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

                                                                                         0
                                                                                            7@1
                                                                                           3

                                                                                               7
            Coastal Zone
             Information
               Center

                                  C. W. THORNTHWAITE ASSOCIATES

                                   LABORATORY OF CLIMATOLOGY
                                                                                        CENTER

                                                                              JUL 15 1977

                                      PUBLICATIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY
                                      Volume XVIII          Number 3

                  The Shores of Megalopolis: Coastal Occupance
                       and Human Adjustment to Flood Hazard

                                                    by

                                 Ian Burton, Robert W. Kates, John R. Mather,

                                           and Rodman E. Snead
            @2

                                            ELMER, NEW JERSEY

                                                   1965

                                      PUBLICATIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY

          VOLUME      VII          1954
             No. 1    The Measurement of Potential Evapotranspiration, edited by John R. Mather
             No. 2    MicrometeoxoLogy of the Surface Layer of the Atmosphere; The Flux of
                      Momentum, Heat, and Water Vapor, Final Report
             No. 3    Estimating Soil Tractionability from Climatic Data,. Final Report
             No. 4    Climates of Africa and India According to Thornthwaite's 1948 Classification,
                      Final Report, by Douglas B. Carter

          VOLUME      VIII   --    1955
             No. 1    The Water Balance, by C. W. Thornthwaite and -J. R. Mather
             No. 2    Summary of Climatic Observations 1954
             No. 3    The Water Balance of the Lake Maracaibo Basin During 1946-53,
                      by Douglas B. Carter

          VOLUME      IX           1956
             No. I    Microclimatic Investigations at Point Barrow, Alaska, 1956, by J. R. Mather
                      and C. W. Thornthwaite
             No. 2    The Water Balance of the Earth, by T. E. A. van HyLckama
             No. 3    The Water Balance of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, by Douglas B. Carter
             No. 4    Summary of Climatic Observations 1955

          VOLUME      X            1957
             No. I    Study of Time-Height Variations of MicrometeoroLogicaL Factors During
                      Radiation Fog, Final Report
             No. 2    Summary of Climatic Observations 1956
             No. 3    Instructions and Tables for Computing Potential Evapotranspiration and the
                      Water Balance, by C. W. Thornthwaite and J. R. Mather

          VOLUME      XI           1958
             No. I    Three Water Balance Maps of Southwest Asia, by C. W. Thornthwaite,
                      J. R. Mather, and D. B. Carter
             No. 2    Microclimatic Investigations at Point Barrow, Alaska, 1957-1958,
                      by John R. Mather and C. W. Thornthwaite
             No. 3    The Average Water Balance of the Delaware Basin, by D. B. Carter;
                      Modification of the Water Balance Approach for Basins Within the Delaware
                      Valley, by T. E. A. van HyLckama

          VOLUME      XII          1959
             No. I    Investigation of the Heat and Water Balance at Centerton,. New Jersey, May-
                      July, 1959, by J. R. Mather and H. Hacia
             No. 2    Investigation of the Climatic and Hydrologic Factors Affecting the Redistribution
                      of Strontium-90 in the Soil, by C. W. Thornthwaite and J. R. Mather
             No. 3    Measurement of Vertical Winds in Typical Terrain, by C. W. Thornthwaite,
                      W. J. Superior, F. K. Hare, and K. R. Ono

                                           (continued on back cover)

                                                                               10341

                                    C. W. THORNTHWAITE ASSOCIATES

                                      LABORATORY OF CLIMATOLOGY

                                      PUBLICATIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY

                                     VOLUME XVIII         NUMBER 3
                                                                   COASTAL ZONE
                                                                   INFORMATION CENTER

                         THE SHORES OF MEGALOPOLIS: COASTAL OCCUPANCE AND
                                 HUMAN ADJUSTMENT TO FLOOD HAZARD

                                                   by

                                 Ian Burton, Robert W. Kates, John R. Mather
                                           and Rodman E. Snead

                                         Property of CSC Library

                                               Final Report
                                          Office of Naval Research
                                           Contract Nonr 4043(00)
                                                NR 388-073

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

                                            Elmer, New Jersey
                                                   1965

                                    FINAL REPORT, CONTRACT NONR 4043(00)
                                    NR 388-073, OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH

                                    The research reported in this document has
                                    been sponsored in part by the Department of
                                    Navy, Office of Naval Research, and in part by
                                    the U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, under
                                    Contract No. Nonr 4043(00), NR 388-073. Re-
                                    production of material in this report either in
                                    whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of
                                    the United States Government.

                              PUBLICATIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY is issued as a medium
                               for both regular and miscellaneous reports and papers of
                               the Laboratory of Climatology, Centerton, New Jersey.

                                                      . Editor
                                                   John R. Mather

                                                Contributing Editors
                                                 Douglas B. Carter
                                                  F. Kenneth Hare

                                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                          Page
                            Acknowledgments     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .        v

                            Chapter I.      A Geographic Approach to Coastal Occupance
                                                      Problems   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    435

                            Chapter II.     Patterns of Coastal Occupance: A Typology                     450

                            Chapter III.    Climatology of Damaging Storms        . . . . . . . . . . .   525

                            Chapter IV.     Human Adjustment to Coastal Flooding        . . . . . . . .   550

                            Chapter V.      Choice of Adjustment     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   , . 568

                            Chapter VI.     The Human Use of the Shore        . . . . . . . . . . . . .   586

                                                     ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

                            This study NAas inspired by the interest of C. Warren Thornthwaite in the shore
                   of New Jersey where he made his home. Although he passed away shortly after this study
                   commenced, it was because of his desire to apply to the probLems of coastal occupance
                   the skilLs.of the physical and social scientists that the authors were first brought together.
                   Made possible by financial support of the Office of Naval Research and the Corps of
                   Engineers, this report is offered as further testimony to the breadth of C. Warren
                   Thornthwaite's scientific vision.

                            The research on which this report is based was completed in two parts. The
                   studies of coastal occupance in the face of storm hazards are a joint effort of Ian Burton,
                   Robert W. Kates, and Rodman E. Snead and a team of research assistants assembled, in'
                   the main, from the Graduate School of Geography,. Clark University. The studies of the
                   climatology of damaging storms is the work of John R. Mather and his colleagues at
                   C. W,  Thornthwaite Associates, Laboratory of Climatology.

                            Robert W. Kates has written Chapters I,, V, 'and VI, and shared in the preparation
                   of Chapter IV with Rodman E. Snead. John R. Mather-has written Chapter III with the help
                   of his associates, Richard T. Field,, Henry A. Adams, III, and Gary Yoshioka. The long:
                   Chapter II is a joint effort, written by Ian Burton with the assistance of Rodman E. Snead
                   in the assessment of the natural environments of the study sites.

                            We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of our field party: Robert Arnold,
                   Robert Gardula, Richard Hecock, and Roger Kasperson. They provided not only the bulk
                   of the field data, but many insights, now securely incorporated within our own thinking.
                   Robert Adams, George Downey, . Nathan Meleen, Roger Roberge, and Carolyn Ryan all
                   aided in processing our data at Clark University, Worcester,. Massachusetts. Denise
                   Baumann and Carol Ames helped with many secretarial chores, as did Lydia Burton, who
                   as administrative assistant, took care of the administrative details in the C.lark University
                   office during the first year of the study.

                            We would also like to acknowledge the help of Richard T. Field, Henry A. Adams,
                   Gary Yoshioka,, Bernard Sasaki, Douglas Gosbin, and Kanoko Sakata who contributed to
                   the data analysis and report preparation at the Laboratory of Climatology in Centerton.
                   Special appreciation is due Katsuma Nishimoto who prepared all the maps and graphs for
                   reproduction,. Shizuko H. Bano who carefuLly typed the final draft of the report and June
                   A. Yoshioka who smoothly handled all of the many administrative details that arose as
                   a result of the divided nature of the research study.

                            We have been materially assisted by all the Federal agencies with shore-oriented
                   missions and by many other groups and individuals concerned with the future of the coast.
                   Among our colleagues, Professor Lewis Alexander of the University of Rhode Island has
                   been particularly helpful with his intimate knowledge of the Rhode Island shore. Mr. N. A.
                   Pore of the U. S. Weather Bureau has also been extremely helpful in contributing his time

                                                                v

              and knowledge to aid in the analysis of coastal storm damage. Both the U. S. Weather
              Bureau in Washington and the U.S. Coast and Geodetic SurvEy in Rockville, Maryland,
              have been most helpful in making available their records of tide heights and storm damage.
              We have tried to acknowledge the many individuals who assisted the field party in the body
              of the text.

                    , Finally, we would gratefully acknowledge the support and encouragement of the
              sponsoring agencies, the Office of Naval Research and the U. S. Corps of Engineers. They
              have provided us with the opportunity that the poet, Whittier, had at Hampton Beach for a
              "thoughtfuL hour of musing by the sea, " and we hope our efforts have proved fruitful.

                                     So then, beach, bluff and wave, farewell!
                                            I Bear with me
                                        No Token stone or glittering shell.
                                        But long and oft shall Memory tell
                                     Of this brief thoughtful hour of musing by
                                                  the Sea.

                                                                                Ian Burton
                                                                                Robert W. Kates
                                                                                John R. Mather
                                                                                Rodman E. Snead

              June, 1965

                                                         vi

                                                       CHAPTER I

                            A GEOGRAPHIC, APPROACH TO COASTAL OCCUPANCE PROBLEMS

                           On March 4, 1962, a small storm was born between Florida and Bermuda as a
                  wave on a cold front while a thousand miles away in the Mississippi Valley another
                  storm was dying. 1 The prevailing upper air patterns suggested that the F[ori,da.storm
                  would move safely out to sea and the one in the Mississippi Valley would proceed north-
                  ward. Neither storm behaved as indicated. Instead, the Florida storm moved north-
                  ward and the Mississippi Valley storm moved eastward meeting over the Cape Hatteras
                  area and spawning the great Atlantic storm of March 6-7, 1962.

                           With the elongation of a nearly circular wind system, and with winds of 50 miles
                  per hour blowing over a fetch upwards of 1, 200 miles, a storm surge developed that
                  battered the coast of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North
                  Carolina through three successive high tides. The battering and erosive action over
                  such a prolonged period caused damage of about $190, 600,'000 and an estimated loss
                  of 34 Lives. Before the storm was over it sent swells southward to the Florida coast
                  causing heavy damage to shore installations there.

                  Convergence of Factors

                           Storm damage and crisis.   The storm of March 6-7, 1962 focused the
                  attention of the nation for a brief moment on the outer'shore that borders the area of
                  most intensive settlement in the United States. The span of such attention though is
                  small, and the remote public quickly turns to other concerns. Local attention persists
                  longer: for public agencies unti[ commitments generated in the crisis of the storm are
                  fulfilled, for communities until the process of rebuilding and reconstruction is completed,
                  and for the few individuals who suffered deep and often uncompensable hurt, a very long
                  time.

                           For the authors of this report, the storm also generated interest in problems
                  of coastal occupance. But this study would probably have not been undertaken except for
                  a convergence of other factors. These indicated that there was a special utility in
                  seeking a geographic approach to coastal occupance problems.

                           Flood plain studies.  Beginning with the publication in 1945 of White's classic
                  treatise on Human Adjustment to Floods, there has emanated from the University of

                           1U. S. House of Representatives, Improvement of Storm Forecasting Procedures,
                  Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Committee on Merchant Marine
                  and Fisheries, 87th Congress-, 2nd Session, April 4, 1962; and John Q.. Steward, "The
                  Great Atlantic Coast Tides of 5-8 March 1962, Weatherwise, Vol. 15, No. 3, June 1962,
                  pp. 117-120..

                                                            435

             436

             Chicago a set of studies dealing with flood plain occupance in the United States.1 These
             studies2have grown in detail and sophistication; they have stimulated valuable work else-
             where, but their basic theme remains, much as White suggested in his original work.
             Flood plain occupance represents an interaction between the requirements of a human sys-
             tem with its economic, social, and geQgraphical relationships, and a hydrologic system
             marked by strong elements of uncertaintyi In such a complex system, the optimal pattern
             of occupance is not easily generalized or even identified. But the choice of a pattern is much
             improved by considering the whole range of possible adjustments. These include such things
             as modification of the river's regime as well as the guiding and changing of human activities.

                       Two of the authors have been deeply involved in these flood plain studies and,
             at the time of the storm, had begun to think about the relationship between flood hazard
             adjustment and other types of natural hazard problems.

                       The natural hazard syndromq.      Why do men seek to locate in areas of current
             high natural hazard? What do they know and do about the hazard? How does this compare
             with what they might know or do if they shared in the most advanced current scientific
             and technological knowledge? These are the kinds of questions that had been posed in the
             flood plain studies and seemed appropriate to ask more widely in areas of other natural
             hazards. In a classification of natural hazards, the notion was set forth that hazards of
             geophysical origin seem to have unique propertieO The magnitude of energy involved
             in geophysical hazards seem.. to place them beyond man's total control and thus there is a
             special need for a pattern of adjustment that seeks more than control of nature. An
             investigation of tidal or saltwater flooding appeared to be a very togical step in extending
             the flood plain studies to a new dMension while still retaining links in common with the
             previous studies and methodology. Thus when the storm occurred, the authors already
             possessed some previous experience in hazard investigation, a small body of -theory, a

                       I University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Papers: No. 29,
             Gilbert F. White, Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographical Approach to the Flood
             Problem in the United States, 1942; No. 56, Francis C. Murphy, Regulating FLood-Plain
             Development, 1958; No. 57, Gilbert F. White, et at., Changes in Urban Occupance of
             -Flood Plains in the United States, 1958; No. 65, John k. Sheaffer, Flood Proofing: An
             Element in a Flood Damage Reduction Program, 1960; No. 70, Gilbert F. White, et at. ,
             Papers on Flood Problems, 1961; No. 75, Ian Burton, Types of Agricultural Occupance
             of Flood Plains in the United States, 1962; No. 78, Robert W. Kates, Hazard and Choice
             Preception in Flood Plain Management, 1962; No. 93, Gilbert F. White, Choice of
             -@djustrnent to Floods, 1964; and No. 98, Robert W. Kates, Industrial Flood Losses:
             Damage Estimation in the Lehigh Valley, 1965.
                       2
                         See the comprehensive bibliography published by the Tennessee Valley
             Authority, Flood Damage Prevention, An Indexed Bibliography (Knoxville: Tennessee
             .Valley Authority, Technical Library, 1964).
                       3
                         Ian Burton and Robert W  ' Kates, "The Perception of Natural Hazards in
             Resource Management, " Natural Resources journal, Vol. 3 (Jan. 1964), pp. 414-417.

                                                                                                                 437

                    larger set of empirical relationships, and a desire to extend existing insights to new areas.
                    But, the regional relationships on the Eastern Seaboard pose a special challenge to
                    geographers as well.

                             The growth of Megalopolis. From southern New Hampshire to northern
                    Virginia live over 40 million people in a region of coalescing urban communities made
                    famous by jean Gottman's study of Megalopolis. 1 Here in less than 2 percent of the
                    continental United States is found 21 percent of its people and an even higher proportion
                    of its wealth. In the 1950-60 decade population increased by 18 percent, about the
                    national average. But even faster than the increase in population is the growth of demand
                    for outdoor recreation opportunities, many of which are. found on the.outer shore.

                             Pressures for shore development, the demand for recreation.           It is estimated
                    that the demand for outdoor recreation has increased in the post-war period at five times
                    the rate of increase of population and income.2 The major pressure for outdoor
                    recreation in Megalopolis takes place on the shore. An investigation of recreation prefer-
                    ences of residents of the Delaware River Basin indicated marked preference for ocean
                                                                   1 3
                    beaches as the major outdoor recreation area.

                             This pressure could be exp   ected to have a marked effect on the expansion of
                    development in shore areas and subsequent increase in damageable property. However,
                    at the time of the March 6-7, 1962 storm, little was known about the rates of growth and
                    development along the shore or about the other major problems of coasta I occupance and
                    human adjustment.

                    Major Problems

                             The growth and development of coastal occupance.          Who locates close   to the
                    sea and why? What is the rate of growth of coastal settlement and what seems to be the
                    major factors influencing this growth? Answers to these questions are basic to an
                    understanding of the distribution and kinds of coastal occupance, and such understanding
                    seems preliminary to any concern about the range of human adjustment to tidal flooding.
                    Thus the first goal of any research strategy seemed to lie in this direction -- to measure
                    the extent, rate, process, and possible consequences of the growth and development of
                    coastal occupance.

                             1 jean Gottman, Megalopolis, (Cambridge, M. I. T. Press, 1961).
                             2 Marion Clawson, Land and Water for Recreation,. (Chicago: Rand McNally,
                    1963), p. 36.
                             3 U. S.  Army, Corps.@pf Engineers, U.     S. Dept. of Interior, National Park
                    'Service, Report on the Comprehensive Survey      of the Water Resources of Delaware River
                    Basin, App. W. Recreation Needs and Appraisal, Philadelphia, 1960, p. W7.

             438

                       Adjustment to hazard.     In seeking to define improved patterns of coastal
              occupance, a prerequisite is the careful exploration of the range of possible adjustments
              to coastal storm hazard. Various agencies share responsibility for reducing damage
              from tidal flooding; some may warn, help evacuate, or build protective works. But the
              direction of a comprehensive program of damage reduction ties beyond the specific
              mission of any single agency and it is not surprising therefore that the potential for
              adjustment to hazard has never been systematically explored. Nor has the prevalence
              of damage reducing actions ever been estimated or even investigated.

                       Choice of alternative policies of development.     Studies of occupance and
              adjustment are informative of the extent of major problems -- solutions, though, lie in
              the formulation of, and the choice between, alternative development policies. A basic
              consideration of the authors is to explore such alternative policies and the adequacy of
              the mechanisms for their implementation.

                       These then are the major problems considered in the geographical approach;
              the details of research strategy used to pursue them follow.

              Research Strategy

                       The study  shore.    The convergence of factors that brought this study into being
              defined in part the areaL extent of shore to be studied. As a study concerned primarily
              with tidal flooding, a focus on the outer shore seemed indicated. As a study concerned
              with the intensification of development under the pressures of urbanization, a focus on
              shore areas within the one-day recreational travel range of MegaLopolis appeared
              desirable.

                       Various definitions of shore were investigated: generalized coastline, generalized
              tidal shoreline, and detaiLed tidal shoreline. None were avaiLabLe already deLimited on
              maps-, thus a special study shore was defined as a Line along the outer fringe of the coast.
              First p Lotted on a 1: 1, 000, 000 base map, it was subsequently transferred to standard
              1:250,000 sheets from which all measurements used in the study (unless otherwise noted)
              were derived. Large water bodies Were omitted as well as many large bays including
              Boston and -New York harbors, Chesapeake Bay, the Delaware Estuary, etc. However,
              Long Island Sound was included. (See figure 1- 1) The study shore, so derived, extends
              from the Maine-New Hampshire border to Cape Hatteras and covers about 1, 302 miles
              in all.

                       Special studies were designed to provide a series of broad estimates for the
              entire reach of coast: 1) the real extent of hazard zones, 2) the climatology of damaging
              storms, 3) the amount and nature of coastal occupance and its change through time, and
              4) the extent of damage and huWn adjustment to reduce damage. At the same time, and
              in some cases actually preceding these extensive studies, a series of intensive site
              investigations were undertaken to provide needed depth to the investigation.

                                                                                                          Me.

                                                                                   V             N.H.

                                                                                         Mass.
                                                                  N.Y.                         T
                                                                                      Conn.      R. 1.

                                                Pa.              N. J.

                                         Md.

                                                      Del.

                                        Va.

                                                               EXTENT OF STUDY SHORE AND
                                                     LOCATION OF AIR PHOTO SAMPLE AREAS

                                                                             Legend

                                                                0    Air Photo Sample Areas
                                    N.C.                                      Study Shore

                                                                           Figure

                                                                                                                      439

                              Extensive studies, the air photo sample.         The basic tool for providing the
                    initial estimates of the magnitude of the problem and measures of its intensification
                    through time was a sample of air photos of the shore. The delimited study shore was,
                    stratified by states, and sample points were randomly. chosen within each state according
                    to the proportion. of study shore tying within the state.

                              With the use of standard 9 x 9 air photos, it was hoped to have a minimum of
                    two miles of coast on each sampled photo. To provide a desired 10 percent coverage of
                    the study shore and to alLow for losses and errors in obtaining photos, 68 points were
                    chosen at random from the stratified sample. This expectation of loss was fulfilled, and
                    in the final sample, 65 points were used     ' covering over-all 11 percent of the study shore,
                    with a median length of exactly 2. 0 miles each. (See table 1- 1 and figure 1- 1.

                                                                Table 1-1

                                                 Characteristics of Air Photo Sample

                                          Length of Study Shore     . . . . . . . . . 130 miles
                                         Length Sampled     . . . . . . . . . . . . .  144 mites

                                                     Distribution of Sample Areas

                                       State                               Number of               Percent of State
                                                                         Sample Areas           Study Shore Sampled

                              New Hampshire-Mass.                               19                         13
                              Rhode Island                                       3                         14
                              Connecticut                                        6                         11
                              New York                                          16                         10
                              New Jersey                                         8                         11
                              Delaware                                           1                          8
                              Maryland                                           1                          5
                              Virginia                                           5                          8
                              North Carolina                                     6                         13

                              Total                                             65                         11

                                                            Sample Area Size

                                         Median Length (miles)                           2.0
                                                Range                                 1.1 - 10.7

                                         Median Area (acres)                             730
                                                Range                                 102 - 3138

            440

                      The air photos were to be used no't only for measuring the amount of development
             but to provide rates of growth as well. Therefore, for each point, three sets of photos
             were sought: one taken in the pre-war period when extensive coverage began, one post-
             war with 1950 as the desired target year, and the most recent available photo. This
             turned out to be a most difficult and time-consuming task. Flight tines have been flown
             at different time intervals along even short stretches of coast and ownership and storage
             of photos is dispersed. The final sets of photos required assemblage from the holdings
             of the Departments of Agriculture and Defense, the U. S Coast and Geodetic Survey, the
             Geological Survey, and the National Archives.

                      Three-period coverage was obtained, finally for 54 sample areas and for the
             remaining eleven areas two photos were combined with large scale topographic maps
             giving equivalent information. For many sample areas topographic sheets provided an
             additional observation in time as well.

                      Analysis of the air photos.   The analysis of the air photos began with delimiting
             and measuring on the photos the following zones:

                            Zone A: Tidal, below the mean high water mark;
                            Zone B:   Between mean high water and the 10-foot contour;
                            Zone C:   Between the 10- and 20-foot contours;
                            Zone D:   Above the 20-foot contour.

             These zones were designed to approximate, in crude fashion, areas of varying hazard
             and were dictated by the avai table topographic coverage. However, they have some
             validity as an expression of actual hazard. The area below mean high water is, of course,
             a zone of almost daily inundation. The 10-foot contour approximates the maximum
             recorded tidal flood height in many areas; and the 20-foot contour contains the maximum
             area of water damage including splash and spray. Thus in a highly generalized sense,
             zone A is an area of intense hazard, B is the zone of the major hazard, and C is a zone of
             extremely rare hazard.

                      Within each zone, structures easily visible to the naked eye were counted as an
             indicator of occupance. The basic measurement of development of the shore was expressed
             in terms of, the density of structures per,acre, for each zone. A second measure of
             development, the proportion of shore frontage developed, was a [so obtained.   This
             frontage was difficult to estimate because of the numerous indentations, tidal marshes,
             and streams. It was defined as land facing directly onto the open ocean or indentations
             which had direct access to open water. Each length of shore containing a structure within
             average lot size of the shore was considered developed. These basic measurements of
             area, structures, and developed shore frontage were repeated for each available time
             period. The results were plotted graphically and linear interpolations from these graphs
             gave a comparable set'of measurements for three time periods -- 1940, 1950, and 1960,

                      Extensive studies: the climatology of damaging storms.     A special study under-
             taken by one of the authors and his colleagues at the Laboratory of Climatology involved
             the assemblage of a distinctive climatology of damaging storms: occurrence, frequency,

                                                                                                           441

                  damage characteristics,   and synoptic patterns. The results of this study are presented
                  in Chapter 111.

                           Extensive studies, other surveys.     A collection of government studies of the
                  shore were obtained and surveyed to provide estimates of tidal f Lood damage and the
                  extent of protective works. A brief mail survey of the warning networks along the study
                  shore was also made. . A more elaborate extensive study requiring nine months and
                  involving contact with 150 communities, to ascertain the extent of zoning and land use
                  controls for reducing tidal flood damage was completed.

