~J /~~~~~LIIIIIII~~EN R I ~~-* LI i Bangladesh / H 14~ jv~~ ~~~D --~~~~~~iH ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a l e 1 / *4'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C *4 L~~~~~Z~~~Z ~~~Z~~EZANE ~~~~~~~~~~K77j~~~~~~~~~~~~~TT aO~AT OHANNEL ' - -, % I -, G R E A T B A a a --' -.' . - A- 9 - -i4- SI J- 4 - - -' 4, - (1'- 0 a __ Cecta BeaCt :ca. - --9 ii"- cp 01,0 - -9a - f 49 4; -,� &> I,* A Z4V2)fcj 7 , ' 0 7-L1 , )4 *i2'7-4474. 7-.7-7-I7-4.7-747- -- --- ,.- .4-- - 7-7-7...7)7-127-. 7-'4'7-7- -. -- - -*- 7&7-.1. I-47- - - --.7- - '~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 .1~~~~~~~~~~u -~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~' -'. mmp At - . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A. ~~~~~~~~~ U~` J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -rQ ~ ~ 1'~~~~ k~~~~~~~ p~~~~~~~~~~~ /t �s AAA AA I A~Fc all ' � ,' "';?�s:~olS / ~ ~ A I ,I,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~- AI ) A ~ A ~~~~~~i �'y~. 2.t I ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~A H A TL NT OC A ~A ~ 4 A A ~ .AA"'AA A " ~ ~ ~ AA AAAA~~~ ~ ~ ~ A I :--`- --- 'A H- .Q A.35S>&.- A A" '-,-',' -' - - " - 0% A . -S / 4' / / / H / / N! 'p N!', 45 r / / "N / ' ;52 / / / / I 4 / I! 'I 'I 4 / p / '1 / 1 / Ar S - / I / 4$ / I / ; / 1 44 / & 'I / I / 'I I 'v4air.;,a2oo / // / 'I, I / / 4/k 4$ 44' It 4$ 44- Its gil 44 '1 / 44 , -I, 4J "'S / St / "4 4�5 7' '41 s/k'45 / '$4 -/ "4 A! S / I ii / I 44 1 s's 'S �5-5 t S II 4 m's sa'S %2'*' S '4$ '2 I .'. -t 4�- ' 44 �5sg&/t\ /4 4 s- to- 4,-tat' "Q�'{'C.'&(Lt tt&"4�5"'"' ..-A, ,,A. '-e4s- 4,'A, " A 5, 54,4, * '4,',,,,; /k&fl-, SV's4'\scccoiss{&'4 "'-4 �54��4 %H-'4,-;4y 'i/jz. 44tc4.-�sss' Q$t5%,,,.'s 4's 44$( /4 .s$Vo*/4s'ssI�5$4 4 S I'S/k's', " s-CA',4t 4, .4 ----5'-. ,,,, --<-& ,, ,,A-,A1--- �5-k -' - 's/kd44/A./4, 1s-'%�-5 tw4'-/$ "'5< 4 /khiZSt4AH. - '--- 4<-' "'-" V - 4'.NAA,",',,?-SA,'S,'. <5, ,-4-...5 -. <yA7'Atp �4w- .%/k5'NA54$�-%L'S/4451 -. �444'4'H'44' "s"-'s k4,'4 --H - --,-<uZ.-5.5:K-5<;t5-s4---5.5A'-5 - ji:441A7' ��.:lt4K-4 4tSt444$%4T544�4�44$�4�444�4$� ,,.. .,s,,-<5-- *-'< , -' H- $4S-'ss'4$4'S-s >/4',A.,A4",/-%-5-"75<- tI"t' K... it) - 44 ',.IIL1! // - I;, III - 7, - 7I - / 7 / -7 77 1 - 7 1 ,7 I / I 7 1 7, '2' 1,, A -I 7 7 I..... I 4 / '7 1 7 / 7' / 77 II / / 74 / I / / 4 7 1 4 7 I 7 1 '7;* A 1 77 I 7 4 ' 7 lAS 7 gj 7 1 11/ 7, 7 / 7? .17 7 / '7 A 77 7 1 Ai 7 / 7, / II 4 II 4 _ .r, tjyi� 4'P4 -' - A'AI..x.4. ' - S. . .,V4. SOUTH B EAC H Iis9"'77"1'4""'-..I,,i>'-;7, 41 r..-'*'411- 'S7iI77'4./I/47S-44. '.7,. ,..4 .... -74./ / /I414I/17'4?%""74AI'417.I'4.1 I. .I17 1,'17' - '4 .-...,.7....v7. A .., 774 417 v7-4.7'...si,;.. .,, - .7 *.***, - '-o:'>7 >7, 7.',7.77...7>. 0St0.'. -77 7.,.' 07.0$0.7.07.7077%74..' 4 7 74, - - ., .' '77.7.; .77vo:. ...'7..'..7�'<o>...$.7.'74.'. ,4.'..;7�'.a7..><7777'>7.77.. " - .,. -.07 ..07 ;0>7477477.�.7 . - - I*7 . - 07 .'.. .7,- 077O / 707'( 1/ ,, / I . Ii 1 0. 2IC. I I! .7 '7' 0.'77 .' 7077 (47y .777, '7. I '7 77 74, 77 ./,4' 77. 77 /0, 77 \ /7 .777 7/ 77 77 /0, 7777.7 I 7,. 'I 77707 I,, *0'** / 7/' '1 77 /7/ lot I,! 47. /7 'I /7/ I', 77- /7 a I/I A1 4 I/I 7$ 74 7 /077 K a77 7477 Ar .7.77 B A y 4777 47. /077 /77 707 777.7 777/ / /04 77/0 14 007 /0/0 7777 74.7 0a' ' I 7 (77777/0 07.e 7o, (.77 07407.77 7 7777777..4,4.'/77747407 77777777j77 777 7/0777 o' 77A "- '77-77't077o774677777777777 07774.447 .-77 (A .0707.' '77777477/0.07. 4.7.777777. *7. 077777 774 07.777 77777 74f077 ,77p p0/. .' . .00774 7.7.7. 7. '7.- 74477777.0.07 I04'4 I o/0/Ao 77ok7777 '. 74777777:77?4'4,04777.777 77>747 77 0 7..74 777/0 t/0.Lt -7 77 j7 7/> - 0777&&77777 ATLANTIC OCEAN 7477 (077 / 7.777...'.'77.77..7777777777777 7* 77770777777777777777770777777777.7 ";,7 7.44.77 777. 7777777 77.77 47.. ..'.,.,.0.'0 777777777777777.7777..77,.7 7777777477 07447777 4/04777707/0j 477777777777 77777770777.7747707777>77.07 77 770 ...,7077. 777 7.474.777777.'. 7777777474 07770707.' 7.777770777774 77 77 4777 77 to 7.07.'7.7770747 77,77.777* j077.777747.77 7774707.777*0777.7 7777 .7.7.7.7470777777.7.7. 7.77747777.77 . .77.' .0777774777/07777777474 777770077.44077. 077777774/77..7 .' .... '0.700000.70007077..07707-0, .074.to77.7.'. 4O..07-7- 07 /0/777/0$7 ..o77/0. .77070777 7.770J0.,,7.'777.7074.<. 777.'7$777 7077 7.7777 477 .477707777.'77747 777777 7777 7777..77.*77.7. 774.7 .77*77747 .'7'77.77707 07OS<077'0%,.$i>O. 7777777 77..'07777077747777 77 ...7,.. 7774477777.77.'0 7/0777/0.'7 7 .777777 ,,.07.7774707<'77. 777.7.7.777.7.70707$4777" 77/ 77077.77707..'.. .47/077... 77,7.7 7.777077777.77 7.7.77477.'7.7 7777 7777 .7074/ .7 .... 7./,77.'.777 0 4.77.7.777.77....77.7j.7.,,.'.047747'777777..'7>7./.77z 7.7777,7.*.4.....7 7.' 7$ 7.77 7707.777.747.'7.77777 .7.707 477.7,77777 .777......77 7.07..7.. 7777...777.777.7747/4 .7777.j/07#4�77777747 .777.7.7/7 44 77 70 .7...,..'...'..7077-...7. 77. 7777.. 77 7 7.7777.777777.'747.7 77.477777, 7707./q4$7.7.77470>$4 ...77:77 N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F- T~~~~~~~~~~~~2j ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gyk IN~~~~~ e - --. g V CONT IBUTED-j-- L S1170,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- -/, , -~~~~~~~~~~~~~Si -, 'I - z~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I A, --~~~~ TLAN C-C- 1)11111 -11 C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~It' 44/'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 wO~~~~~~~~~~~ I / / S'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g - - 4-<> .4. 44'4* 4. ...4T4-.4-44-4- 44444* 44- **.4444444 44 44 4 44 44 44 44. 44 444 p - 44444 -g 444444 _ 4g 0 4444 74 44.4 4- 44 S LIIIZi4, 44 * 4/ 44 747/ 4* >.-r *1, *--"'' 4-4- 444 *444:4 44444 444 -4. 444Z 44-444 - 4444. (?7 *44444 444 44.44 44 474 4 4444% 44 44 4 �4 4 4 404 444 4444 -c K. ot 44444 '44. 44 i-+ -- I .4& 4 44444 144- / .444 4' / 44444 444444 444 -* 44444 474' 4-44 4444444 74444 44z44'14&e I 4474 '%2'" I 444 - 44444 4 '4- s -o I 44 I . O/It / - -- -- / 4444 - I 44.7 4..4.44 - . / -4*444444 4 - *44 4-o / -4d4-444444w.4 SEASHORE 44*4 *44-.44444944fr 444. 4'v4 oQ .44(*4(4 L 44 444444.4 ___ 44474 44 *444 -- 74 L4.4.- -, +74<.44*,74.** 44444 74 '4-" 444 44. 444444444444.4 . 444 44 4 47474444 (444(.4 4444444 t.jC..+cg 44?.4 4744 .' - 44. Cupsoque Beach 44 TLANTIC OCEAN 4.4444444444444. 444 4.44444.4444444. 4444444 444 444444444-4 74 444 444444444444444 44.444 .444444444444 .4>4444444 4:444474�74274/744447444 74744447444444444 44 8 44444.4.4444444. 4.444444.. 444- 4444.4444444444 4444444444 44.4444 44 444 4* -- 44744444.44444443.4-44444444444 .444444444444 44 4.. 4.444 47744 4. 4.44.4 44.4. 44444444.44444.444.444744444444474444444444.44444444774 44.4.44444. 44 - 44'4�4. 4. 44 4444.444444.44 ..,44. .. 444444 4774444.44444444. 44.44444.444444.4744 ;44744..44j44 .44747774 4444444444444444 444-44 444**44 4444 4.44 .47444444474444444774 4444444444444 ,.;....44744U 4444447.444474474 44..4.44.444444-44274444 r4444:444444'4 444.4. 4.' .444.444 44,4 44- 444444444444 444.44444444 44.74744744444.44744;4444.74444444444C4 ,44444 444. 44.444-44 74.44444.44 4-444 4444 4444..44444 4.444444444744444.4 44444444444.444 44 4.2. 44. 44444j744474 4444744474444774 447.444444777.. .4 4744 44-47444. 444444474>477474;44 4444.44.447:.77447444 g"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'" 1/ NW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ glom~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I #ABC,,~~~~~4/ NE~~~/LJJ1 Ow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I Va p"Cp 'I'll0 V~~~~~~~~~ATLA NTI C 0-CC ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I Qog P~~~~~~~o4 RI t 1000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6 "ma-g- ls~~~~~~~~~~~~t'g -1- ~~~~~~~~~~~-y1000 0* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f g~ -~~~~ .~~~~ /~t 4' 1' I = C---'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Aa ~~~~~~~~~~~~~I NI �1311~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A T L A N T I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 Pop~~~~~~~~ 'N ________p I *�\ b ]12a r / ' ,Iu '.4.. "A' / 1'j -.4 - 4 'II - 0 4' prTh0 'N' '0 N.J '-VA 4 't4 AM' ,. 'N7' 01:? Q / '4 ''4- '4. z" co st p 0i7 4M4 -4.. '4. 4' 4.- -4. .4 -4.--.-- *-*NN 4.- N.. 4.---- N.-.- BAY "4-'-- N.- .' 4- - N N N - ,. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.4- "N So/7 -*1 -4 ________________________________ -' 1" OA - *"- r"-r0'0 0 ,9oc*s 0; Q EAN 10 MA4-..4. ".>. ..44'/A 4-...'NJ ;/ .4 44 ,,2. 4N..4N.-44'A4M..4MM4<AMN'...'...V4...-..'...4. '.4. "4A"" 'N" ..'.'"'..-'-. NW ~,j -~~~ KI~~~~~�j~~~~.s ~~ K~~~17~~~~~ ol ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~k -2i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. *<-' .' '0 3<. 00. 0,0- . 3.0' 00,000< ' .. Vo'.,.,o;.o0 000<.** 0. 00 - o o 0 0,000'0 (00030 - 0000 '0 .0 0 '00000' 0 0 - '0340 0 -0' -.3 0'0000' '300 00'0 -003o0,'3 00.0'30 .00000 0o0o00 000 400.30 .00.3300 000033330 0-0030 00( 00'033 '00-o33' o00'. 00' 30000 .000 00 .00' - - j02 000003 3033 o333 0030000 o0000000 0300 33.333'3 9:' 0 '0 4 30003333 0000 00 / 000,,o 0 00000 0 0 00f''7 007L 00 N14 00oo, 0000 Li Ib 0' 00 7 'o oj to A 300,o03 0.0.o 0 - 3000030 f00 33340. 303300(0 0 0 oo 0 00 000 0 040033 - '000 0 $6600030 000' 00600:0 0 / 030o oo6 ooo 0oO000 -00 0o0g0 0' V o 00 06 -0-o 00o30%00%6o 0 / 0 0. 00 00W0 0 039 oo' 33 303 0.0.0000 00- 0 ,,,00 j 0.03000 300 0 0 0.006 - 0. 0 0 ___ 0 000 OooO. 0000 oooOoo 0 0 0000000 00 3'00 0 0 0000000 0; 0 0.000 0 oo't'o" 000, oPo. 000 0 00000 0 0 0000 '00000 on :0 0000 00 0 00 000000 000 0 0 00 00 00 0 00000000 o.0oAoQtoOOoOO ooo 000 00000000000. o'.on. 00 00003000030000.00 '00 00000'00'330'0003000000 .0000 0030$0333303\030300300000033. .0' 0,000000 33300"00 0000.00.0oA 0.o.o0 000304 0 00' .303300'.00' 30# 04' 3o0'oroo.,.A.oo04 o000. 