coastal geomorphology of New Jersey

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

RUTGERS
THE STATE UNIVERSITY
OF NEW JERSEY

COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGY
OF
NEW JERSEY
VOLUME I

Karl F. Nordstrom

GB
459.4
Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies
1977
v.l .

THE COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGY OF

NEW JERSEY

VOLUME I

Management Techniques
and Management Strategies

by
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
Karl F. Nordstrom COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
Technical Report 77-1 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

December 1977

Dr. Norbert P. Psuty, Director
Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies
Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey
Doolittle Hall - Busch Campus
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903

This report was prepared by the Center for Coastal and Environmental
Studies at Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey for the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, Division of Marine Services,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection with financial
assistance from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
under the provisions of Section 305 of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act, P.L. 92-583.

NJ/RU-OCZM-TR No. 1 (I)-400-12/77

Property of CSC Library

ABSTRACT

This report presents a set of recommended guidelines for a
management program designed to assess the effects of erosion of
the New Jersey shoreline and evaluate techniques for addressing this
erosion. This is an initial step in the development of
policy statements for management of the beach resources within
the state. An effort has been made to identify strategies
which are compatible with the dynamics of the shoreline system
and which maximize the recreational and protective values of
the beach and dune areas.

The report examines the condition of the beaches and dunes
in terms of future needs and available resources. Attention
is largely devoted to methods for improving the potential of
the beachfront for recreation and protection because these
land use options are clearly the most suitable, considering
the dynamics of the system.

The natural trends of development of the beaches and the
migration of barrier islands is considered along with the
effects of man. The report points out the importance of the
dune area and the problems resulting from housing construction
on the natural barrier island system. The migration of inlets
due to longshore transport is also pointed out because erosional
problems are particularly acute at the north end of the
barrier islands. The possibility of using beach fill and sand
bypass systems to improve conditions is explored as well as
construction or alteration of groins,jetties, seawalls, and
other static protective measures.

Budgetary constraints at Federal, State, County, and
Municipal levels restrict the implementation of many measures.
it is, therefore, imperative to get the-most use out of the
dollars for beach protection. Accordingly, areas of particular
. concern have been identified as well as areas which should
receive special attention for development as recreation areas
or for preservation. Planning strategies are suggested which
recognize the dynamic nature of the barrier islands and inlets
while maintaining a balance between the optimum use and the
preservation of the natural environment. It is acknowledged,
however, that the formulation of specific policy statements
requires a more thorough examination of the economic and
environmental controls operative, as well as the interests
of local groups and the policies of the other governmental
agencies charged with regulating land use in the coastal zone.

FORWARD

This document is part of a two volume report prepared for
the State Office of Coastal Zone Management by the Rutgers
University Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies. The
purpose of Volume Two is to develop a system for describing
the New Jersey shoreline in terms of beach dynamics, identify
and characterize problem areas, and suggest which management
alternatives may be applied to relieve the problem conditions.
This information is used in this volume to recommend preferred
management techniques and State policies.

This volume contains the management techniques and management
strategies which should be implemented by the State of New Jersey
to achieve the maximum use of the vital beach resources of
the state and to minimize the erosion hazard to the greatest
extent possible. Although a good deal of the information presented
in this report is based upon that presented in the Basis and
Background volume (Volume II), this report is intended to be
a free-standing document. Much of the information presented in
Volume II is summarized here, and few planners will have need
to refer to that document.

The report was developed in cooperation with Stewart E. Hougan
and David N. Kinsey of the Office of Coastal Zone Management and
Bernard J. Moore of the Office of Shore Protection, State of
New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection. The
author gratefully acknowledges the Assistance of the staffs of
each of the shorefront communities and county offices contacted
as well as the public officials and private individuals too
numerous to mention here. The following individuals deserve
special mention for the time they took to contribute to the
report.

Mr. D-W. Bennett, American Littoral Society
Mr. Robert Huguley, Monmouth County Planning Board
Mr. David Rutherford, Cape May County Planning Board

I would also like to thank Gail A. Kucma and Pamela A. McKay
for cartographic work and Melinda C. Bellafronte for typing the
manuscript.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Ab1stract.a.....................
Forward .i............................
Listing of Tables....................... v
Listing of Figures.................vi
Introduction .:...................
Overview of the Problem................. 1
Methodology ........................1
Guiding Principles.................... 2
State Involvement.................... 3
Focus...........................4
Classification Systems.................... 5
General......................... 5
B each Segmnents...................... 5
Beach Categories..................... 5
Category ABeaches................. 8
Category B Beaches................. 8
Category C Beaches ................. 9
Category D Beaches................. 9
Category E Beaches................. 9
Shoreline Environments.................. 9
Other Factors.......................10
Coastal Land and Water Uses: General Discussion........13
Recreation .........................13
Commercial Fisheries ...................15
Industrial Use ......................15
Mining ..........................15
Residential Use ......................15
Wildlife Habitat .....................16
Guidelines on Permissible Land and Water Uses .........17
Land Use Planning.....................17
Permissible Uses by Beach Category ............18
Permissible Uses by Shoreline Environment.........20
Construction in the Beach Environment ........20
Construction in the Dune Area ............21
Construction in the Upland Environment........21
Barrier Islands.................21
Mainland ....................21
Conclusions on Construction'in Beach -
Dune - Upland Environments..............22
Methods for Erosion Control, Mitigation, and/or Restoration .. 22
State Policies ......................22
Existing Federal and Local Efforts ............24
Efforts of the Corps of Engineers ..........24
Other Federal Efforts ................25
Insurance....................25
Presidential Declarations............25
Municipalities....................25
Private Citizens...................26
Mitigating Measures....................26
Modification of Property Loss Potential.......26

iv
Page
Housing Construction..................26
Dune Preservation ...................28
Other Land Use Controls ................28
Modification of Erosion Hazard ...............29
Sand Recycling.....................29
Structural Alternatives ................29
Mechanisms for Dealing with Erosion-Related Problems on
a Continuing Basis .................. p....30
General...........................30
Background Studies .....................31
Surveillance Systems ....................32
Protection Measures ..................32
Monitoring ....................32
Local Efforts...................33
Sediment Recyclingq................34
Preventive Measures ..................34
Actions Following Hazards ...............34
Conclusions ......................35
Procedures for Identifying Candidates for Restoration ......35
Concluding Statement.......................38
References Cited..3........................9

LISTING OF TABLES

Table Page
I Adjustments to coastal erosion............. 4
2 Summary table of conditions observed on the New
Jersey shoreline which are important in assessing
beach protection problems and selecting appropriate
land. uses........................ 5
3 Summary table of erosion areas of particular concert ... 12
4 Possible recreation-related uses of beach, nearshore,
and dune district ....................14
5 Summary table for permissible land and water uses
by shoreline category ..................18
6 Range of potential improvements for the New Jersey
inlets and beaches suggested by the Corps of
Engineers ........................24
7 Generalized selection criteria for identifying
candidates for restoration................36

LISTING OF FIGURES

Figure

I Identification of shoreline zone .............6
2 Categories of shoreline subdivision ..8.........
3 Schematic diagram of beach environments..........10
4 New Jersey, showing place names used in text and
erosion areas of particular concern ...........11

INTRODUCTION

Overview of the Problem

Continuing erosion of the New Jersey beaches coupled with
shorefront construction has resulted in the reduction of their
usefulness for recreation and as a form of protection. A large
part of the economy of the state is dependent upon the availability
of adequate beaches, and millions of dollars are being spent for
beach protection for buildings and facilities in the beachfront
communities. Structural and non-structural measures, to include
land use planning, are required to insure the welfare of the shore-
front residents, the wildlife, insure the viability of the State's
multi-million dollar resort industry, and maintain the quality
of the recreational experience. In spite of most efforts, the
beaches are still eroding as a result of rising sea levels and
continued longshore transport.

This report is designed as an initial step in the develop-
ment of a program for the management of the beach, nearshore, and
dune environments. This phase of the program will then be linked
to the offshore and onshore environments as part of the comprehen-
sive coastal zone management package.

Methodology

The methodology used in this study has been to break the
shoreline down into a number of segments for detailed analysis,
examine the similarities and differences among each of the com-
partmentalized beach segments and to then use this information to
develop management techniques and strategies. The methods employed
take into consideration the great variety of forms, yet allow for
the development of general management guidelines which are appli-
cable to the whole state.

The analysis of beach segments included detailed inspection
of the excellent series of 1:10,000 scale aerial photographs
available within the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, analysis of low elevation, oblique aerial photographs
flown specifically for this project, and extensive field reconnais-
sance. Programs developed in other states in their Coastal Zone
Management Programs were considered, as well as the numerous documents
on the shoreline of New Jersey developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The guidelines recommended here are designed to be compat-
ible with the physical processes which are operative within each
one of the distinct geomorphic units and the recommendations
reflect the thinking of coastal geomorphologists. However, care was
taken that the recommendations were guided by the principles
established by the planning staff of the state Office of-Coastal
Zone Management.

