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







                      Design of a
         *Long Island South Shore
      Erosion Monitoring Program











I                                                     ..



      GB
      459.5
       .N7
       D47
       1991
                              Long Island Regional Planning Board
                                      December, 1991











                         U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                         COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                         2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                         CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413



                DESIGN OF A LONG ISLAND SOUTH SHORE
                      EROSION MONITORING PROGRAM



                  Long Island Regional Planning Board
                    H. Lee Dennison Office Building
                       Veterans Memorial Highway
                    Hauppauge, New York 11788-5401


                         Dr. Lee E. Koppelman
                           Project Director

                         Dr. DeWitt S. Davies
                          Project Coordinator


                             December 1991

                                Task 5

                             Final Report



          New York State Comptroller's Contract No. C005575


-- This report was prepared for the New York State Department of
  State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront
  Revitalization, with financial assistance from the Office of
  Ocean  and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and
  Atmospheric Administration, provided under the Coastal Zone
  Management Act of 1972, as amended.  (Grant-In-Aid Award No.
  NA-90-AA-H-CZ437)



                           r
                            Property of CSC Library









               LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD


Morton Certilman, Esq.                           John J. Hart, Esq.
       Chairman                                   Vice Chairman

                       Dr. Frank Cipriani
                      Joseph P. Famighetti
                      Dr. Carl L. Figliola
                          John Wickham


                      Dr. Lee E. Koppelman
                       Executive Director



    NASSAU COUNTY                              SUFFOLK COUNTY


                           ExOfficio

       Ludwig Hasl                            Joseph Hurley
      Commissioner                            Commissioner
Department of Public Works              Department of Public Works

    Peter T. King                               Joseph Caputo
     Comptroller                                 Comptroller



                            Advisory

Honorable Thomas S. Gulotta           Honorable Patrick G. Halpin
     County Executive                      County Executive

Honorable Joseph N. Mondello          Honorable Donald Blydenburgh
    Presiding Supervisor                    Presiding Officer
County Board of Supervisors                County Legislature



                       County Coordination

     Paul F. Ponessa                          Arthur H. Kunz
         Director                                Director
County Planning Commission              County Planning Department












                      STUDY PARTICIPANTS


                       Project Director
                     Dr. Lee E. Koppelman

                      Report Preparation
                     Dr. DeWitt S. Davies
                        Ronald Verbarg
                         Michael Volpe

                      Technical Advisors
                      Dr. H. Bokuniewicz
                Marine Sciences Research Center
                 State University of New York
                  Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000

                           J. Tanski
             New York Sea Grant Extension Program
                  State University of New York
                   Stony Brook, NY 11794-5002


                          Support Staff
                          Sandy Martin
                         Jeanne Widmayer

                  Cartographic and Publication
                            Carl Lind

                           Accounting
                        Lucille Gardella


                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

     The Long Island Regional Planning Board staff acknowledges
the assistance and technical oversight provided during the
conduct of this study by Charles McCaffrey and Fred Anders, New
York State Dept. of State, Division of Coastal Resources and
Waterfront Revitalization








      3                      ~~~~~~~Table of Contents



                                                                      Page


       Introduction .1............          

3     ~~Summary of the Proposed Erosion Monitoring Program . .  . .3

            Beach Surveys.                                       ...................3
            Aerial Photographs..................                 5
 I       ~~~Analysis of Historical Data.                         ............6
            Wave Data......................                      7
            Computerized Data Base................               8
            Predictive Models..................                  8
       Required Technical Expertise...............               9

       Program Costs.                                           ......................11
       Administrative Aspects.                                  .................12

            Related Federal and State Agency Programs
                  and Activities.                                 ................13
 I       ~~~Expressions of Interest and Support.                ........16
       Recommended Actions ..                                    ..................20

I     ~Appendix:  Development of a Coastal Erosion Monitoring
                   Program for the South Shore of Long Island,
  3             ~~~~New York











3      ~~DESIGN OF A LONG ISLAND SOUTH SHORE EROSION MONITORING PROGRAM



3     ~Introduction

            Long Island's south shore natural resources have an

I     ~intrinsic value to society in their own right, in addition to the

       economic return associated with their use for recreational,

       commercial, and residential purposes and their contribution to

3     ~the quality of life in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.  The barrier

       islands and spits provide buffers that protect the mainland from

I      ~direct storm wave attack, and are also an integral part of the

g ~shallow lagoon system and associated fish and wildlife habitats.

       It is axiomatic that the dollar value of Long Island's south

3 ~shore beaches and associated environments is tremendous.

            One can only guess the magnitude of economic loss to the

3 ~region if the south shore beaches were made inaccessible or

3      ~unsuitable for recreational and other uses over the long-term as

       a result of management policies that fail to address the need for

3      ~inlet maintenance, regularly scheduled sand bypassing,

       restoration of longshore transport, and growth control measures.

I      ~The implementation of erosion control projects and non-structural

*      ~measures will be essential to the continued use of this natural

       resource--use that is threatened by shoreline instability, the

3      ~ravages of tropical cyclones and northeast storms and the

       potential increase in the rate of sea level rise.

 *          ~~~Shoreline erosion processes are too complicated and variable

       for general platitudes to adequately represent what is actually

       happening at any particular time and place along the shoreline.








I     ~Coastal regulatory, resource allocation, and share protection

3 ~decisions should be based on credible and technically sound data.

       Although reliable data exist now for a few locations, a fully

3 ~comprehensive, up-to-date coastal data base is not presently

       available for Long Island's south shore. In recognition of this

I ~deficiency, the Proposed Long Island South Shore Hazard

3     ~Management Program report prepared by the Long Island Regional

       Planning Board in 1989 recommended development of a coastal

3     ~erosion monitoring program for Long Island's Atlantic Ocean

       shoreline. The monitoring program would improve government's

I     ~ability to make timely and defensible decisions by providing data

3 ~and information that would allow managers to define and quantify

       the erosion problem; evaluate the effectiveness of adopted and.

3 ~proposed erosion management strategies; establish project design

       criteria; and attain a better understanding of the causes and

*     ~effects of observed shoreline changes.

 3         ~~~The New York State Dept. of State, Division of Coastal

       Resources and Waterfront Revitalization supported this

3     ~recommendation and provided funding to the Board in 1991 to

       prepare specifications for the erosion monitoring program. With

I     ~technical assistance from Dr. H. Bokuniewicz, Marine Sciences

3 ~Research Center, SUNY @ Stony Brook and Mr. J. Tanski, New York

       Sea Grant Extension Program, SUNY @ Stony Brook, the Board has

3 ~designed such a program subject to peer review, and based on the

       experience of several other states (Florida, South Carolina, New

3 ~Jersey, California) that have coastal erosion monitoring programs

       underway. This final contract report documents the results of

       this effort.
       3                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2









 I         ~~~There are six elements in the proposed erosion monitoring

3 ~program for Long Island's south shore:



            1. survey and analysis of beach profiles

            2. aerial photography

 I         ~~~3.  analysis of available historical data on shoreline

  3            ~~~~changes, inlet bathymetry, etc.

            4. deployment of wave gages

 I          5~~~. establishment and operation of a coastal data base

            6. application of shoreline response models that would

  I             ~~~~enable use of monitoring program data by decision-makers

  g             ~~~~in a predictive mode.



 5         ~~~These elements are summarized in the following section.  A

       complete description of the rationale and specifications for each

I ~program element is contained in the appendix to this report.

3      ~Summary of the Proposed Erosion Monitoring Program

            The proposed erosion monitoring program for the south shore

3 ~of Long Island would extend from Coney Island to Montauk Point so

       that the quality and quantity of data collected would be

I      ~comparable in all areas.  The six elements of the program are

       summarized below.

       1.   BEACH SURVEYS

 3          ~~~Benchmarks should be established over the 125 miles of

       shoreline from Coney Island to Montauk Point. The spacing

I ~would not be uniform. If the measurements are to be used




                                      3









       for regulatory purposes, the monuments should be no more than

3 ~2000 feet apart. Stations might be spaced closer than 1000 feet

       in highly developed, unstable areas and around inlets and near

3 ~groin fields; and up to 5000 feet apart on undeveloped land.

            Pre-existing benchmarks established by the Corps and

       surveyed in 1979 should be re-occupied where possible. Two

3     ~markers should be set at each station, one in the upland

       behind any existing dune that would be in little danger of

3     ~being lost even during severe storms; and one on or in front

       of the dune to facilitate access.

            Surveys to accurately measure beach width and volume of

3 ~sand in the subaerial beach should be conducted twice a year

       - once in the fall and once in the spring. Two surveys per

       year are required to document the seasonal variability

       characterized by erosion due to winter storms and rebuilding

I      ~of the summer beach.  Those responsible for conducting

*      ~surveys must be capable of performing extra surveys on short

       notice to insure that additional profiles are done before

3      ~and after major storms.  Some stations should also be

       sampled more frequently, perhaps every four to six weeks, to

I      ~better document short-term variations.

 3          ~~~Two classes of surveys are recommended.  Every third

       station, or one station approximately every mile (whichever

*      ~~is fewer) would be surveyed to the depth of closure or

       approximately -30 feet msI (the depth below which sand is

I      ~not disturbed by waves).  The remaining stations would be



                                      4









       surveyed within 2.5 hours of low tide to the water level, or

3 ~nominally to -2 feet msl. offshore profiles need to be

       surveyed at least every 5 years except in areas of major

3 ~engineering projects or in areas subject to the annual loss

       of property due to chronic erosion. They should be

3     ~conducted semi-annually at as many locations as possible if

3     ~funds are available.

            Data from the subaerial surveys will inform coastal

3 ~managers of the expected condition of the beach and the

       probable range of variation everywhere along the shoreline.

I ~The information from the offshore profiles would be used to

3     ~calculate a sand budget for every mile of the shoreline so

       that the impacts of one area an its neighbors can be well

I     ~documented.

       2.   AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

 I         ~~~Aerial photographs of the south shore of Long Island

3 ~should be taken twice a year. The timing should coincide

       with ground surveys when possible. These photographs would

3 ~provide up-to-date evidence of the condition of the

       shoreline between the survey locations. The photographs

I ~could also be used to pinpoint severe problem areas and

3 ~additional photos could be taken after major storms.

            After 5 years the utility of the semi-annual aerial

3 ~photographs should be assessed to see if the interval

       between flights should be changed. The shoreline, dune

I ~crest and vegetation line in both seasons should be

3 ~digitized at 10-year intervals to help determine long-term

       erosion (or accretion) rates.

       1                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5









1      ~~.  ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL DATA

 3          ~~~Historical data on shoreline positions, beach profiles,

       water level changes and inlet bathymetry should be compiled

I      ~and organized in an accessible format.  Such information

       would expedite the identification of potential long-term

       trends and extend the period of record at a minimal cost.

            The analysis of historic shoreline positions done by

       Leatherman and Allen (1985) is a good beginning. However,

3      ~that work was only done for the coast east of Fire Island

       Inlet with the last shoreline examined being that in 1979.

       The stretch east of Fire Island inlet should be updated with

       a more recent shoreline and the stretch from Fire island

       Inlet to Coney Island should be analyzed using comparable
3      ~~techniques over the same time period.

            There have been numerous beach profile surveys

I      ~conducted along the south shore.  Although a complete

3      ~~analysis of this data may not be necessary at this time,

       provisions should be made to catalogue the available surveys

3      ~~and assess their potential quality and utility.

            There are no tide gages for the open ocean south of

I      ~~Long Island, but long-term tide gage records have been

3 ~~analyzed from the Battery in New York City and New London,

       CT. In addition, storm surge water level information has

3 ~~been developed by the Corps using historical data and

       numerical computer models. The available information will

ï¿½ ~~probably be adequate for immediate management needs, but he

3      ~~program should assess the need for an offshore tide gage

       after 5 years.
       5                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6








         Eforts    to          exmn nesi New York should first

              focs o idntiyin, cmpiingand, if feasible, analyzing

      the bathymetry data that were, and will be, collected by the

3 ~corps in association with inlet dredging programs. Some of

      the Corps' surveys in these areas have already been

3 ~digitized.

3     ~4.   WAVE. DATA

           At least four directional wave gages should be

3     ~established off the south shore of Long Island to collect

      continuous wave data over a period of 3 - 5 years. The

I     ~specific locations of gages would require a siting study.

3 ~Such a study would also provide guidance as to the most

       suitable type of gage (buoy, slope array, etc.) for the

3 ~particular location and application. If possible, the gages

       should be equipped to provide real time data on sea

I ~conditions for commercial and recreational interests.

3     ~Results of the wave gage system should be assessed after the

       first year to determine if coverage is adequate or whether

3      ~it needs to be expanded or reduced.

           The wave data would provide estimates of the intensity

I ~of storms. They are essential for developing accurate

3 ~models to predict storm erosion and other shoreline changes.

            The Corps' Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC)

3 ~manages a Field Wave Gaging (FWG) program as part of the

       U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Field Data Collection

I ~Program. Recently, CERC has been given the authority to

3 ~~enter into cost sharing agreements with individual states to


                                     7









       set up cooperative wave gaging programs. Because

5     ~considerable savings can be realized through a collaborative

       effort, the State should pursue the feasibility of entering

I     ~into a cooperative agreement with CERC to form a gage

       network under the FWG program.

       5.   COMPUTERIZED DATA BASE

 5         ~~~All information should be compiled, analyzed and stored

       at a central location in a computerized data base.

3     ~Initially, the data base should contain the profile, wave,

       historical and shoreline position information collected by

S     ~the program.  In addition, a computerized bibliography of

3      ~available reports, articles, etc. for the region should be

       developed. Eventually, the results of other studies should

5      ~be incorporated in the data base.  The collected data would

       be made available to agency officials, contractors and

       homeowners.

3      ~~6.   PREDICTIVE MODELS

             Modeling efforts would help cast the results and data

5 ~from the monitoring program in a form that would make it

       easier for coastal planners, managers and engineers to use

I ~in the decision making process. Models can provide a

3      ~technically sound basis for risk assessment in management

       decisions. They can be used to forecast shoreline changes

3      ~~associated with storms, or used to explore the effects of

       various management plans, such as groin construction or

I      ~alteration, on the shoreline.  Those associated with the

5      ~~proposed monitoring program must be compatible and adaptable


                                      8








3     ~to -'-he level and type of data available.  The higher the

3     ~quality and quantity of data, the more sophisticated the

       models used can be.

 I         ~~~No single model was identified as the most appropriate

       in the program at this time. Rather, a phased plan should

       be followed where monitoring data would be used initially to
3     ~develop conceptual models of shoreline response.  Empirical

       and numerical models would be used later as the data base

3 ~increases. Care should be taken to insure the data

       collection format, techniques, etc., will be compatible with

       modeling efforts in the future.

3      ~Required Technical Expertise

            Expertise in several disciplines is required to implement

3 ~the proposed erosion monitoring program. A summary of the

       necessary expertise and skills is outlined below:

  I         -~~~Professional survey crews are needed to locate and

  3              ~~~~establish profile benchmarks and conduct subaerial

                 beach surveys to specified standards. "Lightly

  3              ~~~~trained" individuals with adequate professional

                 supervision can be used to assist in the survey of

  I              ~~~~subaerial beach profiles.  Marine survey crews are

  3              ~~~~required to conduct surveys at long ranges to depth of

                 closure.

  3         -~~~~Coastal process professionals and technical specialists

                 are needed to reduce and interpret survey data and



       1                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9









  I             ~~~~prepare reports; and to collect, interpret and utilize

  5             ~~~~available historical data on south shore coastal

                 conditions.

  3         -   ~~~A private contractor would be required to conduct

                 aerial photograph surveys.

  I         -~~~Technical specialists and professionals are needed to

  3             ~~~~deploy/operate and maintain wave gages; and to reduce

                 and interpret wave data.

  3         -~~~Computer information management system expertise is

                 necessary to establish and operate a user-friendly

  I             ~~~~coastal data base.  Computer skills are also required

  3             ~~~~to digitize aerial photograph shoreline features.

               - Coastal process experts are needed to select and

                 exercise appropriate shoreline response models.

               - Program management personnel are required to

  I              ~~~~implement and monitor the south shore erosion

  3             ~~~~monitoring program.

            As indicated earlier, New York State does not have an

3      ~erosion monitoring program in place.  However, Federal, State and

       local agencies conduct regulatory functions and make resource

I      ~~allocation decisions that require staff with some of the

3      ~~technical capabilities needed to implement an erosion monitoring

       program. it would be prudent to capitalize on these staff

3      ~~resources, should they be available, during the initiation of a

       monitoring program.



       1                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~10









    Program Costs

         Estimates of the costs (1990 dollars) for implementing

    the proposed program elements are outlined below.


                             Annual Costs

         Surveys                                  $236,200

         Aerial photos                              32,800

         Wave data                                 255,000

         Computerized data base                     25,000

         Modelling                                  60,000

                                                  $609,000

         Program administration and
         supervision ( @ 20% of total
         annual cost)                             $121,800

         Total annual cost (does not              $730,800/yr.
          include any overhead charges
         that may be required by
         private contractors)

ï¿½                            ~~~~~~~~~Fixed Costs

         Monument installation                    $125,000

          Historical analysis                       140,000

         Wave gage siting analysis                  20,000

          Establishment of appropriate models       300,000

          Total fixed cost                         $585,000


          Hence, implementation of the program would cost about

     $731,000/yr. with an additional one-time fixed cost of

     $585,000. One must weigh these costs in comparison to the

     tremendous value of development and resources found along

     the south shore, as well as to the large construction costs

     associated with implementing most coastal erosion control

     projects.









I     ~Administrative Aspects

 3         ~~~The Board conducted a meeting in Hauppauge, N.Y. on 26

       November 1991 to discuss administrative aspects of the proposed

       erosion monitoring program with agency officials having interests

       and/or jurisdictional responsibilities in coastal erosion and

I     ~shoreline protection.  The purpose of the meeting was twofold:

3     ~1.   to inform Federal and State agency representatives (those

            that were unable to attend the November 13-14, 1990 Workshop

 3         ~~~and others) as well as local government officials about the

            monitoring program and the specifications of its technical

 I         ~~~elements; and

f      ~~2.   to determine current agency activities and available

            resources that relate to the requirements of the program,

 3          ~~~and solicit views on alternative arrangements for

            implementation.

 I'         ~~Interest in the prospect of conducting an erosion monitoring

5      ~program for the south shore was high, as indicated by the meeting

       attendance and discussions that occurred. Thirty-eight people

3      ~people attended the meeting.  The following agencies were repre-

       sented in addition to the Board and the NYS Dept. of State:

 I          ~~~Federal Agencies

  ï¿½              ~~~~Army Corps of Engineers

                 Fire island National Seashore

  j              ~~~~Federal Emergency Management Agency

            State Agencies

  I              ~~~~NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

  3              ~~~~NYS Emergency Management Office

                 NYS Dept. of Transportation

                 NYS office of Parks 1









            County Agencies

                 Nassau County Dept. of Recreation and Parks

                 Suffolk County Dept. of Parks, Recreation and.
      5                         ~~~~~~~~Conservation

                 Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works

 j         ~~~Towns, Cities and Villages

                 Town of Oyster Bay - Dept. of Parks

  S             ~~~~Town of Hempstead - Dept. of Conservation & Waterways

  3             ~~~~City of Long Beach - Dept. of Public Works

                 Town of Babylon - Civil Defense

                 Town of Brookhaven - Dept. of Planning, Environment
      I                        ~~~~~~~~and Development

                  Town of Babylon - Dept. of Environmental Control

                  Town of Islip - Dept. of Planning

  ï¿½             ~~~~Town of Southampton - Planning Dept.

                  Village of Saltaire - Trustee

3      ~~Related Federal and State Agency Programs and Activities

 I          ~~~Several programs and activities are underway in Federal and.

       State agencies that relate to various segments of the south shore

3      ~~erosion monitoring program.  Potential symbiotic relationships

       between these programs/activities and the monitoring program were

I      ~~explored at the meeting and are summarized below.

  ï¿½         -   ~~~The New York District, Corps of Engineers (COE) funds

                  monitoring activities as a construction item for

  3              ~~~~individual authorized projects.  (The COE has no

                  discretionary funds for monitoring.) The principal

  I              ~~~~focus of COE monitoring activity is to assess beach

  3              ~~~~erosion control and navigation project performance.

                                        13









I             ~~~~Monitoring results are used to modify project design

ï¿½             ~~~~considerations, e.g., the location and length of feeder

               beaches and the placement of fill, as necessary.

            - The New York District, COE is conducting an extensive

               monitoring program in conjunction with specific erosion

I             ~~~~control and navigation projects along the south shore

               of Long island; $6 million in project funds is devoted

               to this effort. These projects encompass only small

3             ~~~~segments of the shoreline.

             - The COE Field Wave Gage Program could be targeted to

31            ~~~Long Island, but this depends upon national priorities.

               Short-term wave gage data will be available in the

               future from the Fire Island inlet and Shinnecock Inlet

ï¿½             ~~~~navigation projects.

             - The COE has collected storm surge water elevation data

I             ~~~~for hurricanes and northeast storms at bay and ocean

ft            ~~~~locations from Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point; and

               has established many profile stations in connection

3             ~~~~with its projects along the south shore.  COE staff

               indicated willingness to provide historical data

I             ~~~~already collected, should a regional south shore

3             ~~~~monitoring program be initiated.  (COE profile

                locations should be obtained and benchmarks located in

3              ~~~~the field as first steps in determining the number and

               distribution of additional profile stations needed

I              ~~~~along the south shore.)



     1                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~14









I        -   ~~~The concept of coordinating COE monitoring activities

3             ~~~~with the needs of other agencies was discussed.  These

               activities could be tailored to meet monitoring program

a             ~~~~needs within the project areas under investigation.

            - Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (PL89-298)

I             ~~~~allows surveys for flood control and related purposes

               including coastal flooding due to wind and tidal

               effects. The House Energy and Water Development

I             ~~~~Appropriations Committee bill report #97-177 (97th

               Congress, 1st Session, July 14, 1981) added funding for

I             ~~~~the "Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study."

               As a result, the California study was financed with

               100% federal funds; these funds were not targeted for

               the conduct of monitoring studies associated with

               authorized COE projects. This mechanism provides a

I             ~~~~precedent for other areas in the country to do this

ft            ~~~type of work with funds authorized via Congressional

               resolution. Hence, one direction that New York State

3             ~~~~could follow would be to lobby Congress for a

               resolution directing the New York District, COE to

I             ~~~~conduct a Long Island coastal study funded by the

5             ~~~~Federal Government.  This study should be designed to

               meet both New York State and. COE needs with respect to

3             ~~~~shoreline monitoring.  it should be recognized that

               this type of COE study would be conducted for a limited

I             ~~~~time only.  A long-term commitment to continue the

3             ~~~~monitoring program would be necessary after completion

               of COE work.

     I                               1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~35









  I        -   ~~~An alternative implementation model for New York State

  3             ~~~~to consider is provided by the Florida experience.  In

                 this state, the Florida Dept. of Natural Resources,

  3             ~~~~Bureau of Coastal Data Acquisition is responsible for

                 implementing all aspects of its erosion monitoring

  I             ~~~~program.  Sufficient staff lines and resources have

  j             ~~~~been assigned by the State of Florida to carry out this

                 task.

  3        -   ~~~A joint NYS Dept. of Transportation-NYS Office of

                 Parks-Town of Babylon effort is underway to collect

  ï¿½             ~~~~shore profile data at beaches along Ocean Parkway,

  I             ~~~~Jones Island.  Monitoring data are available for 20

                 stations over a 5 year period. It was recommended at

  5             ~~~~the meeting that on-going agency monitoring programs

                 should continue.

  I        -   ~~~The relationship of the NYS Coastal Erosion Hazard Area

  5             ~~~~Program under Article 34 of the Environmental

                 Conservation law with respect to the aerial photography

  3             ~~~~element in the proposed south shore monitoring program

                 was discussed. The NYS Dept. of Environmental

  I             ~~~~Conservation is charged with updating aerial

                 photography every 10 years in connection with the

                 hazard program; this requirement could be linked with
  3             ~~~~the aerial photo element of the erosion monitoring

                 program.

I     ~Expressions of Interest and Support

 3         ~~~Comments voiced at the meeting indicated interest and


       1                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~16









I     ~support f or conduct of an erosion monitoring program, and a

3     ~desire to share data that are already being obtained at specific

       locations along the shore. Many agencies stated that the

I,    ~data and information provided by a program would. be very useful.

       A synopsis of the comments and points raised follows.

               - Town of Babylon staff stated that a comprehensive beach
  f             ~~~~monitoring program is needed and deserves vigorous

                 support. Limited profile data have been collected by

                 the Town in the past, but the methods used to collect

                 same do not meet the standards of the proposed program.

  I,        -   ~~The Town of Islip is in the process of reviewing its

  ï¿½              ~~~~construction set-back line policy applicable to Fire

                 Island. Town staff expressed an interest in the

  3             ~~~~application of shoreline response models.  Although the

                 reliability of model predictions is dependent upon

  I              ~~~~availability of data collected over the long-term, the

  3             ~~~~monitoring program would provide information over the

                 short-term that could be used to describe beach

  3              ~~~~conditions, document changes, etc.  This information.

                 would be immediately useful to local government

  I              ~~~~officials.

               - The Nassau County Dept. of Recreation and Parks

                 expressed support for the program and cited its

  f              ~~~~relation to the Federal study underway at Long Beach

                 Island. After major storms, there is often an urgent

  I              ~~~~need to obtain estimates of shoreline damage.  The

  3              ~~~~monitoring program could provide historical data on

                 beach conditions that would assist in such efforts.

                                       17









            - Town of Hempstead Dept. of Conservation & Waterways

3             ~~~~personnel expressed concern over the technical

               expertise required to conduct profile surveys. The

3,            ~~~need for reliable data and its analysis by

               professionals was stressed. The extent of work

I             ~~~~suggested in the proposed monitoring program is

3             ~~~~significant and would be too much of a load for Town of

               Hempstead and other local governments to bear. It was

               recommended that a higher level of government should

               undertake the regional monitoring program.

I         -~~~Should the decision be made to use profile data for

               regulatory purposes, then the necessity of having

               certified professionals obtain the data should be

5             ~~~~examined from the legal perspective.

             - Town of Southampton staff stated that no local funds or

I             ~~~~resources were available to support a monitoring

3             ~~~~program; and that a regional or state entity should

               oversee such a program.

             - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation staff stated

               that the monitoring program would provide additional

I             ~~~~shoreline change data over the long term.  The use of

5             ~~~~this data could conceivably result in changing the area

               subject to regulation under Article 34 of the

               Environmental Conservation Law.

             - Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staff

I              ~~~~reported that a pending bill (National Flood Insurance,

5              ~~~~~Mitigation and Erosion Management Act of 1991 -S.1650)


     3                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~18









               would amend. the National. Flood Insurance Program by

'3            ~~~requiring the establishment of three zones defined by

               the rate of shoreline erosion. Should the bill pass

I             ~~~~and be signed into law in 1992, FEMA would then have

               one year to report back to Congress on the procedures

               used to establish the 10, 20 and 60 year setbacks based
if            ~~~on erosion rates that define the zones.  The erosion

               monitoring program for the south shore could interface