0. 30'0'.0o . >'0 00. '3 0000.3000 '0:00'00000.. '0'033'0 00"00'00 00' "'000 ,.34 .00 ..oo. ,,,30030 .,0o,0000'0 00oo30ooJ000.000.0'000 '00". '<00,>'-' 330o00003..000030030 -3"oo 00.0.00.00< 3033004300300303' 000000000 004000300 00. 00000000'0300.0 0300430303.. o3400o.'ooAo0$o o333.' 00000 %00'0,000.,'....<00-0.0:0'.. .000<30400\o0.0.3300330<20 3000000000003003/ .00300 -00'ooOO4n. - ,,. . '330. '' 000 0000000000, 00.0'000'0,>o.0 .0' ' 0 . . 3o00403003.0 0. '0334 '0 '><3' '0 '0000. oC000020".3.0o.0........ - . '000 .0' o030'o>"' o.'oooO.o< 0'. 30 >00..,. 4300 00000 4. 0000 0000000.0< 0040000K3"" 000 .000000 - 00 00 .0..3.0300.00.0030Y0'000.00330 3.'0000 00 000003 3'o.,0 .000 .o30j00000'0'k 03. 3o0o0200,o30 .':4000o.<, 303003033000' o300o04000. 34o00.o.o00030 00304000 30 00<00030003030?3033 00 030003300A '00033000.0o.00 '0000' 30000... '00. '00000. .0'. '-o -''3.'-"'' >.00..0,00.000ooo000.,.00.00,;0o0000.V00.0<000,o0<00o333 .0000000 oo4 0oo0003o,.<'0.poooooooOo 0.o000 004.0..000.030..00 ..o00000.o .0,0.0 00 -- ,0000'Ooo<3,.00. 3o0 0' 330..-.. .00' oooO -0'0o 0000.0004000 003"' .0.0000 .0' 0' 0.0000 ..,...o...oo. .<..30,.o33300o3 o3 ,0 0000003' 00.03400. "0 00 MM~~~~~~~~~~. "I v~~~~~~~sv ~ ~ ~ ~ Q 0'~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pw k4lc FI _ _ 1 17 �~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e -. 4 / -- / \ ,- 0K I -( -,--- - I- I II . 0 // 1 1 / / I I / I // I I / I / / I - 1 ,.--1 I I - ,-.- I-- / I ---* // 4-- -, tS' - V o 7 04 1-1 4 00 4' * '00 "oo,,, - ,' I %00o \ (Z' % 00 oo1010 :0I0 000010% .. 101010 00 0 ooooov 44' 0000 ,, .00000 0- % 00-00 0 10 499. o 00000%00 - 10o0 00 %9 1010 00%0 0 I 00 000-0 , 0-00%" o-o0% 10 00000100 0000 0 00 0100 100 0 .000-0 0010O 0o00000 o ,- - - 100 - o 0 oo 00 2 4' ..o'10 %0 0-10o0iio 2- - 000 /0 10, o000- 0 100o 1010 %0 - 4o 0 -' 010 o0' 00-0 00 00 0-00- -0 0 0 00-0<0-0100 00000000,1 10 dJ "0I 41 -,j;0;.I<o 0 .0,10 00% 0000 .00 %% - 0-0%9. 0 0 % 10# 00000 10 00 9% 0 st 0 000 00000- 0 010 0 010 00 110100 0-0-0 0%%p0 -0 00000o%? 0 0 00o0 0000 0000 0 00000.0 00 00 0 0 0000' Q%0 o000 ? 0 010-oO 10ooooO 0 9100%0 OjS oo,1000000 00 o 0o4 % ., o o00O10oOoo.oOo00o10 9 - 0> 00 000 00-0-00-0-0 0 0 o%10o% 00 - 10 - o '10cPo 10 000009009000 ,0 ,910o&o% - 0-0-0 -0 004' 000- 0 0-00 o.90%"$0 ko10o?10o & -00 oo04ooo 10o101000 o -- '10 010o 1010000 0-"*"0 000000000" 000100010& 1010 o.%% - -- -- - ooooooo-ooo. 0000000000 - 4-00000000-0 0- 0 -00000-0- ' - 0 - 4'0000000000 00000000000-0 4000o00010o010o%0o%0- -- - -- '0 - o%o'o"0 - ""-" --, "'"' -"0"" 00- 0 000 0 - 00000 0 10101010oo0.00 0%0 1010 /000000000000000010000%%0 00000100 000 0 ..oo-. 000< 00 000000 oo to 00000 4,1 00 '00 ooooo .0 -- 0-0" 0-0- 00P0,- 010 90 00-C4-�. Q - 00 - - .,o,- - 0000 0 oOoOoO10oOoO10000 00000 0000 00-000 00 00000 .00 0'0'0.4-0 000%0 000000100000 000o%0o10 00000 %Og 00- oo0 o,,o,, 10101010 o o 10o 0 0%o% - 0 00-0 00000000 0 o 0 o000o0 000000 00 000 00 - -- 0 000 000 -- 000000 0-0 004- 000000 �o000o010 0-0 0-,04-,.04,00., - 00000 0000' 0000000101010 <0 00 0 -000-0 000000 o00ooooo 0 - 010o00o 0000 00 0% 000000 000000000 0000 00 000 0000 - 000000 40% 0000 040000 0 "0000 -o 00 10 4 o041 0 o1010o&ooi-, <0< 10o &o .000 0 -- -- - 00 00-0000 .101010o1b0 10o100 0-,0-,0 ,-0-,-,-,-, 00000000000000 - - 0000<0900001010 0 0 '0- 0000 o"000%0o0 0000 00 00 0000000000 00 00%%%940&o%- 0 -0000000 4- .4000 000000000000 0 OoOoOoOoOoOoO 000 0000010400 0 oooooO10oOo10o4o000 o"t""'10"0- 00000000100 0o%000o0 0000000 00%%0oo'0 . 0o0o0o0o0o00000 0-0" o 0 %%0,00>00i 000 .1o0 --, 01000000 0 0000 00o 000100010oO10o9 . 00 o'o4 00-0 ,.o,,ooo,oooo 0000 10o 0 00000 0 0o000oo 00 0 -- 0000010% 0 00 00000 0000 0 0000 0 000000 0 00000 000., 0 00 100000 001040000 -0-0-000 00. 00900o 0 000 <0000 000%%0 00 o10ooooj> 0 10ooo 0 0 00000 -o 00 <0 0000000 010 0010 0010,0ooo 00000000000 00 0 o010oo0o 1010o%%0000 0100 0o00o0 0PoOo0. 00000 0 10o 0 0%0 0000 000 000 00 00 .000 'o'ooooo 00000000000 o 1 0 00 0 <0 000000-0 00 0000 o> 0000 00 000000 0000000 %4$ 0000000 000000 0 0000 000- 000 0 0 0000 0 000000000 00 00 000000000 - 00000 0 00 400 0 -- 00 000 000000000%0 0 034.4- - 00000 000000000 000 0 Po0000O0>1010 o,,ooooooooooo0o oio,10 000 0000000 0 % 0000000 o0o0 00%0000: 900440%4- 00000%0o000 0000 000 000 00000 010o 10oo' 00000000 000000000000 .<$< 0>/-4Q't"0 0 o000O0 - -Or'0j40, SoI' 00 90 0000000 000 0000 o0o0o0o0o0o0o0oo 000 00 %0 00 0o0o0o0o0o0o0o000000000000000o0o0000 oOooOoOoOo 000 Vt: -,- o0O000%04.,-0,1L 5x.,Y'. -< - 0000000000 0 00 00000 0ooooo 0 ooo4o 00000 0o% oo,-,. 20,-- 0100 0%000o%9ot000Oo0o010000OOOO 040' - - - - 000S,%( z&i& K. < 0I00 1010o10101010101010o $0o 100000000000 %00 0000 0000000 00000 0,. 04>5 010040 -0-00000--000 0,-00 044 <0100000000 0 000000 - <- .10 -o 0- 0-000%10oo10oo.. - ' WiCOt - - Beach ,0-0 10%0- - . 10o-10-o00%- .9.0 00-%0 -0_000,0<0-00 ..o..,ooooo4>o .- EAN 12 -o. 10 ,- - '0o-$-. ,-4 o'4- -4 0 Oo 4,4- 0/ - 0. 4-I4/ ,, j -o 4' '0 44' ,-,I,-, 3 - -w .;N, ,r- 'AN - "-'-''A' .. .-, -;4-2'4&(t$x4t ;N4i4I 'A - . it, 'if," Co A JIA)AAA'A 0 .-xA9,.... ''A C 'At A 4- <N I A& A, k N F'' -" *t' * AA AC-AC AN. 94 I t\7 <AN 'A -- I A 'A I AAA A42 I .--'). -- A 'A 00 I C .4, .441 1 -A' /2 "(LAO 4/ 'y> / Nt 'A ACo 4; '4 NA4 - AN, I A,' - I I C' 6 A 4 00% 5 - 00/ S'Ao.r'A' 0 AAAAAA00A A I 4 I * 0 A A A A - . ,.,- N 06'O' 000%� 00o0.g OAAoO 0 ,Nfl44 0,3" 00"%1?%4k . A0C0%q OO ,.ri Cq.oC4A,,. .o-o'A99004C-A, COC CV o'A?%%CA &% AA000000A9000 000000 0-0- A 0r -%O0 00A &C0 C 00000 OAOOOAOAAOCAIAOi '- CA. A. '4 O0OC Og% 0014 %Co%0 AA0A%600%CA o C/toO ',-'A'A 'A4% /t/toAooA. OCACCCO 0Ao%0cP FoNAoOoOoAoOooo0 00000 '(09., . C j 0000000AAA LaP 0000 090000 .-400.j NACCAC -'COO&C&O A %0%A o o%%0 0.Ooooo 'A'A 00 'AA .04 oo .. 0(40 04 9o('A C-. (A Ao% A0 * . 0000000 0 o%%%%0o%0 000 0 A C ACOCOC000000AANA N'AAA. AA 'A' .0,3CC -CA CC- AoOoA. CC-AC/tO-C 000 00ooo 00.00000000 CL. "fl(0IC1,S� foo44o A*AO &oooCoPo tO-o%9A0ePoAo? o% 000000 CO000000000000.P0000CO0 A 000040%oo . . - 'zc'.; 004-040 0000000 COCA VA ;Cao L CCAAOOO C0PAC COAOA AOC 00 o 000 - AOA 00 . 00-A C CO 0-0% AC Coo 000 ,4...o C,.A,Ooo/t 000 %OoOo %CCCOOAOO3C0000000 tmV$ 000 O0 0C0000 -; 000000 CACOACO A 40 '(N- x*0 )'j?*'A"AAA.. fl,'A4A4. A90C000C00 oCoCoOOoOoOoOv, .C, A 0000 000 C000A'AACAPC�CA 000000 AoACP 00000 OOCCOOCA CCC (%'4..00 oo oo%0 OA&AOC&0%O COCA 00 000000 000000 C A(' .. r- o A 0A000At-$AA 0000 C00C0CCCCC0OC o%,A0o0o000' o0o0o0ogo0o0o0o 000 C 0040 000 000 0000 o 0000000 0o0o0o0 "'flr- 000 OAOCCO..,AOASAOOCAOCOOOOACOCOOOOACAOOOOAAAC. o - AAAC 4A'AA'A./t,3A0 00000 C 000000 00000 CO 000 000 COCOA 00 AC 0 0000 j.?' tAN ..iAAA TA4i?',flA<A, %OCCAA'OO AAACCCA, A000000000C000C9C0C0AA'A'ACAO0ACO'A ('A 0000 00 C 000 AOOOOOC 000 CCAOOA 0000000 0 0000 000 AN- "A A" -'A*'.A COCCOO CCAOCCOO 000 COO Coo A 000 000 A ,'(- A000C000 �000 09.,'AC0C'AC,'A:hO'AC.CO'A A.-2tcoo;;. g.7%k�'A:.)'A000000 3000 0 0 COO o'o '*3Q ?; ?00A Oh oooo- 0000 0%0jo 000 000000 %OOOA0O 00 000000 000000 ANo. ,V 0A000A00000A'Ay 'A.-. AAA 0O0O,0O0O Coo 000AN.04Ac . 'A.AA 00000 0C C- 0 0000000000000 00 COOOC 000000000 000 0000000 00(000 - 'A34]X'.3'-'t - 0000000 . *, AA *N %C �<fl44'A--N5,'.A 'AA - - AAC'A4A hAS-C o,'A/t., 000000A0C0000000 00000 00000 COCA 00 COO CO 'A 'V�C - APC0A'AS 'AC- 'A 0000 e'A,0C'AO0 .0/to 4,0 00 AOOCOOCAAA(4AOAAOOOOCOCOOOOCOOOCOCOC4 &' 4'At> jA.' N0'AVV 4-s .< A.. --6'C - Beach * .4N�AAAUL - ... - A'4A . . . A 'ton 4 ATLANTIC A'A' 'Al AC*AANANOA'A " 'AC-AN- 'A'AA 'AA AANAAA oN -0 JA. 'AANCO6C0lS-A0".0'A'ACANs'L . I. '0'A 'A *,* 0C.O.A$A'AN'A$4'A, /CN4C0'40'A'Ayj4CNNN-4C$ 'AC- 'A C 'ACA ,'A'A.AAA' <CtA(4,AN4�4A44 xe's -"s' '1-"; - 044ANf4Po- 9v4444'44P4o- '. CA9OA9 OCOCN-C'AAC0N-N- A4,4N-goC04A'A t. *-- .A'P'C- (44' - 'A oAA'ACO AN-'Aw -AA,'A-SPN-4P ' .,,A C"' t*,A'A'A40'A'AA '4,. <' 'A'A'A'AA0'A'AANAN,.AA ANANN'A. '('- 'AA9"N- 'A�'% '. 'p4'- .6 'f -SPAN-- ('A' 'AX v-i-sb; . .Zo 'A'A' . '4-N- .p,'.<040Ao 'A'Ap-.><'A&t4ACC2ok44 'AA'A'A'-'A'A'AAA - 'A 'A *.'A'A. CA... - 'A,4AN YI'A' 'A' <.k4jtAAtA9A'A'7C'?5.. -p-- "'-' A *'AA'A.�C' N-I.. .< 'A. 'AN-,-' 'AAA A;>; 'A- '''A'. -' - A'A-p,,,,, --'A'. -- A'A'A9'A4'A 9'4-'ACTh-C-AAC<s'A>.3A SCAVAA6PAttP'A '('AN- A4"'' -. 'A' 4; 'A-s$'A''N.<.7'A�; LW ;AYtAAN'A4? 74Th ,t.'N'Aov'A-N-,'AN(C7'-,'AAN>4.AN.4"A'A'AC4.'A6AN4A'A'Aw-'ASN.'AAN'4'A9AN'A(.'A'A'A('A'A-('..Cw 1ANs.,CANAN'AtAA464&ociN'A' 'AAk'A'A "ACoA..'AN - V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 IN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 3~~~ ~ ~E -- - - -- ~0- ~ ~ 0 *. *0~~' 0 4' ~ -~ 0.0INNER 0~~~~ C ~ oE A N 1 00"~o~4o thin 'A*_-, M-.W 'lygg~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ln~~~~~~~~~~~ II each~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' v ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A ~~~~~~~IN " A,-//~~~~~4 IZ 'A =,.=='=a'a.