2
Guiding Principles

The document entitled Alternatives for the Coast (N.J.
OCZM, 1976) presented several basic principles to guide the
formulation of the alternative policies identified below.
These principles establish fundamental attitudes toward coastal
resources, appropriate land and water uses of coastal resources,
how these resources are used, and how public decisions are made
on the use of the coast and its resources.

1. The productivity of existing marine resources should be
maintained or improved.

2. The shoreline should be devoted only to activities that
depend upon direct water access and require a shoreline
or waterfront location.

3. The valuable upland, air, land, and water resources of the
natural environment of the coast should be respected and
protected.

4. The design of coastal land uses should respect and rein-
force the visual characteristics of diverse parts of the
coast. The mix of scenic resources of the New Jersey
coast should be maintained.

5. Orderly, balanced, residential, commercial, and industrial
development should be accommodated in the coast, in settle-
ment patterns that are economically efficient and respect
the natural environment.

6. Activities that increase public access to the coast should
be encouraged, and existing public rights of access to the
coast should be protected.

7. Development of coastal resources may best take place when
an appropriate geographic strip of land or water - a
buffer - separates the development site from valuable
surrounding resources and absorbs or mitigates the impact
of the development.

8. Coastal resources and uses should be considered in terms
of both their regional and site specific characteristics
and impacts.

Not all of these principles are compatible with the desires of
all of the State residents and a certain amount of antagonism to new
State management policies may be expected. However, when problem
areas are viewed in the light of natural processes, the appropriate
solution becomes quite clear and the state may feel comfortable in
proposing a particular strategy. For example, discouraging residen-
tial or commercial development in a high risk erosion area is
clearly the most responsible policy. Optimum land use is then
dependent upon the physical characteristics of the shoreline segment.

State Involvement

Three alternative goals identifying different levels of state
control over shorelinle land use are proposed as a basis for
discussion. These alternatives are:

1. The management program should not give special attention
to beach erosion since these processes are still only
poorly understood and cannot be controlled. Economic
losses may be defrayed by insurance and present municipal
zoning standards and existing state and federal legisla-
tion are adequate to control the dangers of developing
beach front lands.

2. The protection of some beaches and dunes is an issue of
importance which should be addressed by the State coastal
zone program, particularly in those shoreline segments
where life and property are threatened or where wildlife
sanctuaries or aesthetically pleasing natural settings must
be preserved.

3. The protection of the State's shoreline is an issue of
such dimension that New Jersey's coastal zone program will
be unable to confront it without new State legislation.

The 'poor building practices identified in Volume II and sum-
marized in Table 2 of this report indicate that not all of the
communities have zoning standards which are adequate to insure
against costly and dangerous misalocations of shoreline land use.
(This factor was also noted in Cape May County Planning Board,
1976). This, combined with the consideration that the shoreline
of New Jersey is a system of interrelated segments, each of which
is dependent upon changes in the adjacent segment, implies that
some state guidance is required. Accordingly, alternative (1) is
believed to be inappropriate. The implementation of either
alternative (2) or (3) is dependent upon the ability of local
communities to recognize the magnitude of the beach management
problem and work toward solutions which are compatible with the
natural processes, are environmentally sound and are in the inter-
ests of state residents as well as local residents. The state
coastal zone management strategy must therefore be concerned with
the problems inherent to beach erosion and both site specific and
regional policies are necessary in order to mitigate these problems.
Potential state actions include:

1. Encouraging remedial measures such as artificial beach
nourishment, dune stabilization, and the building, removal,
or alteration of protective structures.

2. The development of additional regulations and suggestions
dealing with the location of development. Areas with the
highest instability of fragility have been identified
(see-Table 3). These areas should be given special atten-
tion.

3. The development of regulations and suggestions dealing
with the control of recreational and resource utilization
activities. Activities which adversely affect the
natural stabilizing influence of the beaches and dunes
or the ecological benefits of the beaches could be dis-
couraged.

Focus

Two recurring themes will be seen throughout the report. One
is related to the need for the development or expansion of recrea-
tional beaches or improving access to these beaches. The second is
the need to minimize the property damage and economic losses due to
the destructive effects of storms or long-term erosion. Both of
these involve direct protection of the shoreline itself, as well as
the prevention or elimination of threatened structures or those
which serve no beneficial function. Table I presents adjustments
to coastal erosion which are aimed at the reduction of economic
loss resulting from storm and long-term erosion. The table indi-
cates that there are several different methodologies for attacking
the problem. These range from suffering the loss of the structures
(in some cases with economic compensation) to modifying the erosion
hazard by protecting the buidings. There is, therefore, a broad
spectrum of possible ways in which coastal erosion can be treated.
It would appear from the table that the maximum input from State
planners would be related to the modification of loss potential by
zoning, building codes, and purchases of eroding land. However,
both the adjustment to loss and modification of erosicon hazards
strongly affect shoreline land use in segments beyond the immediate
erosion problem area. Therefore, it is clear that State guidance
is required, regardless of the methodology adopted to reduce
erosion hazards. State policies for these adjustments are articu-
lated in greater detail later in this report.

Table 1. Adjustments to Coastal Erosion. Modified from Mitchell (1974).

Adjustments Modification of Modification of
to Loss Loss Potential Erosion Hazard

Loss bearing Coastal planning Dune construction

Insurance Building codes Groins, jetties

Emergency Public purchase Bulkheads, seawalls,
public of eroding land and revetments
assistance
Moving endangered Breakwaters
structures
Regulations against
Installing deep destruction of dunes
pilings on buildings and vegetation

Storm warning and Small-scale structures
forecasting systems
Emergency filling
and grading

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

General

The shoreline of New Jersey is characterized by a
considerable variety of shoreline orientations and degrees of
onshore development. It has been found'useful to employ three
different classification systems as a preliminary step in the
analysis of the differences and similarities in beach behavior.
These are identified as shoreline zones, beach categories, and
individual beach segments. The systems are described in Volume
II, page 3. The first classification system broke the shoreline
down into five zones (Figure 1) which formulated the basis for
generalization about the New Jersey shoreline as a whole. This
classification system was used to present a general overview of
beaches within the states, and it is not used in this volume.

Beach Segments

The second classification represented an attempt to group
beaches into categories based upon exposure to wave, wind, and
tidal processes. This classification , in turn, served as the means
of breaking the shoreline down into 51 smaller, discrete segments
for a detailed analysis. Detailed investigations were conducted
in each of these 51 segments. Section 4 of Volume II of this
report describes these sections in narrative form. The process
controls and present state of development which restrict land use
within these 51 segments are presented in summary form
in Table 2. Many of the problem conditions identified in the
table are common to all beach segments to varying degrees. This
factor, combined with the obvious need to reduce a complex problem
to a more fundamental analysis has required the use of a more basic
classification system.

Beach Categories

A classification system of beach categories was developed,
based on differences in exposure to ocean swell, locally generated
bay waves, and tidal currents. The beaches were grouped into five
categories which provide the basis for the discussion of management
strategies presented in this volume.

Table 2. Summary table of conditions observed on the New Jersey
shoreline which are important in assessing beach pro-
tection problems and selecting appropriate land uses.

Bad Building practices or detrimental effects of man
.ui.lding on the flood-prone barrier iplands,
Building on dunes.
Long, high,impermeabl.e groins starving downdrift beachess
Construction of bulkheads which are of insufficient strength.
Absence of dune walk-over structures.

cXRaritan Bay

< / 9 r Northern Barrier

Headlands

~-~~~~~~~~~~ ) \ \Northern
Barrier Islands
, CComplex

Southern
Barrier Islands
Delaware /J <7/Complex
Bay
? 10 20 30
mlTES

Figure 1. Identification of shoreline zones.

Table 2 Continued

Bulldozing the dune to -facilitate house construction or to provide
a view of the sea.
Riprap structures not anchored by concrete cap.
The presence of large gaps in dune fields.
Widening the dune at the expense of the beach or lowering the
dune and compensating for this by widening the dune.
Allowing people to walk on dune.
Building projects keeping pace with deposition.
Sacrificing dunes to maintain boardwalks flush with the backshore
surface.

Natural factors contributing to erosion
The absence of beach fronting seawalls.
Narrow beaches.
Absence of protective dunes.
Low backshore elevations.
Overwash of bulkheads.
Sand drifting over bulkheads into structures onshore.
The importance of tidal effects.
The importance of northwesterly winds and waves on bayside beaches
and northeasterly storm conditions on oceanside beaches.
The presence of deep offshore channels.
The absence of sediments fronting beach protection structures.
Lack of vegetation on the dune.
Greater aeolian activity associated with finer grain sizes.

Evidence of erosion
The absence of beach fronting seawalls.
Building set on pilings extending out from the foreshore.
Narrow beaches.
Evidence of destruction of protective structure.
Breaching/erosion of the landward end of the bulkheads or groin and
seawalls.
Foreshore extending directly under boardwalk with on backshore.
Linear street patterns superimposed on curvilinear shoreline forms.