                           Intensive studies.   The extensive studies provided first estimates of many of
                  the components of the problems of coastal storm hazard. But in themselves they provided
                  little understanding of the processes involved. . For this purpose, more intensive
                  investigations were designed. These case studies of various occupance situations involved
                  upwards of five man-weeks of investigation each. For e    'ach of these study sites, data
                  were obtained on the following: physical characteristics including hazard, an account
                  of growth and development including settlement history, past and present land use,
                  effects of protection measures, adjustments to hazard, and a prognosis of future
                  development.

                           The fifteen study.sites were not randomly chosen, but were selected from a much
                  larger List of shore areas distinguished by the existence of published surveys and
                  materials; estimates of hazard, maps, photos, tidal gage records, and the Like. The
                  strategy involved was to. make fullest use of existing documentation and to use study
                  personnel for investigations uniquely related to the problems of. the study. From the list
                  of some 71 possible sites, the fifteen chosen were to provide variation in region, hazard,
                  physical type, and existing settlement. Three sites were almost adjacent to each other
                  but different in other ways -- to provide comparisons within a common regional setting.
                  (S ee figure 1- 2 and tab Les 1- 2, 1- 3, 1- 4.

                           A variety of techniques were used to obtain the Irequired data at each study site
                  and these included mapping of landforms, hazard zones,    , and land use; structured inter
                  views with beach users, seasonal and permanent residents, and commercial interests; and
                  unstructured interviews with public officia Ls, rea I estate men, construction firms, and
                  sub-dividers. In all, over 1000 interviews were obtained.

                           The land use data that were collected involved the reconstruction of patterns
                  of settlement in thepast using aerial photographs and maps. The land use classification
                  differed from conventional classifications since it was designed to study coastal
                  occupance that is strongly characterized by a recreational and residential use. In this
                  classification, transportation is associated with the land use that it serves; commercial,
                  industrial, recreational,etc.  The-public classification includes quasi-public institutions

                             The hazard zones used in the intensive study are the same as used in the air
                  photo analysis (p. 440) with the addition of Zone F: the zone of maximum tidal flooding.

              442

                                                         Table 1-2

                                         Physical Characteristics of Study Sites

                                                                                               Characteristics
                                                   Length of                       Beach          of Average
                                          Size in  Coastline       Physical        Width       Morphological
            No. -Study Site               Acres     in Miles        Type           in Feet          Changes

              1. Pt. Judith, R. 1.         1750        8.3      Glacial plain      100-300     Cliffs stable
                                                                                               beach retreating

              2. Wellfleet, Mass.          2328        5.8      Morainic           50-300      Cliffs and
                                                                upland with                    beach retreating
                                                                c liffs

              3. ViLlas,.N.J.               222        1.3      Sand plain         100-200     Fairly stable

              4.  Chincoteague, Va.        3604        17.0     Barrier island       0-50      Fairly stable

              5.  Lynn-Nahant, Mass.        596        7.2      Glacial plain        0-300     Fairly stable

              6.  Fairfield,, Conn.        1678        4.0      Glacial plain        0-150     Fairly stable

              7.  Hampton Beach, N. H.     2820        4.3      Barrier islaud 100-300         Cliffs stable
                                                                                               beach retreating

              8.  Montauk, N.Y.            3238        8A       Moranic            50-200      Beach stable
                                                                upland with                    cliffs retreating
                                                                cliffs

              9.  Sandy Hook, N.J.         1065        6.8      Barrier bar          0-400     Beach r6treating

            10.   Cape May,. N. J.          690        1.6      Sand plain           0-200     Beach retreating

            11.   Wildwood Crest,    N.J.   995                 Barrier island 300-500         Beach stable

            12.   Dennis, Mass.            2178        4.4      Glacier plain      100-350     Beach stable
                                                                    0

            13.   Nags Head, N.C.          3505        9.3      Barrier island 150-400         Beach retreating
            14.   Bethany Beach,. Del.     3474        7.5      Sand plain &       100-200     Beach retreating
                                                                barrier bar

            15.   Assateague, Va.          3400        7.1      Barrier bar        200-300     Beach retr   eating

                                                                                                               Me.

                                                                                       Vt.          N. H.
                                                                                                                  Hampton
                                                                                                                   Beach (7)

                                                                                                                 Lynn-Nahant
                                                                                             Mass.                   (5)

                                                                                                                     W     eet(2)

                                                                      N. Y.
                                                                                          Conn.        R. L,
                                                                                                                     Dennis(12)
                                                                                                                  -21
                                                                                                       Pt JuditK-( 'I)
                                                                         'Fairf ie@O (6)

                                                                                                     Montauk (8)

                                                       Pa.          N. J.
                                                                               Sandy Hook (9)

                                           Md               iTra 5 3) Wildwood Crest (11)
                                                         Del.
                                                                   Cape May (10)
                                                                 Bethany Beach (14)

                                                   ,fk
                                                co     ue (41.,

                                                          'Assateague(15)
                                      Va.

                                                                               LOCATION OF STUDY SITES

                                                                                             Legend

                                                        Nags Head (13)                (4) Study Site and Number
                                          I
                                                                                              Study Shore
                                                @co

                                   N. C.

                                                                                         Figure 1-2

                                                                                                               443

                                                             Table 1-3

                                            Settlement Characteristics of Study Sites

                                               Zonal Distribution of
                 No.  Study Site              Study Sites in Percent           No. of      Over-all      Occupance
                                        Zone A Zone B     Zone C Zone D Structures         Density          Type
                                        (Tidal   (Tide to  (10 to (Above                  Structures
                                         Zone)   10 feet) 20 feet) 20 feet)               per Acre

                  1. Pt. Judith           14        11       18       57         2018        1. 15        Vi L [age
                                                                                                          shore
                  2. WeLlfleet            16         7       17       60         402         0. 17        Village
                                                                                                          shore
                  3. Villas               25        73         2                 316         1.42         Village
                                                                                                          shore
                  4. Chincoteague         47        53                           1509        0.42         Vi I [age
                                                                                                          shore
                  5. Lynn-Nahant            3       15       67       15         1142        1.92         Urban
                                                                                                          shore
                  6. Fairfield            16        47       20       17         1874        1.12         Urban
                                                                                                          shore
                  7. Hampton Beach        72          8      16        4         2360        0.84         Summer
                                                                                                          shore
                  8. Montauk                2       13       13       72         616         0.19         Summer
                                                                                                          shore
                  9. Sandy Hook           10        76       10        4         699         0.66         Summer
                                                                                                          shore
                 10.  Cape May              1       78       21                  949         1.38         Summer
                                                                                                          shore

                 1L   Wildwood Crest      40        57                           1057        1.06         Summer
                                                                                                          shore

                 12.  Dennis              25        52       41        5         3942        1.81         Summer
                                                                                                          shore
                 13.  Nags Head           22        52       20        6         871         0.25         Summer
                                                                                                          shore
                 14.  Bethany Beach       10        85         5                 1216        0.35         Summer
                                                                                                          shor
                 15.  Assateague          26        34         3      37             6       0.91         Empty
                                                                                                          shore

              444

                                                          Table 1-4

                                          Hazard Characteristics of Study Sites

                                                                                               Approx. Percent
             No. Study Site           Number of Severe Stormsa         Tota I    Hurricane Height of        Study
                                     1935-44 11945-54 1955-64 1935-64 Frequency             b  Flood        Area
                                                                                               Recordc Flooded

              1.  Pt. Judith              1          3         5          9             0          9-13        25

              2.  Welffleet               .2         3         8         15             2          10-15       11

              3.  Villas                  1          1         2          4             1          7- 9        39
              4.  Chincoteague            0          0         1          1             1          8-10.      100
              5.  Lynn-Nahant             2          3         7         12             2          9-14          6
              6.  Fairfield               3          4         5         12             3          9-11        74
              7.  Hampton Beach           2          2-        6         10             0          7-13        83
              8.  Montauk                 3          4         5         12             3          8-10          9
              9.  Sandy Hook              3          1         2          6             1          8-10        64
             10.  Cape May                1          1         2          4             1          7- 9        69
             11.  Wildwood Crest          1          1         2          4             1          7- 9        68

             12.  Dennis                  1          2         7         10             0          8- 9        48
             13.  Nags Head               1          1         4          6             9          10-15       86
             14.  Bethany Beach           0          0         1          1             1          7-11        95
             15.  Assateague              0          0         1          1             1          8-10        55

                        a See Chapter III for details. Frequency cited is for a      25 mile  sector in which the
             study site was located.
                       .,b
                          Frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms 1901-1955 that actually cross the
             coast in an 85 nautical mile sector within which the study site is found. Source was National
             Hurricane Research Project, Report No. 5 -- "Survey of Meteorological Factors Pertinent
             to Reduction of Loss of Life and Property in Hurricane Situations", U. S. -Department of
             Commerce, Weather Bureau, Washington, March 1957.
                        c In feet, above mean sea level..

                                                                                                              445

                  such as churches and excludes atL public recrea.tion. Recreational use distinguished
                  between public and private ownership and for private ownership by the availability of
                  public accesses. Residential use was further divided to provide information on the
                  character of dwelling units. For clarity, some uses have been grouped on the maps
                  included in this volume and this is shown as well in table 1-5.

                                                           Table 1-5

                                         Land Use Classification Employed at Study Sites

                           Type                                                      Class Shown on
                         Number                       Land Use                       Land Use Maps

                             1.               Industrial                               Industrial
                             2.               Commercia L                              Commercial
                             3.               Public and Quasi-PubLic                  Public
                             4.               Public Recreational                      Recreational
                             5.               Private Recreational                     Recreational
                                                  a. With public access
                                                  b. Without public access
                             6.               Residential                              Residential
                                                  a. Single family
                                                  b. Multiple family
                                                  c. Apartment block
                             7.               Agricultural                             Agricultural
                             8.               Undeveloped Land                         Undeveloped

                           .The results of the intensive studies are presented as a   series of case studies in
                  Chapter 11 and provide much of the data for Chapters IV and V.      But before examining in
                  detail the variety of patterns of occupance found on the study shore, it would be well to
                  present the magnitude of that occupance derived from air photo samples.

                  Extent of Development Along the Study Shore

                           Structures as a measure of human occupance.         The lowest common denominator
                  of occupance used in the extensive survey is the density of structures visible on the 9 x 9
                  air photos. These structures may range from large chicken coops to factory buildings
                  but they seem to provide a reliable index to human occupance of the shore and thus to
                  damage potentia I.

                           The accuracy of sample estimates. The two measures that were used to make
                  sample estimates of development are presented in tables 1-6 and 1-7. They are derived
                  by the simple extrapolation of the total observations from the 65 sample areas. The basic
                  assumption in presenting these estimates based on sample data is that the sample provides
                  an unbiased estimate of the parameters of the study shore, density, and ocean frontage
                  developed. The sampling method, because of constraints of data and funds, employs

              446

                                                            Table 1-6

                                          Sample Estimates of Area and Structures
                                               Subject to Coastal Storm Hazard

                                                                              Hazard Zones
                                                                  A                  B                C
                                                               Tidal          Tide- 10 feet      10-20 feet

                        Area (acres)                            59,370            196,490           83,690
                             1940
                                 Structures                      4,700             68,800           45,200
                                 Structures/acre                   .08                 .35              .54

                             1950
                                 Structures                      7,100             86,500           56,900
                                 Structures /acre                  .12                 .44               68

                             1960
                                 Structures                     .9,500            114,000           70,300
                                 Structures/acre                   .16                 .38              .84

                                                            Table 1-7

                                            Sample Estimates of Percent of Ocean
                                             Frontage Developed with Structures

                        Length of Study Shore    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .    1, 302 miles

                        Percent Developed Frontage
                                 1940  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      13.3
                                 1950  . . . . . . . . . . . .     . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      17.0
                                 ig6o  . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       21.4

                                                                                                            447

                  elements of simpLe random, stratified, and cluster sampling. Because of its underlying
                  random selection process, the estimates appear unbiased. However, more important
                  than the question of bias is the need to have an estimate of the variance. By what order of
                  magnitude might the sample estimates differ from the true parameters? Such variance
                  may be stated as an interval estimate at some fixed level of probability.

                           A statistical exploration of alL the issues involved in estimating this interval is
                  beyond the interest of this volume and possibly beyond the competence of the authors or
                  even existing sampLe theory. A rigorous estimate of the variance would consider the
                                                                                                1
                  65 sample areas as point estimates of a finite universe of two-mile sectors . If this was
                  done the true proportion of ocean frontage developed in 1960, estimated from the sample
                  as .214, might actually faLl between, . 120 and .308 in 95 percent of the samples drawn
                  in the same way.

                          . The other extreme wouLd be to assume that the independent observations were
                  the approximately 100-foot units used in the estimate of frontage developed. In such a
                  sample the true value of the proportion estimated by the sampLe proportion   2of . 214 would
                  fa I I between . 205 and . 222 in 95 percent of sample drawn in the same way.

                           If sampling variability was the only source of error, the variance interval
                  probably falLs between these two extreme assumptions. But there are clerical and
                  observational errors also and on the whole, these errors are probably biased towards
                  underestimation. Structures were missed when obscured by foliage or poor photo quality
                  and tend to coalesce in urban areas.

                           In sum these caveats suggest the following interpretation. The sample estimates
                  are valued because they provide useful information available for the first time. They are
                  probably accurate within an order of 25 percent. The greatest confidence may be pLaced
                  in the variation in time and space that they provide, for here relative measurements -_
                  growth over time -- densities in zones -- arestable and derived from the same consistent
                  measurement process.

                           Sample estimates of area and structures.      The critical hazard zones (A and B)
                  below the ten-foot contour cover about 400 square miles or 255,860 acres, aLong the study
                  shore. An additional 130 square miles (83, 690 acres ) lie between elevation. 10 and 20
                  feet ms[, an area of potential but rare hazard. Within this total area.. 1-1/2 times the size
                  of New York City, an estimated 200, 000 structures cou Ld be found in 1960 and 125, 000
                  were below the crititaL 10-foot contour. '(See table 1-6)

                           I Ignoring the variation in sam I area size.
                           2 Calculated by p - 1. 96   pq   N n           + 1.96     Fpq N-n       where
                                                             _1 > P< p               V_ -
                                                        n                               n N-1
                  P = true proportion, p = the sample estimate, q = 1 - p, N = the finite population, and
                  n = the number of independent samp Les. . In the first case n   65, in the second case
                  n = 7645.

              448

                         The density of structures is low for the over-all area, never even reaching an
               average of one per acre. It is highest in the zone farthest from the shore and decreases
               towards the tidal zone. Hazard has some influence here in explaining this variation but
               other factors are surely important as well. Only specialized coastal activities appear to
               locate in the tidal zone, and much of it is undeveloped. SpeciaL problems of construction
               are encountered at very low elevations, including sewage disposal, and this discourages
               construction. More of the land at lower elevation is pre-empted for recreational use
               which require few structures.

                         But if tfie density of structures favors a Lower incidence of damage in its spatial
               distribution the trend through time is disturbing. For there is clear indication that the
               rates of growth are highest in areas subject to greater tidal inundation damage. In
               table 1-8 the average growth rates are higher in the hazard-prone zones, with an average
               annual increase of 3. 6 percent in the tidal zone for the 20-year period. The "ocean
               frontage developed" measurement involves frontage from all three zones but ties mainly
               in zone B.

                                                           Table 1-8

                            Indices and Rates of Growth for Study Shore and Adjacent Areas

                                                           Indices 1940    100     verage Annual Growth Rates
                                                           1940  1  1950    1960  1940-50 1950-60 1940-60
               Study Shore
                         Structures/acre
                             Zone A: Tidal                 100      150     200       043     .030      .036
                             Zone B: Tidal- 10 feet        100      126     166     .024      .029      .026
                             Zone C: 10-20 feet            100      126     155     .024      .022        023
                         Ocean Frontage
                             Developed                     100      128     161     .026      .024      .025
               Adjacent Areas
                         Coastal Counties
                             Population                    100      119     154     .018      .027      .023
                             Dwelling Units                100      125     170     .023      .032      .028
                         Megalopolis
                             Population                    100      112     133     .012      .018      .015
                             Dwelling Units                100      119     150       018     .024      .021

                         The indices of development derived from the sample       estimates are also compared
               with indicators from adjacent areas in an effort to see whether the growth along the shore
               has been unprecedented. Dwelling units are used as a crude approximation for comparison
               with the number of structures counted in the sample estimates. These data suggest that
               growth of the coastal counties exceeds the rest of Megalopolis, but growth on the outer
               shore does not appear to be excessive in comparison to the surrounding coastal counties.

                                                                                                                                             449

                                   Structures provide only crude estimates of occupance, but they could not be
                       differentiated from the air photos. However, the land use data collected for the
                       intensive studies can be used to suggest the over-all variation in occupance. . These are
                       @presented in table 1-9 as a composite distribution. - The density of structures is more
                       intense in the study sites than the sample areas, as the former were chosen, with one
                       exception, to provide areas of use rather than empty shore. But there is no reason to
                       think that the relative distribution shown in table 1-9 is a-typical of coastal occupance.

                                                                             Table 1-9

                                             Composite Distribution of Land Uses by Hazard Zones,
                                                                      15 Study Sites, 1963

                                                                      Percentage of Total Within Each Zone
                     Land Uses                   Zone A              Zone B                Zone. C              Zone D               Zone. F
                                             Acres       Strs.    Acres        Strs.    Acres       Strs. Acres i@Strs. Acres                  6trs.
                     (1) Industrial                                  1. 1       0.7        2.8       1.0                             0.3         0.7
                     (2) Commercial                                  4. 1       13.0       7.0      16.3        2.2        8.2       2.6        15.2
                     (3)  Public                4.4       18.2        3.5       1.5        1.7       0.6        0.6        0.7       3.6        1. 3
                             Bui I dings
                     (4)  Public                3. 1                 12.8                  4.7       0.2        12.4                 9.1
                             'Recreation
                     (5)  PTivate               2.0        9. 1       3.8       0.3        1.8       0.1        0.6        @0. 2     3.3         0.3
                              Recreation
                     (6)  Residential           0.2       72.7       25.8      83.2       36.2      81.5       21.4       90.8       14.9      80.8
                     (7)  Agriculture                                  1.9      1.3        4.8       0.2        3.2        0.1       1. 3        1.7
                     (8) Undeveloped            90.0                 47.0                 41.1                                       65.0
                                                                                         1(                                                  100. Oi
                                                  5                          9, S. @               6,631     5, 52      2,3601     7,413        7
                               (n                                4      6 @10077L4,298
                     Totals (percent)         100.0      100.0          .0               100.0      99.9     100  * 0 1100.0!      100.0
                                  umber)     6,9 4           22    1,25                                    1    7                1           7, 501
                                                                   100

                                   A high proportion of all Land remains undeveloped and the dominant use is
                       residential followed by recreational Land use. Residential structures fill most of the
                       developed land, with commercial structures a distant second. The variation in Land use
                       and development between zones does not seem significant except for the small amount of
                       residential land use in the tidal zone and the lower densities previously noted.

                                   In sum then, much of the study shore is still undeveloped: the rest is primarily
                       used for recreation and associated residence and commerce. The distributions of struc-
                       tures favors Less darnage, but the differential in growth rates suggest increasing future
                       damage on the equivalent of a large.city that Lies exposed to the sea below the 10-foot
                       contour. These then are measures of extent and rates of change; an understanding of
                       process requires a more intensive view.

              450

                                                     CHAPTER II

                               PATTERNS OF COASTAL OCCUPANCE: A TYPOLOGY

                       The fifteen selected study sites have a wide range of hazard and settlement
              characteristics, and could be classified in a variety of ways. White it is not a purpose
              of this study to formulate a classification of coastal hazard and settlement situations that
              could be applied to at[ coastal areas, it is useful for descriptive and heuristic purposes
              to group the sites together into types. This typology is based principally on settlement
              characteristics and includes four types. These have been designated as the village shore,
              the urban shore, the summer shore, and the empty shore.

                       The village shore.    Typically this is an old established form of coastal settle-
              ment in i@h_ich fishing and agriculture are the chief means of livelihood. Recent decades
              are characterized by a decline in the importance of agriculture and commercial fishing,
              and a slow growth of sport fishing, and summer residential development primarily for
              recreational purposes.

                       The urban shore.    Two of the case studies include densely developed urban
              areas. In these examples a long history of coastal settlement has been associated with
              tile growth of a city and includes various activities that are more or less oriented to the sea.

                       The summer shore.      By far the largest number of case studies are examples of
              summer residential settlements primarily established to utilize the recreational amenities
              of coastal areas. The formerly underdeveloped sections of coastline between villages and
              towns are now being rapidly developed as summer shore resorts.

                       The empty shore, This type refers to those rapidly diminishing stretches of
              coast that have not yet been incorporated into one of the other three types.

                       The fifteen case study sites are listed by settlement types in table 1-3. There
              are four examples of village shore, two of urban shore, eight of summer shore, and one
              case of empty shore. In each study a description of physiography and hazard has been
              included with a history of settlement and land use change to provide a prognosis of future
              change 'intensification and insights into the human use of the shore.

              The Village Shore

              1.  Point Judith, Rhode Islandl

                       Point Judith is a promontory on the western side of the mouth of Narragansett
              Bay. The study site extends along 8. 3 mites of Rhode Island coastline between Moonstone

                       1 Field work by Robert Gardula and Roger Kasperson. We are indebted to the
              following person who supplied information; Mr. Cotter.

                                                                                                                      '451

                    Beach on Block Island Sound and Black Point on Rhode -Island Sound. Included are the
                    southern part of Point Judith Neck, awide peninsula which extends south along
                    Narragansett Bay, and two Large drowned embayments called Point Judith Pond and Potter
                    -Pond. A number of small fishing villages are found in the study area, namely, Point
                    Judith, Galilee, Matunuk, and Snug Harbor. More recent communities include Scar-
                    borough Hills, and Carpenters Beach.. (See figure I in the appendix. Th.0 site@ extends
                    inland for two miles and its total area is 1, 750 acres.

                              Physiography.     Point Judith can be divided into three main physiographic types.
                    About 83 percent of the area is characterized by a series of bedrock.necks and scattered
                    islands which rise slightly above the valleys and depressions which have been drowned by
                    the sea, A thin veneer of glacial till covers these scattered sections of the mainland.
                    Except in the north,the surface topography is gently rolling with hills reaching an elevation
                    of 80 feet above mean sea level. The western part of the site beyond Potter Pond is a nearly
                    flat plain with a thick soil cover. Much of this area is under. cultivation right to the coast.
                    The northern part of the study site forms part of the Large Kingston moraine wh          ich is a
                    continuation of the Inner or Harbor Hill moraine of Long Island that extends eastward
                    under Long Island Sound and across central Rhode Island. - The topography on this moraine
                    is very rough with numerous small hills and depressions created by the meLtwaters of the
                    glacier and ice blocks left by the retreating glacier. A small section of this type of topo-
                    graphy is found in the northern part of the Point Judith study site. Point Judith Pond and
                    Potter Pond represent two large glacially scoured depressions which have been invaded by
                    the sea to form irregularly shaped tidal marine estuaries with one narrow inlet from the
                    ,sea. (See.cross section. figure 2- 1.) Numerous low rocky islands, and peninsulas divide
                    these so-called "ponds" into many sections. If the sea had not invaded this region, these
                    Low areas would most probably be Large fresh water lakes.

                              A second physiographic type making up 13 percent of this study site consists of
                    small sections of widely scattered marshland behind the barrier spits near the coast and
                    around the islands in the tidal estuaries. A few sections of the mainland, particularly on
                    Point-Judith Pond, have Low swampy areas subject to inundation during severe storms.

                              Narrow sandy beaches from 150 to 200 feet wide constitute the remaining 4            per -
                    cent of the study site. The widest and most gentle beaches are along Rhode.1sland Sound.
                    Scarborough State Beach is three-quarters of a mile Long and can be considered a bayhead
                    beach because between the beaches are rocky headlands and offshore shoals. These bed-
                    rock outcrops are very dangerous to both ships and bathers. During severe storms both
                    beaches and shoals take a heavy pounding from large storm waves.

                              On the Black Island side of the study site a sand spit has grown across Point
                    Judith Sound forming a baymouth bar. The inlet or beachway which cuts through this
                    sandbar connecting Point Judith Pond with the sea has been lined with jetties to keep the
                    entrance stabilized. The projected depth through dredging is 14 feet. Large breakwaters
                    built seaward from the beachway form the Point Judith Harbor of Refuge.

              452

                         Materials which. makeup the Point Judith study site include thin -ti I Is, (clay and
               boulders) across the entire area with thicker morainic deposits in the north. Silts and
               clays are found in the bays and ponds. The narrow beach zone is composed of medium
               grained sands.

                         Most of the study site falls into two broad vegetation classes: mixed deciduous
               and coniferous forests and cropland. Areas near the water bodies have marsh grass or
               are without vegetation.