*             ~~~~with this effort.

             - Board staff stated that it had received correspondence

               referring to the support and assistance private
3             ~~~~homeowners on Fire Island could provide in the conduct

               of beach profile surveys. An expression of need and

3             ~~~~support for implementation of an erosion monitoring

               program was also received by the Board staff from the

I             ~~~~Town of East Hampton Planning Dept.

3         -   ~~~Town of Brookhaven staff mentioned the need to study

               offshore bathymetry, since localized shore erosion may

5             ~~~~be related to conditions, i.e., breaks, in the offshore

               bar.

I         -   ~~~New York Sea Grant Extension Program staff recommended

if            ~~~that a committee be formed to spearhead implementation

               of the monitoring program. Extension Program

if            ~~~~assistance in supporting committee activity was

               offered.

I         -   ~~~NYS Dept. of State staff stated that one goal of the

5             ~~~~program would be to up-date surveys, etc. at locations



     1                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~19









  I             ~~~~where historical data have already been collected in

  1             ~~~~order to describe current conditions and recent changes

                 that have occurred. More frequent surveys out to

  I             ~~~~closure depth were favored.

       Recommended Actions

            A long-term commitment of support from all levels of

3 ~government is necessary to initiate implementation of the

       proposed erosion management program. The following steps should

I     ~~be taken:

 1         ~~~1.   An erosion monitoring program for the south shore of

                 Long Island based on the specifications outlined in

  3             ~~~~this report should be implemented as soon as possible.

                 The NYS Dept. of State should circulate this report to

  5             ~~~~all appropriate parties and solicit support for

                 implementation of the program.

            2.   The NYS Dept. of State should establish a committee

  5             ~~~~that would advise it on implementation of the

                 monitoring program. The committee would provide

  5             ~~~~advice, technical oversight, and coordination of

                 activities leading toward implementation of the

  5              ~~~~program.  The committee would be a forum to solicit

                 agency cooperation and participation in the program;

                 prepare and finalize action plans; prepare inter-agency

  5              ~~~~agreements and secure funding; select and supervise

                 private contractors; monitor work progress; and

  I              ~~~~disseminate program outputs in suitable formats to

  3              ~~~~various user groups.


       3                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~20



I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I                                         APPENDIX
I
U
           Development of a Coastal Erosion Monitoring Program for the
I                         South Shore of Long Island, New York
I
I
I


I
ï¿½
I





























             Development of a Coastal Erosion
         Monitoring Program for the South Shore
                 of Long Island, New York


                 Proceedings of a Workshop
                 Held November 13-14, 1990







                       Compiled by:

                      R. Bokuniewicz
              Marine Sciences Research Center
               State University of New York
                Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000

                            and

                         J. Tanski
           New York Sea Grant Extension Program
               State University of New York
                Stony Brook, NY 11794-5002




1991








      I                        ~~~~~~~~ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

      We are grateful to Ms. Pam Castens, Dr. Robert Dean, Mr. William
      Eiser, and Ms. Beth Sullivan for sharing their considerable
      expertise and experience with monitoring programs in their
if ~respective states and for reviewing this document. Special thanks
      to Ms. Lynn Marie Bocamazo of the New York District of the U.S.
      Army Corps of Engineers who was extremely helpful in providing
      information on the Corps' monitoring activities. we are also
I    ~grateful to the workshop attendees whose participation and
      cooperation made this effort possible. We would like to thank
      Mines. Carol Case and Eileen Goldsmith for their administrative and
      secretarial support. Dr. DeWitt Davies of the Long Island Regional
      Planning Board and Mr. Fred Anders of the New York State Department
      of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront
      Revitalization provided invaluable assistance in carrying out this
      project.

3     ~Funding for the workshop was provided by the New York State
      Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront
      Revitalization through the Long Island Regional Planning Board.




















I    ~This report was prepared for the New York State Department of
      State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization
      with financial assistance from the Office of Ocean and Coastal
'S  ~Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration, provided under the Coastal Zone Management Act of
      1972, as amended (Grant-in-Aid No. NA-90-AA-H-CZ-437).








      *                      ~~~~~~~Table of Contents

                                                                              Page
I ~~Introduction .1.............           
       Overview of Programs in Other States.                          ............2
          N~ew Jersey.........................                        3
          South Carolina.                                             ......................3
          Florida..........................                           4
p   ~~California.........................                           5