Factors affecting land use
The absence of beach fronting seawalls.
Narrow beaches.
Absence of protective dunes.
Low backshore elevations.
The width of the beach in its relation to (1) dune creation and
(2) a buffer against erosion of the dune.
The presence of road offsets with relatively natural areas downdrift
to them.
Greater aeolian activity associated with finer grain sizes.
Widening the dune at the expense of the beach or lowering the dune
and compensating for this by widening the dune.
Foreshore extending directly under boardwalk with no backshore.
Potential for island or spit breaching and inlet creation.

Considerations requirinq further investigation
D5wndrift effects of beach protection structures.
The use and effectiveness of sand fencing.

Table 2 Continued

The effects of beach vehicles.
Potential for island or spit breaching and inlet creation.
Building houses on the dune or pilings.
Widening the dune at the expense of the beach.
Examining beach fill alternatives.

These categories are identified by letter and are described
below. Figure 2 identifies the shoreline forms and orientations
which provide the basis for subdivision for the classification
system. A summary description of the important process controls
for each of these beach categories is presented in Table 5 where
it forms the basis for discussion of the guidelines permissible
for land and water uses for the shoreline.

Inlet

Ocean

Bay DP

BayA

- ~~D

Figure 2. Categories of shoreline subdivision,

Category A (Exposed Ocean Beaches)

These exposed ocean beaches comprise the bulk of the Atlantic
Ocean shoreline. The shoreline orientation within these segments
is essentially linear, favoring longshore transport. The domi-
nant processes are ocean waves and wave-induced currents. (e.g.
Long Branch).

Category B (North-east island Beaches)

These beaches are located at the north-east ends of the
barrier islands where they are in a position to be noticeably
affected by inlet processes. These beaches are characterized
by a prominent seaward bulge in shoreline form. Ocean waves
and currents interact with inlet tidal currents in a complex
manner on these beaches. (e.g. the ocean beach at Atlantic City).

9
Category C (Inlet Throat Beaches)

These are the inlet throat beaches located in the southern
portion of the state on the northern side of the barrier islands.
Here, tidal currents are dominant, although ocean wave effects are
important, especially during storms. (e.g. the northern tip of
Atlantic City facing Absecon Inlet).

Category D (Bayside Beaches)

These are the bayside beaches which are characterized by low
wave energies. Wave conditions are more variable on these beaches
than on the oceanside due to the effect of rapidly changing local
wind conditions on bayside wave generation. (e.g. Raritan Bay and
Delaware Bay).

Category E (Complex Beaches)

The category E beaches are the complex beaches locationed at
the northern and southern termini of the ocean shoreline of New
Jersey. They are subject to the effects of swell and bay waves,
as well as tidal currents. (e.g. Cape May Point).

Shore line Environments

Beaches of a different category have different rates of long-
term erosion or short-term mobility. These differences must be
considered in assessing permissible uses for the beach, dune, and
upland (coastal) environments. Accordingly, the shoreline has
been stratified into these shoreline environments (see Figure 3).
Permissible uses are then based upon the category of shoreline
and the particular environment.

The three panels show differences in the dimensions of the
environments which result from construction in the coastal zone.
The first two panels show the immediate effects of construction
which results in a lowering of the secondary dune to facilitate
house construction or provide a view of the sea. The bottom
panel shows how maintaining a fixed shoreline position under
erosional conditions results in a restriction of both the
beach and dune environments. The width of the dune is partially
compensated for by increased dune height favored by sand fencing
or dune grass planting. Because bayside environments are not
treated in this report, there has been no attempt to differentiate
nearshore, beach, or dune environments nor identify the effects
of development on bayside sites.

Figure 3 presents an idealized cross section of a barrier
island system. There are portions of the shoreline of New Jersey
where the beach and dune environments are backed by a high,
upland surface and the bayside environments do not exist. Accord-
ingly, the term 'upland' is used in this diagram even though
this location is often lower than the dune environment.

Nearshore Beach Dune Upland Bay

Neashore Beach Dune Upland j Bay

Nearshore Beach Upland IBay

Figure 3. Schematic diBeach Bay

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of beach environments.

Other Factors

A glance at Figure 4 reveals that the locations designated
as areas of particular concern (see Table 3) are not confined
to one region in the state. Further, these areas of concern
are not totally related to the shoreline category but depend
to a large extent upon the degree of shoreline development.
Management strategies then are not strictly confined to protec-
tion from (or modification to) the natural environment, but
require land uses regulations to reduce the potential for
future erosion hazards. A comprehensive discussion of
factors relating to improvement of wildlife habitat or considera-
tion of the economic, political, or cultural preferences of
shorefront residents or visitors is beyond the scope of this
report. Nevertheless, recommendations have been made to reflect
these considerations.

Raritan Bay

Long Branch / 11

j10

-9

~.8
Atlantic City

16
Delaware
Bay
Cape May Point 2

4
I I 0 20 30
c ......atpe May Inlet

'\3 Cape May

Figure 4. New Jersey showing place names used in text and
erosional areas of particular concern. The latter are identified
by number and are described in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary table of erosion areas of particular concern*

A.P.C. Segment No. Area Erosional Evidence
No. (from Vol. II)

1 Delaware Cumberland County (developed very narrow beaches with struc-
Bay portions along bayshore) tures eroding away

2 1 Middle Township (developed narrow beaches with structures
portions along bayshore) eroding away

3 6 Cape May City (especially no beach at high tide
area between Wilmington and
Ocean Aves.)

I4 10 North Wildwood (where narrow (or no) beach - waves
Hereford Inlet fronts beach) break over seawall causing flooding
problems

~5 18 Strathmere (Putnam Ave. to narrow beaches, high beach
end of developed island) mobility

6 20 Ocean City (3rd St. to narrow beaches, city can handle
18th St.) more visitors than beaches can

7 21 Ocean City (E. Atlantic Blvd. beach varies greatly with inlet
to Newcastle Rd.) dynamics

8 24 Atlantic City (where Absecon no beach, water goes right
Inlet fronts beach, Oriental under boardwalk
Ave. to Parkside)

9 31 Barnegat Light (8th to 4th beach narrow because of inlet
St.) dynamics

10 36A&B except Loch Arbour to Elberon narrow beaches - groins in
Long Branch state of disrepair

11 36B&C Long Branch needs attention because of
narrow beaches and proximity
to large urban areas

12 36D & 37 Seabright and Monmouth little or no beach, seawall
Beach in state of disrepair

13 44 - 51 Developed areas along Raritan very narrow beaches
Bay

* See Figure 2 for location. These sites are discussed in greater detail in
Section 5 of Volume II. Other minor areas of concern are also presented in
that section.

COASTAL LAND AND WATER USES: GENERAL DISCUSSION'

Recreation

Recreation is the most direct use that people make of the
water's edge. Although much of the time spent on the beaches is
for sunbathing and swimming, there are a considerable number of
beach-related activities. Table 4 identifies possible recreation-
related uses of the beach, nearshore,,and dune district. These
uses are somewhat restrictive because of the highly dynamic
nature of the beach and nearshore environment and the require-
ments for protection of the dune district. Other uses, less
compatible with shoreline dynamics or with the protective
function of these environments, are presently practiced and
could be listed. However, the list presented here is largely
confined to uses which are not dependent upon structures, except
for removable concession stands, lifeguard towers, and related
structures. The only permanent facilities indicated are the
amusement piers and boardwalks. These permanent facilities should
be restricted to communities which are developed to handle a
large number of visitors and where the aesthetic value or wild-
life habitat functions of the shoreline are minimal.

Although the demand for public recreation has been increasing,
opportunities have been declining. According to NRDC (1976)
only 2 percent of the U.S. coastline is now available for
public recreation and many of the most accessible areas are
being lost to private development. It is, therefore, becoming
increasingly important that the state consider the acquisition
of property developer exactions, and other techniques for
enhancing public recreational use of the beach.

Excessive recreational use may damage certain fragile
coastal resources, however, and the management program should
recognize this. The dunes, for example, are particularly fragile
environments and cannot bear too much foot traffic. The manage-
ment program should tailor the recreational use to the carrying
capacity of the area, and the number of visitors that can be
accomodated in a certain area must be computed to avoid overtaxing
the resource, disturbing the natural protective function of the
feature, or reducing its value as wildlife habitat.

Recreational activities which are not dependent upon permanent
structures are very suitable in highly mobile and hazard prone
areas. However, not all recreational uses may be consistent with
the specific beach dynamics. Further, although beaches (ocean
beaches in particular) possess opportunities for multiple recreation
uses, some of these uses conflict (e.g. swimming and surfing) . In

Many portions of this section are excerpted directly from
National Resources Defense Council (1976) .In addition to the six
uses identified here, NRDC (1976) identifies uses for agriculture
and power production. These are not considered important potential
uses in the immediate vicinity of the beach, and they are not
included in the present report.

Table 4. Possible recreation-related uses of beach, nearshore
and dune district.