                         Storm hazard.     The Point Judith study site has a high degree of hazard from
               coastal flooding. The Corps of Enfineers report a, flood of record in the 1938 hurricane
               at 12. 3 feet above mean sea level.     Field interviews in 1963 indicated a flood of record
               ranging from 9. 5 feet to 13 feet with most of the line'of maximum inundation at approxi-
               mately 12 feet above mean sea level.

                         Nine of the thirty-six storms recorded over a 30-year period resulted in heavy
               damage. The greatest damage is usually associated with hurricanes. The three most
                                                                                                               2
               damaging storms are recalled by residents as the hurricanes of 1938, 1944 and 1954.
               During the 1938 hurricane sections of the beach were cut away 25 feet with an over-all
               lowering of the beach 3 to 4 feet. Bluffs were cut    back at least 20 feet with the eroded
               material washed inland. Sea walls and jetties were unable to check the waves. One
               hundred people lost their lives and about 1. 000 cottages and buildings were destroyed,
               in the vicinity of Point Judith.

                        .In all three storms,  frontal structural damage with the undermining of founda-
               tions and destruction of grounds was a common feature along the immediate shore, Also,
               extensive marina and boat damage took place at the fishing village of Galilee, and many of
               the homes we[[ behind the shore had flooded cellars.

                         Movement during such storms is dangerous because many roads become
               impassable as storm waters cross the sand barriers and flood.the inner water bodies.
               The seawall which surrounds the harbor of refuge is overtopped in large storms and the
               fishing piers, such as Narragansett Pier on Long Island Sound, suffer heavy damage in
               major hurricanes. @ The Weather Bureau's Storm Surge Warning Maps3 recommend
               evacuation.of all low coastal areas during severe storms to high ground 15 to 20 feet above
               sea level.

                         I U. S. Army Corps   *of. Engineers, South Shore, State of Rhode Island Beach
               Erosion Control Study, 81st, Congress, 2nd Sess. , House Doc. 490, 1950, pp. 12-17, and
               U. S. Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study, South
               Kingston and Westerly, Rhode Island, U. S. Army Engineer Division,. New England Corps
               of Engineers,. Boston, Mass.,. Nov'. 13, 1957, pp. 3-5.
                         2
                           U. S. Corps of Engineers, op. cit. , South Shore,. State of Rhodelsland . . . .
               pp. 14- 17.
                         3 U. S. . Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Storm Surge Warning Maps,
               Nos. 8 and.9, August, 1962.

             STUDY SITE NO. 1                                                         SNUG
                                                                                          HARBOR

                                                                                                            POINT                                JERUSALEM
                                                                                                            JUDITH                                                      ATLANTIC
                                                                                                             POND                                                        OCEAN
                                        MEAN SEA LEVEL

                                                                                                                      A                         8, c                        A

                              ZONE                         ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE TO OVER 20 FEET              BELOW MEAN HIGH         ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE WITH       BELOW MEAN HIGH
                                                                                                             TIDE                    A FEW AREAS OVER 10 FEET        TIDE

                                                         DISSECTED UPLAND COVERED WITH SMALL HILLS           TIDAL MARSH AREA        SAND FLATS WITH LOW DUNES       SANDY BEACH WITH
                        GEOMORPHIc TYPE                  AND DEPRESSIONS.    BEDROCK COVERED WITH            AND SALT WATER          NEAR THE COAST.    SOME FILL    A NARROW SHELF
                                                         GLACIAL TILL                                        POND-SfLTS AND                                          OFF SHORE
                                                                                                             CLAYS

                         TYPE OF HAZARD                  SOME FLOODING In AREAS NEAR THE PONDS               FLOODING DURING         FLOODiNG AND SOME               FLOODING, EROSION
                                                                                                             SEVERE STORMS           EROSION                         AND DESTRUCTION
                                                                                                                                                                     OF STRUCTURE-8

                       OEGREE OF HAZARD                                   Mi Noli                                  MINOR             SEVERE, HEAVY DAMAGE            SEVERE, HEAVY
                                                                                                                                                                     DAMAGE

                           STRUCTURES                    MST OF UPLAND HAS FEW STRUCTURES EXCEPT                    FEW                      MANY                         FEW
                                                         AT SNUG HARBOR

                                                                                                                                     FILLING IN OF MARSH AREAS,
                          ADJUSTMENTS                                        FEW                                    FEW              ESCAPE ROAD, MANY              JETTIES, BREAK-
                                                                                                                                     INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTMENTS        WATERS 'AND GROINS

                                                           FIGURE 2-1.    DIAGRAMMATIC GROSS SECTION, POINT JUDITH, R6011 ISLAND

                                                                                                              453

                            Coastal, changes.   Coastal changes at the Point Judith study site have, resulted
                  -'from storm action and human attempts to reduce their effects. Beaches,' cliffs,and dunes
                   are cut back during severe storms but the beach is usually restored during the summer
                   months when calmer conditions prevail. However, there is a gradual over-all retreat of
                   the coast taking place.

                            The Largest structure built to keep off the fury of the storms is a large 10-foot
                   high breakwater which surrounds the Point Judith Harbor of Refuge. The breakwater is
                   over 2-1/2 miles in Length and is divided into three sections allowing for two wide
                   entrances to the enclosed area of about one squa  re mile.

                            Settlement history.    The area was included in a purchase of land from Local
                   Indians in 1657. Settlements began shortly thereafter and were at first largely agri-
                   cultural in nature. South Kingston was set off and incorporated as a separate town in 1722.1

                            The fishing industry f Lourished during the 19th century and large catches of striped,
                   bass, white perch, smelt, and herring were taken from Point Judith Pond. . In addition
                   numerous fine quality oysters were marketed in Boston, Providence and Newport.

                            In recent decades the fishing industry has declined and has not been completely
                   replaced in the local economy as a source of income by tourism.

                            Land use changes      There has been a steady,population growth in the vicinity of
                   Point Judith over the past 25 years. The population of Narragansett, the nearest minor
                   civil division has grown from 1, 560 in 1940 to 3, 444 in 1960. This growth is reflected in
                   an increase of single family residences in the study area from 1, 729 in 1951 to 1, 919 in
                   1963. . This increase is mainly in the form of summer cottages. There has been no other
                   growth in the area and in the case of some types of land use a decline has been recorded.
                   A generalized map of land use is shown in the overlay of figure 1 (appendix). Recorded
                   changes of land use are given in table 2- 1.

                            Most of the new residential development has been out of the flood hazard area and
                   above the 10-foot contour. Major growth has occurred in three areas. (1) North of
                   Carpenter's settlement and beach, older established residential areas have been more
                   densely developed. (2) East of Sand Hill Cove beach a subdivision has been nearly doubled
                   .in size., (3) Steady growth has occurred in the residential area to the west of Scarborough
                   Beach.

                            Two  settlements of cottages, trailers, and their associated camping grounds have
                   fluctuated in size but are now approximately the same as in 1951.

                            Growth in the area has been stimulated by its accessibility via national routes I
                   and 1A and by the attractions of sport fishing. The pace of activity is highly seasonal,

                            1 J. R. Cole, History of Was hitigton and Kent Counties,, Rhode Island. NewYork,
                   W@ W. Preston & Co., 1889.

             454

                                                      Table 2 -1

                  Point Judith, Rhode Island
                                     MajorLand Use Changes by Hazard Zones      1
                  Zone          Land Use2             No. Structures                  No. Acres

                                                    1951    1963   chanEe       1951    1963   chanEe

                  A             8 Undeveloped         0       0        0        232     232         0
                  Tidal         Total                 0       0        0        253     253         0

                  B             2 Commercial         31      31        0          12     13       +8
                                6a Residential      244     263       +8          75     79       +5
                                8 Undeveloped        19       0       na3         66     55      -17
                  Tidal-101     Total               303     303        0        192.    192         0

                  C             2 Commercial         25      25        0           5      7      +40
                                6a Residential      789     808       +2          77     88      +14
                                8 Undeveloped        67       0       na        137     124      -10
                  101-201       Total               887     839       -5        307     307         0

                  D             2 Commercial         16      16        0           2      2         0
                                6a Residential      696     848       +22       207     276      +33
                                7 Agricultural        0       0        0        184     170       -8
                                8 Undeveloped       152       0       na        600     545       -9
                  > 201         Total               876     876        0        998     998         0

                  F             2 Commercial         31      31        0          12     13       +8
                                6a Residential      330     356       +8          77     81       +5
                               @7 Agricultural        0       0        0           3      3         0.
                                8 Undeveloped        26-      0       na        294     287       -2
                  Flooded       Total               396     396        0        44o     44o         0

                  All           1 Industrial.         3       3        0           2      2         0
                  Zones            Commercial        72      72        0          19     22      +16
                                3 Public             11      11        0          .5      5         0
                                4 Recreational'       2       2        0          35     43      +23
                                5a Recreational      11      11        0           0      0         0
                                5b Recreational       0       0        0          26     24       w-8
                                6a Residential      1729    1919      +11       361     445      +23
                                7 Agricultural        0       0        0        267     253       -5
                                8 Undeveloped       238       0       na        1035    956       -8
                                Total               2o66    2018      -2        1750    1750        0

                        1 Minor land  uses cmitted and    total may exceed land uses    enumerated.
                        2 See.detailed land use classification, Table 1-5.
                        3 na -- Calculation not appropriate.

                                                                                                               455

                   however, and. the commercial fishing industry is not large enough to support a big
                   winter-time population.    A Local zoning ordinance may also have helped to inhibit coastal
                   development.

                            Adjustments to hazard.    There is a high Level of awareness of the,storm hazard
                   in Point Judith and this is reflected in a high degree of adjustment in both public and private
                   sectors. At the public.levet storm hazard areas have been plotted and a zoning ordinance
                   is in force in South Kingston. This flood plain zoning ordinance is one of the very few of
                   its kind in coastal areas, although such regulations are more common in riverine flood
                   plains. The law stipulates that " . . . no floor for overnight human occupancy shaLt have
                   an elevation of less than 20 feet above mean sea, Level. " Some filling of marsh areas for
                   residential development has taken place, but the new zoning Law is Likely to slow the pace
                   of future development. A second public adjustment is the construction of a new road in
                   .1955 by which the residents of Great Island and the fishing village of Galilee may escape
                   -to higher ground on Point Judith Neck. . Known as the Escape Route this road is higher than
                   the maximum flood of record.

                            In addition there are a number of private adjustments. Several new houses have
                   been built on stilts; a small number of property owners have placed stone and concrete
                   rip-rap or small home-made bulkheads at the front of their houses. One man has used
                   snow fences and coniferous trees to help hold the sand dune in place.

                            These adjustments reflect a high degree of awareness and a fear of storm
                   damage.

                            No one here expressed interest in going down to the shore "to see the water
                   come up" as.in.Fairfie[d and Montauk. Rather,, many inhabitants viewed life in Point
                   Judith as distinctly risky. Since much of the development in the high hazards areas
                   predates the 1954 storm many people had experienced damage from hurricane Carol in
                   1954. The heightened awareness a1sc affects Land use decisions although it is not easy
                   to determine to what degree. The Local zoning ordinance with its minimum requirements
                   for floor elevation obviously has some effect, but many people are inclined to stay away
                   from the most hazardous areas anyway. The feeling of insecurity in Point Judith is high.
                   .Many inhabitants expressed the need for more protection and complaints were made in
                   Galilee and Jerusalem that escape route provisions were inadequate to prevent them
                   being cut off in a high storm.

                            Evacuation is a common adjustment when storm warnings are received. . Trailers
                   on a camp site close to the beach are habitually towed to higher land half a mile away.

                            Future Development.     The potential of the Point Judith area for further
                   recreational development seems high. At present there are three state beaches compris-
                   ing approximately 50 acres. Two of these which may be described as "family beaches"
                   (Sand Hill Cove and East Matunuk) are seldom used to capacity and compared with many
                   other beaches on the eastern seaboard they could accommodate many more people. . The
                   third beach (Scarborough) is predominantly used by teenagers.

            456

                      In addition to the public beaches there are about five privately operated beach
             ,areas which also appeared to be highly used during the duration of field work in the area.
             The potential for further growth undoubtedly exists. Marinas and motels could be
             developed, but so far the wave of dense coastal development has not reached Point Judith
             which remains a village shore.

                      Much of the land that is potentially developable is in private ownership, some of
             it infarmland. Areas of public ownership include the Coast Guard Station at the tip of
             Point Judith and the U. S. Army Reservation off Point Judith road.

                    * Point Judith typifies a not uncommon pattern of coastal development. The nuclei
             of historically important fishing villages provide cores around which recreational pur-
             suits slowly grow as fishing and agriculture decline.

                      Severe damage in the past is associated with a high degree of awareness
             among present inhabitants and a wide range of adjustments to hazard. Moreover the
             adoption of a zoning ordinance for part of the area (South Kingston) gives some assurance
             that newcomers to the area will not move into high hazard areas in ignorance of the hazard.
             Further development is likely to be concentrated above the 10-foot contour, and a rapid
             increase in flood damage potential seems unlikely.

             2.   Wellfleet,. Massachusettsi

                      Wellfleet is a village community on the outer Cape Cod peninsula. This second
             example of the village shore type of development is seven mites north of Orleans and
             ten miles south of Provincetown. The area of 2, 328 acres is shown in figure 2,* 2a in the
             appendix. It includes Wellfteet Harbor on the Cape Cod Bay side of the peninsula and a
             stretch of the. Cape Cod National Seashore on the Atlantic Ocean side.

                      Physiography.   The largest part of the area (about 82 percent) consists of rolling
             hi [is and depressions with a relative relief of from 50 to 100 feet above mean sea level.
             A few sections of the study site reach 150 feet. This rolling upland represents a glacial
             moraine with scattered kames and kettle holes making a very iriegular, poorly drained
             surface. The highest areas. of the upland are on the eastern side,where large kettle holes
             are fiL.led with water forming rounded ponds such as Gull Pond, Great Pond, and Long
             Pond. Along the Atlantic coast a long, gently curving beach is backed by 50-to 100-foot
             high cliffs. On the western side of the study site the upland areas are more broken up
             with tidal marshes between the islands. Spits and bars project from the islands, and in
             .some areas, nearly close off the tidal Rats. The resulting coast on the west is a series of
             coves, bays, and harbors. Most of the shoreline in this region consists of narrow beaches
             backed by. morainic cliffs that are slowly being cut back and smoothed by the waves and
             currents. No bedrock is exposed at the surface.

                      1 Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
             following person who supplied information; Mr. William Douns.

                                                                                                       457

                          Except for the town of WeLlfleet which is situated on one of the-inner bays, the
                  uplands are Largely unsettled. The very coarse tills made up of boulder clays are
                  difficult to work and poorly drained. Most lof the structures are residences found near
                  the beaches or commercial structures along the major highways. Large sections of the
                  WeLffieet study site are included in the new Cape Cod National Seashore which will be under
                  development for a number of years.

                          The second major physiographic type is the marsh area which make up, 13 percent
                  of the study area. .(See cross sectionfigure 2-2. ) Through time the fine silts and clays
                  have been removed from the uplands and carried into the tidal Lagoons surroun di ng the
                  islands. Extensive tidal flats have been changed into salt marshes and then into dry [and
                  with the help of both man and nature. Evidence that the coves and bays are filling exists
                  as sailing ships, which used to be able to go in and out of WeLlfleet harbor without difficulty,
                  now need to follow narrow dredged channels.

                          'Very little filling of the marsh areas for residential development has taken-place.
                  However, the construction of roads and railroads across the marshes has promoted fill-
                  ing. An example is along Herring River, where a road-railroad bridge, acting as a partial
                  dam, has cut down the flow of tidal water into the inner marsh.

                          The third physiographic division, making up about 5 percent of the study site
                  consists of the beaches and sand dunes along the immediate coast. The 2. 4 miles of
                  beach on the Atlantic coast called La Count Hollow Beach and Cahoon Hollow Beach are
                  representative of the beaches found along much of the Outer Cape. Morainic cliffs, in
                  places 115 feet high, are almost vertical above a beach that averages 100 feet wide. Here
                  is found some of the most spectacular coastal topography along the eastern coast of the
                  United States.

                          In winter the beach not only retreats toward the cliffs, but very Large waves and
                  high tides will cross the beach and cut the cliffs back. John Zeigler and associates at the
                  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutiion have been studying the Outer Cape. Cod beaches
                  for several years. They find after studying nine storms and two hurricanes that Outer
                  Cape Cod beaches can be cut back vertically as much as 9 feet and 6--yer 520 cubic feet of
                                                                 1
                  material can be removed during one storm tide.    Because of the strong Littoral currents
                  moving the eroded material north to the Cape Cod spit and because of the steep gradient
                  of the beach and foreshore this beach can be very dangerous to bath &s when strong winds
                  and large waves occur.

                          The beaches found in other sections of the study site are not as large or as well
                  developed. The beach bordering.Cape Cod Bay is narrow wherebacked by cliffs. Where
                  spits and bars occur the beaches are wider and less steep. Erosion is also a problem in
                  this region but coastal retreat is not as great as on the Atlantic side.

                            J. M. Zeigler, C. R. Hayes and S. D. Tuti le: "Beach Changes During Storms on
                  Outer Cape,Cod,.Mass. " journal of Geo[og , Vo  L. 67, No. 3,1959, pp. 318-336.

             458

                       Materials within the study site include coarse, unstratified, glacially deposited
              gravels and clays on the uplands. These deposits are covered with a thin veneer of silt
              and sand on the surface. Soft muds and clays are found in the bays and marshes, and
              medium grained sands cover the beaches. Mayo Beach near the town of Wellfleet is an
              example of a harborbeach with fine sands and clays.

                       Vegetation consists predominantly of pines and oaks. In places where the trees
              are exposed to high winds and storms, the trees are stunted.  Marsh grass is found
              around the edges of the bays and in the tidal lagoons. . Dune grasses help hold the sand on
              the Cape Cod Bay side of the coast but has difficulty in holding sand on the steep slopes on
              the ocean side of the cape.

                      . Storm hazard.  The Weltfleet area includes part of the exposed coastline of
              outer Cape Cod and so the storm frequency is high. Only moderate amounts of damage
              occur because the high morainic cliffs enable all waterfront property to be located well
              beyond-the reach of storm waves. Waterfront property in the village of Welifteet itself
              may be flooded but it faces onto the relatively sheltered Cape Cod Bay.

                       Two-and three-day "north easter s " are the most severe storms hitting the area.
              Hurricanes are infrequent and cause negligible damage. The northeasters are so frequent,
              however, that the number of storms recorded in the vicinity of Wellfleet is higher than at
              any other study site, except Dennis, also on Cape Cod.

                       The area in the Wellfleet region subject to coastaL flooding is not large. However,
              Crane's map of coastal flooding in Barnstable County shows the town of Wellfteet as a
              major damage area and several marsh areas bordering Wellfleet harbor as subject to
              probable minor damage.1 Most of the upland is well above   the 20-foot conto ur.

                       The town of Wellfteet has been inundated when high tides and severe storms
              coincide. But because of its protected location, the inundation is not accompanied by
              storm waves or sudden tidal surges. Flooding of cellars is the worst damage from any
              of the storms, . and in most cases, wind does much more damage than the sea. The United
              States Weather Bureau's storm surge map does not depict the Wellfleet study site as a
              region subject to severe storm surges. 2

                       The flooding of the tidal marshes around Wellfleet Harbor may cover roads
              leading to rocky points but few structures receive damage. On the ocean side wind damage
              to structures is more severe than cliff erosion. Cliff erosion is such a slow process that
              most land owners can make adjustments well ahead of cliff removal.

                         Donald A. Crane: "Coastal Flooding in Barnstable County, Cape Cod,
              .Massachusetts, " Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, Bulletin W. R. No. 2, 500-
              4-63- 935311,. March 1963,,,Table 1, p. 8.
                       2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Storm Surge Warning Map.
              No. 5, Aug. 1962.

                                                                                                                                                                   CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE
              STUDY SITE NO. 2                                                                                               TOWN OF
                                          CAPE        GREAT                                                                    WELLFLEET                                GREAT   CAHOON              E
                                          COD          ISLAND          WELLFLEET                                                               DUCK                      POND     HOLLOw       ATLANTIC
                                                                                                                                               COVE                                          CH     OCEAN
                                                                         HARBOR
                MEAN SEA IEVEL            B!jA Y_

                                             A                              A                                                                                                                     A

                                          BELOW      ABOVE        BELOW MEAN HIGH        MEAN  HIGH TIDE       ABOVE THE 20-FOOT         PtAll:-01,60 ABOVE THE 20-FOOT CONTOUR                BELOW
                      ZONE             MEAN HIGH     20 FEET             TIDE            TO ABOVE 20 FEEI          CONTOUR               riaz To                                             MEAN HIGH
                                            TIDE                                                                                         10 FEET                                               TIDE

                                          BEACH      GLACIAL        TIDAL MARSH         LOW HILLS WITH         RoLLiNG HILLSUP TO          TIDAL     ROLLING MORAINIC BILLS UP       TO    STEEP 50-
               GEOMORPHIC 7`YPE           AND          TILL          UNFILLED           SMALL VALLEYS          150 FEET COVERED            MARSH     150 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL.             FOOT CLIFFS
                                          CLIFFS                                                               WITH GLACIAL 'FILL                    LARGE PONDS                           AND BEACH

                                       EROSION           NO      HiGn WATER BACKS         OW AREAS 10                                    FLOODING                                            IMMEDIATE
                                       OF BEACH       FLOOD      FAR UP INTO THE        ZONE B SUBJECT                                   OF LOW                                              BEACH AND
                TYPE OF HAZARD         CLIFFS IN      HAZARD     MARSH AREAS DURING TO SOME FLOODING             NO FLOOD HAZARD          AREAS          NO FLOOD HAZARD                     CLIFFS
                                       SEVERE                    STOR14S                                                                                                                     SUBJECT TO
                                       STORMS                                                                                                                                                DAMAGE

                                       MODERATE                  SOME HAZARD FROM
               DEGREE OF HAZARD        BEACH           NONE      FLOOD?NG                  ONLY F41 NOR                 NONE               MINOR                    NONE                     SEVERE
                                       HAZARD

                   STRUCTURES             NONE       VERY FEW            FEW                    FEW          Town OF WtLLFLEET             Nou       ONLY A FEW SUMMER NOMES HEAR              NONE
                                                                                                                                                     CLIFFS

                 ADJUSTMENTS                      Few                                FEW                               FEW                                            FEW

                                       I                         I

                                                                 FIGURE 2-9.      DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, WELLFLEET, MASSACHUSETTS

                                                                                                               459

                            Because of the sparsity of settlement along much of the coast in the Wetlfleet area,
                  it was difficult to establish a flood of record for the whole study sitei A Corps of Engineers
                  reportin         lists mean and spring tide maximums from 10 to 11. 6 feet above mean Low
                  water for the ocean side of the Cape, while the Massachusetts Water Resource Commission
                  Report2 lists 14. 5 feet above mean low water as the highest elevation of flooding. . This
                  maximum tide was observed in the 1938 hurricane. Field interviews indicated that 14. 5
                  feet is a close estimate.

                            . Settlement history.3 In 1644, an exploration party was sent fro m Plymouth Colony
                  to determine settlement possibilities on the Outer Cape. It was reported that it was not
                  productive land and could support only 20 or 25 families. Otherwise, they felt that the area
                  offered no possibilities for future expansion. Nevertheless, a number of settlers entered
                  the area and settled on the more attractive farming sites. These early settlements were
                  concentrated on the upland area of Chequesset Neck and at the head of Duck Creek.

                            By 1722, the population of this area had expanded su  fficientLy for Billingsgate,
                  later to become Weltfleet, to be set off as a separate parish. . Despite initial settlement
                  for agricultural purposes, the population quickly turned to the abundance of fish in
                  Wellfleet Harbor for its livelihood and the derivation of the name Billingsgate for the town
                  stems from the famous Billingsgate fish'market in London.

                            Throughout the first half of the 18th century, no village center evolved in the
                  town of Wellfleet. Rather, settlement in the town remained in self-sufficient units on
                  homesteads scattered along early roadways. Whaling and the fishing industry were the
                  only cash-producing ventures of the period -- some 20 to 30 whaling vessels being based
                  here and nearly all men of the town derived some income from the industry. Yet the
                  economy was firm enough to support a population increase of from 928 people in 1764 to
                  1235 in,1775.

                            This population now began to locate in the chief areas of the town -- along the
                  waterfront in response to maritime activity and along the old King's Highway. In addition
                  to these major population concentrations., smaller nodes, numbering perhaps 20 to 30
                  families, were found in Bi I lingsgate.Is land,. Duck Creek,, Griffith's1s land and Bound Brook
                  Island. These population localizations were in response to the fine harbors this area then
                  possessed.