       comparison of Monitoring Program Elements and a
       Proposed Program for New York.................                 6
          Beach Surveys
 -        ~~~Other States.                                           ......................7
            Proposed for NY.                                         ....................13
          Aerial Photographs
 I       ~~~Other States.                                           ......................16
            Proposed for NY.                                         ....................18
          Historical Analysis
            Other States.                                            ......................19
            Proposed for NY.                                         ....................22
          Wave Data
            Other States.                                            ......................23
 a    ~~~Proposed for NY.                                           ....................26
          Computerized Data Base
            Other States.                                            ......................27
              Proposed for NY ......................30
          Modeling
            Other States.                                            ......................31
            Proposed for NY.                                         ....................33
       Requirements for NY's Proposed Monitoring
5  ~Program~. .........................34

       Summary Table.                                                ........................44

       Explanation and Additional Notes for Table.                   .........47

       References ..                                                  ........................53

      Appendixl1: Participants.                                     .................56
       Appendix II: Agenda ...                                       ...................58

       Appendix III: Existing Benchmarks and Profile Lines.           .....60
      Appendix IV:  Monitoring Activity of the U.S. Army
                      Corps of Engineers.                              ..............64








                                INTRODUCTION

                New York's ocean shoreline provides substantial

I     ~economic, recreational and environmental benefits to the state's

      residents. Property in the coastal flpod plain along the 125-

      mile coastline of Long Island's south shore has a value of

      approximately $10 billion (NY Dept. of State, 1989). Millions of

      people, both residents and tourists, visit the area's beaches

      each year. The barrie r islands and inlets found along the coast

      form a dynamic and inter-related system which protects the

I    ~heavily-developed mainland as well as the biologically productive

I ~back bay environments.

           The need for sound coastal management balancing

      environmental protection, public safety, and property rights is

      clearly evident. However, proper management requires an

I    ~adequate understanding of the resource.  Decisions regarding

      coastal regulations, resource'allocation, and selection of

      management options must be based on credible and technically
      sound information. Unfortunately, a comprehensive, up-to-date

      coastal data base required for reliable decision-making is

      not presently available (Tanski et al. 1990).

           Accordingly, the "Proposed Long Island South Shore Hazard

      Management Program" developed by the Long Island Regional

      Planning Board (LIRPB, 1989) for the New York State Department of

      State, Division of Coastal Resources, called for the development

3 ~of a coa~stal monitoring program for the ocean shoreline. The

      monitoring program would be designed to improve government's

*    ~ability to make timely management and regulatory decisions by


      ~~~~~~~~~~~~I







      providing information that would allow managers to define and

      quantify the erosion problem, evaluate effectiveness of adopted
j ~and proposed erosion management strategies and develop a better

      understanding of the causes and effects of observed shoreline

*     ~changes.

           On November 13 and 14, 1990, a workshop (sponsored under a

)    ~contract from the New York State Department of State) was held to

3     ~identify the necessary elements and, where possible,

      specifications for a monitoring program for New York's open ocean

      coast. Representatives from California, Florida, South Carolina

      and New Jersey, states that already have coastal monitoring

11    ~programs in place, attended and provided overviews of their

      respective programs. State, federal and local agencies having

      responsibilities and/or interest in coastal issues and management
      were invited to participate. Those agencies included the

      Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of

5 ~Transportation, Office of Parks and Recreation, the State

      Geological Survey, and State Emergency Management Office at the

      state level; the Corps of Army Engineers (COE), National Park
      Service, and the Federal Emergency Management office, at the

      federal level; the New York City Planning Department and the

      LIRPB at the local level. A list of attendees is given in

      Appendix I and the agenda in Appendix II. This report presents


      deliberations and findings of the-participants.


                    OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMS IN OTHER STATES

           A number of other states, recognizing the value and

      importance of their shoreline, have already developed and


                                 2







ï¿½     ~implemented erosion monitoring programs.  Although there are

      certain common elements, the level of effort and type of

      information collected depend to a large extent on the goals and

      objectives of the individual programs. Obviously, an examination

*     ~of what other states are doing in this area can be very

      beneficial in terms of applying their experiences to New York's

      coast. The following sections provide a brief background on the

      different programs as presented at the workshop. This, in turn,

      is followed by a more in-depth discussion and comparison of

5     ~technical components that comprise each of the monitoring

      programs discussed.

 Ui        ~~Now Jersey.  In 1985 Hurricane Gloria hit the New Jersey

*     ~coast and caused damages that resulted in the filing of

      approximately $2 million in Federal Emergency Management

      Administration (FEMA) insurance claims. FEMA, however, denied

      pall municipal'beach damage claims because there had been no

I     ~monitoring of the shoreline to establish pre-storm conditions.

      In 1986, the NJ Department of Environmental Protection received

      $2 million in Federal funds for dune management, establishing

      dune ordinances, determining set backs for future construction

      and other coastal studies. In addition, $53,000 was used for

I     ~establishing a system of beach profiles, stations which would be

      used as a basis for tracking long-term changes and quantifying

      storm damage. This information would then be used to help

      quantify and expedite federal insurance claims in the future.

           South Carolina. Coastal tourism is the second largest

9 ~industry in South Carolina. Recognizing the importance of the



      1                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~3






       state's beaches and the need for additional protection of these

I ~features, the South Carolina Coastal Council initiated the Beach

      monitoring Program in 1986 to monitor the condition of the

      beaches in a comprehensive, on-going program. In 1988,
*     ~legislation was passed calling for establishment of

      jurisdictional boundaries for regulatory purposes based on rates

5 ~of shoreline change. Data derived from the beach monitoring

      program is to be used for establishing these jurisdictional

      boundaries. In order to obtain accurate measurements, benchmarks

5     ~spaced every 1000 to 2000 feet along the shore are surveyed twice

      a year. A base line was set along the dune crest. In areas

5     ~where a dune doesn't exist, the baseline was established where it

      would have occurred if the beach was in its natural state. This

      was determined by creating an average profile for a particular

3     ~stretch of coast, calculating the volume of sand contained in

      this typical beach and requiring that the beach in front of the

9     ~baseline contain this ideal volume.  A set-back line established

      by the expected long-term recession of the vegetation line over

6     ~40 years.  Reconstruction of houses is regulated between the base

*     ~line and shoreline and new construction is regulated between the

      set-back line and shoreline. Jurisdictional lines are to be

      updated every 8 to 10 years.

           Florida. The Florida Department of Natural Resources has 90

I    ~people employed in the Division of Beaches and Shores.  This
      Division includes an office of Erosion Control, whose

I    ~responsibilities include planning and managing approximately $50

*     ~million worth of beach nourishment and inlet management projects,

      a Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation which annually


      1                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~4







issues about 1000 permits for coastal construction projects and a

Bureau of Coastal Data Acquisition which is responsible for

maintaining the state's beach monitoring program. The Bureau of

Coastal Data Acquisition has Z5 employees,: including two full-

time surveying crews, and an annual budget of about $3 million.

This bureau maintains both a. short-term and a long-term data base

on coastal process and maps of the state's jurisdictional line

and the Coastal Construction Control Line, which is usually

located between 300 and 500 f-eat from the shoreline. The

jurisdictional line has been established with reference to over

3400 survey monuments placed along the s/kreline.  No

construction is allowed seaward of the Control Line except in

unusual circumstances.  The Bureau of Coastal Data Acquisition

also coordinates aerial photography, wave measurements, and

modeling activities associated with the state's coastal

management and regulatory functions.

     California. California's shoreline stretches some 1100

miles and contains 15 harbors.  During the 1982-83 winter storms,

there was over $116 million of damage in the San Diego area

alone.  In response to the recurring erosion problem, the U.S.

Congress appropriated funds to implement the Coast of California

Storm and Tidal Waves Study (CCSTWS) in the early 1980's.  The

CCSTWS, which is managed by the Los Angeles District of the U.S.

Army Ccrps of Engineers, is intended to provide vital information

and analytical tools to coastal planners, engineers, managers and

scientists. It is a comprehensive long-term study of shoreline

change and the factors that cause that change.  The program was



                           5






      designed to provide a data base of (a) sediment characteristics,

I     ~(b) past shoreline changes and (c) models of shoreline change in

      a format accessible to planners and engineers as well as the
      public. The coast was divided into 6 regions based on physical

I     ~characteristics but coinciding to county boundaries wherever

      possible. Sections were prioritorized based on past erosion

I     ~damage history.  Two plans were developed for each section.  An

      optimal plan included field observations and analyses while a

      minimal plan relied on available datz whenever possible. The
      optimal plan has recently been completed for the San Diego area.

      other sections have not been monitored but efforts are underway

j ~to institute programs in these regions. Some elements of the

      California programs, such as the effects of submarine canyons and

I ~river sediment inputs, are not geologically relevant to a New

      York application and are not included in this report.


                  COMPARISON OF MONITORING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
   I             ~~~~AND A PROPOSED PLAN FOR NEW YORK'S COAST
           The major elements and associated characteristics of the

*     ~various programs found in other states are summarized in Table 1.

g ~it should be noted that the "California" program is confined to

      two relatively small stretches of coast, San Diego (90 miles of

      shoreline) and the South Coast region (approximately 91 miles of

      shoreline in the Los Angeles area), and that the "South Coast"

'I    ~column indicates the proposed minimal plan which has not yet been

      implemented. The San Diego optimal plan is presently

      operational.

 f         ~~After a review of the monitoring programs implemented in

      other states, the workshop participants were asked to begin


                                 6








I     ~developing a program that would be appropriate for the south
      shore of Long Island. Components outlined in the table were used

5     ~as a starting point to focus the group's efforts.  Each component

      was considered and discussed by participants as to its

      applicability to New York. Results of these deliberations are
      also discussed in the following sections and summarized in the

      last column of Table 1.


      I. Beach Surveys

 I        ~~Every monitoring program examined incorporated surveys of the
      beach profile and, in most cases, the nearshore zone. Such

I     ~surveys were identified as essential components of the existing

      state programs. There were, however, differences in how the

I     ~surveys were conducted in terms of their spacing, timing, extent

I     ~of coverage, etc.

           A. New Jersey. Surveys are done at 91 stations over 114

1     ~miles of coastline.  At least one survey profile line had to be
      located in each of the FEMA-designated coastal communities for

I     ~the purpose of program administration.  Sites in each

I     ~municipality were chosen away from the influence of any shore-
      perpendicular structures (groins or jetties) in areas thought to

I     ~represent typical beaches.  Pre-existing survey sites were used
      wherever possible. No sites were established in Federal lands,

I     ~although five of the sites were set in undeveloped lands for

g     ~baseline comparisons.  The benchmarks consist of an aluminum

      marker located on an existing fixed permanent structure (i.e.,

I     ~telephone pole, bulkhead, etc.).  The cost of establishing these
      benchmarks was $53,000. In 1991, the disks are to be replaced by


                                 7








      buried permanent aluminum monuments. These monuments will have

      permanent magnets in them which will allow post-storm recovery

I     ~under almost any condition.

           surveys are conducted once a year over a two month period in

      the fall. Surveys are done within 2.5 hours of low tide to a

      depth of -5 to -8 feet mean low water. They are done by

      university staff originally using an optical theodolite, but,

I     ~beginning in 1990, a Lietz Set-4 total-station surveying system

      was used. Each profile begins in the dunes and 20 or 3 0

      elevations are typically measured across the profile with spacing
*     ~determined by the existing topography; measurements were further

      apart where the beach was flat or a constant slope and closer

*     ~together where the slopes changed over short distances.

           New Jersey presently spends about $20,000 per year for

I     ~surveys at the 91 stations or about $220 per profile not

      including the cost of establishing the monuments. An annual

      report is not routinely provided but data reports cost

      approximately $12,000 when funding allows. Proposed state

      legislation would provide initial'funding of an additional

I     ~$125,000 to increase the number of stations by 20 and to survey

      all III stations twice in the first year. Subsequent annual

      funding would be $90,000. If $12,000 of this $90,000 is used to

      produce the report, this corresponds to an average cost of

      $351 per profile to survey all III stations twice a year. The

I     ~large increase in the cost for the semi-annual surveying program

      is because the task would become a full-time occupation for

      three individuals. The program is currently at a level that can



                                 8







      be done by a part-time supervisor with recent university

U     ~graduates working on a part-time hourly basis.  (Other contracts

      make up the balance of their employment.)

           B. South Carolina. Four hundred and thirty profile

3     ~monuments are spaced an average of 2000 feet apart along the 120

      miles of South Carolina's shoreline. In heavily developed, or

I     ~critical areas, the spacing may be less than 1000 feet while

3     ~undeveloped areas, such as a wildlife refuge, may have none.  Two

      monuments (a stamped aluminum disc set in concrete on a fiberglas

3     ~post) were set at each station.  One was near the active part of

      the beach or immediately behind any shore parallel structures.

I     ~The other was set farther back behind the dune to insure that it

      would not be lost during periods of severe erosion. After

      Hurricane Hugo, however, some of these were buried in overwashed
3     ~sand and difficult to locate.  The cost of setting each monument

      and establishing horizontal and vertical control was estimated to

3     ~be between $300 and $500.  If we assume an average cost of $400

      per monument, total cost of establishing the monuments would have

I     ~been $172,000.  Surveys are usually done only over the active

      part of the profile. Witness posts are also set for each station

      to facilitate recovery. Horizontal and vertical control was not

3     ~available for all stations initially; an arbitrary elevation of

      +100 feet was assumed for stations lacking vertical control so

I     ~that data from these points could be distinguished easily from

3     ~accurately leveled stations.  This was a temporary condition,

      however, and the elevation of all stations have been accurately

3     ~known since 1986.  Surveys are done twice a year in the fall and

      spring. The initial survey at each station was done from the


                                 9








3     ~landward benchmark.  Subsequent surveys were done from the

      seaward benchmark over the active part of the beach only.

I     ~Surveys were done initially to wading depth, nominally -5 feet

      MSL, using a rod and level.

           Surveys done by students cost the state about $30 apiece.

3 ~When university-based surveyors are not available, profiles are

      sometimes done by state agencies or private professional

3     ~surveyors at a cost of $50 and $100 per profile respectively.  In

      addition, $30,000 is allowed for an annual report bringing the

I     ~total cost to approximately $55,800 per year for surveying.  This

3 ~figure does not include the cost to establish monuments.

           (Since the meeting was held, South Carolina has begun

3     ~planning for the surveying to be done by university personnel

      with profiles out to a depth of at least 20 feet on every fourth

I ~station; the method had not yet been decided but fathometers

3     ~would probably be used because obstructions prohibit the use of

      towed sleds. The anticipated cost is $300,000.)

 3         ~~C. Florida.  Fixed concrete monuments were set approximately

      every 1000 feet along the shore. A second set of concrete

I     ~benchmarks was also established 500 feet behind the dune to

3 ~insure recovery of survey stations after storms.

           Surveys are done sequentially with crews visiting each site

3 ~every 3 to 5 years. Normally about 600 stations are done per

      year but arrangements are also made to do critical areas after

I     ~major storms.  The state's goal, however, is to have each of the

      3587 locations (State of Florida, 1989) surveyed twice a year.

           Profile lines are surveyed to a depth of -5 feet MSL with



                                 10






      every third station surveyed tr a depth of 30 feet MSL or a

I ~distance 3000 feet offshore, whichever is reached first.

      offshore surveys are conducted with a boat and fathometer and are

      run three times to check precision. The state maintains two full
      time professional survey crews to do this work.

           Although exact figures are not available, the offshore

      surveys done by a professional crew have been estimated to cost

      between $1,000 and $2,000 per profile. Since approximately one-

I     ~third, or 200, of the annual surveys were offshore profiles, this

*     ~corresponds to annual costs of $200,000 to $400,000 for the

      offshore surveys alone. The total cost would include

      approximately 400 subaerial profiles but the estimated cost of

      these profiles was not available so a total annual cost could not

I     ~be calculated.

 3         ~~D. California.  Regional and intensive beach profile

      surveys were specified for both the South Coast and San Diego

3     ~sections, but only the total number of regional monuments are

      given in Table I. More intensive surveys are done in areas of

I     ~particular interest.  For example, in the South Coast minimal

      plan, 20 additional stations would be spaced 1500 feet apart and

      surveys done to a depth of -40 MLW twice a year and to wading
3 ~depth bi-monthly in one area. These profiles will be in addition

      to the 18 regional profile locations which are surveyed twice a

3 ~year. Wherever possible, existing benchmarks were used as

      regional profile locations.

 I         ~~Regional surveys are done at each location twice a year-

3     ~once in September or October and once in March or April - to

      measure seasonal changes in the beach profile. Provisions are







also made to have profiles done immediately after major storms to

quantify storm damage and recovery. It normally takes 12 days to

complete the surveys at the 57 locations in the San Diego region.

At some locations it has been recommended that local authorities

make measurements only of the beach width on a monthly basis.  As

mentioned, at several locations intensive surveying of beach

profiles is done on a bi-monthly basis.

     Surveys are conducted to the depth of closure or -40 feet

MLLW, to measure the seasonal envelope of beach variation. The

offshore component was initially done with a sled but because of

technical problems at some sites, this method was abandoned and

replaced by boat surveys using a standard fathometer.

Professional surveyors do the beach and offshore profiles.

     During 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, $550,000 was allotted for

regional-scale beach and nearshore bathymetric surveys or an

average of $137,500/year (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987, p.

A25). This does not include the cost of establishing monuments.

If surveys are done at 57 monuments twice a year, cost per survey

would be $1200. $18,000/year is allotted for the preparation of

a report.  For regional surveys in the proposed minimum plan for

the South Coast section, $100,000 was committed to establish

benchmarks where needed and conduct the surveys. In subsequent

years, the cost of surveys was estimated to be $75,000 per year

implying that the cost of the benchmarks was $25,000 (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, 1987, p. B48).  The cost per survey for the

minimal plan would be $2080. The differences are apparently due

to economies of scale.



                           12







           E. FOR THE NEW YORK PROGRAM, THE GROUP RECOMMENDED

I     ~ESTABLISHING BENCHMARKS OVER THE 125 MILES OF SHORELINE FROM

3 ~CONEY ISLAND TO MONTAUK POINT. THE SPACING WOULD NOT BE UNIFORM.

      STATIONS MIGHT BE SPACED CLOSER THAN 1000 FEET IN HIGHLY

3 ~DEVELOPED, UNSTABLE AREAS AND AROUND INLETS AND NEAR GROIN FIELDS

      AND UP TO 5000 FEET APART ON UNDEVELOPED LAND. IF THE

I ~MEASUREMENTS ARE TO BE USED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES, THE

3 ~MONUMENTS SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 2000 FEET APART. IN NO CASE

      SHOULD THE DISTANCE BETWEEN MONUMENTS EXCEED I MILE. WHERE IT Is

3 ~APPROPRIATE TO SPACE BENCHMARKS MORE CLOSELY, THE DISTANCE MIGHT

      BE CHOSEN SO THAT THE STATIONS ADEQUATELY REPRESENT CURVATURE OF

U ~THE SHORELINE. THIS SPACING IS RECOMMENDED SO THAT REGULATIONS

      ENFORCED AT ANY PARTICULAR LOCATION CAN BE SUPPORTED BY DIRECT

      MEASUREMENTS AT A STATION WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF THE LOCATION.

3     ~IN MOST CASES, THIS WILL BE CLOSE ENOUGH TO INSURE THAT

      CONDITIONS AT THE LOCATION ARE ADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED, BUT IN

3     ~HEAVILY DEVELOPED AREAS, OR WHERE TREND OF THE SHORELINE CHANGES

      SHARPLY, MORE CLOSELY SPACED STATIONS WOULD BE NEEDED TO INSURE

I     ~THAT THE MEASUREMENTS AT THE STATION ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF

3 ~CONDITIONS BETWEEN STATIONS.

           PRE-EXISTING BENCHMARKS, SUCH AS THE "STROCK" RANGES, WHICH

3 ~WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE CORPS AND SURVEYED IN 1979, SHOULD BE RE-

      OCCUPIED WHERE POSSIBLE. (SEE APPENDIX III FOR RELATIVE

I ~SHORELINE COVERAGE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PROFILE LINES.) TWO

3     ~MARKERS SHOULD BE SET AT EACH STATION, ONE IN THE UPLAND BEHIND

      ANY EXISTING DUNE THAT WOULD BE IN LITTLE DANGER OF BEING LOST

3     ~EVEN DURING SEVERE STORMS AND ONE ON OR IN FRONT OF THE DUNE TO

      FACILITATE ACCESS.



                                 13








 3         ~~SURVEYS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TWICE A YEAR -ONCE IN THE FALL

      AND ONCE IN THE SPRING. TWO SURVEYS PER YEAR ARE REQUIRED TO

I     ~DOCUMENT THE SEASONAL VARIABILITY CHARACTERIZED BY EROSION DUE TO

      WINTER STORMS AND REBUILDING OF THE SUMMER BEACH. THOSE

      RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING SURVEYS MUST BE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING

3     ~EXTRA SURVEYS ON SHORT NOTICE TO INSURE THAT ADDITIONAL PROFILES

      ARE DONE BEFORE AND AFTER MAJOR STORMS. (THE DEFINITION OF A

      "MAJOR STORM" WOULD HAVE TO BE BASED ON THE BEST PROFESSIONAL

      JUDGMENT OF THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE

I     ~OVERALL PROGRAM.)  THEY MUST HAVE THE PERSONNEL TO ASSIGN THIS

3     ~TASK A HIGH PRIORITY WHEN NEEDED AND BE ASSURED OF THE RESOURCES

      TO COVER THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. SOME STATIONS SHOULD ALSO BE

5     ~SAMPLED MORE FREQUENTLY, SAY EVERY FOUR TO SIX WEEKS, TO BETTER

      DOCUMENT SHORT-TERM VARIATIONS. THESE LATTER TWO TYPES OF

I     ~SURVEYS MAY BE INCORPORATED IN AND SUPPORTED BY STUDIES

3     ~INDEPENDENT OF THE OVERALL MONITORING PROGRAM.  THERE MUST BE A

      LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO CARRYING OUT BIANNUAL BEACH PROFILE

3     ~SURVEYS BOTH TO DOCUMENT LONG-TERM SHORELINE TRENDS AND TO