Sports
swimming - including wading, surfing, rafts, etc.
fishing & crabbing (private and commercial) - in surf,
from piers, groins, jetties, boats
games - volleyball, "vcatch"l, kite-flying, etc.
jogging
boating (sailing and motor) - pleasure, fishing, commercial,
sightseeing
beach-buggies*
diving - scuba and skin
water skiing
riding bikes (on boardwalk)

Relaxation
watching - people, sunrise, sunset, stars, lights on boats,
waves, ships, animals
sitting - on benches, sunbathing, picnicking, reading
socializing
walking - beach and boardwalk, beachcombing, nature walk,
walk dog
miscellaneous - feed seagulls, eat seafood, catch sand
crabs, amusement parks, camp (overnight & day) , hunting,
building sand castles

Work
Life guards, beach patrol, park rangers, fishermen, maintenance
people, badge checkers, concession stands

*This use is felt to be incompatible but is left here pending
investigation of the effect of vehicles on beach behavior.

other areas, municipal ordinances may restrict or prohibit some
activities. Private residences, large-scale beach front
condominiums, or hotels also limit access to a priviledged few in2
areas which could be available to all and for a variety of uses

The development of beaches for recreation should also be
evaluated for the total impact on the shoreland in surrounding
areas. Although recreation may be suitable from the standpoint

zLegal access to both the wet and dry sand beaches, public and
private, and to the seawalls, jetties, and groins should be
more clearly defined (New Jersey Beach Access Study Commission,
1977). That study urges the enactment of a comprehensive
beach management law to address the right of public access,
the protection of private property, and the ground rules by
which municipalities can manage public beaches and pay for their
maintenance. The Coastal Zone Management Act amendments of
1976 also call upon states to develop planning processes for
protection of and access to public beaches and other public
areas.

of beach dynamics, these activities may conflict with use of
the beach as a wildlife habitat. more extensive recreational use
may also have adverse effects upon transportation patterns and
place undue stress on inland facilities.

Commercial Fisheries

Harvesting, processing, and marketing of fish is a major
economic activity in New Jersey. However, this use is not
dependent upon the immediate area of the beach. The development
of the beach can have adverse effects on fisheries, especially
in the contribution to water pollution. Inlet dredging can also
have implications to fishing, since the access to the ocean for
fishing boats will be affected. A related use - shipping - is
less affected by development of the beach, although possibilities
for oil spills can have an effect on recreational use of an
area. The dredging necessary for large vessels may also supply
beach fill. The issues identified above are only marginally
related to beach dynamics and are not treated in this report.

Industrial Use

Some industries are located'on waterfronts because of a need
for access to water transportation or cooling water. Most, how-
ever, do not require waterfront locations And are there because
of the low cost of coastal lowlands, easy access to markets,
and inexpensive sites for waste disposal afforded by coastal
waters. New industrial development is now being directed away
from vital natural areas or areas of environmental concern on
the coast and industries which are not coastal-dependent are
required to site their facilities inland. Location in the
immediate vicinity of the beach environment appears to offer no
advantages to industrial use. The emplacement of such features
in a hazard zone would greatly increase the scale of economic
loss of shorefront buildings.

Mining

Potential mining activities in the vicinity of the New Jersey
beaches appears to be confined to the removal of sand and shells.
At present, the removal of material from the beach is prohibited.
However, there is evidence of local abuse of this regulation.'
The removal of sand from the beach diminishes its protective effect
while removal of material from the bluffs behind the beach increases
the probability of bank failure by reducing the structural support
of the embankment and its vegetation cover.

Residential Use

The beach/dune system and the barrier islands offer no unique
engineering advantages over upland locations for construction of

'Material is periodically removed from the beach to provide fill
behind bulkheads and material which is washed or blown over the
bulkheads from the oceanside to the landward side may be legally
removed to inland locations.

residences. indeed, house construction in the vicinity of
the beach may be more difficult due to relative isolation
from transportation networks. The prime reason for construction
in the dune area is the unique opportunity afforded to the
occupant of readily available beach related activities.

Beach front construction has four main disadvantages:

1. development into private lots restricts public access
to the beach;
2. valuable protective dunes and dune habitat is destroyed;
3. the potential for economic loss is increased;
4. this development represents an irreversible commitment?
and future land use options are severely restricted.

Although a major issue, Item I is not directly related to beach
mobility and is not discussed here. Items 2 and 3 are related
to the dynamics of the beach system and they warrant further
discussion. Most would agree that prohibiting construction of
residences in an erosion hazard area is proper management. However,
the actual identification of a hazard area is not so easy. Some
areas without a previous erosional history may be eroded severely
during a particular storm. The lack of documentation of
erosional conditions will severely hamper efforts to restrict
development in such areas. A clearly demonstrable hazard
in some areas, however, indicates that regulations against
shorefront construction can and should be applied here.) The
unique and fragile nature of the barrier island system is well
documented. Prohibiting all but water dependent and limited
recreational structures is, therefore, considered to be proper
management.

Wildlife Habitat

All physical components in an ecosystem are interdependent.
If a physical process is altered, a chain reaction can occur
that will disrupt all the species living in that environment.
The coastal zone management program must recognize this inter-
dependence and strive to preserve the natural balance. Other-
wise important resources, some of which have tremendous economic
value, will be lost. Construction activities in the beach
environment (not only house construction, but also the construction
of seawalls and groins) can severely interfere with the natural
processes as well as result in direct habitat destruction. For
example, the construction of a seawall, if not accompanied by
groin construction and the use of beach fill, will eventually
result in the complete removal of the beach environment from the
area, thus having a dramatic effect on the regional mix of wild-
life. Certain species of wildlife are well suited to live in
a rapidly changing, highly mobile beach environment and this
land use is particularly well suited to such areas. Attempts
by man to control beach processes in such areas may result in
the eventual destruction of the habitat without even achieving

'Specific requirements for shorefront construction, may include
setback requirements, building houses on pilings, flood insurance
requirements, etc.

the desired beach protection, resulting in a nonproductive
land use.

GUIDELINES ON PERMISSIBLE LAND AND WATER USES

Land Use Planning

Great competition among shoreline activities on a limited
land resource base requires a management program which will
adjust the best possible land use to each of the different
shoreline environments. Many uses are not equally efficient in
the different environments, so site-specific alternatives
must be evaluated. The shoreline of New Jersey is characterized
by both oceanside and bayside beach environments. Erosional
conditions characterize many of the ocean beaches but depositional
conditions can occur on the beaches at the inlets and in
specific groin fields. Most of the bayside beaches experience
slow but persistent erosion. This offers a very wide array
of environments which presents many problems and choices to
coastal zone managers.

Ideally, development should proceed without conflict of
interests or profit incentives. However, these ideal conditions
are not possible, and the use strategies identified here, can only
serve as an idealized, basic model for coastal zone management.
The following general guidelines on permissible uses are
suggested:

1. The development of barrier islands must be severely
restricted and limited only to those activities which
require location in this dynamic and flood prone
environment.

2. Most recreational uses and work-related uses which do
not require fixed structures or vehicles will be
suitable to all beach environments.

3. Recreation activities in the dune districts should be
severely restricted due to the fragile nature of these
environments.

4. The mob'ility of the beach/dune environment and the rate
of migration inland should be clearly understood and these
factors should be considered in the method of construction
and the useful life of any structures near this location.

5. No permanent structure should be constructed on the beach.

6. Any construction activities in the dune districts should
be severely restricted to only those activities which
require this unique setting.

7. If structures must be built here, these should be
built on pilings to prevent interference with natural
processes.

Permissible Uses by Beach Category

Suggested land and water uses for each category of segment
are presented in summary form in Table 5 without comment. The
rationale for these suggestions is developed in the discussion
of each individual segment presented in Section 4 of Volume II
of this report. Other concepts are developed below in the
discussion of construction in the beach, dune, and upland
environments.

Table 5. Summary table for permissible land and water uses
by shoreline category

Category A (Exposed Ocean Beachesl>

Process controls
Linear orientation favors longshore transport.
Dominant processes are ocean waves and wave-induced currents.
Highest storm and swell energies of any category of beach.
Most rapid short-term modification.
Cyclic (onshore-offshore) beach response.
Offshore gradients and wave refraction important energy filters.

Recommended land use

Beach environment:
Most day use recreational activities are appropriate on
all beaches.
overnight use and fixed structures (amusement piers) appropriate
to presently developed Category A beaches with low mobility rates.
All wildlife habitat preservation uses appropriate.
No fixed structures - seasonal structures only where intensive
recreational use.

Dune environment:
Limited dune walk and beach access trails -- dunes behind.
Category A beaches too narrow and fragile and important
as form of protection for intensive use
Uses as wildlife habitat appropriate
Buildings should not be allowed but if they are, should be
on pilings.

Upland:
on non-barrier island beaches, all uses applicable behind
beaches with low mobility rates or low long term rates
of erosion.
on barrier islands, all non-structural uses appropriate.
Structural Uses where required, but these should not
interfere with dynamic barrier island processes.

Category B (Northeast Island Beaches):

Process controls

Noticeably affected by inlet processes.
Bulbous form.
Bi-directional shoreline orientation.
Complex interaction of ocean waves and currents with tidal
currents.
Form of inlet shoals has pronounced effect an wave refraction.
Reversal of sediment inputs into southern contiguous segments.