--- h - 41~~~~ p4TAU '4 IIHAWA -~~~~~~~~~~~~14 460,7~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ie talk~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0Oi ' A-94 ch~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%0%~00~o0io A T L A N T I C E A N00o A4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LOCK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ISL N SO N lM Nor RONON~4 IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS Chapter Four IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS 4.0 Introduction ong Island's south shore natural resources have an intrinsic that erosion control projects funded by public agencies provide value to society in their own right, in addition to the economic benefits to the general public at large, as well as those who enjoy return associated with their use for recreatic.al, commercial, coastal occupancy in this area. However, the recommendations and residential purposes. The barrier islands and spits provide outlined in this report are targeted to provide only that level of buffers that protect the mainland from direct storm wave attack, protection required to attain long-range land use plan goals and and are also an integral part of the shallow lagoon system and to maintain the integrity of the barriers, as opposed to the associated fish and wildlife habitats. It is difficult to estimate the short-term, more narrow benefits associated with private oc- true dollar value of Long Island's south shore beaches and cupancy of the shoreline. associated environments and their contribution to the quality of The data and information base pertaining to coastal processes life in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, especially in light of the factmutb imreteaehede lomnadslctno that comprehensive studies documenting usage characteristics, must be improved to enable the development and selection of expenditures, etc., have not been conducted. It is axiomatic that cost effective erosion management projects. The first section of the value is tremendous. this chapter outlines an erosion monitoring element that should be considered a priority component of the long-term manage- For comparative purposes, an economic analysis of saltwater ment program for the south shore. The second section outlines beaches in Florida indicated that, in 1984, residents and tourists recommended changes in selected government programs and generated: activities. Changes in the National Flood Insurance Program � direct and indirect beach-related sales of nearly $4.6 are proposed that would reduce the public subsidy related to billion; private shoreline occupancy in highly vulnerable and mobile � beach-related business activity that provided $164 mil- barrier islands and spits. Suggestions are included with respect lion in tax revenues to the state; and to the New York State Coastal Erosion Hazard Act to improve � activity that resulted in the creation of jobs with an an- implementation of its associated regulatory program involving nual payroll of $1.1 billion(Bell and Leeworthy 1986). construction activities along the coast. The chapter concludes with recommendations pertaining to the State of New York and While a similar study of the value of south shore beaches on its role as coordinator of Federal, state and local activities over Long Island is not available, the high level of visitation to public the long-term in the implementation of a hazard management beaches here is indicative of their contribution to the economy. program that reflects the consensus of the parties involved. It has been estimated that an acute wash up of floatable pollution along New York beaches could result in a loss in total expendi- 4.1 Erosion Monitoring Element tures that ranges from $600 million to $1.8 billion, depending The teams of coastal geologists and engineers emphasized that upon the multipliers used (Waste Management Institute 1989). the hazard management program for the south shore of Long One can only guess the magnitude of economic loss to the Island must include an erosion monitoring element specifically region if Long Island's south shore beaches were made inacces- designed to collect, maintain and continue the acquisition of sible or unsuitable for recreational and other uses over the certain data and information on the coastal system that would long-term as a result of management policies that fail to address improve government's ability to make management and the need for inlet management, regularly scheduled sand regulatory decisions. The monitoring element should be bypassing, restoration of longshore transport, and growth con- designed for the entire south shore system to provide informa- trol measures. tion that will allow coastal managers to: The implementation of erosion control projects and non-struc- Furtherdefine andquantify theproblem. Development tural measures will be essential to the continued use of this of effective management programs depends on having natural resource - use that is threatened by shoreline instability, adequate information on the resource to be managed. the ravages of tropical cyclones and northeast storms and the For the south shore system, reliable estimates of such potential increase in the rate of sea level rise. The costs factors as the erosional risk, storm vulnerability and the associated with shoreline management activity are large, but so expected degree of recovery after an erosional event are the long-term benefits, especially if one considers that the are essential, if the effectiveness of the hazard beach is a common property resource. It should be pointed out management program is to be increased. This type of CHAP 4-1 IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS information can only be obtained by monitoring that is accessible and usable for management pur- shoreline conditions and changes. poses, and to maintain the data base. �Evaluate the effectiveness and impacts of adopted and *Monument system for beach profile surveys. A monu- proposed strategies. Any chosen strategy may fail to ment system should be established and maintained perform as anticipated, or conditions can change either along the coast from which periodic beach and near naturally or because of human activity that alters the ef- shore surveys should be done on a regular basis. fectiveness of a previously chosen option. It will be im- Such data is indispensable in evaluating shoreline, portant to recognize this situation in order to readjust beach and dune changes, developing reliable sand the management program. Consequently, monitoring is budgets and identifying multi-year trends which could required to provide the basis for changes. For the indicate the adequacy of management strategies or same reason, it is probably advantageous to begin with- changing conditions. The locations where profiles smaller scale projects rather than larger ones in order were surveyed by/for the Corps of Engineers in 1955 to develop experience in the integrated management and 1979 east of Fire Island Inlet should be reoccupied of the coast. and surveyed and additional lines, especially in the �Establish design criteria. In many places, a variety of vicinity of structures and inlets, should be established. approaches with a range of designs will be possible. Profile measurements should extend from landward of The final choice will depend largely on a cost/benefit the dune (or bluff crest) seaward to a point offshore analysis. A proper evaluation of both the estimated equal to the closure depth (essentially, the depth at costs, predicted benefits and potential impacts will re- which profile changes are negligible), which was es- quire specific designs of individual projects. While a timated to be at a depth of approximately 50 feet MLW monitoring element will probably not generate all the on Long Island. A system of monuments west of Fire detailed information needs for site-specific designs, it Island Inlet for locating beach profile surveys should be can give the designer and manager invaluable informa- established at a maximum spacing of one mile along tion of a consistently high quality on the long-term local the coast (closer spacing may be required in dynamic conditions and, therefore, greatly reduce the cost and areas, such as inlets or areas of particular interest). Ar- time for feasibility studies of each proposed project. rangements should be made to ensure all surveys are �Develop a better understanding of the causes and ef- done in as short of a time span as possible and, fects of observed shoreline behavior. An adequate un- preferably, within a two-week period or less, i.e., as derstanding of the coastal processes and shoreline near synoptically as possible. Surveys should be done responses on a systemic as well as site specific basis at least twice a year (near the time of the maximum is essential: summer beach and six months later or near the time of -to estimate the effectiveness and potential impacts minimum beach widths) and after extreme storm of any proposed solution, i.e., the probability of suc- events. cess; Periodic aerial photography. Aerial photographs -to calibrate and use models of shoreline behavior should be taken on a seasonal basis (i.e., winter and for assessing management decisions; and summer). The overflights should be scheduled for the -for addressing critical questions that affect the selec- mornings (before the sea breeze starts) at times be- tion of management options in different areas. tween low and mid-tide and should, if possible, be coor- The rcommeded mnitorng eementinclues th follwingdinated with the surveys described above to provide Tercommedeponiongementinlds:tefllwn ground truth measurements. Aerial photographs will components: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~assist in the determination of long-term recession rates Evaluation of available data. As specific management- based on changes in the high water line, vegetation related questions arise, available data should be re- line and/or dune position. Vertical aerial photographs analyzed. Often an original data set was collected to taken on a regular basis can be used in conjunction address one set of questions, but can be applied to with the survey data as a relatively inexpensive means others. Historical data sources (maps, aerial of gathering important information on shoreline