                            Throughout the first half of the 1800's, only rough roads connected settlements
                  and the sea remained the chief means of travel. The King's Highway was the only major
                  road, and early commercial establishments grew up along this route servicing travelers.

                              Mass. Beach Erosion. Control Study: "Shore of Cape Cod between the Cape. Cod
                  Cana I and-Race- Point,. Provincetown, " Corps of. Engineers, H. D. #404.
                            2 Crane, op. cit. , p. 3.
                            .3 Based on field party notes assembled from various Locally available sources.

              460

                        The early 1800's were ye'ars.of greatly increasing industry in-Wellfteet. During
                this period, the salt industry grew rapidly, largely because Welifleet had acres of tidal
                marshLand on which to locate the works and a ready market in the local fishing industry
                which needed the salt to cure its catches. In 1837, 39 salt works were in operation, pro-
                ducing a total of 18, 000 bushels per year. After 185.0, however, the industry declined
                with the development of salt springs in New York and the lifting of the duties on imported
                salt.

                        The prosperity of this period must be attributed in large part to the fishing
                industry, which grew steadily and reached its zenith in the second half of the 19th'Century.
                In 1837, there were. 39 Wellf leet boats and 496 men employed in fishing, mostly for cod
                and mackerel. These boats required repairs and supplies, and the men who built and ran
                the wharves prospered in proportion to the fishermen.

                        Coincidental with the growth of commercial fishing was the depopulation of the
                island settlements and the centralization of the town around the Duck Creek area. The
                former harbors of these islands were fast sitting up and by about 1830 most of the fisher-
                men,who used them had moved their vessels and homes to deeper water of Duck Creek.
                As Duck Creek became the principal harbor, the great wharves began to appear. Central
                Wharf, built in 1863 was 300 feet long and did a thriving business. Last of the great
                wharves, Mercentile Wharf, was erected in. 1870, while even Blockfish Creek, harbor of
                ,South Wellfleet, had its own wharf where as many as 100 ships berthed. This general
                maritime prosperity was reflected in a series of small secondary and tertiary establish-
                ments which grew up along Commercial Street, the nucleus of the vil [age.

                        The Civil War indirectly, affected the Wellfleet area. Technological changes
                during the conflict led to the displacement of the smalt-boat type of commercial fishing
                carried on in Wellfleet. Metal-hulled ships and steam power made possible Longer
                voyages and faster delivery to market. In addition, local fishing grounds were being
                depleted., By 1870, the handwriting was on the wall. By 1890, the number of boats ,
                rotting ashore was greater than the number in the water. This Led to a decline in popula-
                tion in the area -- a trend which was not reversed until very recently.

                        The conversion of the Wetlfleet economy from fishing to tourism began with the
                events near the turn of the century. The first occurred when a wealthy resident of
                Wellfleet, Captain Baker, purchased Mercentile Wharf and spent $100, 000 converting the
                ,old wharf buildings into the elegant Chequesset Inn. Advertising drew clientele from as
                far away as the Middle West and WeLlfLeet soon became known as a "summer resort" as
                well as a fishing village. Captain Baker also organized the Wellfleet Yacht Club which
                helped to promote Wellfleet as a summer resort.

                        A second factor in the introduction of tourism in Wellfleet was the construction
                of the Fall River and Old Colony Railroad. It eventually captured virtually all the freight
                business and opened up Welifteet to the outside world. In We[Ifleet, the greatest single
                blow struck against maritime activity was the construction of the railroad dike across the
                mouth of Duck Creek, seating off the upper reaches of the Creek to ships of deep draft.

                                                                                                     461

                          Old-timers recall that;,in the first 10 or 12 years of this century, while
                 summer people were an accepted phenomenon, they were still so few in number as to be
                 a novelty. The growth of tourism is, of course, closely associated with the growth of
                 automobile use. Because of the decline of fishing and local industries, there were a large
                 number of vacant properties in town and so summer people began to buy permanent homes.
                 In fact, native owners thought that they were selling white elephants to these "city folk" at
                 ridiculously high prices. Wetlfleet natives also supplemen ted theirincome by renting rooms
                 and cottages and by 1920, Wellfteet was well on its way to.becoming a "summer town. " By
                       the year of first photo coverage, the village found its traditional hybrid settlement
                 pattern largely unchanged, but with functional changes in the use of the buildings, Retail
                 units in the vi I [age center catered to the. tourist trade while former residential homes .
                 -supplemented their income by serving as guest or tourist homes* The village as a whole,
                 however, retains its traditional settlement pattern and has not experienced rapid
                 commercialization or permanent population expansion.

                          Land use changes. There has been a substantial increase in the number of
                 structures in the 25-year period from 1938 to 1963@ Single family. residences (mostly
                 summer cottages) have increased from 143 to 307. Most of them are we[[ above the
                 flood hazard zone. The most significant increase in damage potential is in the growth of
                 commercial structures (mainly motels and guest houses) in Zone C within the reach of
                 extremely high storm waters. A new town wharf has also been constructed at Shirtail
                 Point. A map of land use is shown in the a@eriays 1D figures Z1. 2a. Recorded changes
                 of land use are given in table 2-2.

                        . Adjustmentsto hazard.   The perception of storm hazard in Wellfleet is not highly
                 developed. Public adjIustments are limited to a breakwater at the mouth of the inner
                 WellfLeet.Harbor and beachgrass plantings along the cliffs on the eastern shore. There are
                 very few private adjustments. 'These include the construction of one bulkhead. There is
                 greater concern about wind damage than water damage and precautions are taken to make
                 structures able to withstand high winds.

                          The relatively low level of knowledge of storm hazard is probably due to the
                 relatively small damage potential resulting from the favorable topographic conditions of
                 the area..

                          Future development.   Recently much of Wellfteet (75 percent of its area) has
                 been taken over by the Federal Government as part of the Cape Cod National Seashore.
                 Although the establishment of the Seashore had little effect by the summer of 1963, it
                 is expected that the National Seashore will eventually have a big impact upon service
                 industries in the area. Many more motels and restaurants and other tourist services are
                 likely to be built. In addition there are plans for developing the National Seashore itself
                 by the provision of traits, parking facilities, exhibits, and bathing facilities. This is not
                 Likely to create significant amounts of new damage potential, especially since most of the
                 developments are to be on the higher Atlantic side of the peninsula.

                          The future development of the Nationa I Seashore will result in increasing the
                 accessibility to WeLffleet since plans are now in motion to widen existing 2- and 3-lane

              462

                                                        Table  2-2

                   Wellfleet, Massachusetts
                                      Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones      1

                   Zone          Land Use               No. Structures                  No. Acres

                                                     1938    1963   change       1938    1963. change
                   A             5b Recreational        0       0        0          47      49       +4 2
                                 7 Agricultural         0       0        0          76       0       na
                                 8 Undeveloped          0       0        0        236     310       +31
                   Tidal         Total                  1       2     +100        377     375         0

                   B             5b Recreational        0       0        0          14      18      +29
                                 6a Residential         9      13      +44           2       8     +300
                                    Undeveloped         0       0        0        128     122        -5
                   Tidal-101     Total                  9      15      +67        155     155         0

                   C-            2 Commercial           6      36     +500           3       7     +133
                                 5b Recreational        0       0        0          15      12      -20
                                 6a Residential        68      87      +28          82    102       +24
                                 8 Undeveloped          0       0        0        270     250        -7
                   101-201       Total                 74     123      +66        386     390        +1

                   D             2 Commercial           3      57     +18oo         19      25      +32
                                 6a Residential        65     205     +215          62    192      +210
                                 8 Undeveloped          0       0        0       1327    1190       -10
                   > 20f         Total                 68     262     +285       141o    108          0

                   F            .2 Commercial           0      13        na          1       3     +300
                                 6a Residential        12      14      +17           2       4     +200
                                 8 Undeveloped          0       0        0        252     248       - -1
                   Flooded       Total                 12      27     +125        255     255         0

                   All           2 Commercial           9      95     +956          23      33      +44
                   Zones         3 Public               0       0        0           2       1      -50.
                                 4 Recreational         0       0        0          18      18        0
                                 5a Recreational        0       0        0          30      21      -23
                                 5b Recreational        0       .0       0          70      79      +13
                                 6a Residential       143     307     t115        148     304      +105
                                 7 Agricultural         0       0        0          76       0       na
                                 8 Undeveloped          0       0        0       1261    1872        -4
                                 Total                152     402     +163       2328    2328         0

                           Minor  land uses omitted    and total  may exceed land uses    enumerated.
                         2
                           na --  Calculation not appropriate.

                                                                                                                 463

                   roads into 6- lane super highways.'' The increase in the number of visits to the area is
                   likely to disrupt the cloistered character@ of WettfLeet and moveit very rapidly toward a
                   resemblance of the Lower Cape.

                             The potential for recreational development is greatest in the Cape Cod National
                   Seashore area. On the bay side much of the Land is in marshes and the existing town
                   beaches are used to capacity at the height of the season.

                             Nevertheless the location of the village of Wellfleet immediately adjacent to the,
                   National Seashore seems certain to involve it in major changes.

                             WelLfleet is an example of a village type of coastal development that has long had
                   some small tourist industry. . In the future it is likely to experience rapid conversion to
                   a summer shore type of development as the National Seashore is developed. . Future
                   developments are not likely to result in a large increase of damage potential largely due
                   to the favorable topographic features of the area and the fact that much low lying develop-
                   ment faces onto therelatively sheltered Cape.Cod Bay.

                   3.   Villa s,. New Jersey

                             Villas is an expanded viLlage-type coastal development. Its     Low income houses
                   are arranged along grid-pattern streets fronting onta Delaware Bay on the western side
                   of'the Cape May peninsula. This smallest of the study sites includes 1. 2 miles of
                   coastline and extends in a strip- 5 mile wide. The total area is 222 acres. (See
                   figure 3 in the appendix.)

                             Physiography. The entire area.of Villas is comprised of two basic Landform
                   types. . (See cross section ..figure 2-3.) A nearly f [at plain averaging between 10 and 20
                   feet above mean sea level makes up 62 percent of the site. This plain is composed of
                   coarse Pleistocene gravels with a thin silica sand veneer on the surface. Mixed oaks
                   and pines along with herbaceous plants are the predominant vegetation.

                             The remaining 38 percent of the study site is marshLand. Here silts and clays
                   are covered with high elephant grasses and herbaceous plants. The southern and
                   northern parts of this small area fringe on the housing development at Villas, to the south,
                   and Del Haven, to the north. The central part is the marshland which is crisscrossed with.
                   channels for control of mosquito breeding. A small creek, Fishing Creek, flows west
                   through the area to Delaware Bay.

                             The coastline at Villas is non-cliffed and regular in shape. The beach zone is
                   very narrow, less than 100 feet wide. It is made up of coarse gravels, silts, and sands.
                   Offshore the sediments become finer on the gentle slope that Leads into Delaware Bay.

                             1 Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
                   following person who supplied information; Mr.. James'Byington.

              464

               This coast is not a popular resort area for    tourists, but Miami Beach and Sunray Beaches
               are used by local residents. , Backing the beach is a narrow area of low 4 -to 5-foot high
               sand dunes covered mostly with American beach grass.

                        Storm hazard. Villas has a relatively low frequency of damaging storms.
               Large waves and tidal surges do not form in the sheltered Delaware Bay, although strong
               west winds sometimes pile water up against the shore and cause beach erosion and slow
               undermining of waterfront buildings. Wind damage is caused both by hurricanes and
               "northeasters", but wave damage is rare.

                        The flood of record for this stretch of the Delaware Bay coast      Line is about 9 feet
               above mean sea level. Since all of the study site, except the larger dunes near the coast,
               is below 9 feet, flooding is a potential danger although it would be from relatively still
               water without strong wave action.

                      ,@ ISettlement history.   Though the very earliest development in Cape May occurred
               not far from present day Villas, it appears that there was little activity in the Villas area
               until sometime in the late 1800's. A map of Cape May County in 1872 shows a few scattered
               houses which appear to be farm houses. Probably fishing, oystering and clamming were
               carried on at that time also.

                        Modern development in the Villas area and more specifically in the study area
               did not commence until the late 1920's when a man named Millman bought'a large tract of
               land and began building houses suitable for'seasonal and permanent residences. Villas is
               today largely the result of Millman efforts.

                        Land use changes: -There has been a steady growth of single family residences
               in Villas over the past 8 years. Their number has increased from 221 in 1956 to 292 in
               1963. The new developments are largely below the ten-foof contour and could be flooded
               by exceptionally high water. The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 3
               (appendix). Recorded changes of land use are given in table 2-3.

                        Adjustments to Hazard. The Level of concern about storm hazards in Villas is
               very low. 'A few people are affected by beach erosion and have privately made adjustments
               by construction of bulkheads or ri     rap. Public measures include the construction of
               several jetties into Delaware Bay.      A few dunes along the shoreline. have been-removed
               to make way for beach front cottages. In addition sluices have been built to keep salt       .
               water but of the marshland area.s.

                        Future development.       The character of Villas has not changed significantly in
               recent decades and will probably continue for the foreseeable future as a relatively low
               income summer resort and retirement area. The fishing has changed from a commercial
               venture to sport fishing for summer tourists who are able to enjoy a low cost vacation at
               a rather poor quality beach.
                          U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: 'New Jersey Coast of Delaware Bay from Cape
               May Canal to Maurice River,     Beach Erosion Control Study, 87th Congress,. Ist Session,
               House Doc. No. 196, 1961, pp. 20-28.

                STUDY SITE NO. 3

                                                                                                                                                DEL HAVEN EAST
                               DELAWARE               WEST
                                  BAY                SANDY
                                                     BEACH
                     MEAN SEA LEV@_EL

                                                     A                    8                          A, 8                                               B

                          ZONE              BELOW MEAN HIGH     BETWEEN   MEAN HIGH       BELOW KEAN-HIGH TIDE             BETWEEN 14EAN HIGH   'T I BE A NO 10-FOOT CONTOUR
                                            TIDE                TIDE AND 10 FEET          TO 10 FEET

                    GEomoRPHIc TYPE              BEACH             SAND DUNES.           BRACKISH MARSH      SILTS          FLAT TERRACE    LAND    SANDS AND GRAVELS
                                                                                         AHD@CLAYS

                                            EROSION OF          MINOR EROSION TO         SALT WATER INUNDATION
                    TYPE OF HAZARD          BEACH DURING        THE LOW DUNES            DURING SEVERE STORMS                               NO FLOOD HAZARD
                                            SEVERE STORMS                                LITTLE FLOODING

                    DEGREE OF HAZARD       MODERATE BEACH             MINOR              ONLY MINOR HAZARD FROM                                         NONE
                                            HAZARD                                       FLOODING

                       STRUCTURES                 FEW                VERY FEW                        FEW                                 SMALL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

                          ADJUSTMENTS       ONLY VERY MINOR              FEW                      MINOR                                                   FEW

                                                                         Foram 2-3       DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, VILLASp NEW JERSEY

                                                                                                                       465

                                                                 Table 2-3

                         Villas, New    Jersey
                                              Major Land Use Changes by Hazard           Zonesl

                         Zone           Land Use                 No. Structures                      No. Acres

                                                             1956 1963         change         1956,    1963    change

                         A              8 Undeveloped            0        0'.       .0         @56       56         o
                         Tidal          Total                    0        0         0           56       56         0

                         B              2 Commercial            i16       16        0            -        -
                                        6a Residential          2o6.     269      +31           75       84       +12
                                        8 Undeveloped            0        0         0           88       79       -10
                         Tidal-101      Total                   222      285      +28          163     163          0

                         C              2 Commercial             7        8       +14            -        -
                                        6a Residential          15       .23      +53           .2        3       +502
                                        8 Undeveloped.           0        0         0            11       0         na
                         101-201        Total                   22        31      +41            3        3         0

                         D              None in study     area,

                         F              8  Undeveloped           0        0         0           87       87         0
                         Flooded        Total                    0        0         0           87       87         0

                         All            2 Commercial            23        24        +4           -
                         Zones          6a Residential          221,     292      +32           77       87       .+13
                                        8 Undeveloped            0      . 0         0          145     135          -7
                                        Total                   244      316      +30          222     222          0

                               1 Minor land uses omitted and total           may exceed land uses      enumera  +ted.
                               2 na      Calculation not appropriate.

            466

                      There remains a large amount of undeveloped marshland in the area.     . The
             recreational amenities are not sufficiently attractive to encourage rapid development,
             but a slow expansion into the marshLand seems probable, with an associated slow
             increase in water damage potential.

             4.   Chincoteague, Virginia

                      .The fourth and final example of village shore development is the village of
             Chincoteague on the island of the same name. The study site includes almost all of
             Chincoteague1s land. (See figure 4 in the appendix.) This study site lies immediately
             adjacent to Assateague, the subject of case study number 15.

                      Physiography.    This study site is similar in physiographic characteristics to
             the Assateague site. Both are tow sandy regions which are subject to changes in their
             shape and size as tidal channels and offshore currents move the unconsolidated sands and
             clays from place to place.

                      Chincoteague.1 stand consists largely of sand dune ridges, sand plains,and tidal
             marshes. . (See cross sectionfigure 2-4) The ridges and swa[es are much older than
             those on Assateague Island and are worn down. At least 20 of these accretion ridges
             can be counted on aerial photographs. Each ridge represe    nts low dunes formed behind
             a prograding coast and beach, What was once a barrier bar, similar to Assateague, has
             become an island by the accretion of tidal channels in the lagoon which have cut across
             the northern part of the island.

                      No part of Chincoteague is 10 feet above mean sea level. Most of the island
             (about 34 percent) consists of tidal marshland. The town and residential areas of
             Chincoteague'are located along the slightly higher accretion ridges, which make up
             approximately 62 percent of the island. Sand on the ridges and clay in the swales are
             the only materials found on the island. Soils are poorly developed, but a few vegetable
             crops are grown.

                      Chincoteague has few sandy beaches. Approximately 4 percent of the study site
             has a sandy coastline but no wide beaches. The irregular shoreline consists mostly of
             marsh and shifting tidal channels. In the south-eastern part of the island these channels
             are presently eroding the land. Pines and oaks are the principal trees found on the ridges
             with mixed grasses and shrubs in the low areas.

                      Storm hazard. - Storm frequency at Chincoteague is relatively tow, although
             heavy damage has resulted from storms in the recent past.

                      1 Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard.Hecock. We are indebted to the
             following persons who supplied information: Mr. R..N. Reed, Mr. Roy Tolbert, Mr. Roy
             Twiltey, W. N. Steelman, Mr. Charles Noble, Lt. Cmdr. H. H. Istok, and Mr. Jeffries.

                STUDY SITE NO. 4

                                                                                                         CHINCOTEAGUE
                                                            CHINCOTEAGUE                                                                               AsSATEAGUE
                                                              CHANNEL                                                                                     CHANNEL
                               MEAN SEA LEVEL

                                                                      A                                             A,B                                                A

                               ZONE                   BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE                    LOW AREAS BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE       OTHER AREAS            BELOW  MEAN HIGH. TIDE
                                                                                              LESS THAN 10-FEET

                                                      TIDAL FLATS, MARSHES AND               OLD BARRIER ISLAND WITH    NUMEROUS SAND RIDGES.             TIDAL  FLATS, MARSHES AND
                         GEOMORPHIC TYPE              CHANNELS WITH SILTS AND CLAYS          SILTS AND CLAYS IN THE SWALES                                CHANNELS WITH SILTS -AND
                                                                                                                                                          CLAYS

                         TYPE OF HAZARD               TIDAL INUNDATION AND CHANNEL           FLOODING AND CHANNEL EROSION                                 TIDAL INUNDATION AND
                                                      EROSION                                                                                             CHANNEL EROSION

                        DEGREE OF HAZARD              MINOR EROSION BUT SEVERE                              SEVERE FLOODING                               MINOR EROSION BUT SEVERE
                                                      FLOODING                                                                                            FLOODING

                            STRUCTURES                            FEW                                           MANV                                                FEW

                                                                                             MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO CHECK EROSION AND FLOODING,
                           ADjUSTMENTS                          MODERATE                     EARTH WALLS, ELEVATION OF STRUCTURES                                MODERATE

                                                               FIGURE '?-4.    DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, CHINCOTEAGUE, VIRGINIA

                                                                                                        467

                          Both severe flooding and shore erosion occur at Chincoteague. A record flood
                 of. 10 feet above mean sea level was estimated from field interviews. Since no part of
                 the island reaches this height, the area is entire.ly covered with storm water from,.time
                 to time. 1his has occurred both during hurricanes and during other storms such as that
                 of March 6-7, 1962.1 Flooding takes place mainly from the bay side because the island
                 is protected from the ocean waves by Assateague barrier bar.

                          Wind damage from hurricanes is not severe to structures on Chincoteague
                 because the town is on the landward side of the island and is protected by forest cover.

                          In the storm of March 1962 practically the whole community was inundated by
                 water and high waves. Only one life was lost but much Livestock including over 350, 000
                 chickens and about 100 horses and ponies were drowned.

                          About 2, 000 inhabitants were evacuated to a NASA installation (formerly the
                 Chincoteague Naval Air Station) near Ternperanceville for as much as four or five days.
                .The Red Cross established facilities for providing food and clothing. 'Me U. S. Navy
                 furnished helicopters and the U. S, Coast Guard provided helicopters and DUKW's for
                 evacu ating people from the island. The National Guard and Coast Guard prevented tooting.
                 The Corps of Engineers and State Highway Department assisted in clearing and removing
                 debris. The Corps also returned many stranded boats from streets to the adjoining waters.

                          All streets were flooded with from one to five feet of water but sustained
                 relatively minor injury. The bridge approaches to the one highway were battered by the
                 storm and had to be repaired. There was major damage to docks. Fishing vessels
                 ranging in size from small rowboats up to 60-foot craft were washed ashore.

                          The water supply, power, and telephone service was disrupted. Radio was the
                 only means of communication available for two or three days. Approximately 60 business
                 establishments and 1, 226 houses were flooded by Water rising from one inch to four feet
                 into the buildings. Houses along the Chinocoteague Bay waterfront on the west side of the
                 island were demolished or received major damage from wave action in Chincoteague Bay,
                 whereas those on the center and east side of the island sustained stillwater damage without
                 wave action.

                       I . The adjacent clam beds and oyster grounds were covered with silt and mud by
                 the storm and were therefore seriously damaged. Since most of the inhabitants are
                 fishermen, there will be a material loss of wages over a considerable period of tin e.

                            U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, The March 1962 Storm Along the Coast of
                 Maryland, U. S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Maryland (November 1962),
                 pp. 7 - 9.

             468

                       .The following table summarizes the loss to the community:

                                  Damage from March 1962 Storm at Chincoteague

                                                                                   Estimated
                                   Damage To                                          Loss

                          Residences, stares,   and personal. property              @.000'000
                          Livestock                                                    200,000
                          Piers, bulkheads, and other shore structures                  100,000
                          Vessels                                                   1,000,000
                          Oyster ground, clam beds, etc.                               800,000

                                            Total damage                          $ 7,100,000

                       Settlement history.1 Both Assateague and Chincoteague islands were inhabited
              in the early 16th century by the Chincoteague @ Indians. The first white inhabitants, 30,
              settlers from the Virginia Company, were brought to Chincoteague in 1671.

                       From the earliest settlement, the population of the island has been concerned
              largely with extracting food from the sea. This has continued to the present and is now
              the mainstay of the economy of Chincoteague. Subsistence farming was carried on during
              colonial times. There is no record of other farming developments until after the bridge
              to the mainland was opened to Chincoteague in 1922.

                       A portion of the island of Chincoteague was incorporated as the Town of
              Chincoteague in 1908. The population had grown sufficiently so that by the time the
              bridge to the mainland was opened, there were approximately 200 persons living on the
              island. There were a large number of fishing families living on Assateague after 1900,
              but when access. to Chincoteague and their fishing grounds was legally closed by a private
              property owner, these families gradually began tomove back to Chincoteague.

                       Peak population hit 5, 500 at the time of the closing of the Naval Air Station and
              is now down to 3, 800. A substantial agricultural venture began on Chincoteague in the
              mi&20's. . Chicken raising went into full swing in the 1930's and hit its peak in 1945-46
              when one-third of.island employment was in the chicken industry. There followed a slow
              decline and a resultant change from individual enterprise to corporate financed business.
              The business is, at present, fairly stable.

                       Land use changes.     There has been little change in this study area from the date
              of the first air photo,coverage available (1949) to the present. Results of structure and

                         Based on field party notes assembled from various Locally available sources.

                                                                                                          469

                  acreage counts by hazard zones are given in table 2-4. A map of land use is shown in
                  the overlay to figure 4 (appendix.)