Recommended land use

Beach environment: -same as Category A beaches

Dune environment:
This area is generally more extensive than in Category A
beaches. Accordingly, more useful for recreation and
wildlife habitat. Otherwise, similar to Category A beaches.

Upland:
High and unpredictable mobility implies development should be
restricted. See high mobility Category A beaches above.
Most of these areas intensively developed but temptation
to build industrial, commercial, and residential structures
should be resisted.
Otherwise, same as Category A beaches on barrier islands.

Category C (Inlet Throat Beaches):

Process controls

Tidal currents dominant.
ocean wave effects important during storms.
Effects of channel migration.
Bayside sediment sources limited.
Inlets trap sediments from adjacent Category A beaches.

Recommended land use

Beach environment:
Beach-related activities severely restricted by narrow or
non-existent beaches (sports, Table 4 , largely inappropriate)

Dune district:
Largely non-existent. Where they exist, protection should be
required. See Dunes, Category A segments.

Upland
Stabilization of inlets implies stabilization of category
C shorelines requiring extensive protection structures
(largely seawalls and bulkheads). Accordingly, upland
land use similar to Category A segments on barrier islands
with low mobility or low erosional rates.

2 0

Category D (Bayside Beaches):

Process controls
Wave conditions more variable - effect of locally changing
wind conditions.
Higher wave steepness.
Mechanisms for natural return of sediments through swell
waves is severely restricted.
Tidal currents can be an important process.
Scale of erosive forces is smaller.
Narrow beaches limit dune formation, broad, flat offshore
shelves.
Foreshore sediments are coarser and they contain more lag
gravels.

Recommended land use

Beach environment:
size, appearance, and quality of beach limit recreational
activities, especially sports.
Wildlife habitat appropriate. Construction inappropriate.

Dune environment:
Small-scale features of limited value- for protection or
for recreation. Wildlife habitat is most appropriate.

Upland:
See Category A non-barrier island beaches; wildlife
preservation on salt marsh.

Category E (Complex Beaches):

Process controls

Subject to effects of swell, bay waves, and tidal currents.
Different effects of storm waves on even adjacent beaches.
May be erosion or deposition depending on unique characteristics
at each site.

Recommended land use

All uses of the beach and dune system are site specific. For
upland use, see comments under Category A beaches.

Permissible Uses by Shoreline Environment

Construction in the Beach Environment

Beach and dune environments are subject to considerable re-
working by natural processes. The beach, in particular, is very
mobile and virtually the entire upper surface of the beach is
re-worked during each storm season. This high mobility would
jeopardize any structure located there and associated economic
losses would be high. The beach also acts as a protective buffer

2 1

zone between the water and the upland. Construction here would
restrict the width of this buffer and allow high wave energies
to more closely approach onshore structures. Construction on the
beach also interferes with deflation and the dune-building processes.
Accordingly, all permanent or "semi-permanent" structures should
be prohibited from the beach environment.5

Construction in the Dune Area

Dunes provide a natural protection against flooding and also
a reservoir of sand to replace that lost on beaches during extra-
ordinarily severe storms. The dune environment, like the beach
environment, is very dynamic and subject to periodic inundation
and wave attack. Dunes also provide wind-blown sand to the ocean
* ~beach/nearshore system during periods of northwesterly winds.
Construction in the dune environment is less directly hazardous
to the structures themselves than construction on the beach.
* ~However, the inevitable destruction of the protective value of
the dune against storm overwash must be considered. Because of
the direct hazard to buildings and the interference with the
protective effects of the dune (for structures farther inland)
construction in this district is not recommended.

Construction in the Upland Environment

Barrier Islands - The upland on barrier islands is, under
natural conditions, highly dynamic and in many cases the dune/
overwash district may extend over the entire width of the island.
The importance of maintaining a natural barrier island configuration
has been demonstrated by Godfrey and Godfrey (1973) and Dolan
1973. Important considerations are: protection of the mainland
from flooding, maintenance of adequate dune widths, periodic
creation of salt marsh habitat, ecological advantages, and
recreational benefits. Numerous agencies now are taking
steps to preserve the barrier islands from development. Develop-
ment on these islands should be severely restricted and limited
only to those activities which require location in this dynamic
and floodprone environment.

Mainland - In many places, the beach is backed by mainland
upland surface. These areas are normally of sufficient elevation
to experience little direct damage from waves and storm surges.
However, in most areas, wave processes, combined with a rising
sea level have resulted in a continuous landward migration of the
upland/beach contact which eventually results in a cliffing of
the land upon which the structures are built. This leads to their
inevitable destruction. Construction practices should reflect
a thorough understanding of the migration of this hazard zone.

A major endeavor of the Coastal Zone Management Program should
be to identify these hazard areas, their rates of migration, and the
limits (and rate of migration) of the dune district. This would
be a first step in suggesting (and possibly regulating) how
construction on the shorefront is to proceed.

5Construction on the beach would also considerably reduce potential
for recreation of the area. However, this is not related to beach
dynamics and is not discussed here.

Conclusions on Construction in Beach-Dune-Upland Environments

From the preceding paragraphs it will be apparent that
construction of any permanent facility is not compatible with
the dynamics of the beach/dune system. The direct prohibition
of all such structures from these environments is perhaps
unrealistic at the present time but should be viewed as a long-
term goal. In the short-term, it may not be feasible, economically
and politically, to prevent construction on the upland behind
the beach/dune system, except in those areas where a definite
hazard is expected to occur in the near future. This depends
upon the mobility of the beach which is related to the category
of the beach and its geographic location in the state. Decisions
will, therefore, have to be made on an individual basis.

METHODS FOR EROSION CONTROL, MITIGATION, AND/OR RESTORATION

State Policies

Considering the limited funding available to State agencies
for erosion mitigation and restoration, these policies must
establish some priority. It is expected that many factions
will be competing with each other for State help in many cases.
It is, therefore, imperative that the State policies be based.
upon sound physical principles to insure that primary effects
are directed towards the major problem areas.

With increasing emphasis on the environmental effects of
construction in the coastal zone, whether it be dwellings or
beach protection measures, it is clear that State policies developed
in New Jersey and other states as little as five years ago are
no longer appropriate. These policies need updating. For
example, it is now recognized that buildings which are destroyed
by wave attack should not be built on the same site where they
were, regardless of whether beach protection structures can
be applied to protect them. Also, structural alternatives such
as groins are now in less favor than previously. The development
of State policies is also clearly interlinked with the guidelines
established on priority uses and permissible land and water uses
and with the mechanisms for dealing with problems on a continuing
basis. These policies must also dovetail with the efforts of
local and Federal agencies. Accordingly, the efforts of these
other agencies are identified in the next section.

The considerations for policy development are presented in
outline form below. The formulation of specific policy state-
ments requires a thorough examination of the economic and environ-
mental controls operative, as well as the interests of local groups
and the policies of the other governmental agencies charged with
regulating land use in the coastal zone. The following points
are relevant to the beach and dune environment:

2 3

1. Policies should be compatible with the plans of other
agencies.

2. Plans should be tailored to the physical processes which
are operative.

3. Economically realistic plans should be stressed.

4. Multiple use inlet maintenance/beach nourishment schemes
should be stressedas well as other beach fill
possibilities.

5. The state should provide guidance of local communities
through a public awareness program in regard to:

a. identification of hazards and methods of controlling
them (a blear distinction should be established
between inundation and erosion damages since their
long-term effects are substantially different)

b. beach protection techniques

C. the importance of dunes and buffer zones

d. proper building practices

e. the implications of development of the beaches in a
community to adjacent communities.

6. The state should encourage the communities to do what
they can to help themselves but provide assistance when
needed.

7. Priorities should be given to public safety and welfare.
A second order of priority should be given to areas of
particular concern. Consideration should also be given
to improvements in areas experiencing economic stress
due to loss of recreation beaches.

8. Contingency plans for emergency restoration and protection
of beaches and dunes should be re-evaluated and updated.

9. Plans should consider the common good, and local interests
should not be favored.

10. Aesthetically pleasing natural settings and wildlife
sanctuaries should be identified and preserved.

11. Policies should stress the importance of beaches for
both protection and recreation.

12. Steps should be taken to establish dune preservation
zones or buffer zones.

13. Policies for the development of hazard lands should be
developed for incorporation into official plans of all
shoreline municipalities.

2 4

14. An acquisition policy related to lands with hazard
characteristics should be developed.

15. The state should implement measures to insure that the
communities and private citizens follow proper
standards.

Existing Federal and Local Efforts

Efforts of the Corps of Engineers

As noted in Cape May County (1976), the critical beach erosion
and inlet maintenance problems of New Jersey have been the subject
of exhaustive and comprehensive Corps studies. After thorough
study and public meetings, the Corps considers alternative remedial
plans and recommends the most feasible plan. After a series of
public presentations at various stages of planning, design,
environmental assessment, and engineering, followed by internal
Corps and administrative reviews and approvals, the selected plan
is implemented. The entire process may require from five to
ten years and consists of at least twenty-two actions involving
the general public, public officials at the local level, the
Congress, and a number of Federal officials in various agencies.
The Corps of Engineers has assumed responsibility for long-range
planning for beaches and inlets, but is not responsible for plan
implementation until project authorization and conclusion of
cost sharing, real estate, maintenance, and land use restriction
agreements with state and local governments.