      PROPERLY EVALUATE THE EFFECTS OF STORMS WITH DIFFERENT RECURRENCE

I ~INTERVALS. THIS INFORMATION IS ESSENTIAL TO DEVELOPING

3     ~EFFECTIVE, DEFENSIBLE REGULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLANS.

           TWO CLASSES OF SURVEYS WERE RECOMMENDED. EVERY THIRD

3     ~STATION, OR ONE STATION APPROXIMATELY EVERY MILE (WHICHEVER IS

      FEWER) WOULD BE DONE TO-THE DEPTH OF CLOSURE OR APPROXIMATELY -30

3 ~FEET MSL. THIS WOULD BE DONE BY PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS WITH A

      ROD AND TRANSIT ONSHORE, AND A BOAT AND FATHOMETER, OR SLED,

      OFFSHORE. THE REMAINING STATIONS WOULD BE DONE WITHIN 2.5 HOURS



                                 14







      OF LOW TIDE TO THE WATER LEVEL, OR NOMINALLY TO -2 FEET MSL.

I     ~THESE SURVEYS COULD BE DONE BY TRAINED UNIVERSITY STUDENTS UNDER

      FACULTY SUPERVISION TO REDUCE COSTS. SURVEYS DONE TO CLOSURE

      DEPTH WOULD PROVIDE DATA FOR A SEDIMENT BUDGET WHICH COULD BE

3     ~USED TO ASSESS OVERALL BEHAVIOR OF THE SYSTEM AND EVALUATE THE

      EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT DECISIONS. OFFSHORE PROFILES NEED TO BE

I     ~DONE AT LEAST EVERY 5 YEARS EXCEPT IN AREAS OF MAJOR ENGINEERING

3 ~PROJECTS OR IN AREAS SUBJECT TO THE ANNUAL LOSS OF PROPERTY DUE

      TO CHRONIC EROSION. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OFFSHORE

3 ~PROFILES IS CRITICAL TO IMPROVING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SAND

      BUDGET AND TO THE SUCCESS OF PREDICTIVE MODELING EFFORTS. AS A

I ~RESULT, OFFSHORE SURVEYS SHOULD BE DONE SEMI-ANNUALLY AT AS MANY

      LOCATIONS AS POSSIBLE IF FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE.

 I         ~~FOR NEW YORK THE COST OF SUBAERIAL SURVEYS WAS ASSUMED TO BE

3 ~$200 PER PROFILE. THIS IS COMPARABLE TO THE COST IN NEW JERSEY.

      COSTS FOR NEW YORK MAY BE SLIGHTLY HIGHER BECAUSE ACCESS TO MANY

3 ~STATIONS ON THE NEW YORK SHORELINE WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT,

      ESPECIALLY THOSE ON FIRE ISLAND. A COST OF $2000 PER PROFILE WAS

I ~ASSUMED FOR PROFILES TO A DEPTH OF -30 FEET MSL. THIS COST IS

3 ~COMPARABLE TO OTHER PROGRAMS BUT RELATIVELY HIGH AGAIN BECAUSE

      OVERLAND ACCESS TO MANY STATIONS ON FIRE ISLAND WOULD BE

3 ~DIFFICULT. WHEN BOTH SUBAERIAL AND OFFSHORE PROFILES ARE DONE,

      110 STATIONS WOULD BE SURVEYED TO -30 FEET MSL TWICE IN THAT YEAR

I ~AT A COST OF $440,000 PLUS $88,000 FOR THE 220 SUBAERIAL SURVEYS

3     ~THAT YEAR.  IF OFFSHORE PROFILES ARE ONLY DONE EVERY 5 YEARS FOR

      ECONOMIC REASONS, DURING THE OTHER FOUR YEARS THE COST OF

3     ~SUBAERIAL SURVEYS WOULD BE $132,000 PER YEAR.  IN THIS CASE,

      TOTAL SURVEY COST FOR A 5-YEAR PERIOD WOULD BE $1,056,000 FOR AN



                                 15








3     ~AVERAGE COST OF $211,'200 PER YEAR, AS INDICATED IN TABLE I.  TO

      THIS, AN ANNUAL COST OF $25,000 WOULD BE ADDED FOR REDUCING AND

I     ~ANALYZING DATA AND PREPARING A REPORT.


*     ~II.  Aerial Photographs

           A. In New Jersey, annual aerial photographs of the

      shoreline are usually taken in late summer or early fall under
      other state programs. In 1986, rectified aerial photographs were

      taken of the entire coast for the Historical Shoreline study.

3     ~The shoreline was digitized for comparison with 1836, 1870, 1899,

      1932, 1952, 1971 and 1977 shorelines digitized from maps and

I     ~aerial photos.  Beginning in 1991 the entire shoreline will be

*     ~flown every five years as part of a freshwater wetlands mapping

      project. High water shorelines will be digitized from these

3     ~photo sets and the data entered into a geographical information

      system (ARC/INFO) so that a planner could construct shoreline-

I     ~change maps.  The cost for aerial photographs covering 114 miles

      of coast was estimated to be $15,000 or $130/mile/flight but this

      does not include digitization or costs associated with processing

3     ~or storing resulting data.

           B. South Carolina. One set of aerial photographs was flown

3     ~to construct a set of orthophoto maps to be used for regulatory

      purposes. In order to provide the best estimate of the state's

      jurisdictional control lines, maps were produced at a scale of I
3     ~inch = 100 feet with an accuracy of 2.5 feet.  Total cost was

      $300,000. The jurisdictional line is to be updated every 8 to 10

3     ~years.  These updates will require new aerial photographs to be

      taken. Initially, the Coastal Council, which runs the monitoring


                                 16








program, planned to have aerial photographs updated on an annual

basis with additional overflights done within 3 days of any major

storm (Lennon, 1987).

     C. Florida. The Florida Department of Natural Resources

has controlled stereoscopic aerial photographs of the shoreline

done in conjunction with their coastal construction control line

studies. As a result, the entire coast is flown every three to

five years.  The photographs are used to provide detailed working

photomaps at a scale of I inch = 100 feet. Survey monuments are

targeted before the flights and plotted directly on the

photomaps. Photogrammetrically-generated contours (at 2-foot

intervals) delineating beach and dune details are also plotted.

Positions of the shoreline, dune and other features on the

photographs are digitized by Florida State University for use in

evaluating shoreline changes.

     D.  California.  Both of the California monitoring programs

call for aerial photographs of the entire shoreline to be taken

twice a year at a scale of 1 inch = 1000 feet to aid in the

analyses and interpretation of other shoreline change data. The

program managers and other professioanals who use these data have

found the photographs very useful.  Arrangements to fly

additional photographs after major storms were also incorporated

into the plans.  Routine flights were scheduled to coincide with

ground surveys in the fall and spring but often conditions would

not allow the two activities to be coordinated.  Shorelines on

the photos were not digitized but the aerials were used to

provide qualitative assessment of shoreline conditions between



                           17






stations where ground surveyn were conducted, determine the

seasonal envelope of beach changes and construct a sediment

budget for cliff erosion.  Because they are used for a variety of

other purposes, half of the cost of the aerial photographs was

paid by another department.  Total cost of $25,000 given in Table

I is the estimated cost for both flights each year.

     E.  IN NEW YORK, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SOUTH SHORE

SHOULD BE TAKEN TWICE A YEAR.  THE TIMING SHOULD COINCIDE WITH

GROUND SURVEYS WHEN POSSIL.o THESE PHOTOS WOULD BE USED TO

SUPPLEMENT THE PROFILE DATA, INTERPOLATE BEACH CHANGES BETWEEN

MONUMENTS, RESOLVE DISCREPANCIES IN GROUND SURVEYS AND PROVIDE A

QUALITATIVE INDICATION OF SHORELINE CONDITIONS BETWEEN THE SURVEY

STATIONS. FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES, THIS INSURES THAT THE

MEASUREMENTS MADE ON THE GROUND AT THE SURVEY STATIONS WILL BE

APPLICABLE TO ANY LOCATION BETWEEN STATIONS.  AFTER 5 YEARS THE

UTILITY OF THE SEMI-ANNUAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOULD BE

REASSESSED TO SEE IF THE INTERVAL BETWEEN FLIGHTS SHOULD BE

CHANGED. DIGITIZATION OF THE SHORELINE TO LOOK FOR LONG TERM

TRENDS IS NOT NECESSARY EVERY YEAR.  HOWEVER, THE SHORELINE AND

DUNE CREST IN BOTH SEASONS SHOULD BE DIGITIZED AT 10-YEAR

INTERVALS.  THIS INFORMATION COULD BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH

THE SEDIMENT BUDGET DEVELOPED BY RESEARCH PLANNING INSTITUTE,

INC. (1985) TO PROVIDE MORE ACCURATE ESTIMATES OF THE REGIONAL

SEDIMENT BUDGET.  TO HELP IDENTIFY LONG-TERM TRENDS, THE

VEGETATION LINE SHOULD ALSO BE DIGITIZED; THIS PARAMETER IS USED

IN FLORIDA TO RECORD EXTREME STORM EROSION BETWEEN SURVEYS. THE

COST OF DIGITIZING ONLY TtE SHORELINE ON ONE COMPLETE SET OF

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS IS -EST131ATED TO BE BETWEEN $30,000 AND $50,000








3     ~(OR BETWEEN $240 AND $400 PER MILE).  THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE SET-

      UP COSTS FOR THE NECESSARY HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE; SUCH A FACILITY

I. ~MUST BE AVAILABLE TO THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY. OVERFLIGHTS WILL

      COST ABOUT $32,800 FOR BOTH FLIGHTS EVERY YEAR.


      III. Historical Analysis.

 I         ~~Historical analysis refers primarily to collection,

u ~summarization and analysis of certain data sets that existed

      before the monitoring program was initiated. The objective is to

3 ~cast those measuremen ts in terms comparable to those collected by

      the monitoring program so that longer term trends can be

I ~identified more quickly. Archived beach profiles on recorded

      shoreline positions would be examples of such data. In addition,

      there may be data available on parameters that are not being
5     ~measured under the auspices of the monitoring program but which

      may be rel~evant to its management objectives. Inlet bathymetry

3 ~is an important example of such data.

           Inlets are important for navigation and critical modulators

I ~of the coastal budget of sand. The littoral drift of sand is

*     ~interrupted by inlets and substantial volumes of sand can be

      stored for greater or lesser periods of time in shoals, channels

3     ~and submerged deltas that form around inlets.  Management of

      inlets will be essential to maintaining littoral sand transport

I     ~along the NY coast.  Some historical inlet bathymetry is

5     ~available for analysis but future surveys are also expected to be

      conducted by the Corps of Engineers in the course of their

3     ~operation.  We have chosen to discuss inlet bathymetry in this

      section on historical analysis because the implementation of


                                 19








3     ~bathymetric surveys will not be part of the proposed program for

      New York, but bathymetric information would be helpful. only the

3     ~program in Florida conducts their own bathymetric surveys; other

*     ~states rely on the analysis of data collected by the Corps of

      Engineers during their normal operations.

 3         ~~A.  In New Jersey, $250,000 was spent for an historical

      analysis of changes in shoreline position between 1836, 1870,

      1899, 1932, 1952, 1971, 1977 and 1986. The shoreline data was

      incorporated into the New Jersey Department of Environmental

I     ~Protection's ARC/INFO Geographical Information System as a series

3 ~of 1:2400 maps of the ocean coastline compatible with the

      existing NJ tidelands maps. Maps are available to allow the

3 ~analysis needed to establish set-back lines for projects planned

      on the New Jersey coastline. A comprehensive review of existing

I ~profiles was done, but no additional analyses of historic water

3 ~levels were made. A computer-based bibliography of reports and

      articles on coastal erosion and processes for the New Jersey

3 ~shoreline was compiled for the Philadelphia District of the Corps

      of Engineers by a private consulting firm. There is no program

3 ~in New Jersey for routine collection and analysis of inlet

      bathymetry data. However, as part of the historical shoreline

      change study, bathymetry data from Corps of Engineers' surveys

3     ~were digitized for some inlets.  These data have not been

      analyzed for the state program.

 3         ~~~B.  South Carolina.  The regulatory jurisdictional lines

      were based in part on an analysis of historical shoreline change.

I     ~This was determined by an analysis of available aerial photo-



                                 20






      graphs using position of the vegetation line as an indication of

I     ~long-term change.  Historical beach profiles were also examined

      but water level data were not reanalyzed under this program.

      Inlet management zones have been established in South Carolina

3     ~but the monitoring program does not include the taking of routine

      bathymetry measurements at inlets at this time.

 1         ~~C.  Florida.  The state has established a setback for

      coastal construction based on a 30-year projection of the shore

I     ~position.  Long-term shoreline change rates used to make this

      projection were measured from historical profiles, charts and

      photographs dating back to 1850. Specific procedures for

      obtaining acceptable data, analysis of data for determining

      rates, and establishment of a data-base have been established.

I     ~This work is usually contracted out by the state on a county-by-

3 ~county basis and comprehensive costs were not available.

           Historical water levels in terms of storm tide elevations

I .~and return period have been analyzed for most of the state's

      coastline as part of the shoreline modeling efforts conducted by

I     ~Florida State University under contract with the state.  An

      extensive beach nourishment program has helped restore the

      condition of beaches and the state is now focusing on sand

3     ~management at inlets.   Dredging projects must incorporate

      provisions for ensuring 100% of the longshore drift at all inlets

I     ~is bypassed.  The state requires that detailed management plans,

      which contain bathymetric data, be developed for any inlet

      dredging projects.
           D. California. Historical shorelines were mapped, long-

      term shoreline changes calculated, existing beach profiles were


                                 21








3     ~identified, compiled and past water level changes were catalogued

      and analyzed from available records. Results of these studies,

3     ~which cost $315,000, were used to supplement new, more complete

3     ~data generated by the monitoring efforts (U.S. Army Corps of

      Engineers, 1987, p. A39, A40). For the minimal plan, inlet

3     ~bathymetry was not done and the level of detail of the other

      elements was reduced (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987, p. B54,

I     ~B55).  The optimal plan for the San Diego region allows $30,000

      for analysis of existing bathymetry data at six inlets or harbor

      entrances (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987, p. A-37). This
3 ~data is often collected by the Corps of Engineers for those areas

      containing federally maintained channels.

 3         ~~E.  FOR THE NEW YORK PROGRAM, THE ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC

      SHORELINE POSITIONS DONE BY LEATHERMAN AND ALLEN (1985) IS A GOOD

I     ~BEGINNING.  HOWEVER, THAT WORK WAS ONLY DONE FOR THE COAST EAST

      OF FIRE ISLAND INLET WITH THE LAST SHORELINE EXAMINED BEING THAT

      IN 1979. THE STRETCH EAST OF FIRE ISLAND INLET SHOULD BE UPDATED

3     ~WITH A MORE RECENT SHORELINE AND THE STRETCH FROM FIRE ISLAND

      INLET TO CONEY ISLAND SHOULD BE DONE BY COMPARABLE TECHNIQUES

I     ~OVER THE SAME TIME PERIOD.  IF DIGITIZED SHORELINE DATA ARE

3 ~AVAILABLE, IT IS ESTIMATED THIS ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS WOULD COST

      $60,000.

           THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS BEACH PROFILE SURVEYS CONDUCTED

      ALONG THE SOUTH SHORE. MOST COVER ONLY SHORT SECTIONS OF THE

I     ~COAST FOR BRIEF TIME PERIODS BUT SOME MORE COMPREHENSIVE SETS OF

      SURVEYS ARE AVAILABLE. ALTHOUGH A COMPLETE REANALYSIS OF THIS

      DATA MAY NOT BE NECESSARY AT THIS TIME, PROVISIONS SHOULD BE MADE



                                 22







      TO CATALOGUE THE AVAILABLE SURVEYS AND ASSESS THEIR POTENTIAL

I     ~QUALITY AND UTILITY.

 3         ~~THERE ARE NO TIDE GAGES FOR THE OPEN OCEAN SOUTH OF LONG

      ISLAND BUT LONG-TERM TIDE GAGE RECORDS HAVE BEEN ANALYZED FROM

3     ~THE BATTERY IN NEW YORK CITY AND NEW LONDON, CT.  IN ADDITION,

      STORM SURGE WATER LEVEL INFORMATION HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE

I     ~CORPS USING HISTORICAL DATA AND NUMERICAL COMPUTER MODELS.  THE

3 ~AVAILABLE INFORMATION WILL PROBABLY BE ADEQUATE FOR IMMEDIATE

      MANAGEMENT NEEDS, BUT THE PROGRAM SHOULD REASSESS THE NEED FOR AN

I~~OFFSHORE TIDE GAGE AFTER 5 YEARS.
           EFFORTS TO EXAMINE INLETS IN NEW YORK SHOULD FIRST FOCUS ON

I     ~IDENTIFYING, COMPILING AND, IF FEASIBLE, ANALYZING THE BATHYMETRY

      DATA THAT WERE, AND WILL BE, COLLECTED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS

      IN ASSOCIATION WITH THEIR INLET DREDGING PROGRAMS. SOME OF THE

      CORPS' SURVEYS IN THESE AREAS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DIGITIZED. THIS

      INFORMATION WOULD BE USED TO ESTIMATE THE VOLUMES OF SAND BEING

3 ~STORED OR DIVERTED AT INLETS FOR INCORPORATION INTO INLET

      MANAGEMENT PLANS. THE ESTIMATED, ONE-TIME COST OF COMPILING AND

I ~MAKING A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THESE DATA WOULD BE $30,000.

 5         ~~TOTAL COSTS FOR ANALYSIS OF NEW YORK'S HISTORICAL DATA,

      ESTIMATED AT $140,000, MAY BE DISTRIBUTED OVER THREE YEARS AND

5 ~WOULD PROBABLY BE A ONE-TIME COST, ALTHOUGH THE RESULTS MAY

      INDICATE THAT ADDITIONAL WORK (AND EXPENSE) IS NECESSARY,

I ~PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTINUED ANALYSIS OF INLET BATHYMETRY THAT

3 M~AY BE COLLECTED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR

      OPERATIONS.


I     ~IV.  Wave Data.



                                 23







           Waves are the single most important force shaping the

I     ~shoreline.  An adequate understanding of the wave climate in an

      area is necessary for proper coastal planning, management and

      design. However, the cost and technical complexity associated

3     ~with taking wave measurements make this one of the most difficult

      monitoring program elements to implement. As a result, these

I     ~important measurements are sometimes omitted from monitoring

      programs due to technical and monetary constraints.

           A. New Jersey's State program does not collect wave data.
           B. South Carolina does not collect wave data on a routine

      basis at the state level.

 5         ~~C.  Florida operates a network of thirteen wave gages around

      the coast as a cooperative program between the state, Corps of

I     ~Engineers, Navy, and University of Florida.  Some gages are not

g     ~permanent but associated with specific coastal projects.  Four of

      the gages are directional. All but four gages are hard-wired to

j     ~shore to provide real time data and have a "storm model' which

      will allow them to run on internal batteries if the cable is

I    ~severed so data will not be lost in the event of a storm.

3    ~Although the system requires continuous maintenance, data return

      has been very good. Data from this program is stored in a

5    ~dedicated data base maintained by the University of Florida's

      Coastal Engineering Archives. This data base is accessible by

I    ~personal computers through telephone lines and is used by

      Federal, state and local governmental agencies, private companies

      and others. The wave data network costs approximately $500,000
3 ~per year to maintain.

           D. California. Three nearshore gages were funded and


                                 24








3     ~installed as part of the optimal monitoring program for the San

      Diego region, although the program incorporates results from 5

I     ~directional nearshore wave gages (slope arrays) and 2 deepwater

5     ~directional buoys for a 90-mile stretqh of coast.   In addition,

      temporary arrays of wave gages were clustered at different

1 ~locations within the 40 mile study area. Plans for the 91 mile

      south coast region's minimal monitoring program call for

I ~installation of 3 directional gages (I offshore buoy and 2

      nearshore slope arrays). The system would be operated for a

      period of at least 3 years. Installation and operational costs
5     ~include the preparation of monthly data summaries.  Funding for

      the wave gages-in the California program is complicated by cost

      sharing and loaning of equipment between projects or programs.

      Based on discussion with the Corps of Engineers, $60,000 per year

I     ~per gage appears to be a reasonable estimate of the annual cost

3     ~of installing and operating a wave gage.  For the optimal plan in

      San Diego total cost was $545,000. This apparently provided for

5     ~data collected over a four-year period corresponding to an annual

      cost of $181,700 for the gages. In the minimal plan, $325,000

I     ~was budgeted for 3 wave gages to be operated over a three-year

g     ~period for an average cost of $108,300 per year.  This seems to

      be the cost to operate two gages and the third is to be run by

3     ~another agency; it is not clear from available information how

      the costs and responsibilities actually would be shared if this

I     ~plan was implemented.

 3         ~~In addition to monthly data reports from the contractors,

      both programs in California would spend approximately $15,000



                                 25






      per year for annual reports that summarize and synthesize

3 ~collected wave data in a form readily usable for coastal

      engineering and planning. This analysis includes a comparison of

      collected data with historic and hindcast wave data.
           E. FOR NEW YORK, THE GROUP'S CONSENSUS WAS AT LEAST FOUR

      DIRECTIONAL WAVE GAGES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED. (DIRECTIONAL

I     ~INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR CALCULATIONS OF LONGSHORE TRANSPORT.)
      THE GENERAL SHORELINE IS RELATIVELY STRAIGHT SO THAT CHANGES IN

I     ~REGIONAL WAVE CLIMATE ARE LIKELY TO BE FAIRLY GRADUAL AND DUE

      PRIMARILY TO THE SHELTERING EFFECT PROVIDED BY THE NJ COAST.

      FOUR GAGES SHOULD BE ADEQUATE TO CHARACTERIZE THIS TREND AS WELL

3     ~AS TO PROVIDE REDUNDANCY IN CASE OF GAGE FAILURE.  THE SPECIFIC

      LOCATIONS OF GAGES WOULD REQUIRE A SITING STUDY. SUCH A STUDY

3     ~WOULD ALSO PROVIDE GUIDANCE AS TO THE MOST SUITABLE TYPE OF GAGE

      (BUOY, SLOPE ARRAY, ETC.) FOR THE PARTICULAR LOCATION AND

      APPLICATION. IF POSSIBLE, THE GAGES SHOULD BE EQUIPPED TO
3     ~PROVIDE REAL TIME DATA FOR OTHER USES.  THE GAGES SHOULD BE

      PROVIDED WITH AN INTERNAL MECHANISM TO RECORD DATA IN CASE THE

5 ~CABLES ARE DAMAGED DURING STORMS AND PRECAUTIONS SHOULD BE ALSO

g ~BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE FROM COMMERCIAL FISHING

      ACTIVITY, ESPECIALLY DRAGGERS. THE CORPS' COASTAL ENGINEERING

5 ~RESEARCH CENTER (CERC) HAS DEVELOPED DRAGGER-RESISTANT BOTTOM

      RESTING WAVE GAGES. USE OF THESE INSTRUMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH

5 ~EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN SHOULD BE

      CONSIDERED TO MINIMIZE LOSSES. CERC MANAGES A FIELD WAVE GAGING

I ~(FWG) PROGRAM AS PART OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS COASTAL

ft   ~FIELD DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM.  RECENTLY, CERC HAS BEEN GIVEN THE

      AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO COST SHARING AGREEMENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL


      3                         ~~~~~~~~~26








3     ~STATES TO SET UP COOPERATIVE WAVE GAGING PROGRAMS.  THESE

      COOPERATIVE NETWORKS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA AND

3     ~FLORIDA.  (SINCE THE WORKSHOP WAS HELD, THE CORPS AND THE STATE

      HAVE MET TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING A FWG

I     ~PROGRAM.  IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT TWO PERMANENT DEEPWATER GAGES AND

      SEVERAL NEARSHORE GAGES THAT COULD BE PERIODICALLY RELOCATED

      MIGHT PROVIDE ADEQUATE COVERAGE. ONE GAGE HAD BEEN INSTALLED

      THIS YEAR AS PART OF A CORPS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OFFSHORE OF

      FIRE ISLAND INLET.)

 I         ~~ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS FOR INDIVIDUAL GAGES RANGE BETWEEN

      $50,000 TO $100,000 PER YEAR DEPENDING ON THE OPTIONS USED AND

I     ~NUMBER OF GAGES DEPLOYED.  THE TABULATED COST WAS BASED ON AN

      ASSUMED ANNUAL COST OF $60,000/GAGE. BECAUSE CONSIDERABLE

      SAVINGS CAN BE REALIZED. THROUGH A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, THE STATE

j     ~SHOULD PURSUE THE FEASIBILITY OF ENTERING INTO A COOPERATIVE

      AGREEMENT WITH CERC TO FORM A GAGE NETWORK UNDER THE FWG PROGRAM.

I     ~BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING AND DESIGN DECISIONS, WAVE

3 ~DATA COLLECTED BY THE NETWORKS SHOULD BE COMPILED AND STORED IN A

      DATA BASE EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO A VARIETY OF USER GROUPS.

3 ~FLORIDA'S PROGRAM USES A DATA BASE ACCESSIBLE BY MODEM OPEN TO

      THE PUBLIC. RESULTS OF THE WAVE GAGE SYSTEM SHOULD BE ASSESSED

I ~AFTER THE FIRST YEAR TO DETERMINE IF COVERAGE IS ADEQUATE OR

5 ~WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED OR REDUCED.


      V. computerized Data Base.

 I         ~~To maximize usefulness of data and information developed by

      a monitoring program, this data base must be a functional data

      base, not just storage of data in some electronic media, and it


      1                          ~~~~~~~~~27








5     ~must be accessible to people other than those collecting the

      data.

 I         ~~A.  New Jersey.  Profile data and digitized historic

g     ~shoreline positions are maintained in a data base on an IBM

      Compatible 386-based computer. Profile data is stored in a

3     ~format that is compatible with both commercially available

      spreadsheet programs and the Corps' Interactive Survey Reduction

5     ~Program (ISRP) format.  The ISRP data base is available on disk

      only to ISRP program users.

 I         ~~The historical shoreline positions have been transferred to

I     ~the state-wide geographic information system (ARC/INFO) to make

      this data accessible to other agencies as 1:2400 scale New Jersey

3     ~tidelands maps or as overlays on New Jersey tidelands photo-

      quads. The cost of this processing was $47,500. in addition, a

I     ~computerized bibliography of relevant reports and articles was

3 ~compiled for the Philadelphia District of the U.S. Army Corps of

      Engineers by a Florida consulting firm; the cost of this

*     ~bibliography was not available.

          B. South Carolina. The state stores beach profile data in a

I     ~computerized data base developed by an outside contractor.  In

ft    ~addition, historic shoreline change data is entered into a

      commercial, geographical information system (ARC/INFO) to produce

5     ~maps of shoreline movements, jurisdictional lines and structures

      for coastal planners and managers. This work is done in house.

5     ~Presently, none of the data bases have provisions for open access

      by outside user groups.

          C. Florida. The state maintains or provides funding for a



                                 28






      number of different data bases related to its shoreline'

3     ~monitoring program.  The Division of Shore and Beaches stores