condi- photographs and National Ocean Survey T-sheets) tions, changes, and trends at relatively frequent inter- should be utilized to document and quantify trends in vals and over large areas. Photos should be rectified shoreline position through time. A coastal data base and key features, such as shoreline position, dune should be developed to compile, maintain, and provide crest, landmarks, etc., should be digitized to facilitate access to the data as well as information on coastal the use of this information. protective structures, dredging and beach nourishment *Directional wave gauges. Coastal processes are activities, and other factors. Effort will be required to driven by waves. There is a dearth of historical wave assemble and compile the available data in a format data to analyze the processes for this shoreline and no measurements are presently being made. At least two CHAP 4-2 IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS directional wave gauges should be deployed for a two * Deploy and maintain 2 wave gauges per year for year period - one in the eastern end and one at the two years, and analyze field data = $240,000 western end of the study area. * Shoreline response model application Application of models. Many excellent models exist for - model set-up for south shore = $300,000 forecasting coastal changes and the effects of human - model usage (annual cost) = $60,000 activity. They have been effectively used in other * Contingencies @ 10% of total cost areas, but very few have been applied to the New York areas, but very dufew have lbeen appcli ed to the New York The range in total cost estimates for the five components of the coasrequired to run thdue to the lack of reliable baselined from erosion monitoring element over an initial two-year period in- an effective monitoring program would allow the use of cluding the 10% contingency is $1,003,200 to $1,267,200. (Sig- available models to extrapolate and interpolate be- nificant cost savings could perhaps be realized by using tween measurement points, to assess the importance photogrammetric techniques to prepare the sub-aerial portions of observed changes, and to provide more reliable of the profiles.) After this period, the range in annual cost is predictions of likely changes in the coastal system in reduced to $561,000 to $583,000, including contingency. response to prevailing and possible future conditions, It should be remembered that the monitoring element of the and of the effectiveness and impacts of proposed ac- south shore hazard management program outlined above does tivities. not address the conduct of basic research on questions concern- The general erosion monitoring element recommended above ing coastal dynamics; it does involve the acquisition of data/in- would involve a commitment of personnel and resources. How- formation that will improve the technical basis for management ever, the benefits derived from such an effort would far exceed and regulatory decisions subject to potential court challenge. the cost, especially when one considers the value of the resour- However, the data collected in the monitoring element and the ces and development found along the south shore of Long information generated through data analysis will assist the con- Island, as well as the costs associated with implementing most duct of needed research that addresses priority scientific erosion control alternatives. Monitoring element implementa- problems and ultimately improves public policy pertaining to tion would provide managers, planners and decision-makers erosion management. with the information they need to identify, evaluate and develop 4.1.1 Technical Data and Information Needs technically sound and defensible erosion management strategies for a small fraction of the construction costs of most The technical data and information required to develop and coastal projects. evaluate erosion management strategies can be grouped into two broad, interrelated categories: characterization of coastal The site specific details and other aspects of the proposed features and changes, and physical forcings affecting coastal monitoring element remain to be developed. It is recommended changes (i.e., waves, water levels, etc.). The specific informa- that the NYS Dept. of State convene a conference attended by tion related to each of these categories is delineated in this representatives of interested Federal, state and local agencies section along with the types of data required to obtain the and noted experts in the fields of coastal engineering and information. geology for the purpose of preparing the specifications for the tasks to be accomplished, parties assigned to accomplish same, 4.1.1.1 Characterization of Coastal Features and Changes: sources of required funding, etc. An attempt was made to An assessment and quantification of the physical characteristics provide preliminary, order of magnitude cost estimates for the and the changes occurring in a coastal area is essential in the various components of the shoreline monitoring element. development and evaluation of erosion control strategies. These changes include variations in the position and configura- * Establish, maintain and operate coastal data base (an- tion of the shoreline and in the volumetric sediment budget in an nual cost) = $80,000 - $100,000 area. The most basic level of information needed to begin * Monument system and profile survey developing an effective approach to erosion management is - install 100 monuments and establish horizontal and usually derived from direct measurements of the extent and vertical control - 100 monuments @ $300 - $500 =magnitude of the effects of erosion on the coast. magnitude of the effects of erosion on the coast. $30,000-$50,000 -conduct profile surveys and reduce field data The basic information required for characterizing coastal fea- 100 surveys @ $1,000-$2,000 per survey two times tures and changes includes: per year = $200,000-$400,000 * Aerial photography � long-term and short-term trends in shoreline migrations � Aerial photography * magnitude of shoreline changes caused by storms - + 400 9" X 9" photos at a scale of 1:6000 two times magnitude of shoreline changes caused by sor per year = $12,000 *� volumetric changes occurring along the shore - digitize shoreline and analyze changes in * volume of dune erosion and rate of dune rebuilding shoreline position = $50,000 * effects of existing structures. CHAP 4-3 IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS The data needed to obtain the above information include: * measurements of the amount of land subsidence and an estimate of the rate of eustatic sea level rise * sequential shoreline positions through time * sequential beach/dune/offshore profiles (to the closure depth) Data requirements to obtain this information include: � shoreline orientation �*~ shoreline orientation *~� local wind (or atmospheric pressure) and nearshore * description of the regional geologic setting including sediment grain size d.istribu s bathymetry data for hindcasting wave climate sediment grain size distributions * historical dune volume changes * wave gauge records * volume of ebb and flood deltas at inlets * tidal records � long-term water level measurements � overwash frequency and volume * leveling surveys to estimate land subsidence. * inventory of shoreline protective structures, i.e., loca- leveling surveys to estimate land subsidence. -4~ tion, size and orientation; porosity, permeability, and This information would be used to: transmission characteristics; location, volume and schedule of beach fills, dredging and sand mining *� calculate potential longshore sediment transport rates .schedule of bec .ls degnadsndmiand directions, including frequency and persistence of operations; and aerial photographs, plans and surveys tran sport associated with these projects. transport associated with these projects. estimate the magnitude, impacts and recurrence inter- The information on coastal changes is needed to: vals of storms for cost/benefit and risk analysis * Define the erosion problem with respect to time and * calculate the perturbation of the sediment budget at in- location and to make a preliminary assessment of the lets to determine sand bypassing requirements � interpret the causes of shoreline changes in level and type of effort required to mitigate erosion nter pret the causes of shore changes i n order to predict possible future conditions trends. For example, in a particular area, a docu- rented high chronic rate of shoreline recession over * estimate time required for new inlets to close naturally mented high chronic rate of shoreline recession over the long term would indicate that utilization of beach * develop design criteria for structural and nonstructural responses to erosion control, such as lifetime of beach nourishment may not be cost effective, and that retreat responses to erosion control, suc h as lifetime of beach or a structural response would be required to mitigate fill projects, which is related to the wave height to the or a structural response would be required to mitigate problems associated with erosion. Conversely, a low mgroins; spacingve-halves , orientationt and location of offshore long-term recession rate could indicate the local sedi- groins; spacing, orientation and location of offshore ment budget is only slightly out of balance and that * develop more accurate models to assess and beach renourishment may be an effective measure of develop more ac cu rate models to assess and erosion control. predict impacts of various control alternatives. * Forecast the range of expected shoreline changes at a 4.2 Recommended Changes in Government Programs site'in order to establish appropriate setback require- ments; properly select, design and locate structures; and calculate beach renourishment intervals. Federally subsidized flood insurance has been available in the * Identify the sources of sand feeding the United States since 1968 under Title XIII of the Housing and longshore transport system and potential sources of Urban Development Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448). The National beach fill material. Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provided previously unavail- * Identify and improve the basic understanding of the able flood insurance protection to owners of structures in flood- cause and effect relationships associated with prone areas. At that time, participation in the NFIP was erosional problems. voluntary. The Federal government offered low-cost flood in- * Model the impacts of storm events. surance to individuals in those communities that adopted and 4.1.1.2 Physical Forcings Affecting Coastal Change: The enforced certain minimum floodplain management regulations. information on coastal features and changes presented above The Act was amended in 1973 by the Flood Disaster Protection defines and quantifies the effect of erosion along the coast. Act (P.L. 93-234), which required: However, the causes of these changes are the waves, variations in water levels, and storms that impact the coast. Since these � designated communities to participate in the NFIP pro- are the main physical processes driving sediment transport, gram or face restrictions of federal financial assistance; which in turn determines the coastal response, information on and these factors is also necessary to properly evaluate potential * property owners to purchase flood insurance to erosion management strategies. receive new or additional federal or federally related financial assistance for acquisition or construction pur- The information needed on physical forcings includes: poses in identified special flood hazard areas. * statistics on wave height, period, and direction CHAP 4-4 IMPLEMtlN IAI ION NttUS To obtain federal disaster assistance for construction or ing appropriate methodologies for developing erosion rate data reconstruction purposes, this Act also required property owners required to implement this provision. in participating communities to first purchase flood insurance. Until FIA has issued these regulations, claim payments under The Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 removed the policy will be made based on a determination by the Federal the prohibition against conventional mortgage loans from Insurance Administrator that the building: federally regulated lenders in flood-prone communities not par- . otherwise meets the requirements of the amendment, ticipating in the program, and added a notification procedure to and alert prospective mortgagees that flood disaster relief would not has been cond emned (or otherwise declared unin- has been condemned (or otherwise declared unin- be available for properties in those communities. The maximum habitable) by a state or local authority, and insurance coverage presently available for a single family * is subject to imminent collapse or subsidence as a residence is $185,000 forthe structure and $60,000 for contents. result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or Coverage for other residential structures is $250,000. Contents currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels. are covered up to a maximum of $60,000. The NFIP is dis- cussed in detail in the Hurricane Damage Mitigation Plan for the It is important to note that Section D of the amendment excludes South Shore Nassau and Suffolk Counties, N. Y (Long Island coverage for any structures located in the area west of the groin Regional Planning Board 1984). field on the barrier island from Moriches Inlet to Shinnecock Inlet ..... Thus, the amendment does not apply to the severely Provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of eroded portion of Westhampton Beach. 1987 (Upton-Jones amendment), signed into law on 5 February 1988, expand coverage under the NFIP to include payment of Given these restrictions, it is obvious that this program is tar- the claims of owners of buildings that are subject to imminent geted to a limited number of structures,and is not designed to collapse or subsidence due to erosion so that the building can relocate habitable structures off of inherently vulnerable barrier be relocated or demolished, at the policyholder's option before islands. It is concluded that the NFIP in its current form does the damage occurs. This provision applies to property bordering not go far enough to encourage relocation outside flood and/or on the Great Lakes, the oceans, and other bodies of water erosion hazard zones, thereby ending federal subsidy and en- including lakes, rivers and streams. couragement of a cycle of repeated losses. The extent of this federal subsidy has been documented in National Research To qualify, buildings must be covered by flood insurance under Council (1989). the NFIP by 1 June 1988. After June 1, flood insurance must be ..... Thus the elimination of federal flood insurance coverage in force for two years or the length of ownership of the building, for structures located on barrier islands and spits must be whichever is less. considered. This amendment expands the NFIP's existing coverage, which Should Congress reauthorize the NFIP, it is recommended that: previously paid claims on insured buildings that sustained physi- cal damage as a result of storm-related erosion or were � Incentives to relocate or require relocation of structures damaged as a result of erosion caused by water at higher-than- from hazard areas be strengthened by streamlining the anticipated cyclical levels. The amendment specifies that a section 1362 acquisition process, and by providing building subject to imminent collapse or subsidence from funds to the states to purchase heavily damaged struc- erosion would be eligible for a claim payment totalling up to 40 tures. percent of value (or the cost of relocation, if less) when the * Publicly-subsidized flood insurance for new structures, building is to be relocated, or up to 100 percent of the building's or substantially rebuilt structures in hazard areas be value plus 10 percent (or the cost of demolition, if less than 10 eliminated. percent), if it is to be demolished. * The Acquisition program, under section 1362 be suffi- ciently funded,and that relocation/demolition assis- Under the amendment, the value of the structure is the lowest tance under the Upton/Jones amendment be utilized to of: help end recurring damages. Currently, these programs are underfunded or underutilized, and are * the value of a comparable structure that is not subject not being aggressively administered or administered to imminent collapse or subsidence; strategically to end the recurring damage-repair- � the price paid for the structure and any improvement to * the price paid for the structure and any improvement to damage cycle. In the case of Upton-Jones, one of the the value of the structure, adjusted for inflation; or most appropriate areas for application of its provisions, � the value of the structure under the flood insurance Westhampton Beach, is exempt. The Upton-Jones Westhampton Beach, is exempt. The Upton-Jones contract. amendment should be amended so that it can be ap- The Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) has contracted with plied to the area west of the groin field in Westhampton the NationalAcademy of Sciences for recommendations regard- Beach. Pursuant to the Upton-Jones amendment, CHAP 4-5 IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS New York State should take steps to identify areas of town refuse or fail to adopt a satisfactory program which meets imminent collapse. This would require implementation the standards and administrative and enforcementrequire- of an erosion monitoring program to determine erosion ments, regulatory authority will revert to the county and then to rates for various shoreline segments. the State. � Demolition/relocation assistance as provided under the Upton-Jones Amendment be part of an erosion The NYSDEC has prepared erosion hazard area maps for the management strategy which limits further development south shore coastal areas. Erosion hazard areas are defined in in erosion hazard areas.The Upton-Jones provision the regulations as natural protective feature areas or structural needs to be complemented with FEMA requirements to hazard areas. Most of the south shore falls into the first category, identify special erosion hazard areas, and require land where natural protective features were used to determine the use controls for the management of erosion hazard landward boundary of the hazard area. This boundary is defined areas, as a precondition to a community's participation in the regulations as a line set back 25 ft. from the landward edge in the NFIP. of the dominant natural protective feature. Three types of � New York State amend Article 36, Environmental Con- natural protective features were used in delineating the bound- servation Law (ECL), to give the State authority to pur- ary: sue floodplain violations where there is no satisfactory . the highest, most continuous dune formations local response.Regulation and management of bluffs, where existent floodprone areas currently rest with local government. * t he landward edge of the beach in areas