The Corps of Engineers thus functions as the primary coastal
project planning agency. The cost of planning, design and
engineering in itself would be prohibitive to local government,
and the Corps has experience in project testing and construction
stages not available elsewhere (Cape May County, 1976, p. 23). The
nature of the improvements suggested by the Corps of Engineers
for portions of the New Jersey shoreline may be found in Table 6.

Table 6. Range of potential improvements for the New Jersey
inlets and beaches suggested by the Corps of Engineers.

1. Construction of weir type jetties on the updrift side
of inlets (creation of a sheltered deposition basin by
construction of a breakwater with a weir section for
inlets already protected - e.g. Cape May).

2. Dredging of navigation channels through inlets.

3. Construction of jetties and bulkheads on the downdrift
side of inlets.

4. Placement of sand spoils behind the downdrift jetties
and bulkheads.

5. Construction of new groins.

6. Maintenance of existing groins.

7. Periodic dredging of proposed deposition basin adjacent
to the updrift jetties for purpose of providing nourish-
ment for downdrift beaches.

S. Placement of sand to build beaches and dunes.

9. Rehabilitation of portions of seawall undermined by erosion.

10. Construction of dikes to prevent flooding from adjacent
low lying areas.

11. Maintenance of existing dikes.

Other Federal Efforts

Insurance - Since the 1973 expansion of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, adoption of insurance against erosion
has experienced a dramatic increase. This has resulted from
extension of the federally subsidized flood insurance program
to encompass storm-caused erosion losses. Single family residences
can now be insured up to $70,000 and multi-family homes for up
to $200,000 at low premium rates.

There are no clear guidelines by the Federal Insurance
Administration to determine whether erosion losses are caused
by storms (avulsion) or by long term processes (erosion) . only
the former qualifies for reimbursement. Considerable delays occur
between a community's acceptance into the "emergency" phase of
the program (minimum land use regulations required) and its
passage to the "regular" phase where strong land use controls
are required (NOAA, 1976, pp. II-34,35).

Presidential declarations - These can make disaster aid
available to erosion victims and Public Law 93-288 also provides
emergency aid if erosion is associated with storms (NOAA, 1976).

Municipalities

Land use regulation by the coastal municipalities includes
zoning ordinances, dune ordinances, and building regulations.
Zoning is the most widely applied regulatory mechanism. Most
municipalities zone the shorefront for residential or recrea-
tional use. In Atlantic City, the beach was deeded to the city
for use as a public park. Some municipalities are attempting
to acquire beachfront properties under the New Jersey Green Acres
program for use as open space and recreational areas.

Most of the municipalities with well-developed dune lines
recognize the value of these dunes in erosion control and
flood preservation and are taking measures to protect and
maintain them either by ordinances (forbidding breaching,
removal of sand or vegetation, walking, riding, etc.) or by
making dune areas into parks (as in Avalon).'6 Very few
communities have regular maintenance programs, but most will
plant vegetation and erect sand fences, when necessary, as do
many private land owners. Another approach to coastal land
use control~used in New Jersey is the establishment of
construction set-back lines. Almost all of New Jersey's
coastal communities require set-backs at varying distances
from the dune line, surf line, major N-S road, etc. Most
municipalities now require a minimum first floor elevation (above
100-yr. flood) as well as pilings. These are necessary in
order to be accepted in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Private Citizens

Local interest parties have employed small scale, low cost,
protective measures with varying degrees of success. Such
protection methods only treat the local problem area and may
create problems downdrift of them. Policies should be
established to limit the use of unproductive or counterproductive
small-scale protection methods while advocating the use of proven
methods. This should be tied into the public awareness program
identified on page 23.

Adequate beach protection is often beyond the means of
individuals, and larger engineering structures are often paid
for by local, State, and Federal funds. Such projects usually
stipulate that the beaches be open to the public. This requirement
is not always favorably received, particularly if the owner is
required to pay property tax on the beach. Policies must, there-
fore, be established which protect the individual property
rights.

Mitigating Measures

Modification of Property Loss Potential

Housing Construction - It may not be feasible to prevent
shorefront construction except in those areas where a definite
hazard is expected to occur in the near future. The hazard
potential depends upon shoreline mobility which is related to
the category of the beach and its geographic location in the
state.

The beaches themselves are very mobile and virtually the
entire upper surface of the beach is re-worked during each storm
season. This high mobility would jeopardize any structures
located there and associated economic losses would be high.
Consequently, no structures should be allowed on the beach.

6 Unfortunately, there is no mechanism to prevent the bulldozing
of dunes higher than the minimum down to lower levels to ease
home construction.

Construction in the dune environment is not recommended
because of the direct hazard to buildings and the interference
with the protective effects of the dune. In areas where
beach structures have been discouraged, there should be no
adjustment to property loss either for beach, dune, or upland
areas. Buildings which are destroyed by wave attack should
not be rebuilt in the same location regardless of whether7
beach protection structures can be applied to protect them.

Housing construction may occur without completely eliminating
the protective effects of the beaches and the dune environments.
Buildings constructed on pilings offer less interference with
dune processes. They may also be located high enough to prevent
damage due to storm surge. Through eventuallinland migration
of the beach/dune system, these buildings may eventually fall
into the water. Buildings on pilings may last a considerable
amount of time, even over the water, as have the amusement
piers on many of the oceanside resorts and also numerous buildings
on Delaware Bay. Under present natural conditions, with a
rising sea level, eventual destruction of these buildings is
inevitable, however. Damages associated with the direct loss
of structures could also be kept to a minimum by building smaller
removeable structures which could be relocated inland during
storm periods.8

Both of the suggestions given above imply that buildings
built at the shoreline will be smaller and thus, of lower unit
value than they have been in the past. This does not mean that
these structures could be written off and abandoned. Indeed,
much of the destruction of buildings during storms occurs as
a result of the large amounts of flotsam in the water which
represents the remains of previously destroyed buildings. This
flotsam is also a hazard to recreational use. Accordingly, pro-
vision should be made for all structures to be removed when
they present a definite hazard.

7 Redevelopment of urban areas damaged by coastal storms may
be considered permissible by the state. Redevelopment in
suburban areas damaged by coastal storms should be severely
restricted, however. To avoid hardship to homeowners in
those circumstances, insurance should be carried by property
owners in hazard zones sufficient to purchase new building
sites and fund new construction outside the hazard area.
8 Even removable structures should not be located on the ground
in the beach or dune environment where they would interfere
with the natural processes.

2 8

Dune Preservation - The identification and subsequent pro-
tection of the dune district is an issue of great importance.'
It is here that the confrontation between man and the sea has
resulted in the greatest expenditures for protection from erosion
and where the greatest losses from wave attack occur. Destruction
or lowering of this barrier may also increase economic losses
landward of the dune due to increased flooding. Since
this dune district is a favored location for shorefront construc-
tion, state managers may expect to encounter a considerable
amount of opposition to their attempts to preserve these
districts by local developers. A further complication results
from the continued landward migration (in places) of the beach
profile through erosion which will continually bring other
structures within the limits of the dune district. Complications
also arise over the definition of the dune district in developed
portions of the shoreline.'0

A more strict attitude toward zoning may be required to
overcome some of the poor standards in the local communities.
This is a natural extension of the policies establishing a
dune district. The new standards should be designed to reduce
the damage potential to structures (e.g. houses on pilings)
as well as eliminate damage to the protective dune. The zoning
standards should reflect the process controls as much as possible
to reduce the legal difficulties (with local interest groups)
or conflicts with other standards of zoning (e.g. by the flood
insurance program)

Other Land Use Controls - A wide range of other land use
controls also exists. These include moratoria on buildings,
construction decision-criteria, setback lines, subdivision
regulations, sand removal ordinances, graduate and tax
assessments, transfer of Development Rights, Planned Unit
Development, sanitary codes, and permits for special
uses.

However, care should be taken that the State not exercise
too much control over the local communities in their requirements
for land use. There has been an increasing trend in recent
years for more Federal and State interference in the activities

9The New Jersey Beach Access Study Commission recommended legisla-
tion to require State delineation of a protective dune line and
prohibition of development seaward of the line.
10 A methodology for the identification of the dune district based
upon beach dynamics is the subject of a proposal submitted by CCES,
Rutgers University to the Office of Sea Grant. Cape May County
(1976) suggests that shore front land on which property may be
destroyed in future storms could be confiscated by federal law.
Barring a catastrophe, the buffer zone would serve to delineate an
area in which gradual formation of dunes would be encouraged.

of the communities and local citizens.1 Legislation should
be required only if the communities and local interest groups
fail to employ the proper measures to insure proper coastal
zone management. Accordingly, the level of state involvement
will depend upon the activities in the individual communities,
and at this point it is not clear whether alternative 2 or 3
on page 3 will be appropriate.