~~~~~~I

      data in computerized data bases accessible by modem and PC from
ï¿½ ~remote locations. With funding from the state, the University of
      Florida's Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department
5 ~operates the Coastal Engineering Archives, which collects and

      organizes a comprehensive library of materials relating to
I     ~coastal processes and engineering including reports, data,

I     ~charts, and aerial photos.  These materials are made available to

      individuals and agencies. As mentioned previously, wave data

ï¿½     ~from the gage network is also available through the Archives via

      telephone modem from remote locations. In addition to being used

I     ~by state and other government officials to set jurisdictional

      lines, develop regulations, make management decisions, etc.,

      information stored in the data bases is also used extensively by

      consultants, engineers and other members of the public for a

      variety of coastal projects because it is so easily accessible.

 I         ~~D.  California.  The Corps of Engineers maintains a data

      base of all the data collected under the San Diego region

      monitoring program. These data are available to the public. The
3' ~data base includes a computerized bibliography of previous

      reports .and articles on the area's coast, as well as program-

      generated materials. T he most widely used data are those from

      the beach profile surveys. These data are provided to interested

a     ~parties free of charge in both a format compatible with a widely

3     ~used commercial spreadsheet and in the Corps' developed ISRP

      format. The data base is run by the district corps office. For


                                 29







      the six year program, they estimated start up costs of $80,000 in

      the first year and a total of $90,000 over the subsequent 5

3    ~years.

         .E. NEW YORK'S MONITORING PROGRAM SHOULD MAINTAIN A DATA BASE

ï¿½ ~AT A CENTRAL LOCATION. INITIALLY, THE DATA BASE SHOULD CONTAIN

      THE PROFILE, WAVE, HISTORICAL AND SHORELINE POSITION INFORMATION

      COLLECTED BY THE PROGRAM. IN ADDITION, A COMPUTERIZED

I    ~BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AVAILABLE REPORTS, ARTICLES, ETC. FOR THE REGION
      SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. EVENTUALLY, THE RESULTS OF OTHER STUDIES

V    ~SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE DATA BASE.  TO MAXIMIZE UTILITY,

3    ~THE DATA BASE MUST BE UPDATED CONTINUALLY AND SHOULD BE STAFFED

      BY PROFESSIONALS WHO CAN HANDLE QUERIES AND ASSIST USERS IN

      ACCESSING THE DATA. REMOTE ACCESSIBILITY THROUGH A PC, MODEM,

      AND PHONE LINE SHOULD ALSO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE'SYSTEM TO

      ENHANCE ITS UTILITY AND AVAILABILITY TO THE WIDEST POSSIBLE

     AUDIENCE. THE DATA-BASING SYSTEM PRESENTLY USED IN FLORIDA COULD

      SERVE AS A MODEL. RECENT ADVANCES IN COMMERCIAL DATA BASE
3    ~SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT MAY MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO UTILIZE COMMERCIALLY

     AVAILABLE SYSTEMS FOR THE NEW YORK PROGRAM. USE OF OFF-THE-SHELF

5, ~SOFTWARE COULD PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS OVER CUSTOM

      CONFIGURATIONS. 'ALTHOUGH INCORPORATION OF A COMPUTERIZED GIS MAY

I ~BE PREMATURE IN THE INITIAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF A MONITORING

     PROGRAM, CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT THE RESULTING DATA

      IS COMPILED AND STORED IN A DATA BASE FORMAT COMPATIBLE FOR

5    ~POSSIBLE INCORPORATION INTO A GIS AT A LATER DATE.  THE COST

     INDICATED IN TABLE I IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE

I    ~HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, AND PARTIAL MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE



                                30







      AVAILABLE IN AN EXISTING ENTITY. THE TOTAL FIGURE GIVEN IS

      SIMILAR TO DATA BASE MANAGEMENT COSTS GIVEN FOR THE CALIFORNIA
J ~OPTIMAL PLAN.


3    ~VI.  Modeling.

           The objective of coastal modeling is to develop predictive

      tools that would allow planners, managers, and other decision

      makers to forecast response of the shoreline or beach to a

      variety of environmental conditions or to implementation of

      various erosion management options. The use of models could help

      managers in making decisions based on sound scientific principles
ï¿½    ~and data.

          A. In New Jersey, numerical modeling using several

      different computer models has been done for some small coastal

      sections by the Corps of Engineers as part of specific

S   ~construction projects but no -modeling is done under the State

ï¿½    ~monitoring program.  SBEACH (S.torm induced BEAch CHange model,

      developed at CERC) and other models are in the process of being

5    ~used in the New York Bight as part of the New Jersey water

      quality program.

 I        ~~B.  No computer modeling is done under the South Carolina


ï¿½    ~Program at the present time.
           C. Florida's Division of Natural Resources employs a number

U    ~of coastal models utilizing their monitoring data.  The results

      of these models are actually used to set jurisdictional and

      regulatory boundaries under state law. Computer models are used

      to predict storm tide elevations of 10-to 500-year storm events

      at different locations, expected rates of dune and beach erosion



                                 31






in response to extreme storms and maximum inland penetration of

storm waves on a county by county basis.  These models were

developed and are run for the state primarily by university

researchers and outside contractors.