with no dunes Article 36 of the ECL requires local participation in the or bluffs. NFIP, and DEC has provided model regulations; how- ever, implementation requires understanding and a This linewas surveyed independent of political divisions, erosion responsible level of enforcement on the part of the rates (too variable in these areas) or existing structures. local government. Sometimes, because of staffing in- Structural hazard areas have been designated along bluff adequacies or lack of political support, floodplain regulations are not well enforced. There is currently no shorelines with known annual recession rates of 1 ft. or more regulations are not well enforced. There is currently no mechanism for any State agency to step in to assist a (e.g., the eastern portion of East Hampton). The width of the local government or to pursue floodplain violations. zone is defined as 40 times the average annual recession rate This short-coming weakens the overall intent of the pro- plus 25 ft. gram. Erosion hazard area permits must be obtained for development, * The New York State Dept. of Environmental Conserva- new construction, erosion protection structures, public invest- tion assign a sufficient number of personnel to Region I ment, and other land use activities within the designated coastal to ensure compliance with the NFIP. hazard area. The proposed regulated activity must meet the * The NFIP be amended to prohibit alteration of dunes. following general standards: 4.2.2 New York State Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act * It must be reasonable and necessary, relative to alter- New York State's Coastal Management Program (CMP) native sites and the necessity for a shoreline location. received Federal government approval in September 1982. In * It must not aggravate erosion. order to meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone Manage- * It must prevent or minimize adverse effects on natural ment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583), the State had to enact legislation protective features, erosion protection structures or addressing coastal erosion problems. Thus, in 1981 the State natural resources. Legislature passed the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act (Ar- Furthermore, the regulations delineate restrictions on specific tide 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law) as the principal land use activities within both types of coastal hazard areas. For law governing erosion and flood control along New York's natural protective feature areas (Section 505.8), specific restric- coastline. tions are delineated for activities in nearshore areas, beaches, The purpose of Article 34 is to minimize or prevent damage and bluffs, and primary and secondary dunes. Regulated activities destruction to property and natural resources from flooding and include: erosion due to inappropriate actions of man. This coastal hazard * dredging, excavating and mining mitigation policy is to be carried out through a regulatory pro- * construction, modification or restoration of docks, gram based on the control, through permits, of development and piers, wharves, groins, jetties, seawalls, bulkheads, other land use activities in designated erosion hazard areas. breakwaters and revetments Article 34 is intended to be implemented at the local level, except * beach nourishment for State agency activities, which will require permits directly * vehicular traffic from the NYSDEC.Local implementation of State-approved * the creation of pedestrian passages. coastal erosion ordinances is not required; however, should a CHAP 4-6 Iv, 'L-lu-N IAIION Ni-DS Activities not requiring a permit include planting, sand fencing, With regard to the non-structural measures, the land use plan and the erection of private elevated walkways. policies as outlined in this program should be used as the basis for NYSDOS action in its coordinating role, and in the determina- A permit is required forthe construction, modification, or restora- for NYSOS action in its coordinating role, and in the determina- tions of consistency under the NYS Coastal Management Pro- tion of erosion protection structures, with the following condi- tions of consistency under the NYS Coastal Management Pro- gram. On this point, the land use plan provides a frame of tions: proper design, minimum 30 year life, long-term reference regardless of whether or not local governments along maintenance program, and the use of appropriate materials. e so hete n c al gement an the south shore actively participate in coastal management and The structures cannot aggravate erosion at the site or adjacent es o sr cl a rt iiatin ogan develop approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. sites and must minimize/prevent adverse effects to natural protective features (Section 505.9). Maintenance of the littoral drift must be considered as an integral to obtain a variance must prove part of inlet navigation projects. Federal, State and local govern- Any permit applicants wishing to obtain a variance must prove ments must make every effort to ensure that sand obtained from that compliance with the restrictions would cause unnecessary by-pa~sing projects performed by the COE at ocean inlets not hardship or result in practical difficulties. They also must show by-paing projects performed by the COE at ocean inlets not that no reasonable alternative site exists, that responsible be disposed of offshore, but rather be utilized as beach nourish- that no reasonable alternative site exists, that responsible ment for downdrift beaches. The movement and placement of means and measures have been incorporated into the project m n ord wih Te mven and ac sand associated with COE inlet navigation projects and beach design at the developer's expense, and that the structure(s) will noihen projects d bec nourishment projects should be coordinated to eliminate off- be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage (Section 505b 13e resnalsffofodneoio amg(eti shore disposal of sand and minimize overall public expense. 505.13). Article 34 imposes an additional responsibility on NYSEC and It is COE policy to use the least cost alternative for maintenance Article 34 imposes an additional responsibility on NYSDEC and dredging of navigation projects. This COE policy gives no local communities with no additional funding to administer a dredging of navigation projects. This COE policy gives no consideration to sand nourishment needs of downdrift beaches coastal erosion program. As a result, many local governments and is inconsistent with NYDOS policy. It is now cheaper for the on Lng slan ar eletin notto artiipae intheprogam.and is inconsistent with NYDOS policy. It 'is now cheaper for the on Long Island are electing not to participate in the program. COE to utilize offshore disposal of sand dredged from inlet Adequate NYSDEC staff resources need to be made available navigation channels than to pump the sand downdrift of the inlet to assist localities develop regulations, monitor enforcement of navigation channels than to pump the sand downdrift of the inlet directly onto the beach as nourishment. The COE is willing to locally adopted regulations and, where necessary, administer directly onto the beach as nourishment. The CO is willing to programs in localities choosing not to participate. use the by-passed sand for beach nourishment provided the localities assume the cost differential between on-beach and If a locality elects to participate in the coastal erosion program, offshore disposal. issuance of permits for construction, modification or restoration The rapidly eroding Town of Hempstead beach at Point Lookout, The rapidly eroding Town of Hempstead beach at Point Lookout, of erosion protection structures will become the responsibility of located downdrift of Jones Inlet, was rendered useless as a located downdrift of Jones Inlet, was rendered useless as a local Article 34 administrators. These administrators, primarily bathing beach during the summer of 1989. The erosion problem bathing beach during the summer of 1989. The erosion problem building inspectors at the village and town level, will be respon- at the beach came about largely because sand from the last at the beach came about largely because sand from the last sible for assessing whether erosion protection structures are maintenance dredging of the Inlet in 1987 was disposed of properly designed and constructed of appropriate materials; if ateane ea a h n in t as offshore, rather than on the beach as had been done in the past. the structures will be capable of withstanding 30 years of use; ol o athig n te e asabe th a No local matching funds were made available at that time, and if they will be adequately maintained over the long-term and will N a thi dsweem e a il ha e a not aggravate erosion of adjacent sites; and if they will minimize as a result, the COE disposed of the dredged spoil offshore. It adverse impacts to natural protective features. Local ad- is anticipated that State funds will be available for dredging scheduled in 1990-1991. ministrators will not necessarily have the technical background to answer the above questions. NYSDEC personnel with coas- tal erosion control expertise should be added to the staff of 4.2.4 Eliminate Casualty Loss Deductions 4.2.4 Eliminate Casualty Loss Deductions Region I to assist local administrators of Article 34. The State and Federal tax codes should be amended to remove 4.2.3 Coordination of Erosion Management Activities deductions for casualty losses to non-water dependent uses The NYSDOS should further