Modification of Erosion Hazard

Sand Recycling - Cape May County Planning Board (1976) points
out the importance of using sand from inlets and offshore shoals as
an alternative to static structures. This alternative offers protec-
tion to the eroding upland and improves the recreational potential
of the beach. Although the beach fill is costly and requires
a long-term commitment, the long-term rewards may be considerable.
The initiation of a beach fill project at Long Branch, for
example, should accomplish the dual objective of providing
protection to the upland in the immediate vicinity, establish
a feeder beach for nourishment of downdrift beaches, and
increase visitor use of a resort which has been experiencing
a relative decline. The use of weir jetties by the Corps
will facilitate sand transfer at inlets. Increased use of
inlet channel and offshore sediments, however, must await
improvements in dredging technology. The State should express
their interest in the rapid development of these advances in
dredging to the Corps, and future policies should be developed
with this increased opportunity for beach fill in mind.

Structural Alternatives - Many of these improvements con-
sist of static measures, such as jetties and groins. Cape
May County Planning Board (1976) points out the people's
preference for these permanent structures which give a feeling
of security, even though they do not always accomplish the
desired objectives. Where structural alternatives are employed,
care should be taken that they do not have an adverse effect
on downdrift beaches. (The effect of the Cape May Inlet jetties
and the high impermeable groins in the northern portion of the
state were noted in Volume II.) Further, all other alternatives
(both new and traditional) should be investigated before static
measures are considered. This will require keeping up with
the state of the art in shore protection and planning, and
strategies should not be dismissed because they have not been
practiced in the past.

"1The recent success of the Eagleton amendment to the National
Flood Insurance Act was seen to be attributed to the pressure
on Congress to be more relaxed on the Federal presence in
the lives of individuals. This amendment favors loans for
construction in flood hazard areas. It is cited here only to
call attention to the problem of increasing governmental
influence (see Coastal Zone Management Newsletter "Nautilus f
vol. 8, no. 25, June 22, 1977).

3 0

MECHANISMS FOR DEALING WITH EROSION-
RELATED PROBLEMS ON A CONTINUING BASIS

General

Federal, State, and local governments, as well as private
citizens have invested more than $50 million since 1960 in
their efforts to prevent shoreline erosion, protect property,
and maintain sandy beaches. opinions vary on the effectiveness
of several decades of incremental and disjointed share protection
efforts in New Jersey (New Jersey Beach Access Study Commission,
1977). The high degree of interrelationship among beach
segments in New Jersey and the relatively small length of its
shoreline imply that a comprehensive plan of shoreline manage-
ment is both desirable and practical. This section presents
a brief outline of the mechanisms presently used in dealing
with erosional problems and suggests how these mechanisms
may be re-evaluated for their suitability in future operations
in the state. The methodology suggested could be employed by
an expanded Office of Shore Protection.

Table I presents (in capsule form) some of the adjustments
to coastal erosion. The specific methods of implementing some
of these adjustments is indicated below in outline form and
discussed later in the text. The specific methods are:

1. The identification of sources of information

2. The establishment of a mechanism for keeping up with
the "state of the art"

3. The establishment of a mechanism for obtaining infor-
mation from communities and citizens

4. Devising a system for processing and evaluating this
information

5. Establishment of a surveillance system for identifying
future problems

6. A system for periodic investigation of areas of particular
concern

7. Establishing a mechanism to insure rapid relief in areas
which may develop into larger areas of concern

8. A program of monitoring beach protection structures
to insure their proper function

9. A provision for altering, as well as constructing,
beach protection measures

10. The planning? establishment and maintenance of sediment
recycling schemes

11. The establishment of an advisory service to disseminate

information on proper building practices and to provide
guidance for beach protection structures built by
private funds

12. The establishment of a hazard warning system

13. The development of contingency plans for post-storm
reconstruction (or non-reconstruction)

14. A policy of public land acquisition and relocation of
threatened structures

Background Studies

The first step in a comprehensive program for dealing with
problems on a continuing basis is the identification of the
sources of information through a thorough literature search.
This should include literature on beach processes, protective
methods, and methods of predicting locations of erosion.
Theoretical and empirical models of beach processes must be
studied to determine the responses expected of beaches to
individual storms and long-term changes resulting from adjustments
to changes in wave climate. Differences in beach response on
ocean and bayside beaches and protected and unprotected beaches
must also be clearly understood. A preliminary step in this
information search is the identification of all of the depart-
ments and agencies responsible for developing and presenting
latest techniques in shoreline management. Publications of
the Coastal Engineering Research Center and Waterways Experi-
ment Station and other research centers should be examined,
as well as published articles in journals dealing with
geology and coastal zone management. Most of these reports will be
theoretical or will be concerned with beach response in other
locations. These must, therefore, be supplemented by case
studies conducted in New Jersey.

The above sources should be examined for improved methods
of long- and short-term beach protection. Both new and traditional
methods should be examined to include sand bags, Lonqard tubes,
and other structural adjustments (weather modification to reduce
storm effects, floating breakwaters, etc.), even though some
of these may be in experimental stages or have only site specific
utility. Efforts must be made to keep up with the "state of the
art" in these methods; therefore, a mechanism should be established
for periodic updating of these reference materials. This may
require the employment of a staff specialist, bibliographer,
or technical consultant.

To put these sources in perspective, a working data bank
on New Jersey should be established and periodic field work should
be conducted. General descriptive studies of the wide variety
of conditions affecting beach response on the New Jersey beaches

32
should be conducted, as well as site specific studies of areas
of particular concern. The data from these studies may then be
used to determine the degree to which each problem area is
unique and the beach protection structures implemented may be
tailored to the processes operative.

Surveillance Systems

A mechanism should be established for obtaining information
from communities or local interested citizens who may be more
directly familiar with problem areas than personnel on the state
planning staff. In this manner? small-scale incipient erosional
trends could be identified and brought to the immediate attention
of State officials. A system must be devised for processing
and evaluating this information. It is assumed, that given the
limited expertise of individual citizens, there will be many
"false alarms" reported to the Office of Shore Protection. Once
these are filtered out, on-site investigation by members of
the staff could identify the critical nature of each documented
problem. Some limited volunteer work has already been done.
This program should become more formalized.

Another means of conducting continuous monitoring of
shoreline conditions is by the use of aerial photography. This
could consist of a continuation of the program of semi-annual
flights already initiated by the Office of Shore Protection or
by the use of low altitude, oblique aerial photographs taken
from a light plane. Another procedure would be establishment of
a ground monitoring system. Four wheel drive vehicles could be
used in those areas with low groins. In many areas (e.g. the
northern part of the state where groins are high and impassable
and where a continuous seawall exists) this type of reconnaissance
would not be practical. Such areas could be walked. Considering
the magnitude of the problem in such areas, the expenditures
in manpower are justified. Ongoing reconnaissance should pay
particular attention to the areas of particular concern and these
areas should be periodically visited on the ground.

Mechanisms should be established to insure fast action is
applied to take care of any problem identified in the surveillance
program before it gets worse.

Protection Measures

Monitoring

Beach protection structures should be monitored to insure
that they are functioning properly, and provision should be made
for altering beach protection measures if they do not function
as originally intended. The Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center has developed guidelines for determining changes
in location of the shore, and for analyzing the effectiveness of
various types of structures which may be installed. A minimum
program for recording shoreline changes is to measure the distance
from a building to the water's edge and the length of the property
lines in early spring, mid-summer, and late fall. These lengths

3 3

should be measured in a horizontal plane and extend out to the
shoreline or to a convenient wading depth. The location of the
top of a bluff or dune should be noted in all cases (CERC, 1975).