     D. In California the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's

"optimal" plan for the San Diego region incorporates a number of

state-of-the-art mathematical coastal models used for a variety

of different purposes. Long--term, wide scale shoreline changes

were simulated with GENESIS (GENEralized model for SImulated

Shoreline Change). This model, developed at CERC, was adapted

for use in PC's for the California program. The SBEACH model was

used to estimate shorter-term storm impacts on the cross-shore

beach profile at different locations. In addition to shoreline

changes, models were also developed and applied to evaluate and

assess sediment transport and the sheltering effect of offshore

islands on the nearshore wave climate. The purpose of these

modeling efforts is to allow managers, planners and engineers to

quickly investigate the potential effect of various management

decisions or actions, for example, the response of the shoreline

to installation of a structure. Since accurate data are needed

to run the models and calibration can be difficult, the utility

of some shoreline change models is subject to differing opinions.

Although shoreline change models should not be considered

engineering design tools at this time, they can provide

information extremely useful for planning and management

purposes. In California's optimal plan, a total of approximately

$750,000 over a six-year period was allotted for modeling work

along the 90-mile coastline.


                           32







 9        ~~For the proposed "minimal plan" for the South Coast,

      modeling will be limited to a simplified, qualitive sediment

5    ~budget box model installed on a spreadsheet program.  The

      estimated cost for developing and implementing this model is

I    ~$160,000.

 ft       ~~E.  IN NEW YORK, MODELING EFFORTS WOULD HELP CAST THE

      RESULTS AND DATA FROM THE MONITORING PROGRAM IN A FORM THAT WOULD

      MAKE IT EASIER FOR COASTAL PLANNERS, MANAGERS AND ENGINEERS TO

      USE IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. MODELS CAN PROVIDE A

S ~TECHNICALLY SOUND BASIS FOR RISK ASSESSMENT FOR MANAGEMENT

      DECISIONS. MODELING EFFORTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED

      MONITORING PROGRAM MUST BE COMPATIBLE AND ADAPTABLE TO THE LEVEL

3    ~AND TYPE OF DATA AVAILABLE.  THE HIGHER THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY

      OF DATA, THE MORE SOPHISTICATED THE MODELS USED CAN BE. WHERE

5    ~(OR WHEN) DATA ARE FEW A CONCEPTUAL MODEL MAY. BE THE MOST

      APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE. A DIAGNOSTIC MODEL OR BOX MODEL MAY BE

ï¿½    ~APPROPRIATE WHEN ADEQUATE OBSERVATIONS ARE AVAILABLE AND DYNAMIC

5    ~NUMERICAL MODELS OF PROCESSES AND SHORELINE RESPONSE USED WHEN

      PHYSICAL FORCING IS ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED. BECAUSE OF RAPID

9    ~ADVANCES BEING MADE IN SHORELINE CHANGE MATHEMATICAL MODELING,

      TODAY'S STATE-OF-THE-ART MODEL MIGHT SOON BE DATED. THEREFORE,

'I    NO SINGLE MODEL WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE.  RATHER,

      THE CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP WAS TO FOLLOW A PHASED PLAN WHERE

     MONITORING DATA WOULD BE USED TO DEVELOP CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF

5    ~SHORELINE RESPONSE INITIALLY AND THEN EXPAND TO EMPIRICAL AND

     NUMERICAL MODELS AS THE DATA BASE INCREASED. CARE SHOULD BE

I    ~TAKEN TO INSURE THE DATA COLLECTION FORMAT, TECHNIQUES, ETC. WILL



                                 33







      BE COMPATIBLE WITH MODELING EFFORTS IN THE FUTURE. THE PROPOSED

I ~MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SHORE (LONG ISLAND REGIONAL

      PLANNING BOARD, 1989) ESTIMATED COSTS TO BE $300,000 FOR

      ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATE MODELS AND $60,000 PER YEAR FOR THEIR

5    ~MAINTENANCE AND USE.



   *              ~~~~REQUIREMENTS FOR ELEMENTS OF NEW YORK'S
                         PROPOSED MONITORING PROGRAM


           Although the administration and management of the overall

      monitoring program were not specifically addressed at the

      workshop, technical capabilities and resources needed to

5    ~implement a coastal monitoring program in New York and potential

      areas of coordination among agencies were briefly discussed by

      participants. Results of these deliberations are summarized in
I    ~this section.

           Although there is no shorewide monitoring program in place

3 ~in New York, the Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service

      and the N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation are

I    ~involved with coastal projects at various locations, some of

*    ~which could be integrated into a comprehensive monitoring plan.

      The Corps' existing and proposed programs along the south shore

      are the most extensive and described briefly in Appendix IV.


      Surveys. Development of the beach survey monument network should

      be closely coordinated between state, federal and local

5    ~interests.  To provide the ilongest period of record in the most

      cost effective manner, existing survey benchmarks or monuments

I    ~should be reoccupied whenever possible.  Beach monitoring



                                 34






      stations that would be established by the state, may also be used

I    ~for pre-project and post-project surveys at both Shinnecoc k and

p ~Moriches inlets as well as at Coney Island and Long Beach

      (Appendix IV). Although the objective of the Corps' monitoring

      (to assess project performance) limits the extent of

      observations, at least methods could be standardized to insure

*    ~compatibility with any state program and cost-sharing may also be

      possible. The National Park Service has conducted occasional

P    ~studies in the National Seashore and may be interested in

5 ~ensuring that some comparable survey data is available on

      parkl and.

 5        ~~Beach surveys require two types of capability.  The

      subaerial surveys require the ability to mobilize several,

I    ~moderately well-trained crews under the supervision of an

p    ~experienced professional to field check quality of the data.  Use

      of university students and personnel would meet this requirement

      but it may equally be met by any authority or agency that

      'maintains a large field crew and/or professional surveyors such

I    ~as the Department of Transportation.

 5       ~~The second type of survey requires a professional survey crew

      with the ability to conduct offshore surveys. The Corps

I    ~maintains two survey parties who operate at a cost of $2,400 per

      party per day; they can complete 2 to 5 long surveys per day.

I    ~The cost of private contractors would be higher.  The COE also

      has open-ended contracts with private firms to do surveys when

      they cannot be done in-house. Alternatively, a crew could be
5 ~established at a local university or within the Department of

      Transportation perhaps with help from the National Park Service.


      1                         ~~~~~~~~~35







      No matter who is chosen to do the work, survey crews must have

      the ability to respond quickly to monitor the subaerial beach

5    ~immediately after storms.

          However the surveys are implemented one, or a few,

I ~experienced professionals must be available to check the data,

      reduce the measurements and prepare an annual report to the lead

      agency.


I    ~Aerial Photographs.  For the N.Y. coastal monitoring program the

u ~schedule and arrangements for overflights should be coordinated

     with other programs to reduce costs. The NY DEC uses aerial

I    ~photographs to establish the State's jurisdictional lines under

      the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Program in New York. This line

I    ~is to be revised every 10 years.  In addition, aerial photographs

I ~are also used for mapping wetlands. It may be possible to

      coordinate these activities with the recommended digitizing of

      two sets of aerial photographs (summer and winter) every decade.

     All aerial photography for N.Y. State is done by private

      contractors. An agency convenient to the south shore should be

      enlisted to archive the photographs and to have them accessible

I    ~to users.  Digitization of shoreline features might be

     contracted out as several states have done, but it could be done

     at any facility with (a) experience in interpreting shoreline

I    ~photographs, (b) hardware and software for digitizing large

      images and (c) available, skilled operators.


     Historical Analysis. Upgrading historical shorelines would

I ~require expertise to digitize aerial photographs and maps. The



      U                         ~~~~~~~~~36






      search and assessment of historical beach profiles and inlet

I    ~bathymetry would require a coastal technical specialist with

      experience in analyzing coastal survey data and assessing the

      Corps' records.


I    ~Wave Data.  The agency responsible for implementing the wave

     monitoring program must have access to individuals with both

     practical experience and the technical and theoretical background

      for operation of wave gages and analysis of wave data. They must

     be able to deploy equipment at sea either with their own

I    ~resources or under contract, and to secure the necessary computer

     hardware and software to process, reduce and analyze data. They

     must also be willing and able to disseminate the collected wave

I ~information to a wide range of users in a timely manner.

          The state should pursue the possibility of entering a

I    ~cooperative data collection agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of
     Engineers under their Field Wave Gage Program under construction

I    ~projects through the New York District.  Both California and

     Alaska have used such agreements to conduct coastal processes

     data programs and similar agreements are presently being reviewed

      for South Carolina, Virginia and Florida. An arrangement between

     the state and the Corps could provide considerable cost savings

I    ~for both.  Other possibilities for cooperation are afforded by

     the N.Y. Bight study or the Philadelphia Corps District's study

     of the New Jersey coast. Florida has installed wave gages as

     part of a Federal reconnaissance study. (A Federal

     reconnaissance study can be initiated with the proper local

I    ~support as long as a problem is identified.  This leads to a



      I                         ~~~~~~~~~37






      feasibility study to identify the benefits and finally to a

      General Design Memorandum in which a project is defined in

      engineering terms. With the proper local support it may be

*    ~possible to have a congressional resolution passed for a

1    ~reconnaissance study of the coast of Long Island with cost

      sharing between the Federal and State governments.)


3    ~Data Bass.  The facilities required to operate and maintain a

*    ~coastal processes data base as described do not presently exist

      in the region. Such a facility would require computers with

3    ~databasing software and technical specialists both in computer

      information management systems and in coastal processes.

I    ~Provisions must also be made' to make the data accessible to

3    ~outside users through printed and electronic media.  Several such

      facilities have been or are being established in other states

3    ~(e.g., Florida). For parts of the NJ coast a reconnaissance

      report was done which, among other things, set up a data base;

*    ~this was funded by the Federal Government at a level of $400,000

*    ~over 18 months as part of a program to reduce water pollution and

      beach litter. Another data base is planned at the State

3    ~University of New York for regional environmental data on Long

      Island Sound with EPA support.

 *        ~~The EPA has investigated the needs of potential users of a

*    ~marine database and recommends the following functional

      requirements (Copeland, 1990):

 3        "a~to The system should be able to store the types of data used

              by the majority of the user community.

 1        ~~o Sufficient quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)



      *                         ~~~~~~~~~38






             steps should be taken for on-line data.

I         o~~ The data should be easily transferred from the system

             into software packages used by the major ity of..

             users. These include:
 I            ~~~o DBM's - Dbase III and SAS.

               o Spreadsheets - Lotus 1-2-3.

 *            ~~~~o Word Processors - Word Perfect/Word Star

               o Data Analysis Systems - SAS.

 I             a~~~~ Telecommunication Systems - CrossTalk, Kermit, and

                  Procomm.

          o The system should be accessible with IBM compatible

*           ~~~personal computers.

          o There should be a variety of data analysis tools

I           ~~~available on the system.

*        ~~o The system should have the following capabilities:

               o A central index which identifies what data are

                  available, where the data are located and who

                  should be contacted to-access the data.

 I            ~~~~o Retrieval of on-line data.

               o Access to a geographical information system (GIS).

                  This could range from actual user access to a GIS to

                  creation of hard copy GIS outputs for users.

          o The system should be easy to use. The majority of the

3           ~~~individuals involved in the [EPA study] ... identified

             themselves as beginning computer users. If a

I           ~~~system is too difficult to use it will be useless to a

*           ~~~large portion of the [potential audience].

          o The system should have extensive documentation. It is


     1                          ~~~~~~~~~39







  3           ~~~important for users of all levels of expertise to have

              access to documentation and user support.

 3        ~~o The costs involved with the system should be reasonable.

              This includes the costs of data storage, data access,

  3           ~~~data QA/QC, telecommunication, and hardware.

           o The costs of training individuals to use the system

              should be reasonable."


U    ~Modeling.  Development of modeling capabilities would, in large

3 ~part, depend on implementation of the data collection under the

      monitoring program. Several classes of shoreline change and

3 ~coastal processes models exist and most run on PC's, but none are

      commercially available. The skill and professional judgment of

I ~an experienced coastal expert would be required to choose

3 ~suitable models and exercise them.

          Two general classes of models must be available (Wood et

3 ~al., 1990). One class is a longshore transport, or one-line

     model that basically uses information on the wave climate to

I ~predict longshore transport of sand and changes in shoreline

     position. Analytical longshore transport models may be readily

      applicable to some situations (e.g., Pelnard-Considere, 1956;
      LeMehante and Soldate, 1978; and Larson et al., 1987).  Numerical

     models often require detailed site specific information and more

3    ~computational power than is available in a PC, but they are

     applicable to the full-range of conditions in the study area. An

I ~example of a numerical modeil is GENESIS (Generalized model for

3 ~simulating shoreline change) that was developed and is used by

     the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Hanson and Kraus, 1989).


      3                         ~~~~~~~~~40







 3        ~~The second class of models are cross-shore models which

      predict changes in beach profile especially in response to storm

3    ~conditions.  Some models are based only on geometry of the

      shoreline like that used by FEMA (Hallermeier and Rhodes, 1988)

3    ~or Bruun's Rule (Bruun, 1962) but other models specifically take

      into account the response of sand transport to time varying

      conditions (e.g., Vellinga, 1983; Kriebel and Dean, 1985; and

3    ~Larson et al., 1988).  The later models require detailed, site

      specific data for their use. Combinations of cross-shore and

3    ~long-shore models are currently being developed and, since this

      is an expanding area of coastal research, any modeling effort

     must be flexible to accommodate improvements in our a bility to
*    ~model beach processes.

     Management. All components of the program must be under the

3 ~overall coordination of a lead agency whose first tasks would be

     to finalize details of the monitoring plan and secure funding, as

I ~well as to coordinate with other agencies. This agency would

     then select appropriate groups to implement various elements of

     the program, set the objectives of each group, synthesize annual

3    ~results and reassess the direction and data needs of the program.

          This agency must not only have the administrative resources

I    ~to secure and disburse the required budgets but also must have

     the services of a program manager with the appropriate technical

     expertise. The manager should solicit the advice of other

3    ~profess ionals but he or she would be ultimately responsible for

     the selection of competent contractors, approval of the work

I    ~plans and budgets and quality of the data.  The program manager



      1                         ~~~~~~~~~41






must be able to periodically review and synthesize data from

diverse sources to decide if certain observations must be redone,

if improvements in the techniques must be made, when exceptional

surveys must be made, and whether or not results are conforming

to expectations.


Costs.  Estimates of the total annual costs of various state

programs discussed here range from $55,800 to $3,000,000 (Table

1).  The great disparity in the levels of effort among various

programs and lack of fiscal information for specific individual

program components makes comparison of total costs difficult.  As

a result, cost of the overall program proposed for NY is

difficult to estimate based on information from other states.