                          The prosperity of Chincoteague was adversely affected when the U. S. Naval Air
                  Base on the nearby mainland was closed down in 1957-58. The population of the island
                  community dropped sharply and about 200 houses were Left vacant. With the establishment
                  of a NASA administrative and technical unit at the former -Navy Base, some new jobs have
                  been created and a welcome boost has been given to the local economy. Many of the houses
                  vacated in 1958 have been converted for tourist use, and other vacant houses have been
                  rented.

                          There has been little over-all land use change since .1949. One new school has
                  been added, and two small housing developments constructed. - The larger of these has
                  18 houses.

                          Adjustments to hazard. There is relatively high degree of awareness of storm
                  hazard in Chincoteague., Many of the residents have Lived in the village all their lives and
                  know of the hazard from experience. Nevertheless the range of adjustments and their
                  frequency of adoption is smaller than at Point Judith where heavy damage has also occurred.

                          'Private adjustments include the construction of a wall around one house; the
                  raising of several houses on piles; the construction of a crate to protect pumps, and the
                  .raising of merchandise and furnishings onto the second fl oor. Evacuation is a precaution
                  taken by some residents when storm warnings are issued. In the March. 1962 storm
                  65 percent of the population left for the mainland. However, a number of residents,
                  especially the older people, remained throughout the flood.

                          One consequence of the March .1962 storm is that several new commerciaL
                  establishments have been built along Main Street to replace buildings damaged or
                  destroyed.

                          'Future development.    The study area has changed little in recent years, and
                  prospects for growth have not been encouraged by the closing of the Naval Base or by the
                  @storm of March, 1962.

                          The seafood industry is highly dependent on market conditions, and at best is
                  unlikely to experience more than a slow growth. It is not yet clear what the full impact
                  of the 1962 storm will be on the oyster industry, but the oyster beds suffered severe'
                  damage and recovery may be slow.

                          The main hope of the area for future growth and development is the tourist
                  industry. There have been few signs of growing tourist interest, but increased accessi-
                  bility and the density of coastal developments further north suggest that the "wave" of
                  heavy tourist activity may soon reach Chincoteague. The construction of the bridge-
                  tunnel across the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay from Norfolk to Cape Charles, and the
                  opening of a ferry service across the Delaware Bay from Cape May,. N.J. , to Lewes,

            470

                                                    Table 2-4

         Chincoteague-Assateague, Virginia
                                    Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones   1

         7one       Land Use                 No. Structures                         No. Acres
                                                      %            %                      %
                                    1942-43 1949 change 1963 change- 1942-43 1949 change 1963      change
         A          8 Undeveloped        0      0     0 2    0      0     1697   1694      0  1690      0
         Tidal      Total                0      3     na     3      0     1697   1697      0  1697      0

         B          1 Industrial         30    30     0     33   +10         .3     3      0     3      0
                    2 Commercial       143    149     +4   166     +7        25    25      0    25      0
                    6a Residential     796   1174   +48   1231     +5      464     648  +4o     696    +7
                    7 Agricultural     200    120   -40    121     +1      230     46   -8o     46      0
                    8 Undeveloped        0      0     0      0      0     1185   1176     -1  1083     -8
         Tidal-101  Total              1178  15o6   +28   1578     +5     1907   1907      0  1907      0
         C          None in study  area

         F          1 Industrial         30    30     0     33   +10         3      3      0     5    +67
                    2 Commercial       143    149     +4   16o     +7        25    25      0    25      0
                    3 Public             8     22   +175    22      0        0      0      0     0      0,
                    4 Recre-ational      0      0     0      0      0        0      9     na    34   +278
                    .5a Recreational     0     11     na    11      0        0      0      0    20  +1900
                    5b,'  Recreational   0      1     na     1      0        0      0      0     0      0
                    6a Residential     796   1175   +48   1232     +5      464   -648   +4o     698    +8
                    6b Residential.      1      1     0      1      0        0      0      0     0      0
                    7 Agricultural     200    120   -40    121     +1      230     49   -79     49      0
                    8 Undeveloped        0      0     0      0            2882   2870      0  2773     -3
         Flooded    Total              1178  1509   +28   1581     +5     3604   3604      0  3604      b

                    Note: Zone F includes    all the  stud7 area;  therefore,  no separate  figures
                           are given for the total    area. This   table includes data on both
                           Chincoteague and Assateague (site number 15).

                      Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.
                    2 na -- Calculation not appropriate.

                                                                                                                 471

                   Del.  wilt improve the accessibility of the Delmarva Peninsula. With these new deve.lop-
                   ments, Chincoteague wilt become much more;'accessible.

                                                        _'ft - at"W"nat ildliTe Refuge on              e I,s,L-, and
                               e onversion of a part 0 ji&                                  Assateagu
                   .to. a public beach (see case study number !@) and the construction of the Chincoteague-
                   Assateague bridge mark the beginning of a new era for the village of Chincoteague.
                   Formerly visitors had no ready access to a good b,each, but with. the facility now available
                   the number of tourists may be expected to increase.

                             'Mere is also a proposal to  develop a National Seashore on Assateague Island.
                   When this venture materializes the northern and southern parts of Assateague will be
                   connected with a road thereby making Chincoteague an important access point for
                   visitors. 1 In any case town officials, ; citizens, and merchants for the most part are
                   convinced that the tourist industry has an important role in Chincoteague's future. , A
                   harbor of refuge has already been established. There is talk of a beach on the southeast
                   corner of the island. There are    .several marinas on the island now. Advertisements of
                   Chincoteague's attractions are appearing in Philadelphia,. Baltimore, Richmond, and
                   New York papers.

                             On the other hand,. Chincoteague has   littie to offer in the way of spectacular
                   attractions@ such as- boardwalks, ferris wheels, and night clubs. This is no doubt,an
                   attraction to an important segment of potential recreational visitors.      Furthermore,
                   since Chincoteague itself has little to offer in the way of suitable beach sites,. it is
                   dependent on Assateague as an attractive force..

                             The Chincoteague-A   ssateague area is an example of a village shore area poised
                   and ready for rapid expansion when the "wave"      of coastal resort development reaches
                   this far. south. It has many attractive characteristics as a quiet place to which people
                   can escape but it is in a low lying and hazardous area. There are no safe sites suitable
                   for development. It might therefore be thought desirable to preserve the village atmos-
                   There and wildlife amenities of the area for their own sake.      Development must necessarily
                   result in the creation of more storm damage potential in an area that is very difficult to.
                   protect. The pressures for development are such, however, that there is no sign of any
                   resistance to rapid development of cottages-and motels when the time becomes opportune.
                   The Chincoteague- As sateagu, e area will need outside help if its present attractive features
                   are to-be perserved arid if it is not to become a new site for the further creation of storm
                   damage potential.

                             Development has not yet come to Chincoteague. It i.s in such places that great
                   opportunity sti'll exists for the planned preservation of coastal amenities without involving
                   the nation in costly protection works or heavy flood losses.

                              As of June 11, 1965, the Senate Interior subcommittee issued a. favorable report
                   to the parent committee for the' establishment ofthe Assateague Island National Seashore.
                   that included an amendment to provide for the disputed road linking the two parts of the
                   island.

             472

              The Urban Shore

              5.  Lynn-Nahant, Massachusettsi

                       Lynn is an industrial complex within the Boston metropolitan area. Little Nahant
              is a residential section built on a bedrock island. Ibis island is connected to the mainland
              by a long sand bar or spit called a tombolo. The study area includes 3. 1 miles of.
              Massachusetts coastline just north of Boston. The area selected extends inland for less
              than half a mile from Lynn Harbor, and includes sections of Revere Beach, the harbor
              'itself, and yacht clubs and pocket beaches along the shoreline of the city of Lynn. Also
              included are Little Nahant and the tombolo which connects it to the mainland usually
              referred to as Lynn Beach. (See figure 5 in th,e appendix. ) The total area is 596 acres.

                       Physiography.   About one-quarter of the site (26 percent) consists of barrier
              sand bars. The southern section of the study site includes the northern one-half mile of
              Revere Beach. . This beach is a barrier bar, two miles in total length, which has.grown
              north from the rocky headlands at Beachmont. The growth of this bar has nearly closed
              off a series of tidal marshes and small rivers on the inner side.

                       The northern section of Revere Beach is narrow a   nd has a thin veneer of sand
              that at times is removed, exposing the soft muds and clays of Lynn Harbor. Although-
              protected by Nahant from northeasters, the beach does suffer erosion when high winds
              and storm waves come from the southeast. In the Point of'Pines section of the bar, two
              sand ridges, less than 10 feet in elevation, are separated by a depression which runs down
              the center of the bar. This area is subject to flooding when water crosses the sand ridges.

                       A second barrier bar included within the study site is the tomboto which connects
              Little Nahant to the mainland. This gently curving bar is about one mile long and 100 feet
              wide. The beach'on the east side is wide with a gentle gradient. . This is a popular, "safe"
              beach because the gentle gradient modifies the large waves offshore before they spread
              out around.Nahant Bay. However, the beach varies greatly in width because of the 9. 2
              foot tidal range. On the west side of the tombolo, no beach exists and a protective wall has
              been built with large stone blocks to help prevent the bar from being breached during
              storms. Also, mud flats are muchmore extensive in- Lynn Harbor than in Nahant Bay.
              The tombolo which connects Little Nahant to the mainland is the largest of the complex
              .tombolos which connect sections of Big Nahant to Little Nahant.

                       About 46 percent of the study site consists of artificial fill over former marsh
              area. This includes the industriai area of sout@east Lynn, a United States Military
              Reservation, and the yacht clubs of Lynn Harbot. Another 8 percent is tidal marshland
              which is landward of Revere Beach bordering upon the Saugus and Pines Rivers.

                       1 Field work by Robert Arnold And   Richa id',He,cock. , We are indebted to the
              following persons who supplied informittion:'Mr.   Joseph Macaioni, Mr. William George,
              and Mr.  William Barber,

                                                                                                           473

                           The remaining 20 percent of the site includes the bedrock island of Little Nahant
                  and a small section of bedrock mainland. near Red Rock promontory. (See cross section,
                  figure 2-5.  Little Nahant has an elevation of more than .80 feet above mean sea Level
                  while the mainland sections of Lynn average 10-20 feet high. A thin veneer of glacial till
                  covers these two areas. The seaward facing cliffs of these two areas are under heavy
                  wave attack. At the base of the cliffs, large boulders, which have fallen out of the till,
                  remain in place forming a boulder strewn platform.

                           The materials that make up this study site consists of sand, with some gravel,
                  along the beaches and bars and in Lynn Harbor. . Silts and clays are found in the marshes.
                  Bedrock underlies Little Nahant and the mainland,. with a thin veneer of gravels and
                  boulders on top. The man-made fit[ consists of miscellaneous materials, mainly gravels.

                           Vegetation is generally sparse because of the high density of structures and
                  population in this area. Some marsh grass occurs along the Pines River. On the tomboLo
                  connecting Little Nahant with Lynn a few dunes have American dune grass. Mixed trees
                  and herbaceous plants are found in the residential parts of Little Nahant and Lynn.

                           Storm hazard.    Although storm frequency is relatively high at Lynn-Nahant the
                  hazard is only of moderate dimensions. Hurricanes are rare events and the more
                  frequent danger is from "northeaster s ". Waier'damage is more important than wind
                  damage but neither: are usually severe. The;United States Weather Bureau's Storm
                  Surge Warning Map  I states that Revere Beach boulevard and the Lynn-Nahant causeway
                  begin to be flooded when water reaches 8. 5 feet above mean sea level. When the cause-.
                  way becomes flooded Little and Big Nahant are cut off from the mainland as water covers
                  the beaches and the whole tomboLo during severe storms.

                           The. Corps of Engineers has established the flood of record at 12.5 feet above
                  mean sea level at Revere Beach and 13. 5 feet at Lynn Beach@ Field interviews set the
                  flood of record around 10 feet, with a range of from 8 to 15 feet above mean sea level.

                           The 13. 5 feet at Lynn Beach appears to be the most accurately recorded flood to
                  date, but with a tidal range of 9. 2 feet from mean low, water to meanhigh water.it is highly
                  possible that a tidal surge could reach 15 feet above mean sea level. Although the flood of
                  record for Lynn Harbor is 12. 5 feet, as against 13. 5 feet for Nahant Bay, strong east and
                  southeast winds will cause piling up of water in Lynn Harbor with resulting danger to piers
                  and yacht clubs at the head of the harbor.

                             U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Storm Su@ge Warning Map,
                  No. 3, August, 1962.
                           2
                             U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,   Lynn-Nahant Beach, Mass. - Beach Erosion
                  Control Study, 82nd Congress, Ist Session, House.Doc. No. 134, 1951, pp. 14-17, and
                  Revere Beach, Mass. - Beach Erosion Control Study, 82nd Congress, 1st Session,
                  House Doc. No. 146, 1951, pp. 14-18.

             474

                       Most of the filled-in area of Lynn is above the 9-foot contour, and the sea walls
              are now above 10 feet. Only very rarely would the lower part of the city become flooded.
              However, no s.tructures in this area are able to have basements because of f loodipg.

                       Storms periodically flood property adjacent to the coast in Lynn and the
              inhabitants of Little Nahant are sometimes isolated from the mainland when the tombolo
              is over-topped.

                      .Settlement history.   Lynn was settled in 1629 and named in honor of King's Lynn
              in Norfolk county, England. At the time of settlement, tanning and shoemaking were
              established on a small scale. Tiny "back yard" shops increased in number until Lynn was
              supplying most of the footwear for Boston. In 1810, about one million pairs of shoes were
              manufactured in the town.

                       The factory system evolved in the mid- eighteen hundreds. Lynn was the leading
              shoemaker in the nation until the late 19th century. By 1915 it had dropped to third place.
              The city however had varied industries which enabled it to survive periods of change
              and economic instabi[ity.1 Shoe factories and connected trades continued to predominate
              numerically. Today General Electric Company is a major employer in the city, whose
              population numbered in 1960, 94,478. Lynn serves as an industrial satellite community
              for the Boston Metropolitan area.

                       Nahant was settled in 1630, but the rocky island did not grow sufficiently to be
              incorporated until 1853. Nahant and Little Nahant were purchased from an Indian chief
              in 1730 by Thomas Dexter, a Lynn farmer. In 1802 a tavern called "Castle" was erected
              which catered to the sportsmen set. Due to the success of the venture and the establish-
              ment of steamboat service to Boston in 1817,. Nahant began to develop rapidly as a symbol
              of Boston Society's idea of low-cost high living. The Saturday night dinners of the
              "Nahanters", noted mainly for their exclusiveness and penny--ante basis, ended during
              World War 11 when General Electric bought the Club as a recreational center for its
              employees. 2

                       Land use changes. . The pattern of land use in the area was well established by
              the date of the first photographic coverage in 1939. Changes have consisted largely of
              intensification of density of development. Residential areas established by 1939 have
              remained residential but the density of buildings has increased. Thus the number of
              single family residences was more than twice in 1963 what it was in 1939. The major
              exception- to the pattern of continued trends is to be seen in the area bounded by
              Commercial St., Lynn Harbor, the Sagus River, and the rai [road tracks. In 1939 this
              was largely vacant, an almost entirely undeveloped area. Since 1939 it has been developed
              into a high density industrialized area, bisected by a strip of ribbon development of various
              commercial activities. This area accounts for most of the industiral growth in the study
              site, but it is thought to be above the flood hazard zone.

                         Federal Writers' Project, Massachusetts, Boston: Houghton- Miff [in Co. ,
              1937, p. 267.
                       2
                         Cleveland Amory, The Proper Bostonians,. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. ,
              1947, p. 198.

                 STUDY SITE NO. 5                                                                                                                                 LITTLE
                                                                                                                                                                  NAHANT
                                                                            LYNN
                                                                               T _nF                      BROAD SOUND               LYNN                NhHKNT                  NAHANT
                                              EA LEVEL                                                    LRYONliD HARBOR           BEACH                3AY                     BAY
                                       2FAN 3

                                                                                 B,G                                A                           8          A         8'c'o         A
                                                                                                                                            ABOVE MEAN   BELOW    ABOVE MEAN     BELOW
                                                                                                                                            HIGH TICE,   MEAN     HIGH TIDE      MEAN
                                         ZONES                           ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE         BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE                  BUT BELOW    HIGH     TO ABOVE       HIGH
                                                                                                                                            10 FEET      TIDE     20  FEET       TIDE

                                                                         ROLLING UPLAND                                                                            BEDROCK
                                   GEOMORPHIc TYPE                       SURFACE WITH FILL IN      VERY SHALLOW BAY EXCEPT WHERE            SAND BAR     SHALLOW    ISLAND         BAY
                                                                         LOW AREA NEAR T"E         DREDGED                                  (10"BOLO)    BAY       SOME GLA-:
                                                                         HARBOR                                                                                    CIAL TILL

                                                                                                                                             FLOODING             HIGH WAVES
                                    TYPE OF HAZARD                       FLOODING IN LOW AREAS     TIDAL  INUNDATION    FILLING OF BAY       AND         EROSION EROSION        EROSION
                                                                                                   WITH  SAND BARS                           EROSION

                                   DEGREE OF HAZARD.                           MINOR                              MINOR                      SEVERE      MODERATE    MINOR    MODERATE

                                     STRUCTURES                                MANY                                 FEW                        FEW       NONE         MANY        NONE

                                                                         SEA WALLS AND BULK-                                                SAND AND
                                    ADJUSTMENTS                          HEADS AROUND LYNN         DREDGING TO KEEP CHANNELS    OPEN        ROCK FILL,     FEW        FEW          FEW
                                                                         HARBOR WITH SOME FILL.                                             DUNE PRO-
                                                                                                                                            TECTION

                                                               FIGURE 2-5.    DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, LymN-NAHANT, MASSACHUSETTS

                                                                                                            475

                           The hazard zone is confined to only 35 acres out of a total of 596. On this 35
                  acres there has been a very small increase of single fami ly residences from 118 to, 124.
                  A map of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 5 (appendix). Recorded land use
                  changes"are given in table 2-5."

                           Adjustments to hazard.    Knowledge of storm hazards appears to be relatively
                  smaller in Lynn-Nahant than in other coastal areas studied. This may be attributed in
                  -oart to the lack of heavy storms in the past few years and to the small extent of area
                  subject to flooding. It is also likely that dwellers on the urban shore are less aware of
                  the hazards of nature than dwellers on the village shore -or the summer shore.

                           Private adjustments include construction of a seawall and the use of sand bags
                  and dikes. Local residents have also been active in promoting the idea of an off -shore
                  seawall to break up the waves. The land reclaimed has been filled to levels above the
                  maximum flood of record. Plans are also in existence for the evacuation of the seafront
                  area during heavy storms.

                           Public adjustments include the construction of a reinforced concrete seawall
                  8 to 10 feet high along sections of Revere Beach. , Work was in hand in 1963 to raise
                  these to at least 10 feet. The causeway and rock rubble embankment along the tombolo
                  to@Little Nahant have been raised to 8 feet above mean sea level. Man-made fill, to about
                  9 feet above mean sea Level has been placed in the Lynn Harbor section for industrial and
                  military sites.

                           To protect Lynn an extensive seawall over 10 feet in height has been built along
                  the filled section and along the small pocket coves near Red Rock promontory .

                           Proposed projects include making Lynn Harbor a harbor of refuge and the filling
                  in of 5-1/2 acres of lowland at Revere to a height of 10 feet. New marinas and recrea-
                  .tionat areas are proposed as fill is being added to the marsh and mud flats bordering on
                  Lynn and Revere. . Wherever possible one or two feet of fit[ are being added to at[ low
                  areas,

                           Future developm  ent.,  Land use changes in the near future are likely to be
                  confined to the further intensification of development and the use of the only remaining
                  tract of undeveloped land by the Lynn Gas and Electric, Co. There are plans for urban
                  renewal and redevelopment in the area but it is difficult to estimate how soon these are
                  likely to be implemented.

                           There does not appear   to be much potential for further recreation development
                  in the area unless urban renewal schemes ate adopted.

                           Lynn-Nahant is a complex and diversified area where the intensity of development
                  is high and the awarene 'ss of storm hazard is relatively low. Little further damage
                  potential is likely to be,created and.the future character of the area depends largely on
                  the coming of urban renewal.

            476

                                                     Table 2-5

                 Lvnn-Nahant, Massachusetts
                                    Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zonesi

                 Zone          Land Use              No. Structures                 No. Acres

                                                   1939   1963   change       1939    1963   change

                 A             8 Undeveloped         0       0        0         19      19        0
                 Tidal         Total                 0       0        0         19      19        0

                 B             1 Industrial          0       4       na.2       18      34      489
                               2 Commercial          4      24    +500           0       0        0
                               4 Recreational        0       0        b          0      18       na
                               6a Residential       13     232    +1685         32      32        0
                               8 Undeveloped         0       0        0         41       2      -95
                 Tidal-101     Total                19     262    +1279         91      91        0

                 C             1 Industrial         55      64      +16         36    112      +211
                               2 Commercial         58      83      +43         16      6o     +275
                               3 Public              3       8    +167           0      12       na
                               4 Recreational        6       7      +17         6o      60        0
                               6a Residential      198     331      +67         64      65       +2
                               8 Undeveloped         0,      0        0        210      77      -63
                 101-201       Total               324     495      +53        397    397         0

                 D             6a Residential      248     378      +52         73      72       -1
                               8 Undeveloped         0       0        0         13      13        0
                 > 201         Total               251     385      +53         89      89        0

                 F             2 Commercial          3       3        0          1       1        0
                               4 Recreational        0       0        0          6       6        0
                               6a Residential      118     124       +5         15      22      +47
                               8 Undeveloped         0       0        0         13       6      -54
                 Flooded       Total               121     127       +5         35      35        0

                 All           1 Industrial         55      68      +24         54    146      +170
                 Zones         2 Commercial         65     113      +74         16      6o     +275
                               3 Public              4      10    +150           0      15       na
                               4 Recreational        6       7      +17         63      81      +29
                               5a Recreational       5       3      -4o          8       8        0
                               5b Recreational       0       0        0          3       6     +loo
                               6a Residential      459     941    +105         169    169      .. 0
                               8,Undeveloped         0       0        0        283    111       -'61
                               Total               594    1142      +92        596    596         0

                       1 Minor.land uses cmitted and     total may exceed land uses   enumerated.
                       2 na, -- Calculation not appropriate.

                                                                                   477

               6. Fairfield,. Connecticuti

                      Fairfield is a manufacturing center on the Connecticut coast within communiting
               distance of New York City. The, study site includes four miles of coastline betw6&n'
               Southport Harbor in the west and Ash Creek in the east. This second example of the urban
               shore type of development has a total acreage of 1, 678. (See figure 6 in the appendix.)

                      Physiography. A,Iong the coast is a narrow, smooth beach averaging 50 feet in
               width and with a gentle gradient. Low, scattered, sand, dunes occur along one-third of
               its length. Approximately six percent of the study site is made up of these beaches and
               dunes. Several of the beaches are popular as summer recreational areas.

                      Fairfield Beach is a small sand spit that has grown southwest for about one mile.
               The tip of this spit curves toward the northwest nearly closing off the tidal channel called
               Pine Creek. The growth and shape of the spit appear to be influenced by Kensie. Point,
               a bedrock outcrop, which controls the movement of currents.

                      Most of the Fairfield study site is a low, rocky, seaboard lowland with tidal
               marshes in the wide depressions and scattered glacially scoured hillsin the higher areas.
               'The highest hill is called Sasco. . This round bedrock hill is aligned in a north-south
               direction with a maximum elevation of 60 feet above sea Level. This hill reaches the.
               coast at Kensie Point where low, less than 10 foot high, rocky cliffs have been defaced
               and smoothed by waves.

                      Much of the mainland being Less than 20 feet above sea level, is subject, to tidal
               flooding. The materials making up the hilly uplands consist of both bedrock and fill,
               with a thin soil cover. The fill is largely made up of shallow glacial and marsh deposits.
               The marsh areas make up 22 percent of the study site, while the higher dry sections make
               up approximately 71 percent of the site. The remaining 7 perc ent is beach and dunes.
               Most of the tidal and fresh water marshes are covered with grasses growing in silt and
               clay fill. Large sections of these marsh areas have now become dry land through
               .artificial filling.

                      The vegetation of the uplands consists of mixed coniferous and deciduous trees,
               herbaceous plants, and grasses. (See cross section, figure 2-6.)