This minimum program is identified here as just one pro-
cedure which may be employed by the state. The CERC report
identifies optimum programs for recording shoreline changes
and criteria for upgrading or downgrading the minimum program
on the basis of surveys. It also identifies the conditions
under which beach protection structures should be monitored
and it outlines methodologies which can be developed and used
to treat individual problem areas by selecting procedures
which lie between the minimum and the optimum (CERC., 1975).

* ~~~Local Efforts

Considering the high cost of beach protection, it is neces-
sary that the communities contribute as much as they can.
However, privately built protection structures are frequently
rendered ineffective because of inadequate design and poor
construction. The state must insure that the methodologies
adopted by local communities and private citizens are well
considered and are in the interests of the state as well as
the private property owners. This suggests that the state
adopt an advisory service to distribute literature or respond
to calls or set up extension specialists to make onsite visits.
A system of information exchange should be geared to function
in both directions so that information on erosional problems
could also be obtained from communities and interested citizens.

in 1974, Congress appropriated $8 million for the Shoreline
Erosion Demonstration Act and established a five year program
of low cost projects on sheltered waters to demonstrate engineering
and vegetation measures. The'state should insure that this
information gets to the individual private property owners on
Delaware and Raritan Bays. In addition to these real-life
demonstration projects, pamphlets covering potential beach
protection methods (where they are appropriate) should be
distributed to local residents.

The communities in the beach fee system have the opportunity
for improving the recreational and protective characteristics
of the beach. According to N.J. BASC (1977) beach fees and
related municipal revenues (parking lot and meter receipts) in
some municipalities more that adequately covered municipal
expenses for beach management. The resulting surplus is a major
source of revenues in these municipalities and it is used to
hold down municipal property taxes. Any surplus revenues gen-
erated by beach fees could be placed in a special reserve beach
fund and used to help defray the costs of State or Federal beach
fill projects.

Sediment Recyling

Long term continuing or periodic sediment recycling schemes
should be examined for their practicality and suitable sites
should be identified. This method of shore protection has
several advantages over static measures (minimal interference
with beach dynamics, little ecological destruction, production
of usable recreation beach, as well as a protective beach).
Considering the high cost of such an operation and the imper-
manence of the fill materials in the problem area, it is
likely that this alternative will not be favorably received
by everyone. It is, therefore, important that planners begin
a public information program on the opportunities afforded by
sediment recycling schemes to speed their implementation.

Preventive Measures

The state should disseminate information on good building
practices to include such items as the importance of not building
in the dune district. If such construction is allowed here, houses
should be built on pilings where they will not interfere with dune
dynamics. The problems associated with bulldozing dunes to
provide easy home construction or to provide views of the sea
should be stressed. Such a program should call attention to the
fact that other shorefront residents are affected by these bad
building practices and that the resident has an obligation beyond
the protection of his own property.

Many instances show a poor perception of natural hazards
by local shorefront residents. A coastal zone management program
should provide continual reminders of the necessity to plan for
storms and the methods which can be taken to mitigate their
effects. The establishment of a hazard warning system could
be the responsibility of the advisory service. information
should also be presented on the probabilities of occurrence and
what these probabilities mean. The use of such terms as a "1100
year storm" often gives residents a false feeling of security.

Actions Following Hazards

The state should develop contingency plans specifying the
steps to be taken following major storms to include the identi-
fication of those areas which should be repaired and restored
to insure that there is no permanent detrimental long-term
effect. Immediate measures include closing new inlets, construction
of beaches and dunes to protect newly exposed areas, the use
of fill materials and bulkheading to shore up damaged structures, and
the clearance or relocation of threatened structures. Long-
term effects,.include the acquisition of land, the relocation
of structures not immediately threatened, and the confiscation of
shorefront land destroyed by the storms with the subsequent
establishment of a dune district (as described in Cape May County,
1976).

35
Conclusions
The above paragraphs represent the potential range of
activities which may be employed to treat erosion problems on
an ongoing basis. It may not be possible to implement all of
these measures and implementation of even a very few suggestions
would necessitate a considerably expanded Office of Shore Protec-
tion. The size of that operation and the powers it will possess
will very likely depend upon which of the levels of state control
identified on page 3 will be exercised.

PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING CANDIDATES FOR RESTORATION

This section identifies procedures whereby specific areas
a ~may be designated for preservation or restoration for their
recreational, ecological, economic, aesthetic, or protective
value. The considerable costs of restoration and the inevitable
difficulties which may be expected from conflicting interest
groups require that the criteria used to identify candidates
be carefully considered and reflect the issues of overriding
importance. Considering funding restrictions, these areas may
have to be limited to the areas of particular concern.

The area need not be solely designated as an erosion area of
particular concern. It may be any of the other areas of concern
not treated in this report. Restoration should, however, be
confined to those locations where the restoration of the beach-
dune system is actually required for the preservation of the area
of concern and not simply to supplement qualities which already
exist there.

The procedure for identifying candidates for restoration
should include:

1. the designation of all areas of particular concern
(to include ecologically sensitive areas, recreation
areas, etc.)

2. a ranking of such areas to reflect their value to the
state

3. the identification of those areas where there is an
imminent use change resulting from beach erosion

4. the identification of the appropriate method for pre-
servation or restoration based upon the type of resource
to be preserved

5. an examination of the potential for preservation of the
area through another state or local program

6. implementation of preservation methods through the
Office of Coastal Zone Management

Considering the large number of locations in New Jersey
where beach erosion is critical, it is likely that there will
be many candidates for restoration efforts. Therefore, a ranking
procedure must be developed. in its simplest form, such a
procedure could consist of identifying all of the selection
criteria used to identify areas of concern and then identifying
the specific sites which possessed the greatest number of these
entries (see Table 7 for a generalized list of such criteria).
The selection criteria could also be ranked and assigned values
based on their theoretical importance to the economy/ecology
of the state, and areas with highest rank could be given the
first consideration.

Table 7. Generalized selection criteria for identifying candi-
dates for restoration (modified from the New Hampshire
OCZM program)

1. Areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural
habitat or physical feature.

2. Areas of historical or cultural importance.

3. Areas of high natural productivity or of essential habitat.

4. Areas of scenic importance.

5. Areas of substantial recreational value.

6. Areas where development and facilities are dependent upon the
utilization of, or access to, the beach and/or dune
environments.

7. Areas of unique geologic or topographic significance to
agricultural, industrial, or commercial development.

B. Areas of urban concentration.

9. Developed areas of significant hazard.

10. Areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal lands
or resources.

The items contained in Table 7 are only presented in generalized
form and they are not ranked in terms of value. A more complete
itemized list of specific attributes along with numerical values
representing their perceived importance to the State must be
developed and used to weigh areas of concern.

It is recognized that candidates for restoration efforts may
also be selected which do not provide a unique opportunity for
shoreline land use in their present state but which, through

3 7

augmentation, would provide such a resource. An example of
this would be the development of a particular portion of the
shoreline into a local or state park which would involve
cosmetic changes. The improvement of such areas is not an objec-
tive of the-CZM program, however.

A further criterion for selection is that there must be
an urgent need for preservation or restoration. This implies
that there is an imminent use change in the area. In terms
of the present report, this means the direct removal of the
resources through beach erosion. If restoration of the natural
protection of the beach and dunin is required as the principle
or sole means of preserving the resource, then such restoration
is appropriate. If, however, the imminent use change is not
related to beach dynamics,then this alternative is not appropriate
even though such restoration may imrprove conditions in the
problem area. In many cases, the imminent use change would'be
the direct destruction of the resources behind the beach due
to loss of beach protection. In other cases, the resource may
be the beach itself (or the dunes) which provides protective
habitat or scenic or recreational value. Both of these situa-
tions require protection or restoration. However, the methods
may differ; areas of scenic or recreational value require pro-
tective measures compatible with the natural setting (i.e. the
use of beach fill and dune fill with dune grass planting or
simply cosmetic changes) whereas the protection of inland
resources could be accomplished using static beach protection
devices such as groins, bulkheads, and seawalls.

A final requirement for areas to receive restoration efforts
is that the situation cannot be taken care of through another
state or local program. This requires a thorough search of all
other programs available within the state to preserve such
high quality resource areas. The capabilities of these programs
must be determined and efforts must be coordinated to insure that
each area of concern receives proper consideration and that there
is no duplication of effort.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

The high degree of beach mobility, high rates of erosion,
and the ever-present hazard of building in the beach and dune
environment call attention to the need for careful land use
planning for the New Jersey shoreline. The magnitude of the
problem is great, and solutions may be costly. Further, many
of the suggested improvements to beach management problems will
affect other portions of the shoreline than the immediate
problem area. This implies that supervision by higher levels
of government is required. It, therefore, appears that a
greater degree of State involvement is necessary.

The management guidelines suggested here are believed
to provide a general overall framework within which specific
policies may be developed. However, this operational framework,
and the policies which are developed, should be flexible so
that they may change as the 'state of the art' in beach protection
improves and as the importance of the beaches to recreation and to
the general economy of the shorefront areas changes through time.

REFERENCES CITED

Cape May County N.J. Planning Board. Cape May County Comprehensive
Plan. Cape May Court House, N.J., 1976.

Dolan, R. "Barrier islands: natural and controlled". Coastal
Geomorphology, in Coates, D., ed. Binghamton, New York: State
University of New York, 1973.

Godfrey, P. and Godfrey, M. "Comparison of ecological and geomorphic
interactions between altered and unaltered barrier island systems
in North Carolina". Coastal Geomorphology, in Coates, D., ed.
Binghamton, New York: State University of New York, 1973.

Mitchell, James K. Community Response to Coastal Erosion. Research
Paper No. 156. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of
Geography, 1974.

New Jersey Beach Access Study Commission. Public access to the
oceanfront beaches: a report to the Governor and Legislature
of New Jersey. Trenton, N.J., State House, 1977.

New Jersey Office of Coastal Zone Management. Alternatives for the
Coast. Trenton, 1976.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Who's minding the shore?
A citizen's guide to coastal management. Washington, D.C.,
Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1976.

U.S. Coastal Engineering Research Center. Guidelines for Monitoring Shore
Protection Structures in the Great Lakes. Miscellaneous Paper No. 2-75.
Washington, D.C., 1975.

U.S. National Oceanic-and Atmospheric Administration. State Coastal
Zone Management Activities 1975-1976. Washington, D.C., 1976.