For the most part, the New York program proposed here is similar

in scope to the minimum plan proposed for the south coast of

California.  The sum of the cost estimates for the various

elements of the proposed NY program amounts to $609,000/year

distributed as follows:

               Surveys                  $236,200/yr

               Aerial photographs         32,800/yr

               Wave data                 255,000/yr

               Data base                  25,000/yr

               Models                     60,000/yr

               Total                    $609,000/yr


  It is reasonable to allow about 20% additional, or about

$121,800, for program administration and supervision. This would

bring the total annual cost for the New York program to

$730,000/year plus any overhead charges that might be required by


                           42







contractors, and fixed costs of about $585,000 for installing

monuments ($125,000), studying inlet bathymetry and compiling

historical data ($140,000), siting of wave gages ($20,000) and

establishing suitable computerized models ($300,000). As

discussed earlier, these costs can be shared among state and

federal agencies with coastal responsibilities.













































                          43









   TABLE 1. SUMMARY TABLE. Please see notes following table and text for more detailed information on headings.
                                                   NEW JERSEY  S. CAROLINA  FLORIDA                                             CALIFORNIA    CALIFORNIA   PROPOSED FOR
PROGRAM                                                                                                                            South Coast    San DIego                           NEW YORK
ELEMENTS                   CHARACTERISTICS                                                                                         (Minimal Plan)   (Optimal Plan)

SURVEYS
                          spatial distance          91 monuments/          430 monuments/          3587 monumental                18 monumenls/             87 monuments/           330 monuments/
                                                   114 miles              120 mIles        6       82 mIles                     91 miles                  90 miles                 125 miles

                          monument cost             $53,000                $172,000                 NA                            $25,000                   NA                       $125,000

                          trequehcy                 I/r2/yr                                         1/3-5 yrs                     21yt                      2/yr                     21yt
                                                   goal.21yr                                      goal-2/yr

                                _____  _____       FaIL,~~~~~~~~~.,       #~~~iV~~1~~    ~    ~    nhi:Lu..u               _     fall/sprin~.       -       e a. la~pg    .tall/spring






                                               ________  _________  -  -----__   _  s--         -    ~~~~~~~~                     -.. - ..-----  - -~~~~~                                 i~~I~I~g-I- ---------



                                   -S~ ~ ~~~                       Li A- -6____    Am____ No__________ wo  -k-.                                                             ____














                         timing                    spring                   --falVsprlng                                                                   fall/sprlng              fall/spring

                         scale                     1'1000'                11"=100'                11'.100,                       1-1000,                    1'.1000,                1".- 500'

                         digitized                 waterline              none                     waterline, dunes,             none                      none                     waterline, dune crest
                         features                                                                  structures                                                                       vegetation line, every 10 yrs

                         unit cost                 $1301mile/fight       $2000/mIalefl~ght        $200mlletfllght               $1401mlefilight          Sl4Olmle/flight          $131/mle/lfight
                                                  (photos only)          (orthomaps)             (digitIzIng only)             (photos only)              (photos only)           (photos only)

                         total cost                $15,000/yr             one time cost            NA                            $25,000yr                 $25,000yr                $32,800/year
                                                                        of $300,000                                                                                              ($62,800.82,800 every 10yrs)

 NA =Not available                                                                                   4 4








 TABLE 1. (continued)
                          I                          NEW JERSEY  S. CAROLINA  FLORIDA                                                CALIFORNIA    CALIFORNIA   PROPOSED FOR
PROGRAM                    I                                                                                                          South Coast    San Diego                            NEW YORK
ELEMENTS                   ICHARACTERISTICS                                                                                           (Minimal Plan)    (Optimal Plan)



HISTORIC ANALYSDID

                           shoreline change          yes                     yes                      yes                            yes                       yes                      yes
                           analysis

                           historic beach            yes                     yes                      yes                            yes                       yes                       yes
                           proflies                  (no analysis)

                           sea level                 no                      no            V      ag                                 yes                       yes                       no
                           changes- 

                           Inlet bathymetry          ysno                                             yes                            no                         yes                      yes

                           total cost                $250.00                 830,00                   NA                             8170,000                   $345,000                8140,O00

WAVE DATA
                           Is It collected?          no                      no                       yes                            yes                        yes                      yes

                           siting analysis                                                            NA                             $10,000                    $20,000                  $20,000

                           1 gages                     -                                              13                             3                          3                        4

                           directional?                -                                              3                              3                          3                        4

                           record length               -Indefinfla                                                       ,           3 yrs                     4 yrs                    at least 3-5 years




                          Install/operate                                                            $360,000/yr                    8108,300/yr                $1181,700/yr             $240,000/y

                          who does It?                                                               university/COE                 undecided                  COE/NOAA/Univ.           various options (see text)

                          analysis/report              -                                             NA                             $1 5,000/yr                81I5.000/yr              $15,000yr

                          annual total                 --$500,000/yr                                                                $123,300/yr                8196,700/yr              $255,000/yr
                          cost






  NA =Nnt ava i 1 ble                                                                                   45




I  m    MG    - -t --- - - mm mm m 



                TABLE 1. (continued)
                                                                  NEW JERSEY  S. CAROLINA  FLORIDA                                                CALIFORNIA    CALIFORNIA   PROPOSED FOR
              PROGRAM                                                                                                                                  South Coast    San Diego                             NEW YORK
              ELEMENTS                    CHARACTERISTICS                                                                                              (Minimal Plan)   (Optimal Plan)



              COMPUTERIZED
              DATA  BASE                  Is there one?               yes                     yes                      yes                             yes                        yes                      yes

                                        data stored                profiles,               profiles,                profiles,                       sediments, waves           sediments, waves          profiles,
                                                                  shoreline               shoreline                shoreline                       tides,                     lides,                   waves,
                                                                  position                position                 position, waves                 storm surge, profiles, etc. storm surge, profiles, ele shoreline position

                                        other studies              yes                     yes                      yes                             yes                        yes                       yes
                                        Incorporated?

                                        bibliography?              yes                     no                       yes                             yes                        yes                       yes

                                        who maintains?             unlversity/COE          state SCCC               state/university/COE            COE                        COE                       various options (see text)

                                        database                   $14,00v/yr              $5,000/yr                NA                              $16,000/yr                 $28,000/yr                >$25,000/yr
                                        management                 (for profiles only)
              MODELING
                                        Is It done?                no                      no                       yes                             no                         yes                       yes

                                        what is Input?                                                              wave, meterological,            sediment                    bathymetry,              bathymetry,
                                                                                                               profile, water level           budget data                 sediment budget,         sediment budget,
                                                                                                               data                                                       sediment transport,      sediment transport,
                                                                                                                                                                      wave, water level        wave, water level
                                                                                                                                                                      data                     data

                                        model type(s)                                                               storm surge and dune            qualitative                several numerical         progression from conceptual
                                                                                                               erosion, numerical             spreadsheet                 coastal processes        to numerical coastal response
                                                                                                               models                                                     and response             models (longshore and cross-
                                                                                                                                                                      models used               -shore) appropriate to data

                                        who does It?                -                                               university                      undecided                   COE                      various options (see text)

                                        cost                       $- 200,000/yr                                                                    $160,000                    $750,000                 $300,000 fixed + $60,000/yr

                                        lead agency                Dept Env Prot.          S. Carolina              Dept Natural                    COE                         COE                      various options (see text)
                                                                 Div Coastal             Coastal Council          Resources/Div
                                                                 Resources                                        Beaches & Shores
             TOTAL COST
             excluding admln-                                        $59,000/yr              >$55,800/yr              $3,000,000/yr                   $263,000/yr                 $405,200/yr              $609.000/yr
              -Istrative costs                                        (+$303,000 fixed)       (+472,000 fixed)         (total program)                 (+S355.000 fixed)          (+S1,065,000 fixed)       (+$585,000 fixed)

                NA = Not ava ilble                                                                                    46








  I            ~~~~EXPLANATION AND ADDITIONAL NOTES FOR TABLE*

3    ~A.  Surveys.  These are periodic measurements of the beach
          profile.

           1. Spatial distance. The spacing of the monuments from
 I       ~~which the surveys are made is not necessarily uniform but
           specifying the total number of monuments over the total
           length of shoreline characterizes both the size of the
 I       ~~program and the density of sampling stations.  THE LONG
           ISLAND OCEAN SHORELINE IS 125 MILES LONG FROM MONTAUK POINT
           TO THE WESTERN END OF CONEY ISLAND INCLUDING AN OVERLAP AT
 3        ~~FIRE ISLAND INLET.

           2. Monument costs. These are fixed costs for constructing
           the monuments in place and determining their exact position
 I       ~~and elevation.  THE NEW YORK PROGRAM WILL ALSO HAVE TO
           INSURE THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE MAINTAINED AND LOST MONUMENTS
           REPLACED. THERE MAY BE SOME COST SAVINGS IF SOME 
 I       ~~PREVIOUSLY USED MONUMENTS ARE STILL IN PLACE AND ADEQUATE
           FOR THE SURVEYS.

           3. Frequency. This is the number of times per year that a
 I       ~~survey is done at each monument.

           4. Timing. This indicates when during the year the surveys
           are done.   Fall surveys are intended to represent the
          maximum beach conditions for the year after the summer
           episode of accretion while spring surveys are intended to
           represent minimum beach conditions for the year after the
           impact of repeated winter storms.

           5. Depth. This is the depth of water that defines the
           seaward limit of the profile measurements. Subaerial beach
           profiles are usually done to "wading depth" at low tide. As
           a result, the actual depth for a particular profile is
 I       ~~dependent not only on the tidal range at the time of the
           survey but also on the meteorological tide, the wave set-up
           and wave conditions that may hamper measurements. Offshore
           surveys are intended to be done to the depth of closure,
           i* e., that depth beyond which the bathymetry is not altered
           by waves.

 I        ~~6.  Who does it?  Some surveys are done by professional
           surveyors and some by universities using staff and students.
           Some of the CA surveys are done by the Scripps Oceanographic
 I       ~~Institute, but it is unclear whether they use staff or
           students; presumably staff would be more highly trained.
           The surveys in SC were done by students.

       *specific references to the New York program are given in caps


                                 47






           7. Average cost/survey. This is the annual total cost.
           Except for NJ, it does not include the cost of establishing
           or maintaining the monuments. Stations profiled to "wading"
           depth would be less expensive than stations profiled to
           depths of -30 or -40 feet offshore.

           8. Analysis/report. This represents the annual cost for
           summarizing the data and preparing a synthesis report on the
           results of the surveys.
           9. Total cost. This is the annual expense for doing the
           actual surveys and preparing a report.
           10. Proposed expa nsion. several states are preparing to
           expand their program. This indicates the scope of that
           expansion.

I    ~B.  Aerial photographs.  These should provide complete coverage
      of the shoreline. Since they can also be used by other programs
      or agencies such as wetland delineation or updating land-use
3    ~maps, the cost may be shared between agencies or programs.

           1. Frequency. This is the number of complete shoreline
          overflights per year. "Once only "1 means that the aerial
          photography was not intended to be repeated.
           2. Timing. This is when the photographs are taken during
           the year. The aerial photographs are intended to be taken
          when the surveys are done but the experience in other states
          has shown that this is often impossible because o'f
           logistical problems. FOR THE NY PROGRAM, THEY SHOULD BE
           TAKEN AS NEAR TO THE TIME OF THE SURVEYS ARE POSSIBLE,
          CERTAINLY IN THE SAME SEASON.

 3        ~~3.  Scale.  THE PRODUCTS OF THE NY OVERFLIGHT WOULD BE
          SCALED, REPRODUCIBLE MYLARS (1:6000) AND RECTIFIED TO ALLOW
          FOR ACCURATE QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS FROM DIGITIZED
 3        ~~FEATURES.

           4. Digitized features. This indicates whether or not
          certain features were digitized so that their location and
 I       ~~their change in location between overflights can be analyzed
          by computer. The specific features that are digitized, if
          any, are also indicated. FOR THE NY PROGRAM, DIGITIZATION
 I       ~~IS RECOMMENDED ONLY EVERY 10 YEARS, SINCE HISTORICALLY THE
          RATES OF CHANGE OF THESE FEATURES IN MOST AREAS IS
          RELATIVELY SMALL. IN 10 YEARS, HOWEVER, SHIFTS MAY BE LARGE
 3        ~~ENOUGH TO BE ACCURATELY MEASURED.

          5. Unit cost. This is each program's cost per flight per
          mile of shoreline. In some cases, it is only the cost of
           the photos only. In others, the photographs are produced
          under another program and only the cost of digitizing needs


      1                         ~~~~~~~~~48






         to be incurred. The cost is high for the SC program even
         though shoreline features were not digitized because the
         photos were used to produce accurate base maps.
         6. Total cost. FOR THE NY PROGRAM, THE COST OF DIGITIZING
         SHORELINE FEATURES WAS ESTIMATED TO BE BETWEEN $30,000 AND
         $50,000 FOR BOTH OVERFLIGHTS IN A GIVEN YEAR. THIS DOES NOT
         INCLUDE THE SET-UP COST OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE TO COMPLETE
         THE DIGITIZATION; THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY OR COMPANY WAS
         ASSUMED TO HAVE THE NECESSARY FACILITIES AVAILABLE.
    C. Historical changes. This element involves the collection of
    shoreline and process data previously acquired under other
    programs and casting it in a form that facilitates comparison
    with the data being collected under the present program.

I        ~~1.  Shoreline changes.  In some cases, former shorelines
         have already been digitized and shoreline changes
         calculated. In other cases, aerial photographs may be
I       ~~available for particular time periods or sections of the
         shoreline but the shoreline position has not been
         determined.

I        ~~2.  Historical beach profiles.  This element would involve
         the documentation and analysis, if necessary, of any beach
         profiles that may have been collected by other, earlier
          studies. The results would need to be cast in the same
         terms that are used by the monitoring program.

         3. Sea level changes. An analysis of available tide gage
         records could be done to determine multi-year changes in sea
         level, if this has not been done already. FOR THE NY
         PROGRAM, THE LONG-TERM TRENDS HAVE BEEN ANALYZED FOR THE TIDE
         GAGES AT THE BATTERY AND NEW LONDON AT LEAST UNTIL SOMETIME
         IN THE LAST TWO DECADES. IT PROBABLY IS NOT NECESSARY TO
         UPDATE THOSE ANALYSES AT THIS TIME. THERE ARE NO WATER
ï¿½       ~~LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ON THE SOUTH SHORE THAT COULD BE ANALYZED
         AS PART OF AN HISTORICAL STUDY ALTHOUGH THE GENERAL TIDAL
         CHARACTERISTICS HAVE BEEN CALCULATED.
         4. Inlet bathymetry. This element is anticipated to
         involve identification and analysis of surveys taken by the
         U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The cost would probably not
I       ~~be incurred annually but on a schedule determined by the
         rate of shoaling, hence the frequency of dredging, of the
         inlet.

         5. Total cost. This represents a one-time cost although it
         could be spread out over several years.
    D. Wa ve Data. This element involves the direct, ongoing
    measurement of waves in the study area.

I        ~~1.  is it collected?  That is, does the monitoring program
         continually maintain wave gages and process the data. In

     3                          ~~~~~~~~~49






         some cases in which the monitoring program does not assume
         this task, wave gages may still be operated and dated
U       ~~analyzed by other agencies or programs.  IN NY, ONE
         DIRECTIONAL WAVE GAGE IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE OFFSHORE OF FIRE
         ISLAND INLET.
1        ~~2.  siting analysis.  This includes the cost of studies
         required to choose the best location for the instruments,
         the exact number of instruments needed, the type of
I       ~~instrument used, and the logistics of maintenance, but it
         does not include the price of the instrument or the actual
         cost of installation.
         3. Number of gages. This is the number of locations at
         which measurements are made even though some sites may have
         several instruments linked in an array to obtain directional
         wave data.
         4. Directional? This is the number of sites at which wave
         direction is measured as well as wave height and period.
         5. Record length. Wave data not only provides a
         statistical description of the wave climate but also a
         continuing quantitative record of the type of events
         affecting the coast. Data adequate for the former purpose
         might be collected in a few years, that is, over a time
I       ~~period long enough to contain rare but extreme events.  The
         latter goal requires continued monitoring. FOR THE NY
         PROGRAM, A MULTI-YEAR BUT LIMITED COMMITMENT WOULD BE MADE
I'      ~~TO ASSESS BOTH USES OF WAVE DATA AND THE ADEQUACY OF
         EXISTING SITES. THE PROGRAM WOULD THEN BE RE-EVALUATED. IT
         IS EXPECTED THAT MEASUREMENTS WOULD CONTINUE TO BE MADE AT
         SOME LOCATIONS.

         6. Install/operate. This is the annual cost to install and
         maintain the wave gages but not the cost to process the
I       ~~data.  A rule-of-thumb provided by the experience of the
         U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is $60,000/gage/year.
         7. Who does it? Wave gages require trained and experienced
I       ~~technical support.  In many cases, this is provided as a
         joint effort between federal, particularly the U.S. Army
5        ~~Corps of Engineers (COE), and state agencies.

         S. Analysis and report. The raw data must be processed,
         summarized, and reported in terms useful to coastal
I       ~~managers.  These costs are approximate since the number of
         operating gages and, thus, the amount of data may vary from
         year to year.

1        ~~9.  Annual cost.  This is the total annual commitment for
         installing and operating the equipment and preparing the
3        ~~data report.

    E. Computerized data base. This refers to a functional data

                               50






      base that is accessible to people other than those collecting
      the data; it is not merely the storage of data on electronic
      media.
           1. Is there one? All programs have a data base as part of
           their development.
           2. Data stored. This entry represents the type of data in
 1       ~~the data base.  Beach profiles provided by the surveys are
           stored in all programs but other relevant parameters may be
           only available in reports or stored electronically by other
 g        ~~programs.

           3. Other studies incorporated? All programs also assume
           the responsibility for including relevant measurements made
           by other programs in the data base. These could be
           historical data or relevant continuing observations.
           4. Bibliography? Except for SC, bibliographies of reports
 I       ~~and articles relevant to the monitoring program, as well as
           an index of the available data, are available for the other
           states. These are developed and maintained by either state
           or federal agencies depending an the program.
           5. Who maintains? Data basing requires a long-term
 3        ~~commitment as well as adequate hardware and software and an
           experienced staff.
           6. Data base management. This is an estimated cost for
           maintaining the data base and does not include the set-up
           costs or the cost of facilities or equipment.

3    ~F.  Modeling.  This element refers to the use of numerical
      computer models to describe and predict wave condition changes
      in the beach and/or longshore transport caused by physical
3    ~processes.
           1. Is it done? Models could include models for waves,
           longshore transport, changes in shoreline position, and
 I       ~~beach profile response.
           2. Input? What basic data are required to use the models?
 *        ~~3.  Model type?  Models may range from qualitative models
          that are essentially a balance sheet for sand volumes to
          complex process response models. FOR THE NY PROGRAM, THE
 I       ~~COMPLEXITY OF THE MODELS USED SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO THE
          QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF THE DATA. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT
          MORE SOPHISTICATED PROCESS-RESPONSE MODELS WILL BE
 I       ~~INCORPORATED INTO THE PROGRAM AS THE OTHER MONITORING
          ELEMENTS PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DATA.
          4. Who does it? Modeling requires both adequate computer
 I       ~~facilities, well-trained operators, and experienced
          researchers to interpret the results.