                      Storm hazard. Much of the seaboard lowland is below 20 feet above mean sea
               level and is subject to coastal flooding. The Corps of Engine ersAnter im Hurricane Surveys
                           2
               of 1962.a.nd 1964 set the flood of record for the Fairfield area at 10. 1 and 10. 8 feet above
               meanIsea level. This flood record was set during the 1938 hurricane. The range for the

                       Field work by Robert Gardula and Roger Kasperson. We are indebted to the
               following persons who supplied information:. Mr. Earl Rush,.Mr. Frank Daniels,
               Mr. Tony Panico, Mr. Robert Bryan, and Mr. John J. jriLtivan.
                      2Corps of Engineer,. Fairfield,. Conn. Interim Hurricane Survey, 87th Congress,
               2nd Session, House. Document No. 600, 1962; and.Hurricane Survey Interim Report,
               Connecticut Coastal and Tidal Areas,. U. S. Army Engineer Division, New England Corps of
               Engineers, Waltham, Mass., 22 May 1964, pp. 5-7.

             478

              who I e@ Connecticut coast during the 1938 storm was 9. 2 to 11. 7 feet above mean-sea level.
              The 1954 hurricane had comparable levels. . It was found through field interviews that the
              flood of record varied between 9. 5 and 10. 5 feet. No appreci able flooding appears to have
              taken place since hurricane Carol in 1954 (the March 6-7 storm of 1962 was not severe
              along the New England coast).

                       Hurricanes moving north pose the biggest threat to this study site. . The beaches
              appear to protect the coast to a level of about 6 feet above mean sea Level. This protection
              is satisfactory for annual flooding from "north eas ters " which seldom exceeds 4 to 5 feet,
              but it is not effective for severe hurricanes.

                       During severe storms the undermining of structures by waves and tidal surges
              is prevalent along the shore. In the last 25 years at least 25 to 35 cottages have been
              washed away. . Once the waves -rise above 6 feet, the low dunes and narrow beaches do
              not afford protection. As storm waves move inland to about one hundred yards from the
              beach, some cellar flooding can be expected to take place. Beyond one hundred yards,
              water damage becomes less but wind damage continues to affect structures. In all areas
              under 10 feet, streets can be expected to become inundated with about six inches of water
              during severe storms. 1

                       Severe damage occurred at Fairfield in the hurricanes of 1938 and 1954. For
              the past ten years Fairfield has escaped major damage.
                       Settlement history? The settlement of the Fairfield area began in 1639 when
              Roger Ludlow established the community of Uncoa (Fairfield). The settlement shortly
              became a military post and was strongly fortified. Population increased rapidly and
              agriculture flourished in the surrounding countryside. The settlement's growth was
              accelerated by Legislation which made it a port of entry and also by the success of
              maritime activities. The town received a temporary setback during the Revolutionary
              War when it was burned by the British. The 1774 population of 4, 863 was reduced to
              3, 735 at the end of the war.

                       During its early history the settlement was concentrated about the Post Road welt
              away from the ocean, and with scattered farm homesteads in the northwest part of the town.
              Some coastal settlement was centered around Black Rock harbor but the remainder of the
              coast was undeveloped.

                       In the early part of the 19th century Fairfield remained a small community
              (population 4'. 246 in 1830) relying mainly on the agriculture and forestry of the surrounding
                       1 Corps of Engineers, Fairfield,Conn. Interim Hurricane Survey, 87th Congress,
              2nd Session, House Doc. No. 600, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1962, pp. 8-12;
              and Beach Erosion Control Report on. Cooperative Study of Connecticut Area 1, Ash Creel-
              to Saugatuck River, 7 Feb. 1949, Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Boston,. Mass. ,
              pp. 3-20.
                       2
                        Based on field party notes assembled from various Locally available sources.

                STUDY SITE N  0. 6                                                                    SASCO
                                                                                                       HIL -L                                           FAIRFIELD
                                                                                                                                                          BEACH                  LONG
                                                               SOUTHPORT                                                                                                          ISLAND
                                      MEAN SEA LEVEL            HARBOR                                                                                                              SOUND

                                                                                                           8, G, D                                A, B                B
                                                                                                                                                                                       A

                                                                BELOW MEAN                                                                   BELOW MEAN        ABOVE  MEAN HIGH     BELOW
                                                                HIGH TICE          ABOVE MEAN H1014 TIDE TO OVER 20 FEET                     HIGH TIDE, SOME   TIDE BUT BELOW       MEAN HIGH
                                     ZONE                                                                                                    FILLED AREAS      10 FEET              TIDE
                                                                                                                                             ABOVE MEAN
                                                                                                                                             HIGH TIDIE@

                                                              TIDAL ESTUARY                                                                  TIDAL MARSH                            NARROW
                              GEOMORPHIc TYPE                 OF THE MILL         BEDROCK HILL COVERED WITH A THIN DEPOSIT OF                WITH. SILTS AND    SAND SPIT           SANDY
                                                              RIVER              GLACIAL TILL                                                CLAYS                                  BEACH

                                                                                                                                             TIDAL INUNDA-     FLOODING,            EROSION
                               TYPE OF HAZARD                     FLOODING                   NO FLOODING                                     TION AND SOME     EROSION.9 DAMAGE     OF BEACH
                                                                                                                                             EROSION           TO STRUCTURES

                             DEGREE OF HAZARD                    MINOR                                  NONE                                     MINOR             SEVERE           SEVERE

                                STRUCTURES                         NONE                                  FEW                                       FEW             MANY               FEW

                                                              DEEPENING OF                                                                                     Low DIKES AND      JETTIES,
                               ADJUSTMENTS                    THE CHANNEL,                               FEW                                       FILL        BULKHEADS          GROINS AND
                                                              SOME PRO-                                                                                                           SAND FILL
                                                              TECTIVE WORKS                                                                                                       TO PROTECT
                                                                                                                                                                                  BEACH

                                                                             I                                                               I

                                                               FIGURE 2-6.      DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT

                                                                                                                479

                   area and on the fishing industry. Rail connections were established in 1849 and thereafter
                   Fairfield became more of a manufacturing center. It was not until the 20th century, how-
                   ever, that the coastal areas were developed. During the period before 1930, contempora-
                   neously with an increased use of private cars, the coastal areas began to be developed as
                   a summer resort. The high density of settlement which now prevails may be attributed
                   in part @to the lack of zoning ordinances which might have required Larger size lots.

                            Land use changes.     There have been only small changes of land use in the study
                   area between the date of the first available air photograph coverage in 1951 and the time
                   of field work in 1963. By 1951 all the area was in some form of developed [and use and
                   the small increase in single family residences has been by a process of intensification of
                   existing land use. The new single family residences have been built mainly at the
                   southern ends of Beach Road, Reef Road and Penfield Road. Field observations indicate
                   that over half of the new structures are in the flood hazard zone.

                            Along the shore west of Shoal Point the number of structures has actually been
                   reduced as a result ofHurricane Carol in 1954. This storm washed out a section of the
                   spit carrying with it about 15 houses. These have not been replaced.

                            There have been some small developments along the edge of the swamp, where
                   Land has been reclaimed by fit[. Within the swamp itself several hundred acres of land
                   were purchased by the Federal Government for the construction of a Nike missile site.

                            Starting in 1963 work began on the expansion and modernization of the existing
                   marina along Ash Creek. Plans for a new marina which would utilize about a hundred
                   acres of the marshLand have also been drawn up. There has been a small increase in
                   flood damage potential at Fairfield since 1951 but there is unlikely to be much further
                   increase in view of the already highLy developed nature of the study area. Land use is
                   shown in the overlay to figure 6 (appendix), and recorded land use changes are given in
                   table 2-6.

                            Adjustments to hazard.      In view of the record of past damage, the inhabitants
                   of the coastal area of Fairfield seem remarkably complacent about the likelihood of
                   future damage. This may be partly due to the absence of a major damaging storm since
                   1954. It may also be partly due to the construction of a system of partial protection works.
                   The town has constructed a. system of dikes which help to reduce flooding although they
                   afford little protection to the shore-front properties. In addition a number of groins
                   afford partial flood protection and help the development of beaches by sand deposition.

                           .Local confidence in the protective power of the dikes along Ash Creek and South
                   Pine Creek is high and many citizens believe that the flood problem has been solved. The
                   Town Engineer is not so confident. He believes that the dikes afford adequate protection
                   from 7 or 8 out every 10 major storms and hurricanes, but feels that this is not sufficient
                   and that extra protection should be provided.

                           -The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have in fact made a proposal to provide
                   additional protection by the construction of a  seawall. Fairfield has rejected this proposal

            480
                                                   Table 2-6

                 Fairfield., Connecticut
                                   Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zonesi

                 Zone         Land Use             No. Structures                No. Acres

                                                1951    1963   change       1951  1963    chnEe
                 A            3 Public             0       4       na2        9     24      +167
                              5b Recreational      0       0       0         14     14        0
                              6a Residential      13      13       .0         1       1       0
                              8 Undeveloped        0       0       0        234    219       -6
                 Tidal        Total               13      17     +31        262    262        0

                 B            2  Commercial       15      1.8    @+20        15     15        0
                              3 Public             1       4     +300        19     36      +90
                              5b Recreational      1       1       0        162    162        0
                              6a Residential    1152    1202       +4       430    430        0
                              8 Undeveloped        0       0       0        126    109      -14
                 Tidal-101    Total             1175    1232       +5       789    789        0

                 C            2 Cornercial        92      92       0         39     39        0
                              I  Public           15      15       0         52     52        0
                              6a Residential     341     377     +11        209    209        0
                              8 Undeveloped        0       @O      0         31     31        0
                 101-20f-     Total              457     493       +8       346    346        0
                 D            5b Recreational      0       0       0         28     28        0
                              6a Residential     125     125       0        219    233       +6
                              8 Undeveloped        0       0       0         31     17      -45
                 >  201       Total              132     132       0        281    261        0

                 F            2 Commercial        12      15     +25          8     11      +38
                              3 Public             1       3     +200        18     72      +300
                              5b Recreational      1       1       0        279    279        0
                              6a Residential     728     774       +6       324    337       +4
                              8 'Undeveloped       0       0       0        552    48o      .-13
                 Flooded      Total              749     800       +7       1217  1217        0

                 All          1 Industrial         2       3     +50          8       8       0
                 Zones        2 Commercial       114     117       +3        57     57        0
                              3 Public            16      23     +44         80    112      +40
                              4 Recreational       1       1       0         26     26        0
                              5a Recreational      1       1       0         10     10        0
                              5b Recreational      1       1       0        212    212        0
                              6a Residential    1613    1717       +5       859    873       +2
                              6b Residential      11      11       0          4       4       0
                              8 Undeveloped        0       0       0        422    376      -11
                              Total             1777    1874       +6       1678  1678        0

                      1
                        Minor land uses omitted and    total may- exceed land uses enumerated.
                      2 na -- Calculation not appropriate.

                      Industrial a 0d Railroad         I                                                                                                                         POINT                    JUDITH,                      R. 1.
                      C mmorclo,                       I
                      P:blic                           3                                                                                                                                           GENERALIZED LAND USE
                      R creotional                     4
                      R:sid:nti    01                  6
                      A96C IN.                         T
                      Undevoloped   Land               8

                                                                                                                                                                                                   8
                                                                                                                                                                                                              6

                                                                                                                                                        6                                                                     8

                                                                                                                                                    4

                                                                                                                                                                                     6
                                                                     6                                                                                                                                               8
                                                                              7                                                       6

                                                6                                     6                                             8                                2            6
                                                                              6                                                                    6                          6

                                                                                                                                                                                                4
                                           4

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         6

                                                                                    0. Mile

                 Figure I -Overlay

                      71' 134'                                                            T(-132'                                                             71- 30'
                                                                                                                                                    POINT                JUDITH, R.I.
                      Floods
                      Mean High Tide                                                                                                                                     HAZARD ZONES
                      10 Foot Contour

                      20 Foot Contour

                      Maximum Flood
                      of Record

           1- 24'

                                                                                                                                                                                                       eu'@Vd.

                                                                                                                 Snug Harb
                                                                                                                          or
                                                                     Pal,

                                                                                                                                                               a,                               'tz'

                      SchoolhOuSe

                              i,                                                                                                                                                                  on
                                                                                                                                                                                                al,

           1.         Car      Rd.
                                                                   u
                                                                   u

                      Cold
                                                                                                  P"" 1-dith, R.I,                                                              S;Oweed
                      pond,               Co Pont",                                 Motanuk Pt                                                                                      -ph
                                             each
                  6,ow'Inq Sen't,
                                                                                                                                                                                     o"I
                                                       Block     Island Sound

                                                                                                                                                     a/

                                                                       0.0 Milo
             2'y
                      Sch 00"'."e-

                      Cor      Rd

                      C
                      ,,d

                                                                                                                                                                                                       Point judi
                      71-134'                          71-133.                            TI-13V                            TI-131'                           71-130.                           71-t2g
               Figure I

                                                                                                                                                                            WELLFLEET,
                                                                                                                                                                                                MASS.
                                                                                                                                                                                           EAST
                                                                                                                                                                           GENERALIZED LAND USE

                                                                                                                                                                  2

                                            6

                                                                                                                                                                                        6       2

                                                       3

                                                                  6
                                                                                                                                                                                                 6

                                  6

                                                                                                                                                                                                        2

                                                                                                                                                           6            6

                                                                                                     8

                                                                                                                                                                              Conurnercial
                                                                                                                                                                              Public                3
                                                                                                                                                                              Recreational          4
                                                                                                                                                                              Residential           6
                                                                                                                                                                              Undeveloped Land      a

                                   4

                                                                                                                         One Mile

                               Figure 2-Overlay

                              2-57'                    70- 101'                                                          70"OU                                                               69-159'                                      42-57'
                                                                                                                                                                              A
                                                                                                                                                                                                   WELLFLEET,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         MASS.
                                             Gross                                                                                                                                                                  EAST
                                                                                                                                                                                                          HAZARD ZONES
                                                                                                      po 01
                                                                                                                                                                                Cohoo
                                                                                                                                                                                 Hollow

                                                                                                                  Greal

                                                                                                                       Pon   d

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       A flonfic

                                                                                                                      00                                                                                                   Oceon

                                 56'                                                                                                                                                                                t                      42-@rj

                                                      01, Yo,k

                                                                                         New

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Wellfleet
                                                                                                                                                                                                                by the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Sea

                                                                    V

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Le Coun     k         N
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Hollo,

                                                                                                        South Wellfleet

                             S'5(
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                55

                                                                                                          J/
                                                                                                                               Drummer

                                                                                                                               Cove

                                                                                                                                       Pleas                                                       Mean High Tide           -------
                                                                                                                                         Pt.                                                       10 Foot Contour
                                                                                                                                                                                                   20 Foot Contour
                                                                                                                                                                                                   Moxiurn     Flood
                                                                                                                                                                                                         of Record

                                                       TO-101'        Field Point                                         7C   00'      One Mile
                                Figure 2

                                  4        8                                                                                                              6

                                                                                                                                         2
                                                                                         4                                                                                 4
                                                                                               6                                                         4

                                                                          4

                                                                                         WELLFLEET, MASS.
                                                                                                             WEST
                                                                                                GENERALIZED LAND USE

                                                                                                      Industrial and RailroadI
                                                                                                      Commercial
                                                                                                      Recreational        4
                                                                                                      Residential         6
                                                                                                      Undeveloped Land

                             N

                                                                                              One Mile
                         Figure 2a-Overlay

                                          tO' F04                             70' 03'                             r;0.102,
                                                                                             00

                                               or                                             -
                                     D u c
                                                                                    mk, - -

                                         G r i f f i nI S I a n d

                                                                                                     W e,I I  -fIe e t

                                                                                 r
                                                                                                                                     M6@

                                                                      r

                                                                                            M,o Beach

                                                      e  Rd               Well fl, V t    Harbor

                                                                      WELLFLEET, MASS.
                                                                                      WEST
                                                                                HAZARD ZONES

                                                                                                                         rhe Cove

                                   Great    I s I a n d                        Mean High Tide -------
                                                                               10 Foot Contour
                                                                               20 Foot Contour                            P.
                                                                               Maximum Flood                                  -sPIin ftd
                                                                                  of Record
                                                                                                                                    42'

                                                                         One 7oli%'                              70-102'
                    Figure 2a

                                           VILLAS                      6
                                                 N.J.
                                          GENERALIZED
                                              LAND USE                                      2

                                                     4

                                                                       Commercial          2
                                                                       Recreational        4
                                                                       Residential         6
                                          2                            Undeveloped Land    8

                                                                       One Half Mile

                                       Figure 3 -Overlay

                                                                   74-156'                              -140155,30"
                                                 39.3,
                                                     V I LLAS
                                                             N. J.

                                                      HAZARD ZONES

                                                              ofe
                                                       geld

                                                                                               Mean High Tide

                                                                                               10 Foot Contour

                                                                                               20 Foot Contour
                                                               co                               Maximum Flood
                                                                                                   of Record

                                                    2                                                                  39- 2'

                                                                              1
                                                                                           One Half Mile
                                                                   74-156'                             74*155'30"
                                                  Figure 3

                                                        CHINCOTEAGUE,
                                                                ASSATEAGUE,VA.

                                                                  GENERALIZED LAND USE
                                                                                                                          6
                                                                                                                                           a                                               8

                                                                                                                                                       7

                                                                                                                                                  6

                                                                                          2                                            6
                                                                                                                8        7
                                                                                          6

                                                                          4

                                      8                                                6       a                                                                                      3
                                                                                                       6

                                                       4
                                                           6
                                                                                    4

                                                    7               7

                                     2

                                                                                                                                                                                      Commercial              2
                                                                                                                                                                                      Public
                                                                                                                                                                                      Recreational            4
                                                                                                                                                                                      Residential             6
                                                                                                                                                                                      Agricultural            7
                                                                                                  One Mile                                                                            Undeveloped Land        8

                                   F i g ures 4 and 15 - Overlay

                                       Tb'126:                          T5' 25'                           75-124'                          75-                              75-12                             5d
                                                                                                                         Blake
                                                                                                                         Point
                                        37-57'          CHINCOTEAGUE,
                                                               ASSATEAGUE,                            VA.                                                4\e,
                                                                       HAZARD ZONES
                                                             A.

                                                                               Chin cote a g a e

                                                                                      8 oy

                                                                                                                                                  04

                                                                                                                                           0i

                                                                                                     A.q IRp1

                                                                                                                                                                                                               37

                                                                                                                                                  VAI-1

                                                                                                                               e                                81q,
                                                                                                                       CIO,                                   0@

                                                                                                                                                                                                               3

                                                                                                                                                                                   Mean High Tide
                                                                                                                                                                                   10 Foot Contour       - - -
                                                                                                                                                                                   20Foot Contour
                                                                                                                                                                                   Maximum Flood
                                                                                                                                                                                       of Record
                                                                                                      Mile
                                       TS-126                           75-125'                         -75-124@                                                                                             T5'1
                                   Fiqures 4 and 15

                                                    LYNN, MASS.                                                                                                  6
                                                   GENERALIZED LAND USE
                                                                                                                      2

                                                                                                                                               6

                                                                                                                                              4

                                                                                  8

                                                                                        industrial and RailroadI
                                                                                        Commercial            2
                                                                                        Public                3
                                                                                        Recreational          4
                                                                                        R:dsidential          6
                                                 4                                      U evetoped Land       8

                                                         6
                            8

                                         6
                                                                                                                                                         6

                                                                                                One Mile

                           Figure 5-Overlay

                                                                   71-158'                                                     71-157'                                                     71-156

                                                                                                                                                        Central
                                                              LYNN, MASS.                                                                                 Square

                                                                   HAZARD ZONES

                                                                                                                 Via

                                                                                                       /?
                                                                                                                             Lynn                                                  Nahont
                             .27
                                                                                                                         Harbor                                                      Boy

                                                River

                                                                                                       Mean High Tide           -------
                                                                        General Edwards
                                                                             Bridge                    10 Foot Contour
                                      KZZ@                                                             20 Fact Contour
                                                                                                       Maximum Flood
                                                                                                           of Record

                                                                         -ire

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Lit
                                                                                                                                                                                                      No

                           Q-26'                                                                                   One Mile
                                                                   TI-15W                                                      71-157'                                                    71-156'
                             Figure 5

                                                                                                           FAIRFIELD, CONN.
                                                                                                                                                                                                          6
                                                                                                                  GENERALIZED LAND USE                                                                         8

                                                                                                                       Industrial and Railroad     I
                                                                                                                       Commercial                  2
                                                                                                                       Public                      3                                               6
                                                                                                                       Recreational                4                                                          8
                                                                                                                       Residential                 6                 2
                                                                                                                       Undeveloped  Land           8
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    4

                                                                                                                                                              8

                                                                                                                                          2                                3                                8
                                                                                                             3                 3
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                        2                       V_/                                           6

                                                                                                                                                                                                       4

                                                                                                                                                                                                 2

                                                                                                                                 3

                                                                                                                                                        6

                                                                                                                                             6

                                                                                                          6
                                                                                                  4

                                                                                                                             4                                                           One Mile

                                                Figure 6 -Overlay

                                                           'rrl                                                       73-116'                                                   73 15'                                                    7ar
                                                                                                                  FAIRFIELD, GONN.

                                                                                                                                 HAZARD ZONES

                                                                                                                              Mean High Tide           -------
                                                                                                                              10 Foot Contour
                                                                                                                              20 Foot Contour
                                                                                                                              Maximum Flood
                                                                                                                                   of Record

                                                                                                                                           t  Rd                                        r

                                                                                                                                                                                        ...............

                                                                       'th -A

                                                                                                     fin)

                                                                                                                                                                                       laeo cv,

                                                                                        keft -  Pine C,e
                                                                                        abi" I*           ek  Beach
                                                                                                        Long                                        Islond
                                                                                                                                        Ping Creek                                                 One Mile
                                              .41-7'        73-11V                                                    T3-116'             POW                                   73-115,                                                  41-T
                                                  Figure 6

                                                                                                          6                 2
                                                                                                    4

                                                                                                                                                                  6

                                                                                                                                                    8                                   6
                                                                                                                                                                                         2 4
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Af

                                                                                                                            6

                                                                                                                                                        4
                                                                                                         6

                                                                                                                                      6

                                                                                                                                 B

                                                                                                                                          6                                Commercial              2
                                                                                                    8                                                                      Public                  3
                                                                                                                                                                           Zereational             4
                                                                                                                                                                           R sidential             6
                                                                                                                                                                           Agricultural            7
                                                                                                                                             4                             Undeveloped Land        8

                                                                                             87                                              4
                                                                                                                       4

                                                                                                                                    6
                                                                                                              6           2

                                                                                                           8

                                                                                                                                             HAMPTON BEACH, N.H.

                                                                                                                                                        GENERALIZED LAND USE

                                                                                                                               6    4

                                                                                                                 6

                                                                                                                                                                    One Mile

                                               F icure 7 - Overlav

                                                                                                                                      inn"connet Rd                                        TO- 48:
                                                                                                        Elmwood
                                                                                                         Corners

                                                                                                                                                                                                   Great Boars
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Head

                                                                                                                                                                  40

                                                                                                                                                                                 4 tlanti c

                                                                                                                                                              Hampton Beach

                                                                                                                                                                                 0 C e C 17

                                          @L2-54'

                                                                                                                                                                           Mean High Tide
                                                                                                                                                                           10 Foot Contour
                                                                                                                                            Hamploo H-W,                   20 Foot Contour
                                                                                                                  I                                                        Mo,Iirn- Flo.d
                                                                                                                                                  Inlet                         of Re-d

                                                                                                                                                             Beclum ns
                                                                                                                                                                Pt.
                                                                                  ek            r

                                                                                                           Mills Pt.

                                                                                                                                                 Seabrook Beach

                                           .L2-53.
                                                                              q4            . ... ..
                                                                                                                         he                      HAMPTON BEACH, N.H.
                                                                                                                                                                    HAZARD ZONES

                                                                                                                                                                         One   mile

                                                                                                                                    70-144                                                  70-14B'

                                                                MONTAUK PIT, N.Y.

                                                                       GENERALIZED LAND USE

                                                                       industrial and Railroad     I
                                                                       Commercial                  2
                                                                       Public                      3
                                                                       Recreational                4
                                                                       Residential                 6
                                                                       Undeveloped Land            6

                                                                                                                                                                                                          4

                                                                                 Cl@ Mite

                                                                                                       2

                                   6                                                                       6                                                         6

                                                                                                     6                6                   6
                                      8                                                                                                                                                                8                      6                  2 6
                                                                           6                            6                                   8
                                                  6

                                                                                                      4
                                                                       8                                                                                                                           6
                                                                                           a                          3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 E-E]

                                                                                             2

                             Figure 8 -Overlay

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           72- 01,
                                                                  MONTAUK PT, N.Y.
                                                                                 HAZARD ZONES                                                                                         Nopeogue        80Y

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          'J
                                                                           Me.. High Tide                -------                                                                                                                                                          I
                                                                           10 Foot Contour
                                                                           20 Foot Contour                                                                                                       'j
                                                                           Maximum Flood
                                                                                of Record                                                                                           ?,Ad       c:                                                   H i t h e r              H

                                                                                                                                                                                    I-INher   "i

                                                                                                                                                                                  StIte PcrIL'
                                                                                                                                                                                 N                                                                            i
                                                                                                                                                                                      N ')       ,                                                            11    'tN

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             paw1% state         Blvd
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 0 %a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           we
                                                                                    One Mile                                                                                                                                             oo"%GuV.