the Proposed South South Hazard resulting from flooding, erosion and wind on property in the Management Program by incorporating its recommendations Coastal High Risk Zone. Under the casualty loss provisions, into the New York Coastal Management Program. As a result, property loss which is not reimbursed by insurance claims can through the consistency provisions of the State and Federal be treated as a deduction on an individual's Federal and State Coastal Acts, navigation and beach erosion controlprojects will tax return. This deduction, which can be applied to loss in be evaluated for compatibility with the South Shore Hazard coastal hazard areas, tends to encourage and not discourage Management Program. Funding for navigation projects should the construction and reconstruction of structures in these areas. remain primarily a Federal government responsibility. The casualty loss provision is a public subsidy of an essentially private use, one which often excludes the public from full enjoy- ment of a public resource. Removing the public subsidy would CHAP 4-7 IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS discourage the siting of non-water dependent structures in by protecting natural protective features and by requiring new hazard areas. development to be located away from hazard areas. The set- back established in the CEHA is the minimum that is acceptable 4.2.5 Disclosure of Flooding and Erosion Hazards and in addition to any yard setback required by the local govern- The Real Estate Law should be amended to require disclosure ment under its zoning law. Under zoning practice, the rear yard of flooding and erosion hazards on all conveyances of coastal requirements are measured from the rear property line. Some property or interest in coastal property. There is currently no local governments are protecting sensitive environmental areas requirement in the Real Estate Law for buyer notification of by excluding these areas from calculation of minimum lot size flooding and erosion hazards when property is conveyed. As a or setback requirements. This practice recognizes that these result, there is an absence of public notification and awareness sensitive areas are not suitable for development and should not of the risks and consequences of locating in a hazard area. The be treated as part of the developable lot. Standardizing use of requirement for consumer notification of coastal hazard condi- the sensitive area exclusion by tying it to CEHA setbacks would tions would allow property owners to make fully informed increase the protection offered by the CEHA setbacks. It has decisions prior to purchase. added benefit of recognizing that inherently hazardous areas (4.2.6 Federal and State Disaster Assistance and areas which will become hazardous in the foreseeable 4.2.6 Federal and State Disaster Assistance future) are not suitable for development. The State and Federal government should require a waiver of 4.2.8 State Coastal Barrier Resources Act public disaster assistance when any permit is given to reconstruct in a Coastal High Risk Zone. A large percentage of New York State should adopt a Coastal Barrier Resources Act public hazard area costs are attributable to recurring payments to protect barrier islands from inappropriate development. The to the same properties over a number of different storm events. Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) provides for This cyclical problem continues because there is no incentive designation of undeveloped barrier islands where no Federal for private owners to relocate their structures, or to bear the funds or projects will be undertaken which would promote responsibility for the personal decision to stay in a hazard area. development or intensive use of the island. The purpose of the The public becomes caught in a cycle of public disaster pay- law is to maintain the natural protective function of barrier islands ments which reinforces reconstruction in coastal hazard areas. by creating disincentives to private investment. 4.2.7 Exclusion of Sensitive Areas in Local Setbacks There is currently-no mechanism at the State level to prohibit State projects or expenditures of State funds which promote Amend 6NYCRR 505 to provide that local zoning setback re- private development or inappropriate public development on quirements are to be computed from the setback established by rie dlo barrier islands. the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act and its implementing regulations. The CEHA reduces public risk and disaster liability CHAP 4-8 GLOSSARY Glossary BATHYMETRY - The measurement of depths of water in oceans, seas, and lakes; also information derived from such MEAN SEA LEVEL - The average height of the surface of the measurements. sea for all stages of the tide over a 19-year period, usually BREAKWATER - A structure protecting a shore area, harbor, determined from hourly height readings. anchorage, or basin from waves. OUTFALL - A structure extending into a body of water for the BYPASSING, SAND - Hydraulic or mechanical movement of purpose of dicharging sewage, storm runoff, or cooling water. sand from the accreting updrift side to the eroding downdrift side PERMEABLE GROIN - A groin with openings large enough to of an inlet or harbor entrance. The hydraulic movement may permit passage of appreciable quantities of littoral drift. include natural as well as movement caused by man. include natural as well as movement caused by man. PILE, SHEET - A pile with a generally slender flat cross section CURRENT, LONGSHORE - The littoral current in the breaker to be driven into the ground or seabed and meshed or interlock- zone moving essentially parallel to the shore, usually generated ed with like members to form a diaphragm, wall, or bulkhead. by waves breaking at an angle to the shoreline. by waves breaking at an angle to the shoreline. PROFILE, BEACH - the intersection of the ground surface with DOWNDRIFT - The direction of predominant movement of lit- a vertical plane; may extend from the top of the dune line to the toral materials. seaward limit of sand movement. EOLIAN SANDS - (or BLOWN SANDS) - Sediments of sand size RE-LOCATION - Movement of structure to a parcel located or smaller which have been transported by winds. They may be outside a high risk area. recognized in marine deposits off desert coasts by the greater RETREAT - Movement of structure to a less vulnerable location angularity of the grains compared with waterborne particles, on the same parcel. FEEDER BEACH - An artificially widened beach serving to REVETMENT - A facing of stone, concrete, etc., built to protect nourish downdrift beaches by natural littoral currents or forces. a scarp, embankment, or shore structure against erosion by GROIN - Ashore protection structure built (usually perpendicular wave action or currents. to the shoreline) to trap littoral drift or retard erosion of the shore. SCARP, BEACH - An almost verticial slope along the beach HINDCASTING, WAVE - The use of historic synopticwind charts caused by erosion by wave action. It may vary in height from a to calculate wave characteristics that probably occurred at some few inches to several feet, depending on wave action and the past time. nature and composition of the beach. SEAWALL - A structure separating land and water areas, JETTY - On open seacoasts, a structure extending into a body of water, and designed to prevent shoaling of a channel by littoral primarily designed to prevent erosion and other damage due to materials, and to direct and confine the stream or tidal flow. wave action Jetties are built at the mouth of a river ortidal inlet to help deepen STORM SURGE - A rise above normal water level on the open and stabilize a channel. coast due to the action of wind stress on the water surface. Storm surge resulting from a hurricane also includes that rise in LONGSHORE TRANSPORT RATE - Rate of transport of level due to atmospheric pressure reduction as well as that due sedimentary material parallel to the shore. Usually expressed to wind stress. in cubic yards (meters) per year. Commonly used as synonymous with LITTORAL TRANSPORT RATE. G-1 REFERENCES References Allen, J. R. and N. P. Psuty. 1987.. Morphodynamics of a single-barred beach with a rip channel, Fire Is- land, New York. Coastal Sediments '87. American Society of Civil Engineers. (p. 1964-1975) Bell, Frederick W. and Vernon R. Leeworthy. 1986. An economic analysis of the importance of saltwater beaches in Florida. SGR-82. Florida Sea Grant College. Gainesville, FL. Berman, Ronald H. Nassau County Bureau of Real Estate, Insurance and Workers' Compensation, Mineola, NY Personal letter 6 December 1989. Bokuniewicz, H. J. et al. 1980. Seasonal beach response at East Hampton, NY Special Report No. 38. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York. Stony Brook, NY. Bokuniewicz, H. J. 1986. The condition of the beach at Fire Island Pines, NY: 1985-1986. Report to the Fire Island National Seashore Advisory Board. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York. Stony Brook, NY. Campbell, Thomas J. et al. 1983. Stage II study - Jones Inlet to Freeport, New York final report. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. New York, NY. Creamer, Thomas M. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, NY. Personal letter 24 October 1989. Davida, Edward. Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works, Hauppauge, NY. Personal interview 14 Septem- ber 1989. Day, Clifford G. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Absecon, NJ. Letter to George R. Stafford, Director, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, State of New York Department of State, Al- bany, NY. 19 October 1988. DeWall, A. E. 1979. Beach changes at Westhampton Beach, New York, 1962-1973. Miscellaneous Report No. 79-5. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center. Fort Belvoir, VA. Everts, C. H. 1973. Beach profile changes on western Long Island. In: D. Coates ed. Coastal Geomor- phology. Proceedings of the ThirdAnnual Geomorphology Symposium. State University of New York. Binghamton, NY. (p. 279-301) Galvin, C. 1985. Review of general design memorandum for project works at Fire Island Inlet. Final report to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. New York, NY. Hands, E. 1982. Predicting adjustments in shore and offshore sand profiles on the Great Lakes. Coastal Engineering TechnicalAid No. 81-4. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Cen- ter. Fort Belvoir, VA. Hyland, Francis. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Babylon, NY. Per- sonal interview 5 September 1989. Jensen, R. E. 1983. Atlantic Coast hindcast, shallow-water, significant wave information. Wave Informa- tion Study Report 9. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center. Vicksburg, MS. R-1 REFERENCES Kassner, J. and J. A. Black. 1982. Efforts to stabilize a coastal inlet: a case study of Moriches Inlet, New York. Shore and Beach 50(2):21-29. Kassner, Jeffrey and J. A. Black. 1983. Fire Island Inlet, New York - management of a complex inlet. Shore and Beach 51 (4):3-8. Leatherman, S. P. and J. R. Allen. 1985. Geomorphic analysis Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Long Is- land, New York. Final report to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. New York, NY. Lehman, Orin. Commissioner, New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Albany, NY. Memorandum on Gilgo Beach erosion emergency to DavidAxelrod, Commissioner, New York State Dept. of Health, 18 October 1988. Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1979. Long Island regional element New York State coastal management program. Hauppauge, NY. Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1984. Hurricane damage mitigation plan for the south shore of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York. Hauppauge, NY. MacLean, David C. and Thomas S. Litwin. 1987. 1986 Long Island colonial waterbird and piping plover survey. Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology, Seatuck Research Program in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Islip, NY. Matthiessen, John. 1989. Planning for sea level rise in southern New England. The Sounds Conservan- cy, Inc. Essex, CT. McCormick, C. L. and M. A. Toscano. 1980. Origin of the barrier island system of Long Island, New York. Geological Society of America Abstract with Program. Northeastern and Southeastern Combined Sec- tions Meeting. Vol. 14, Nos. 1 and 2. McCormick, C. L. 1973. Probable cause of shoreline recession and advance on the south shore of Long Island. In: D. Coates ed. Coastal Geomorphology. Proceedings of the Third Annual Geomorphology Symposium. State University of New York. Binghamton, NY. (p. 61-71) Morton, R. W., et al. 1986. Beach changes at Jones Beach, Long Island, NY 1962-74. Miscellaneous Paper CERC-86-1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center. Washington, DC. National Research Council. 1987. Responding to changes in sea level: engineering implications. Na- tional Academy Press. Washington, DC. National Research Council. 1989. Managing coastal erosion through the National Flood Insurance Pro- gram. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. Nersesian, Gilbert. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, NY. Telephone inter- view 13 July 1989. New York State Department of State. 1987. New York State designated significant fish and wildlife habitat rating forms for Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Albany, NY. Niedoroda, A. W. et al. 1985. Barrier island evolution, middle Atlantic shelf, U. S. A. part II1: Evidence from the shelf floor. In: G. F. Oertel and S. P. Leatherman eds. Marine Geology 63:363-396. Panuzio, F. L. 1968. The Atlantic Coast of Long Island. Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Coastal Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineering. (p. 1222-1241) Pritchard, D. W. and J. DiLorenzo. 1985. Assessment of the effects of inlet geometry on currents in Moriches Inlet and on tidal ranges and storm surge elevations in Moriches Bay. Final report to the County of Suffolk Dept. of Health Services. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York. Stony Brook, NY. R-2 REFERENCES Research Planning Institute, Inc. 1985. Sediment budget analysis summary, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point reformulation study. Final report to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. New York, NY. Schmeltz, E. J. et al. 1982. Beach/inlet interaction at Moriches Inlet. Proceedings, Eighteenth Con- ference on Coastal Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. (p. 1062-1077) Shipp, R. C. 1980. Morphology and sedimentology of a single-barred nearshore system, eastern Long Is- land, New York. Master's Thesis. University of South Carolina. Columbia, SC. Suffolk County Planning Dept. 1985. Analysis of dredging and spoil disposal activity conducted by Suf- folk County. Hauppauge, NY. Taney, N. E. 1961. Geomorphology of the south shore of Long Island, New York. Beach Erosion Control Board Technical Memorandum No. 128. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC. Tanski, J. 1983. Monthly beach changes at Ocean Beach, Fire Island, New York, as measured by stu- dents of Bay Shore High School. Unpublished manuscript. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York. Stony Brook, NY. Tanski, J. and H. J. Bokuniewicz. 1988. Westhampton Beach: options for the future. New York Sea Grant Special Report 102. New York Sea Grant Institute. Stony Brook, NY. Tanski, J. and H. J. Bokuniewicz. 1989a. Identification and assessment of technical information require- ments for developing coastal erosion management strategies. Report to the Long Island Regional Plan- ning Board. Hauppauge, NY. Tanski, J. and H. J. Bokuniewicz. 1989b. An overview and assessment of the coastal processes data base for the south shore of Long Island. Report to the Long Island Regional Planning Board. Hauppauge, NY. Tanski, J. and H. J. Bokuniewicz. 1989c. A preliminary assessment of erosion management strategies for the south shore of Long Island. New York. Report to the Long Island Regional Planning Board. Haup- pauge, NY. Titus, J. G. 1984. Planning for sea level rise before and after a coastal disaster. M. Barth and J. Titus eds. Greenhouse effect and sea level rise: a challenge for this generation. Van Nostrand, Reinhold. (p. 253-269) Titus, J. G., T. R. Henderson and J. M. Teal. 1984. Sea level rise and wetlands loss in the United States. National Wetlands Newsletter 6(5):3-6. Town of Babylon Dept. of Environmental Control. 1988. Development potential of town of Babylon- owned vacant lots on the barrier beach and bay islands. Babylon, NY. Town of Babylon Dept. of Environmental Control. 1989. Environmental assessment for the renewal of the Town of Babylon beach leases. Babylon, NY. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1965. Report on beach erosion control cooperative study Atlantic Coast of Long Island, New York, Fire Island Inlet and the shore westerly to Jones Inlet. House Document No. 115. Eighty-ninth Congress, Washington, DC. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1966. Beach erosion and interim hurricane study, Atlantic Coast of Long Island, New York, Jones Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet. New York District. New York, NY. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Final environmental impact statement, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New York Beach Erosion and Hurricane Protection Project. New York District. New York, NY. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1980. Supplement no. 2 to general design memorandum no. 1: Moriches to Shinnecock reach. Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Long Island, New York, Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project. New York District. New York, NY. R-3 REFERENCES U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1983. General design memorandum Moriches Inlet project, Long Island, NY. New York District. New York, NY. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Jones Inlet, New York Navigation project, modification of the exist- ing project operation. New York District. New York, NY. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. General design memorandum Shinnecock Inlet project, Long Is- land, New York. Final reformulation study and environmental impact statement. New York District. New York, NY. Waste Management Institute. 1989. Use impairments and ecosystem impacts of the New York Bight. Dynamac Corp.. Rockville, MD. Williams, S. J. and E. P. Meisburger. 1987. Sand sources for the transgressive barrier coast of Long Is- land, New York: Evidence for landward transport of shelf sediments. Coastal Sediments '87. American Society of Civil Engineers. (p. 1517-1532) Wolff, M. P. 1982. Evidence for onshore sand transfer along the south shore of Long Island, New York and its implication against the "Bruun Rule." Northeastern Geology 4(1):10-16. Wolff, Fred, Dennis Radcliffe and Charles Merguerian. 1987. The impact of sea level rise on Long Is- land, N. Y Geology Dept., Hofstra University. Hempstead, NY. R-4 R-4