                                51






           5. Cost? This is an estimate of the annual cost excluding
           the initial cost of establishing a proper facility. FOR THE
           NY PROGRAM, IT IS ASSUMED THAT A CORE FACILITY ALREADY
           EXISTS WITHIN THE STATE SYSTEM, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A
 I       ~~UNIVERSITY.
           6. Lead Agency? The lead agency is expected to provide
           direction to the modelers and to assess the quality and
          utility of the results.
      G. Total Costs. These are compilations of the costs for
      comparable elements of the various state programs. In the case
      of FL, although the individual costs of some elements were not
      available, the total cost was $3 million/yr. Presumably this
      includes administrative costs. The CA Optimal Plan contains
      large fixed costs primarily because the modeling costs ($750,000)
     were treated as fixed; if these were distributed over five years,
      the annual cost for the CA Optimal Plan would be $555,200 per
I   ~year with fixed costs of $315,000.  This figure is more comparable
      to the proposed program for NY, but somewhat lower due to the
      fact that the CA program covers a smaller stretch of coast than
3 ~the south shore of Long Island.















      U~~~~~~~~~~5








                            REFERENCES


Bruun, P.  1962.  Sea level rise as a cause of shore erosion.  J.

    Waterways Harbors Division, ASCE 88: 117-130.

Copeland, J.L.  1990.  Preliminary design and options analysis of

     an integrated system for Long Island Sound. Computer

     Sciences Corporation.  Delivery Order Report No. 089: 39 p.

Hallermeier, R.J., and P.E. Rhodes. 1988. Generic Treatment of

     Dune Erosion for 100-Year Event. Proceedings, Twenty-First

     International Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE,

    pp. 1121-1197.

Hanson, H. and N.C. Kraus.  1989.  GENESIS:  Generalized Model

     for Simulating shoreline change. Technical Report CERC-89-

     19:  185 p.

Kriebel, D.L. and R.G. Dean.  1985.  Numerical simulation of

    time-dependent beach and dune erosion. Coastal Eng. 9: 221-

     245.

Larson, M., H. Hanson, and N.C. Kraus. 1987. Analytical

     Solutions of the One-Line Model of Shoreline Change.

    Technical Report CERC-87-15, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways

    Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center.

Larson, M., N. Kraus, and T. Sunamura.  1988.  Beach Profile

    Change: Morphology, Transport Rate and Numerical

    Simulation.  Proceedings, Twenty-First International

    Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1295-1309.








                          53






Leatherman, S. and R. Allen. 1985. Geomorphic analysis Fire

     Island Inlet to Montauk Point, Long Island, New York.  Final

     Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York

     District, 298 pp + appendicies.

Le Mehante, B., and M. Soldate.  1978.  Mathematical Modelling of

     Shoreline Evolution. Proceedings, Sixteenth International

     Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1163-1179.

Le Mehante, B., and M. Soldate. 1980. A Numerical Model for

     Predicting Shoreline Change.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

     Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC), No. 80-6.

Lennon, G. 1987. South Carolina Coastal Council Beach

     Monitoring Program.  Proceedings of Coastal Zone '87.

     American Society of Civil Engineers, NY: 2316-2331.

Long Island Regional Planning Board.  1989.  Proposed Long Island

     South Shore Hazard Management Program.  Hauppauge, NY,

     102 p. + appendicies.

New York Department of State.  1989.  New York's Coastal Program.

     A report of the Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront

     Revitalization.  Albany, NY, 36 pp.

Pelnard-Considere, J.  1956.  Essai de Theorie de l'Evolution des

     Formes de Rivate en Plages de Sable et de Galets. 4th

     Journees de l'Hydraulique, Les Energies de la Mar, Question

     III, Rapport No. 1.

Research Planning Institute, Inc.  1985.  Sediment budget

     analyses summary, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, NY.

     Reformulation study. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of

     Engineers, New York District,  85 pp + appendicies.




                          54






State of Florida. 1989. The coastal construction control line

     restudy/reestablishment process.  Dept. of Natural

     Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, 28 pp.

Taney, N.E. 1961. Geomorphology of the South Shore of Long

     Island, New York. Beach Erosion Control Board Technical

     Memorandum No. 128. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Beach

     Control Board, Washington, DC.  50 pp. + appendicies.

Tanski, J., H.J. Bokuniewicz and C. Schubert. 1990. An overview

     and assessment of the coastal processes data base for the

     south shore of Long Island.  NY Sea Grant Program.  Special

     Rpt. 104, 77 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  1987.  Consolidated plan of Study,

     coast of California storm and tidal wave study. Draft, Los

    Angeles District, CCSTWS 87-1.

Vellinga, P. 1983. Predictive Computational Modelling for Beach

     and Dune Erosion During Storm Surges. Proceedings of ASCE

     Specialty Conference Coastal Structures '83, pp. 806-819.

Wood, W.L., R.G. Dean, M. Jannereth, J.T. Kildow, S.P. Leatherman,

     B. LeMehante, D.W. Owens, R.H. Platt and R.L. Wiegel.  1990.

    Managing Coastal Erosion. National Academy Press,

    Washington, D.C. 182 pp.
















                          55







                           APPENDIX I

                      WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS



    Name                         Address/Aaencv

Jim Allen                     National Park Service
                             15 State St.
                             Boston, MA  02109

Fred Anders                   N.Y.S. Dept. of State
                             Div. of Coastal Resources
                             162 Washington Ave.
                             Albany, NY 12231

Lynn Marie Bocamazo           U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                             New York District
                             Planning Division
                             26 Federal Plaza
                             New York, NY 10278-0090

Henry Bokuniewicz             Marine Sciences Research Center
                             SUNY
                             Stony Brook, NY 11790-5000

Pam Castens                   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                             L.A. District
                             300 N. Los Angeles St.
                             ims Angeles, CA  90012

DeWitt Davies                 L.I. Regional Planning Bd.
                             H. Lee Dennison Bldg.
                             Veterans Memorial Highway
                             Hauppauge, NY  11788

Bob Dean                      Dept. of Coastal and Ocean Eng.
                             University of Florida
                             Gainesville, FL 32611

Jim Ebert                     National Park Service
                             Fire Island National Seashore
                             120 Laurel St.
                             Patchogue, NY  11772

Bill Eiser                     South Carolina Coastal Council
                             4130 Faber Place, Suite 300
                             Charleston, SC  29405

Victor Goldsmith               Dept. of Geology and Geography
                             Hunter College
                             Park Ave.
                             New York, NY 10021


                           56








Clifford Jones                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                             New York District
                             26 Federal Plaza
                            New York, NY 10278-0090

Charles McCaffrey             N.Y.S. Dept. of State
                             Div. of Coastal Resources
                             162 Washington Ave.
                             Albany, NY 12231

Gil Nercessian                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                            New York District
                            2.6 Federal Plaza
                            New York, NY  10278-0090

Roman Rakoczy                 N.Y.S. DEC
                             Coastal Erosion Section
              -j~~ ~50 Wolf Rd. Rm 330
                             Albany, NY 12233-3507

Beth Sullivan                 Coastal Research Center
                             National Sciences and Mathematics
                             Stockton State College
                             Pomona, NJ  08240

Jay Tanski                    NY Sea Grant Program
                             SUNY
                             Stony Brook, NY 11790-5002

Ron Verbarg                   L.I. Regional Planning Board
                             H. Lee Dennison Bldg. 12th Fl.
                             Veterans Memorial Highway
                             Hauppauge, NY  11788

Mike Volpe                    L.I. Regional Planning Board
                             H. Lee Dennison Bldg. 12th Fl.
                             Veterans Memorial Highway
                            Hauppauge, NY 11788

Wilbur L. Woods               Waterfront Division
                            New York City Dept. of City Planning
                             22 Reade St.
                             New York, NY 10007












                           57









                             APPENDIX II

         Long Island South Shore Erosion Monitoring Program
                           Workshop Agenda

                         November 13-14, 1990

Tuesday. November 13

     10:30 AM   Welcome/Introduction/Background

     10:45         Monitoring Programs in Other States

                         New Jersey
                           -Beth Sullivan
                           Coastal Research Center
                            Stockton State College

                         South Carolina Beach Monitoring Program
                           -William Eiser
                            South Carolina Coastal Commission

                         Florida Beach Monitoring and Coastal Data
                         Network
                           -Robert Dean
                            Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering
                            Laboratory
                            University of Florida
     12:15 PM    Lunch

      1:00               California Storm and Tidal Wave Study
                            Pam Castens
                            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
                            L.A. District


      1:30          Identification and Discussion of Characteristics
                    of New York Program

      3:30          Break

      3:45          Discussion of New York Program Continues

      6:00          Adjourn



Wednesday. November 14

      8:00 AM    Coffee and Danish

      8:15       Review/Summarize New York Program



                           58








Wednesday. November 14



      9:00          Planning Initiatives for Long Island's South
                    Shore
                      -Lynn Marie Bocamazo
                       U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.Y. District
                       Planning Div.

     10:00          Break

     10:15          Options for Implementation and Coordination

     12:15 PM       Review and Wrap Up

     12:30          Adjourn






































                           59








      3                         ~~~~~~~~APPENDIX III


                    Existing Benchmarks and Profile Lines


 3        ~~Whenever possible, the beach survey stations of the

      monitoring program should re-occupy stations or benchmarks that

5    ~have been surveyed in the past to take advantage of historical

      data sets. Beach profiles have been measured at one time or

I    ~another at numerous locations along the south shore.  While

      identifying and locating all the stations at which surveys have

      been made in the past is beyond the scope of this report, the

3    ~accompanying map indicates a number of locations where beach

      profiles have been measured and provides a preliminary idea of

I    ~the extent of coverage provided by existing benchmarks.  It is

      not complete, however, and when stations are established for the

      monitoring program., authorities with local responsibility should
J    ~be contacted to aid in recovering existing benchmarks, and in

      identifying the most suitable and useful locations for new or

I ~continuing stations.

           Over 135 beach profiles have been measured between Montauk

R    ~Point and Fire Island Inlet under the auspices of the Corps of

5    ~Engineers.  The locations of many of these are indicated by

      arrows on the map. However, physical monuments are not

5    ~necessarily present at each of these locations.  A detailed

      description of the available data and the surveying efforts

      undertaken in this area is given in a sediment budget prepared
3    ~for the Corps by the Research Planning Institute, Inc. (1985) as

      cited in this report. Other surveys, associated with diverse


      S                         ~~~~~~~~~60







5    ~projects, have been done by the Corps but are not indicated on

      the map. These were often clustered in the vicinity of inlets or

ji   ~groins.  On Jones Island, the Corps had established 15 stations

      and surveyed the beach at each between 1969 and 1972 (Morton,

I    ~R.W., W.F. Bohlen and D.G. Aubrey.  1986.  Beach changes at Jones

)    ~Beach, Long Island, NY 1962-1974.  Miscellaneous Paper CERC-86-1.

      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research

3    ~Center, Washington, D.C.  96 pp.).  Subaerial beach profiles have

      been done at twenty other locations by the NY State Office of

I    ~Parks and Recreation that are not indicated here.  On Long Beach,

      Rockaway and Coney Island, the Corps has established many

      stations in conjunction with existing or proposed public works'

      projects in these areas. The stations are too numerous to

      indicate individually on the map but the number of stations in

j    ~each area is given.  On Coney Island 93 profiles are being done

      at stations about 200 feet apart. Along the Rockaway shore 97

      stations were established, in some placed less than 200 feet

5    ~apart, and, at Long Beach, profiles have been done at at least 34

      stations.










      I~~~~~~~~~~6






N.Y.                                                                 SU
      ko ?o",,C                               LONG ISLAND SOUND

         km






                                                 LONG ISLAND    '








                  """Ar              i   t _       st 34l

                             Arrows indicate survey station locations 
                             Numbers indicate density of survey locations

                                62












































   Arrows indicate survey station locations

63








      5                        ~~~~~~~~APPENDIX IV

           MONITORING ACTIVITY OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS


           The New York District of the Corps has beach erosion control

      and storm damage prevention studies on Coney Island, Long B each,

      Rockaway Beach and Sea Bright, New Jersey. The Corps also has

      ongoing dredging and navigation projects in Jones, Fire Island,

      Moriches and Shinnecock inlets.

           Coney Island is to receive beach renourishment as part of a
      program to reduce storm damage which, if approved, will begin in

      1992. A reconnaissance survey was done at Long Beach in 1989; a

      feasibility study, initiated in 1991, and scheduled to be

      completed in 1995, may lead to the construction of dunes and

S   ~beach filling.  Erosion control at Rockaway Beach was done in the

5    ~late 70's, renourished in the 1980's and monitoring of the

      project has been completed. A study is underway to extend the

*    ~period of nourishment in the project area.

           Of the inlets, Fire Island Inlet has recently been dredged.

      The dredged sand is supplied to Gilgo Beach. Dredging of the

*    ~inlet and by-passing of sand is to be done every two years.

      Jones' Inlet has also recently been dredged and the sand placed

      on the beach to the west; it is dredged every two to three years.

      Shinnecock Inlet was dredged in the summer of 1990. Jetty

*    ~reconstruction plans and specifications have been prepared.

      Moriches Inlet jetty stabilization has been constructed, except

      for a small section. Dredging of the inlet and deposition basin
      has not been started, to date.

           In conjunction with these works, the Corps develops


       1                         ~~~~~~~~~~64







     monitoring programs designed to assess project performance. The

      proposed monitoring of the beach renourishment project in sea

I    ~Bright, NJ exemplifies a Corps' monitoring program.  A twelve-

      mile section of beach is to be restored from the base of Sandy
      Hook south to Asbury Park. The northern end is armored with an

      existing stone seawall. The project is designed to create a

S ~beach with a 100 foot wide berm at elevation +10 ft. MLW with an

      onshore slope of 10:1 and an offshore slope of 35:1. Seventeen

      million cubic yards will be placed along a 12-mile stretch of

      coast. Three and a half million cubic yards is designated for

      advanced nourishment. The beach will be monitored for six years

I    ~after which time it will be renourished, as necessary.

 *        ~~The monitoring of the Sea Bright project has been

      coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The National

3    ~Marine Fisheries Service and the N.J. Department of Environmental

      Preservation. The Corps' Waterway Experiment Station (Vicksburg,

I    ~MS) also participated in the development of the program.  Beach

      profiles are to be done at 12 sites, approximately one mile

      apart. The sites correspond to stations used previously to
      collect survey data, originally located in 1954. In addition,

      two sites on Sandy Hook and one site south of Asbury Park, on

3    ~undisturbed beaches, will be surveyed as control sites.  The

      elements of the monitoring program include beach and offshore

      surveys, aerial photography, collection of wave data and both
5    ~sediment and biological sampling.  Surveys are to be done twice a

      year and after major storms to a depth of -30 feet. Seven 

      sediment samples will be taken along each transect. Short cores



       1                         ~~~~~~~~~65







will be taken on five profiles, at three locations. Aerial

photographs are to be taken twice a year along the 15-mile

stretch of beach on the survey dates at a scale of 1" = 500' in

order to document the behavior of the fill between survey

stations.  A "PUtV" meter (a combined pressure and current meter

used to record wave data) will be set in the center of the

project area with LEO (a system of making visual estimates of

wave characteristics) being used as back-up data. This was to be

funded at a level of $2 million for six years with an additional

$500,000 for biological sampling.

     The erosion control project at Rockaway extends along 6.2

miles of the shore. This stretch had been renourished every two

years during the 1980's. One hundred and five long ranges were

surveyed over a 10-mile stretch of beach between 1976 and 1986.

In addition, aerial photographs, a pressure gage, LEO

observations and sediment samples have also been taken. The last

measurements were made in 1986 and CERC is producing a draft

final report on the monitoring.

     Fire Island Inlet is dredged about every two years.  About

one million cubic yards of sand is removed over a six month

period and usually placed downdrift on Gilgo Beach. Bathymetric

condition surveys and interim surveys of the inlet are done in

conjunction with this project. Beach profiles are surveyed after

placement of the dredged sand on the beach.  The jetty was

rehabilitated about three years ago as a maintenance activity.

There is still concern over the channel orientation and the

effect of the "sore thumb" but a system-wide study is needed.

     A hydrographic survey of Jones Inlet is done annually and


                           66







the inlet is dredged every one to three years. The dredged sand

is disposed offshore or placed on Point Lookout and/or Town of

Hempstead beaches.  Beach profiles are usually surveyed after the

placement of sand.

     The jetties at Moriches Inlet were rehabilitated between

1987 and 1989 but the head of the west jetty is still unfinished.

Hydrographic surveys and side scan sonar surveys of the jetty and

adjacent scour holes were done in 1989.  At present there are no

plans (or funds) for long-term project monitoring. The Corps is

awaiting funds to dredge the inlet.

     Shinnecock Inlet is used by a small, commercial fishing

fleet and connects to the Intercoastal Waterway. The jetties are

to be rehabilitated and there will be a revetment on the east bay

shore. The design includes by-passing with the use of a

deposition basin.  The draft monitoring plan at Shinnecock

includes surveys at 15 long ranges spaced at 1000-foot intervals,

hydrographic surveys, additional beach surveys at the fill site,

sediment samples in the deposition basin, aerial photographs

coinciding with the ground survey and, perhaps, a wave gage in

the disposal area.  The monitoring is to continue for four or

five years including several maintenance cycles and is estimated

to cost between $500,000 and $1 million.













                           67