                                TI- 58                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 each

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        a9.0440
                              Fort        Pond                                                                                                                                                                                                                         AtIon
                                                                                          uk
                                     80Y                                               ation

                                                                  ft&                                                                                                                                                             Afontollk
                                                              'a

                                                                             Fort                                                                                                                                                                Harbor

                                                                                 Pond                                                                      A@e

                                                           montaA

                       41- 02'                                                                                                              oink       State
                                                                                                                                                                   Blvd

                                                    Monlo-h Beach                                                            4tlGntic                                                    Ocean
                          Figure 8

                                    SANDY HOOK, N.J.

                                            GENERALIZED LAND USE                                                                                                     8

                                                                                                                                     6

                                                                                                                                                        8

                                                                                                      3
                   6  F8        6                                 4                                                                                                                '6
                                                                                          2      13       2              8
                                                                2                                                      4

                                                                                                                                                                      4

                    Commercial             2
                    Public                  3
                    Recreational           4
                    Residential            6
                    Undeveloped Land       .8
                                                                                  4

                                                                                                                                                    4
                                                                           6

       t;
                                                         2                                                                                                                4
                                                                   2
                                                    6
                                          3                                                 4
                                8   6        4

                                                                                                                                                                                   IV
                                                                  4
                                                        3
                 2              2              4   6

                                                                                                                                                                                One Mile

             Figure 9-Overlay

                                              40-121'                                                                                   40-122'
                                         SANDY HOOK, N.J.                                                                                                                                                     River

                                                        HAZARD ZONES

                                                                                                                                       River

                                                                               4flaftfic         Ocean
                                               40*121,                                                                                     L22'

                                                               40.12.4                                                                               40-12.5:

                                Mean High Tide              --------
                                10 Foot Contour            - - - -
                                20 Foot Contour
                                Maximum Flood
          ,ZY59'30-                  of Record                                                                                     500     Boy                                                  pe(00       el'
                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,e

           73-59'

                                               (D                                                                                                                                     Atlantic Ocean

                                                                                                                                                                                                             'V

                                               X

                                Highlands Beach                                                                                                                                                            one mile
             Nov:sink
               B ach                                          40'12-e
              Figure            9

                                Commercial              2                      6
                                Public                  3
                                Recreational            4                              4
                                Residential             6
                                Undeveloped  Land       a                      2
                                                                     6

                                                                                      6

                                                                            6

                                                                          8                                                         4

                                                                                                                    \6

                                                                            8

                                                                                                                     6
                                                                                       6

                                                    6

                                                                      2

                                                                               CAPE MAY, N. J.
                                                                                 GENERALIZED LAND USE

                                                                                                  One   Mile

                              Figure 10-Overlay

                                            74-155'.,                                                           741J54:

                                  JO Feet Contour
                                 Maximum Flood
                                       of Record

                              38*57,                                                                                                              3e*5T'

                                                                                                            COpe AA7y

                                                                                                              Horbor

                                                                                                                          0 C,
                               *56'/                                                                                                              38*56,

                                                                                   CAPE MAY, N. J.
                                                                                            HAZARD ZONES

                                                                                                      One   Mile

                                            74* 155'                                                             74* 154!
                              Figure 10

                                                  WILDWOOD CREST, N.J.

                                                             GENERALIZED LAND USE

                                                                   Commercial             2
                                                                   p
                                                                   ":Wc                   3
                                                                      troctional          4
                                                                   R*04antiol             6
                                                                   Undovtloped  Land      a

                                                                                                                                     a

                                                                                                                                    2

                                                                                                                                                           Oaf Mile

                           Figure I I -Overlay

                                                  14- 152'                                                       74- IS.'                                                       74-150'
                                                       WILDWOOD CREST, N. J.

                                                                            HAZARD ZONES

                                                                        Mean High Tide           -------
                                                                        10 Fo t Contour
                                                                        20 Fo:t Contour
                                                                        Maximum Flood
                                                                             of Record

                                                                                                                                                                                  X

                            .58,

                                                                                                                                                         0

                                                                                                                                                    0

                                                                        13c"   0

                                                                                                                                                                             One Mile

                                                                                                                 74-151'                                                       74- 50*
                            Figure 11

                                             DENNIS, MASS.                                                                                                                                                                        2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   2
                                              GENERALIZED LAND USE                                                                                                                                           6
                                                                                                                                                                                                          2

                                                                                                                               2
                                                                                                                                                6                                               3 2
                                                                                                                                                                                2

                                                                                                                         6                                                                             2
                                                                                                        2                                2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     6
                                                                                                                                                                                                s

                                                                                                                   6                           4                                         4               2                   4

                                                                                                                                                                                            4

                                                                                                                                      4

                                       6
                                             e

                                                                                             2
                                6     8                                              2    4

                                          2                                                                                                                                                            cm.eftiof             2
                                                                                                                                                                                                       ft:0.1i.pol           4
                                                                                                                                                                                                       R identic,            6
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Undeveiopod Lond      8

                                                           e

                                                           4

                         2             6
                                                                                                                              One' Mile

                           6

                           F i gu re 12 -Overlay

                                                   TO' 13'                                                                                                                7@ \1                                                       7@\10'
                                                     DENNIS, MASS.

                                                              HAZARD ZONES

                                                                                                                                                         /YARWOUT

                            -40'

                                                                                                                          ivz

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ,nd
                                                                                                                                                                            N 0          c k    t

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Mean High Tide
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               10 Fool Contour
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               20 Foot Contour
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Mo.!- Flood
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   of Record

                                                                                                                                                     One    Mile

                                                                                                    To-\Izr                                                     70@112'
                               Figure 12

                                                           NAGS HEAD, N. C.

                                                               GENERALIZED LAND USE

                                                                                                           r

                                                                                                                                                                      8

                                   2                                                                              2
                                                                       1  6   121           --1           6                                                                   2

                                                                                                                                                                8

                                                                                                                                                                      2

                                                                                                                                                                      6

                                                                                                                                                                      8

                                                                                                                                                                      6

                                Cmmorcial          2
                                P.blic             3
                                R tre fionso       4
                                Ro T."..           6
                                Umffdsped Le"41

                                                                        6                                                           2

                                                   On* Me

                                Figure 13- Overlay

                                                                NAGS HEAD, N. G.                                                                                              Ro on oke   sound
                                                                            HAZARD ZONES

                           75' 37'
                                                                                                                                                                                                   Bodie. Island
                                                                                                            r     N                                                                                                        - - - - - - -

                                                                                                                           Atlantic Ocean
                                                                                          /3v5?'                                                                                       /35-W

                                                       /35%2'                                                                                                                                                              /35'54@

                                                                                                                                                                                                               Mean High Tide
                                                                                                                                                                                                               ;
                                                                                                                                                                                                               0 Foot Contour
                                                                                                                                                                                                               0 Fo.t Contour
                                                                                                                                                                                                               MOKimum Flood
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   of Record
                                                                                                                                                                                 @nOke

                                                                                                           N
                                                                                                                                    AtIoRtic Ocean
                                                        One Mile

                             Figure 13

                                             a

                                                                                                                                                                                 6    T                        8
                                                                                                                                           8             C9::7                                 6
                    a                 4

                                                                                                                                                   4

                                                                                                                    BETHANY BEACH,DEL.

                                                                                                                                GENERALIZED LAND                USE

                                                                                                                                    Commercial                2
                                                                        6                                                           Public                    3
                                                                                                                                    R creation.)              4
                                                                                                                                    Residential               6
                                                                                                   6                                Agriculture               7
                                                                                                                                    Undeveloped Land          8
                                                                                                                                                                                    8
                                                                                           7                     4
                                                                                                                                                                                               2

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        6        4

        9.
                                                                                                                                                                                                4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    3

                                                                                                                      4

                              a                                                            4

                                                                                                                                                         4

                                                                       of%* Mile
             Figure 14 - Overlay

             Qn

              Little Bay

            5-03'30"

                                                                                     38-131'                                                            Atlantic         OC00/2
                                                                                                                                                                       _132

                                                                                                                                                                        38'T3-6@-
                                                                                                                   BETHANY BEACH, DEL.
                                                                                                                                       HAZARD ZONES                                               Indian
                                                                                                                                                                                                  River
                                                                                                                                                                                                   say

                                                                                                                                   Mean High Tide
                                                                                                                                   10 Foot Contour                            . .....
                                                                                                                                   20 Foot Contour
                                                                                                                                   Maximum Flood                                                                    ------
                                                                                                                                        of Record

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Pond,

                                                                                  seach Care

                                                                                                                                         Old B.1111
                                                                                                                                             Cove

                                          I                                                                                         Atlantic Ocean
                                                                       One Mile 38.1W
             Figure 14

                                                                                                            481

                  Largely because of the strong opposition of the shore-front property owners. The
                  opposition is primarily based on aesthetic grounds. The residents do not wish to have
                  their view of the ocean obstructed or to Lose ready access to the shore. The feeling of
                  confidence engendered by partial protective measures may also be a factor in the
                  rejection of the seawall proposal.

                           Other public adjustments include a recent town ordinance that the floor Level of
                  all new structures near the coast must be at least 12 feet above mean sea level.

                           Private adjustments include the construction of wooden bulkheads along the
                  shore-front, as well as small stone groins and deposition of rip-rap. Shore residents also
                  commonly move their cars to higher ground during hurricane warnings. A siren is sounded
                  to give the warning and it also announces that the sea-front is restricted to residents only.

                           Future development.     Fairfield has little potential for further recreational
                  development. The shoreline is virtually inaccessible to the outsider. Most of it is being
                  developed 'for private use with no easy public access. There are three public beaches, two
                  of which are very heavily used, and their use is restricted. In the case of both public and
                  private beaches little or,no parking facilities areprovided.

                           A new marina is presently under development at Ash Creek, but the fishing
                  potential does not appear to be high and boating is mainly confined to the area's residents.
                  The area has little prospect of growth into a resort community and is not likely to attract
                  visitors from outside. Even if this were possible there is little indication that the
                  present residents would want to see such development.

                           Fairfield increasingly functions as a dormitory suburb with commuters going to
                  nearby Bridgeport or even as far as New York City. This study site provides an example
                  of a densely settled urban shore inhabited largely by permanent residents who show little
                  concern about flood and storm hazard. Both private and public adjustments have been
                  made which help to reduce damage, but the area has inadequate protection against the
                  really big and infrequent storm. In view of the rejection of the seawall proposal, flood
                  damage can be expected to occur in the future but damage should only increase in pro-
                  portion to the slow rise in value of sea-front property.

                  The Summer Shore
                  7. Hampton Beach, New Hampshire I

                           Hampton Beach is a summer resort community on the New Hampshire coast. The
                  study site extends along 3. 8 mites of shoreline from the E s sex- Rockingham County line

                             Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
                  following persons who supplied information: Mr. Ray Goding, Mr..Bochner, Mr. William
                  Elliott, and Mr. Carl Lougee.

             482

               at Seabrook Beach, north to Route 101E, which joins the coast at Hampton Beach,
               Included within the area are Seabrook Beach, Hampton Harbor Inlet, Hampton Beach,
               Great Boars Head and a large section of marshland behind the beach, drained by the
               Hampton and Btackwater Rivers. The area is 2, 820 acres in size. (See figure 7 in the
               appendix.)

                       Physiography.   This study site consists of two baym outh bars, backed by
               extensive tidal marshes, which connect with two rocky headlands representing outliers of
               the mainland.

                       A percentage breakdown of landform types shows 61 percent of the area in tidal
               marsh, 19 percent in baymouth bars and sandy beach, 15 percent that can be considered
               mainland, - I percent in rocky headlands which are outliers of the mainland, and 4 percent
               in artificial fill.

                       The marsh area behind Hampton and Seabrook baymouth bars consists of fine
               silts and clays covered by high marsh grasses. The 7-foot mean tidal range results in
               movement of large amounts of water in and out of Hampton and Blackwater Rivers through
               Hampton Harbor Inlet.

                       The baymouth bars average one-quarter of a mile in width. A 300- to 400-foot wide,
               gently sloping beach stretches along most of the seaward side. The sand bars are non-
               cliffed and regular in shape with low dunes behind the back-beach. Snow fences placed in
               11930 at Hampton State Park have built up the dune height to 10 feet. Dune grasses are able
               to hold the sand quite well. Both baymouth bars are connected to rocky promontories.
               On the north, Great Boars Head is the control point for Hampton Beach and has contributed
               some of the material to build up this bar. Beckmans Point to the south is the control point
               for Seabrook Beach which has grown north. Some material for the beaches is derived
               from the rivers which enter the sea at Hampton Harbor Inlet, and some of the sand has as
               its source the thin glacial till which covers the bedrock on the promontories. A wave-
               cut marine platform, with a series of small coves, lies seaward of the rocky control
               points. It appears, therefore, that the shape and material which make up the baymouth
               bars are directly related to these more resistant headlands. The one hill in the study site
               is a 40-foot high drumlinoid which caps the bedrock of Great Boars Head. As these
               headlands are cut back by large storm waves the configuration of the bars wi It be influenced.

                       The mainland section of the study site consists of two small areas, one in the
               southwest corner of the study site and a large section in the northwest corner. Both these
               areas are gently rotting plains 20 to 30 feet above mean sea level. Bedrock close to the
               surface is covered by a thin veneer of glacial till. Sections of this seaboard lowland are
               under cultivation (See cross section, figure 2-7. )

                       Vegetation within the study site varies from grass in the low, nearly f [at, tidal
               marshes to herbaceous plants, mixed broadleaf deciduous, and needle-leaf evergreen trees
               on the mainland. Only a small portion of the baymouth bars has dune grasses.

               STUDY SITE NO. 7

                                                                                                                                     HAMPTON
                                                                                                                                       BEACH                         ATLANTIC
                                                                     HAMPTON FLATS                 HAMPTON                                                              OCEAN
                                   MEAN SEA LEVEL                                                   RIVER

                                                                                          A                                                                          A

                                                              BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE, A FEW AREAS WITH FILL ABOVE            ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE,
                             ZONE                             MEAN HIGH TIDE                                               BUT BELOW 10 FEET              BELWO MEAN HIGH TIDE

                            GEOMORPHIC TYPE                   FLAT TIDAL MARSHES WITH SILTS AND CLAYS.       SOME          SAND  BARRIER WITH A        COARSE SANDY TO GRAVEL BEACH
                                                              MARSH FILLING                                                 FEW  LOW DUNES             WITH GENTLE GRADIENT

                              TYPE OF HAZARD                  TIDAL INUNDATION AND FLOODING DURING SEVERE STORMS           FLOODING$ SOME EROSION       FLOODING AND EROSION
                                                                                                                           AND DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES

                           DEGREE OF HAZARD                                            MINOR                                     MDOER ATE                       MUD ER ATE

                              STRUCTURES                                                FEW                                        MANY                             FEW

                                                             NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS   BUILT ON FILL IN THE MARSH         SEA WALLS, SAND FENCES, BREAKWATERS, AND JETTIES.
                             ADJUSTMENTS                    AREAS.   NEW ROADS ACROSS   THE MARSHES                        AND SOME PROTECTION        PLANS TO PUMP SAND TO THE
                                                                                                                           TO STRUCTURES              BEACHES
                                                                                                   HAM PT ON@
                                                                                                    RI VER

                                                        FIGURE 2-7.     DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, HAMPTON BEACH, NEW HAMPSHORE

                                                                                                       483

                           Storm hazard. The Hampton Beach study site has a high frequency of storms
                  of all kinds but the degree of hazard is only moderate when compared with places such as
                  Point Judith. Field observations estimate the flood of record to be about 10 feet above
                  mean sea Level. A Beach Erosion Control Reporti places the record tide at 3. 9 feet above
                  mean high water which, when measured from mean sea level, gives an estimated flood of
                  record of 8. 7 feet. The following flood levels can be given from actual storm occurrences.
                  Tides exceed mean high water by 1 foot or more on the average 107 times a year; by 2 feet
                  or more 12 times a year; and by 3 feet or more, once every two years. The United States
                  Weather Bureau's Storm Surge Warning Map2 states that flooding of waterfront cottages
                  begins at 7. 5 feet above mean sea level and a section of the beach road in Salisbury,
                  Massachusetts floods at 8 feet above mean sea level. Local observations of an exceptional
                  spring tide of December 29, 1959, indicated a maximum hei�ht to be approximately 12. 6
                  feet above mean low water or 8. 6 feet above mean sea level.  A maximum storm tide
                  height of between 8 and 9 feet above mean sea level appears to be accurate.

                           Marsh areas become flooded in winter with every strong northeast storm, but
                  water piles up only with a strong west wind, against the inner side of the barrier bars and
                  causes damage to structures. Without a beach or sand dunes to check the rise of water,
                  these areas are only safe when structures are placed on fill at least 10 feet above mean sea
                  Level.

                           Flooding, beach erosion, and frontal structural damage are the main types of
                  damage found at the Hampton Beach study site. Their occurrence is quite frequent with
                  winter cyclonic disturbances which include the "northeasters. " But severe structural
                  damage and flooding is limited to the immediate coastal zone. At Rye Beach and Hampton
                  Beach, 850 cottages were inundated by sea water during a northeaster in April, 1958.

                           By far the largest number of storms can be classified as "northeasters. " The
                  United States Weather Bureau at Boston, Massachusetts shows that 80 out of the 160 gales
                  which occurred during the 75-year period, 1870-1945, were northeast gales@ These storms
                  represent major disturbances, often of several days duration accompanied by rain or snow,
                  high tides, shore inundation,, and destructive wave and wind action.

                           1 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative
                  Study of Hampton Beach, . New Hampshire, U. S. Ar my Engineer New England Division,
                  Boston, Mass., August 14, 1953, pp. 9- 10.
                           2U. S. - Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau,, Storm Surge Warning Map,
                  No. 2, August 1962.
       A                   3 Hampton Municipal Development Authority, Marsh Reclamation Project Prelim-
                  inary Plan for Project Area No. 1, Hampton, New Hampshire.
                           4 Corps of Engineers, Shore of the State of New Hampshire, Beach Erosion Control
                  Study, 87th Congress, 2nd Sess. , House Doc. 416, May 21, 1952, pp. 16-17.

             484

                       Settlement history.   The town of Hampton traces its origins back to a plantation
              ca tied. Winnicumett in 1635 and remains today a compact New England town with a meeting-
              house green. But two miles from the town center is New Hampshire's "Happy Hampton",
              a major New England summer resort for many years.

                       Osgood's handbook for travellers in 1883, described the Hampton Beach Settlement
              of that time as follows:

                                "Stages run from the station to Hampton Beach         Besides
                       the hotels, there are many small summer cottages on and near the
                       beach . . .  From the vicinity of Boar's Head, a sandy beach extends S
                       to Hampton River where many vessels were made in the colonial days.
                       The river forms a safe harbor for coasters, though its entrance is
                       fringed with rocks and shoals. Its clams are famous, and water-fowl
                       formerly abounded, while the settlement of Hampton was due to the
                       abundance of Salt Hay on its marshes. "I

                       Today the harbor is heavily silted, but the recreational character of Hampton
              settlement is stronger than ever before. . In 1952, over sixty percent of the assessed
              valuation of the entire town was classified as recreation property, and the percentage
              is probably larger today.

                       With a present town population below 3, 000, Hampton wi U play host to crowds of
              more than 100, 000 visitors on a single day.

                       Land use changes.    There have been considerable changes in land use in the
              period since the first available air photograph coverage in 1952. Over five hundred new
              single-famifty residences have been added, many of them as homes for summer visitors.
              There has also been a substantial increase in the number of commercial structures. The
              increases have been both in the form of intensified use of previously developed areas and
              extensions into formerly undeveloped areas. Intensification of development has occurred
              at Seabrook where the number of cottages has almost doubled, and in the commercial strips
              along Ocean St. and Marsh Ave.

                       Extension has occurred by the reclamation of considerable marsh areas for
              residential and commercial development. -It was not possible to define the extent of a
              maximum. flood of record in the marsh area and the pattern of future flooding will in any
              case be quite different from the past due to reclamation of marshland. It is not known to
              what degree of hazard the new developments on the reclaimed marshland are subject.
              Land use changes are shown in the overlay to figure 7 (appendi.@.),. and recorded changes
              are given in table -2-7.

                       Adjustments to hazard.    There is a relatively low level of concern about the storm
              hazard in Hampton Beach. This may reflect the lack of heavy damage in recent years.

                       1 New England: A Handbook for Travellers, Boston,. James R. Osgood and Co. ,
              seventh ecC-, 1883, p. 262.

                                                                                                                485

                                                               Table 2-7

                       Hampton Beach, New Hampshire
                                           Major Land Use Changes by Hazard 7onesi

                                      Land Use
                       Zone                                    T  Structures                   No. Acres

                                                          1952    1963      char                         change
                                                                                 e      1952    1963

                       A              8 Undeveloped            0       0       0        2035    2035          0
                       Tidal          Total                    0       0       0        2035    2035          0

                       B              2 Commercia"A.        25        39     +56          20       20         0
                                      4 Recreational           0       0       0         125     125          0
                                      6a Residential       434      617      +42          44       59      +34
                                      8 Undeveloped            0       0       0          40       23      -42
                       Tidal-101      Total                459      657      +43         241     241          0-

                       C              2 Commercial         477      482        +1         47       50        +6
                                      4 Recreational           5       5       0          31       31         0
                                      5a Recreational          0       0       0          14       33     +136
                                      6a Residential       793    1104       +39         162     167         +3
                                      8 Undeveloned            0       0       0         171     144       -16
                       101-201        Total               1285    1602       +25         433     433          0

                       D              2 Commercial             9       9       0            0        5    +4oo
                                      @a Residential        58        88     +52          14       28     +iOO
                                      7 Acricultural           3       3       0          14       14         0
                                         Z@
                                      8 Undeveloped            0       0       0          68       49      -28
                       >   201        Total                 70      101      +44         lo6     1o6          0
                       F              2 Commercial        n.d.2   n.d.                    10       10         0
                                      4 Recreational      n.d.    n.d.                   158     158          0
                                      5a Recreational     n.d.    n.d.                      3        3        0
                                      6a Residential      n.d.    n.d.                    37       46      +24
                                      7 Agricultural      n.d.    n.d.                      0        0        0
                                      8 Undeveloped       n.d.    n.d.                  2120    2111          0
                       Flooded        Total               n.d.    n.d,                  2332    2332          0-

                       All            2 Commercial         511      530        +4         67       75      +12
                       Zones          3 Public              10        13     +30          16       18      +12
                                      4 Recreational           5       5       0         158     158       . 0
                                      5a Recreational          0       0       0          21       40      +90
                                      6a Residential      11285   1809       +41         220     254       +15
                                      7 Agricultural           3       3       0          19       19         0
                                      8 Undeveloped            0       0       0        2314    2251         -3
                                      Total                       2360       +30        2815    2815          0

                             1 Minor land   uses omitted and      total may exceed land uses     enumerated.
                             2 n.d.       No data.

              486

               There appears to be a widespread belief that small scale individual protection measures
               are sufficient to eliminate the danger,

                         Private action to reduce storm, damage includes the construction of seawalls; the
               placing of rock rubble on the ocean side of dunes, the raising of structures on piles above
               the high water level; the filling of marshland to heights ranging from 1 foot to 4 feet; and
               the petitioning of public officials and Legislators to provide more protection at public
               expense.

                         Public protection measures include a breakwater at Hampton Harbor Inlet, and
               a seawall along the front of Hampton Beach. Snow fences were placed along the shore at
               Hwmpton State Park in 1930 and these have helped to establish dunes up to heights of 10 feet.
               Other adjustments include a new road across the tidal flats behind Hampton Beach, which
               can be used as an escape route during severe storms. Plans are also in hand to pump sand
               for beach nourishment from Hampton Harbor Inlet to the beach north of Church Street.
               Several new jetties and groins are also planned.

                         Hampton Beach is well protected from frontal assault by storm waves. The
               safety of the recent marshland reclamation developments is more in doubt. Although
               private filling of the marsh up to 4 feet precedes building, there is a danger that the fill
               may not be high enough. Areas not fi I led high enough in the past have suff ered f lood
               damage when west winds pile water up against the lagoon side of the bar. To be safe the
               marshes need to be filled to a height of at least 10 feet above mean sea Level.

                         Future development.     Further development seems likely to be confined to
               additional marshLand reclamation, since a[[ other available Land is in publicly-owned
               recreation areas or has already been developed. A controversy surrounds the future
               use of the marsh[ands since some people would like to see them kept as open space.
               Hampton Beach is an example of a highly seasonal resort area where expansion into Low
               Lying marshland provides the only opportunity for further growth. Reclamation of marsh-
               land appears likely to continue, but in the absence of knowledge about likely flood heights,
               and in the absence of building codes that specify a minimum amount of fill the trend of
               flood damage potential, while not clear at the present time, is probably in an upward
               direction.

               8. Montauk,. New York

                         The second example of the summer shore type of development is the resort
               community of Montauk. The study site includes 8. 4 miles of the coastline of Long Island
               and incorporates reaches of both the northern and the southern shores. The coastal zone
               extends from a point just east of the United States Coast Guard Reservation at Ditch Plains
               west of Napeague Beach. The study site includes two small sections of shoreline on the

                         I Field work by Robert GarduLa and Roger Kasperson. We are indebted to the
               following person who supplied information: Mr. John Craft.

                                                                                                       487

                 north side of Montauk Peninsula which border on Block Island Sound. Small sections of
                 Montauk Harbor and Napeague Harbor, a section of Hither Hills State Park, and several
                 large fresh water ponds are included within this study site. - The total area is approximately
                 3245 acres. (See figure 8 in the appendix.)

                          Physiography.   Approximately 91 percent of the site is made up of irregular
                 rotting hills and depressions with disorganized drainage patterns. The upland represents
                 the eastern prong of one of two large terminal moraines which make up Long Island. The
                 glacial deposits are estimated to be from 100 to 200 feet thick. The surface form of the
                 glacial tit[ is made up of irregular hills and depressions called kames and kettle holes. A
                 number of takes and bogs are found because water collects in the depressions. The eleva-
                 tion of most of the upland averages between 50 and 150 feet above sea level.

                          Several of the largest depressions have openings to the sea. Napeague Harbor
                 represents one such depression. However, Fort Pond is now a brackish water pond
                 because sand carried by the littoraL currents has closed off the north and south outlets to
                 the sea. During exceptionally high tides and very severe storms, water breaks through
                 the sand barriers and at times raises the water level of Fort Pond as much as four feet.

                          Where the morainic hills come to the coast, wave-cut cliffs are found. At
                 Napeague Beach a 100-to 200-foot wide beach backed by low coastal dunes protects the 50-
                 to 60 foot high cliffs from severe erosion. But to the east the beach is narrower, and ocean
                 waves, in winter and during storms, are able to reach the cliffs and are slowly eating them
                 away.

                          The material which makes up the uplands is morainic material consisting of
                 poorly consolidated boulder clays, gravels and sands. (See cross section, figure 2-8.)
                 Some small sections of silt and clay surround the inland water bodies.

                          The second physiographic division making up about 5 percent of the study site
                 consists of tidal and upland marshes. These marshes are found around Fort Pond, Fresh
                 Pond, Montauk Harbor, and low poorly drained sections of the upland. The marshes
                 around the large ponds are subject to occasional salt water flooding when waves cross over
                 the barrier beaches. The upland marsh areas only fluctuate during heavy rains.

                          The third division, making up about 4 percent of the study site, consists of a
                 beach zone along the Atlantic Ocean and around the larger bays and ponds. The width of
                 most of the ocean beaches averages about 100 feet. However, in summer the beaches are
                 wider, averaging 150-200 feet, while in winter, the waves cut back the beach and carry
                 the material off the coast. Sand for the beach is derived mainly from the morainic cliffs
                 which are 50 to 60 feet high at Montauk Point. Although sand is the predominant material
                 making up the beaches, coarse gravels and occasionally boulders are moved along the
                 beach from the cliffs. Only very narrow beaches border the ponds and bays. Three types
                 of coastal configuration are found at this study site. Where cliffs occur, the beaches are
                 narrow, irregular, and usually the beach gradient is steep. The beach near the Coast
                 Guard Reservation is an example of this type. Along sections of the coast where cliffs do
                 not border the ocean, beaches are long, straight, and have greater width. . Napeague Beach

             488

              is an example of this second type. Around the bays, lagoons, and ponds the coastline is
              crenate from the circular movement of currents. Beaches at these locations are very
              narrow or non-existant. The coastline of Montauk Harbor consists mostly of marsh grass.

                       The material making up this study site is predominantly morainic consisting of
              boulder clays, gravels, and sands. Silts and clays are found where salt marshes occur
              and in the ponds and takes. Beaches are composed of fine sands except near the wave-cut
              cliffs.

                       Vegetation consists of grass and herbaceous plants on the rolling hills and mixed
              deciduous and. coniferous trees in the more protected areas. Because of its marine location,
              this study site receives high winds and a great deal of fog and cloud cover. Many of the
              trees are stunted by the high winds. There are some sections, especially in Hither Hills
              State Park, where wind swept cliffs and slopes have almost no vegetation.

                       Storm hazard. This study site has only a moderate storm frequency and damage
              is low due to the favorable topographic conditions of the area. Beach erosion and frontal
              structural destruction are the two basic types of storm damage. Most of Montauk is well
              above the 20-foot contour level. However, the beach areas and sea cliffs are badly eroded
              during storms. Material eroded from the cliffs in winter is carried west along the coast
              and deposited on the beaches during the summer months.

                       Strong southeast winds blowing into deep Low pressure areas moving across New
              England are at times destructive. During such storms dune leveling takes place and
              occasionally cottages are undermined. Away from the immediate coast, wind is the cause
              of most damage.

                       When waves and tides are large enough to cross the sand beaches, flooding will
              take place in the large ponds. During the 1938 and 1954 hurricanes, sea water broke through
              the beach and flooded Fort Pond inundating the buildings along the shore. During these same
              storms  ankle deep flood waters covered the camping site at Hither Hills State Park.

                       Reports by the Corps of Engineers indicate that  1the flood of record for the Montauk
              Beach area is from 8. 5 to 9. 5 feet above mean sea level.   Interviews with local residents
              indicate an over-all range of from 5 to 10 feet for the highest water along the shore in the
              worst storms.

                       To the west of Montauk Beach, hazards increase rapidly as the hills decrease in
              height and long.barrier bars form as a result of the westward movement of sand along the

                       1 Atlantic Coast of Long Island, New York: Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point,
              Cooperative Beach Erosion Control and Interim Hurricane Study (Survey), U. S. Army
              Engineers District,,New York, Corps of Engineers, New York 3, N.Y. July 1958.

               STUDY SITE NO. 8                                                                                                                     SOUTH
                                                                                       NORTH SIDE                          MONTAUK                  SIDE
                                              FORT POND                                     OF    I                                                 OF         f`lDNTAUK       ATLANTIC
                                                 BAY                                    FORT POND                                                   FORT        BEACH            OCEAN
                                                                                                                                                    POND
                                           LEVEL
                                 tAN
                                 L -SEA

                                                   A                                                                                                                              A

                        ZONE               BELOW MEAN HIGH      ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE BUT BELOW       ABOVE 10 FEET AND UP TO 100 FEET             ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE        BELOW MEAN
                                           TIDE                 10 FEET                                                                           BUT BELOW 20:FEET           HIGH TIDE

                                                                                                    MORAINIC UPLANDS WITH ROLLING TOPO-             SAND BARRIER   WITH       WIDE SANDY
                   GEOMORPHIc TYPE          BAY AND NARROW       SAND BARRIER SEPARATING            GRAPHY AND SCATTERED DEPRESSIONS*               A FEW DUNES OVER          BEACH
                                            BEACH                FORT POND FROM THE BAY              THIS UPLAND PROJECTS INTO FORT POND            10 FEET, SEPARATING
                                                                                                                                                    FORT POND FROM THE
                                                                                                                                                    OCEAN

                                                                                                                                                  EROSION OF THE DUNES,
                                           FLOODING AND SOME     TIDAL INUNDATION ONLY DURING                                                     FLOODING OF FoR'T POND      ERosiou OF
                    TYPE OF HAZARD         EROSION OF THE        VERY SEVERE STORMS                                      NONE                     DURING SEVERE STORMS        THE BEACH
                                           BEACH                                                                                                  AND SOME STRUCTURAL
                                                                                                                                                  DAMAGE

                   DEGREE OF HAZARD              MINOR                    MINOR                                          NONE                     MAJOR ONLY DURING             SEVERE
                                                                                                                                                  SEVERE STORMS

                                                                                                                                                  A FEW BEACH FRONT
                     STRUCTURES                    FEW                      FEW                             NUNEROUS NEAR THE TOWN                STRUCTURES                     NONE

                      ADJUSTMENTS                  FEW           WHARF$ CAUSE SOME                                        FEW                     INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTMENTS      SEVERAL
                                                                 PROTECTION                                                                       TO HOLD DUNES AND           JETTIES EXIS7.
                                                                                                                                                  PROTECT STRUCTURES          PLANS FOR
                                                                                                                                                                              GROINS

                                                                 FIGURE 2-8.     DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, MONTAUK, NEW YORN

                                                                                                           489

                  shore.1 These low, sand barrier bars are much more susceptible to wave erosion and
                  f looding.

                           Two of the most destructive storms were the 1938 and 1954 hurricanes.
                  Hurricane Carol in 1954 caused extensive flooding of low areas. In some low areas, salt
                  water was up to the glass windows of cottages, and the main highway to Montauk was cut
                  off by tidal inundation during both storms.
                           Settlement history@ The first settlers of Montauk came in the early 1600's.
                  By 1660 shore whaling made up a Large part of Montauk's economy, with whaling stations
                  employing many of the local citizens. This industry fai led, however, in the tatter 1800's
                  when the demand for whale oil declined.

                           As early as the mid-1700's commercial fishing contributed substantially to the
                  economy of the area, but reached its modern proportions in the 1850's. It was at this time
                  that cottages called "fishing houses" were erected in fairly Large numbers to accommodate
                  the large influx of fishermen and their families. A small colony of these houses arose
                  along the western shore of Fort Pond Bay.

                           By 1882 commercial fishing was firmly entrenched as a major industry and three
                  major fishing stations were established. One was located on the eastern rim of Fort Pond
                  Bay (Captain TuthiLl's), one on the southern rim (Captain Wells'), and one west of what
                  was called Railroad Dock at the easternmost tip of the Long Island Railroad (Captain
                  Parsons'). Captain Welts' icehouse was demolished in the hurricane of 1938, as was
                  Captain Tuthill's. These were replaced by refrigeration, a step toward modernization in
                  the packing of fish. In 1942 the Navy took over Captain Parsom I property and his fishing
                  operations came to an end. Of the earlier fishing operations only two remain, constituting
                  the total of wholesale fisheries in Montauk at this time.

                           Coincident with the rise of commercial fishing in the 1800's was the development
                  of Montauk's Lobster fishery. This first began along the southern shore of Fort Pond Bay.
                  Today, however, the demand for lobsters cannot be satisfied by the local catch alone, so
                  lobsters,are imported as well, some from as far away as Nova Scotia.

                           Montauk's commercial fishing reached its zenith several y  ears ago and no   Longer
                  ranks among the areas top three industries.    Sportfishing, however, does, (along with the
                  seasonal service industry and Republic Aerospace Corp.). During the height of the season,
                  surf-casters alone number about 500 to 600 during any given 24-hour period.

                           Low accessibility delayed the rise of surf and boat sportfishing at Montauk. The
                  modern era began during the 1920's with an increase in the number of automobiles and the

                           1 Final Report: . The Protection and Preservation of the Atlantic Shore Front of
                  the State of New York, Temporary State. Commission on Protection and Preservation of the
                  Atlantic Shore Front, July 1962.
                           2
                             Based on field party notes assembled from various locally available sources.

             4,90

              improvement of highways. Also, in the early@ 1930's the Long Island Railroad inaugurated
              the "Montauk Fishermen's Special" with express trains to Montauk in the morning, re-
              turning to New York in the later afternoon. There were special boats for the patrons of the
              railroad as well. Through the 1940's the major sport-boat docks were located on Fort Pond
              Bay and the Railroad Dock.

                      . In 1950, Montauk Harbor came into its own as a large number of docks and accom-
              modations for fishermen sprang up. These expanded facilities attracted more charter and
              party boats to the area. A recent count shows more than 125 such boats available to the
              sportfishing public, Indications are that all of Northwest Cove between Star Island and the
              main peninsula will become one gigantic sportfishing harbor. Hundreds of privately owned
              and used boats also visit Montauk during the summer.

                        In the 1920's Carl G. Fisher, who initially developed Miami Beach came to
              Montauk in an attempt to duplicate his previous success. He made Lake Montauk (a fresh
              water body) a part of the sea as a first step toward making Montauk a competitor of New
              York City for ocean-going vessels, but died before his dream could be realized. In addi-
              tion he built a beach club and hotel (Montauk Manor), and a 7-story headquarters building
              (the tallest building in Suffolk county) in the center of the village. This building now serves
              as headquarters for the Montauk Beach Co. , successors to Fisher, and the main develop-
              ing agency in the area since 1927.

                        1he first motel in the area was built in 1930 and was shortly followed by a number
              of such establishments along the ocean-front.

                        Land use changes.    There has been a steady growth of both residential and com-
              mercial buildings in the period since 1955. There are thirty new commercial buildings,
              providing mostly services for the summer visitors, and nearly one hundred new single
              family residences, many of them summer homes for visitors from the New York City
              area. A new subdivision has been started in the area south of Lake Montauk. Most of the
              new developments are in the higher areas and well beyond the reach of flood waters.

                        The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 8 (appendix). Recorded
              land use changes are shown in table 2-8.

                        Adjustments to hazard. In view of the low level of storm damage, the perception
              of the hazard is remarkably high in Montauk, in the flood hazard area itself. Due to the
              topographic characteristics of the study site the hazard zone is very limited in extent,and
              concern about the hazard outside this zone is minimal.

                        In the high hazard areas, particular concern was given to the problem of erosion
              and the effect that this was having on the danger of flooding. In the center, many com-
              mercia[ establishments expressed concern over the erosion of the dunes which afforded
              natural protection. In the strip of residences along the Bay side, a bitter issue was the
              dredging of sand just offshore from the beach, which residents thought substantially
              increased storm hazard. Although they banded together and opposed the dredging, it
              continued to go on at the time of the field work.

                                                                                                         491

                                                          Table 2-8

                      Montauk   New York
                                         Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zonesl

                      Zone         Eand  Use              No. Structures                 No. Acres

                                                       1955    l9f)3  change      1955    1963   change

                      A            4 Recreational         0      0        0           8       8        0
                                   8 Undeveloped          0      0        0         54      54         0
                      Tidal        Total                  0      0        0         63      63         0-

                      B            1 Industrial          17     17        0         84      84         0
                                   2 Commercial          14     18      +29           9     14      +56
                                   4 Recreational         0      0        0         82      82         0
                                   5 Recreational         0      0        0         77      77         0
                                   6a Residential        49     6o      +22         14      16      +14
                                   8 Undeveloped          0      0        0        144     137       -5
                      Tidal-101    Total                 80     95      +19        410     410         0

                      C            2 Commercial          89    109      +22         67      70       +4
                                   4 Recreational         0      0        0         78      78         0
                                   6a Residential        45     64      +42         25      34     -+36
                                   8 Undeveloped          0      0        0        257     243       -5
                      101-201      Total               139     178      +28        437     437         0

                      D            2 Commercial          56     62      +11         63      69      +10,
                                   4 Recreational         0      0        0        7o4     M           0
                                   6a Residential      156     219      +40         97     128      +32
                                   6b Residential        58     58        0         44      49      +11
                                   8 Undeveloped          0      0        0       1417    1381       -2
                      > 201        Total               273     343      +26       2328    2335         0

                      F            1 Industrial          16     16        0         42      42         0
                                   2 Commercial          14     14        0         11      11         0
                                   4 Recreational         0      0        0         98      98         0
                                   5a Recreational        0      0        0         77      77         0
                                   6a Residential         8      8        0           6       6        0
                                   8 Undeveloped          0      0        0         47      47         0
                      Flooded      Total                 38     38        0        281     281         0

                      All          1 Industrial          17     17        0         84      84         0
                      Zones        2 Commercial        159     189      +19        139     153      +10
                                   3 Public               3      4      +33           3       4     +33
                                   4 Recreational         0      0        0        872     872         0
                                   5a Recreational        0      0        0         77      77         0
                                   6a Residential      250     343      +37        137     179      +31
                                   6b.Residential        63     63        0         54      61      +13
                                   8 Undeveloped          0      0        0       1872    1815       -3
                                   Total               492     616      +25       3238    3245         0

                           1 Minor land uses omitted and total     may exceed land uses    enumerated.

             492

                       Private adjustments to hazard include many attempts- to check erosion by dumping
              boulders., bed springs and timber at the base of the cliffs. Snow fences are used to build
              sand dunes. Some buildings in the hazard area are erected on piles and at the Surf Club
              it is common practice to open the main doors so that storm water may run through the
              building into the pool.

                       Public preparations for storms include provision for the evacuation of people to
              higher ground, and the stationing of half of Montauk's fire equipment west of Fort Pond. In
              this way the area has fire protection and equipment for rescue operations, should it be cut
              off from the rest of the town.

                       Future development.   Montauk is a scenically attractive area that is rather
              remote from large centers of population. Largely for this reason its rate of growth has
              been modest. The area has a high potential for further recreation development, however.
              There are over thirty miles of shoreline at the eastern end of Long Island that are sparcely
              used. Of the 1, 800 acres at Hither Hills State Park only 75 have been developed. Good
              beaches and sportfishing provide a variety of recreational opportunities.

                       In Montauk the growth has been rather slow since 1952. The area clearly has
              great potential for recreational development, however, and this may come soon '. Most of
              the development is likely to occur outside tile major hazard zones and a substantial increase
              in damage potential appears unlikely.

              9. Sandy Hook, New Jerseyl

                      .The Sandy Hook study site includes part of the densely developed community of
              Highlands and the summer shore community of Sea Bright. Sandy Hook is located at the
              northern extremity of the New Jersey Atlantic shoreline.

                       It faces New York City across New York Bay. The study site occupies 8. 3 miles
              of the coastline between the Coast Guard Station in Galilee, north of Monmouth Beach, to
              the entrance of Fort Hancock Military Reservation on Sandy Hook spit. The study site also
              includes two small sections of the mainland, the extreme eastern parts of Highlands and
              Rumson peninsulas. The total area of this study site is approximately 1065 acres. (See
              figure 9 in the appendix.)

                       Physiography.   Beach, marsh, and bluff are the three main physiographic types
              in this area. About 74 percent consists of the southern end of a tong, narrow, barrier bar
              which at its northern end becomes the complex recurved spit of Sandy Hook@ The sandy

                       1 Field work by Robert Gardula and Roger Kasperson. We are indebted to the
              following persons who supplied information: Mr. Richard L. Riker, Mr. H. W. Boud,
              and Mr. Jerry Welch.
                       2 A. K. Lobeck, Things Maps Don't Tell Us. MacMillan and Co., New York,
              1958, pp. 32-33.

                                                                                                             493

                   beach on the. seaward side of this spit averages Less than 200 feet wide at mean Low water.
                   Only, in the northern part of the study site does the beach become 300 to 400 feet wide.

                            Dunes and vegetation found within the study site occur only in the new state park
                   which formerly was part of Fort Hancock Military Reservation. Here are preserved some
                   of the Largest and oldest holly trees in the United States. Dune grasses, low shrubs and
                   cactus help hold the sand around the Low 5- to -10-foot high dunes.

                            Approximately 12 percent of the study site consists of tidal marshes and flats.
                   The features are found mainly on the landward side of the barrier island and at the mouths
                   of the -Navesink and Shrew'sbu,ry Rivers Which flow t6 Sandy Hook Bay. In places, sections
                   of these marshes, all of which Lie less than 10 feet above sea Level, are filled in by marinas.
                   and housing developments.

                            The third physiographic division is the mainland, making up.14 percent of the
                   study area. The small sections of mainland included in the study site are the extreme
                   eastern sections of two Long necks which are separated by the drowned Navesink and
                   Shrewsbury Rivers. Although most of this division consists of flat land underlain by
                   'Cretaceous and Tertiary gravels and marLs, the seaward side of Navesink Highlands repre-
                   sents the inner Tertiary cuesta of the coastal plan and has 200-foot high cliffs. These cliffs
                   over the years have been cut back by the sea, but today they are protected by the barrier
                   bar. , (See cross section, figure 2-9.)

                            Materials within the study site include sand and some silt on the barrier bar and
                   spits. Soft muds and clays occur in the tidal Lagoons and around the river mouths.
                   Cretaceous arid Tertiary gravels, marLs, and clays are found on the mainland.

                            Storm hazard.    Although the storm frequency in the vicinity of the study site is
                   moderate, damage has been heavy in the recent times. The exact height of the flood of
                   record is difficult to establish. The Corps of Engineers Reportsi and interviews with the
                   local residents estimate a flood record from 8 to 10 feet above mean water. Since nearly
                   .86 percent of this study site is below the 10-foot contour, this study site has been, and
                   will continue to be, subject to extensive flooding and damage from Large storm waves and
                   unusually high tides.

                            Sandy Hook  spit has the highest degree of hazard. In severe storms such as that
                   of March 6-7, 1962,  the unprotected sections of Sandy Hook were breached in, 11 places
                   separating the bar into a number of flooded islands. The sections breached were in the
                   northern part of the study site where a new state park is being developed.

                            1Shore of New Jersey from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, Beach Erosion Control
                   Study, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, House Doc. No. 361, Govt. Printing Qffice, Washington,
                   1957, pp. 17-20 and Shore of New Jersey from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, 85th Congress,
                   2nd.Session, House Doc. No. 332, Washington, 1958, pp. 15-16 and appendices.

             494

                       Flooding of property on the Atlantic side of the bar is usually confined to low areas
              and basements when water breaks over the seawall that protects most of the bar. On the
              lagoon side of the barier bar marinas receive heavy Losses to dock facilities and boats during
              severe storms. Without the protection of the seawall the barrier bar would be subject to
              occasional complete separation as new inlets are cut. Both the ocean and the rivers have
              cut through the sand barrier several times. The Shrewsbury River, which now turns north
              and f Lows along the inner side of the barrier island to Sandy Hook Bay, broke through the
              barrier beach in the winters of 1777-1778, 1830-1831, and 1895.

                       Headland sections of the mainland receive little damage because the 10-foot sea-
              wall., the barrier beach, and the narrow Lagoon protect the mainland areas from sea attack.
                       Settlement History- I As recently as 400 years ago, the barrier sand bar which is
              now Sea Bright and Sandy Hook was practically non-existent. The sand bar was then con-
              nected to Highlands and was very small. Within the past 200 years, the peninsula has been
              separated from the mainland on three separate occasions to form an island. The
              Shrewsbury River broke through the peninsula in the winters of 1777-1778, 1830-1831, and
              in 1895-1896 -- and in each case it took from 15 to 20 years to close the openings. Map
              studies indicate that the breaks did not'occur in the same location each time. In the late
              17th and early 18th centuries, the Hook was connected directly to Highlands, a fact verified
              in a map of 1777. Since then, geologic changes have made Sandy Hook a part of the barrier
              sand bar along the coast.

                       The Sandy Hook Light was erected in 1764 and apparently was a major cause of the
              present "clam-Like" shape of the Hook. The tight was originally built at the water's edge,
              but today is separated from the water by 300 yards of beach and is about 1- 1/4 miles .
              from the tip of the -point. As one observer noted in 1958, "Sandy Hook is visible evidence
              of where Long Branch's beach had fled" Since 1870, openings to the ocean have been
              closed and much of the beach protected by a'seawalL.

                       Aside from the pre-European population, settlement in the study area began when
              Governor Nichols issued a proclamation in the fall of 1665 authorizing people to form a
              settlement at Portland Poynt (now Rumson and Highlands)      Early settlement in the area
              has traditionally rested upon two chief occupations -- maritime activities (especially fishing)
              and truck farming. -Clamming also became an important source of income during this early
              period. The families which migrated to Highlands and Rumson during this peri-od settled
              in compact villages and not in the common rural homestead pattern of settlement.

                       Sea Bright differs from Rumson and Highlands in that it was a summer resort
              from its very inception. Originally, it was a little fishing village called Nauvoo, but
              always spoken of as "the huts, " for the first houses were little else since the men only
              lived there during the summer. Even at this early point, there may have been some local
              adjustment to storm hazard because the structures were built against a "high bank covered
              with beach plum bushes.
                       1 Based on field party notes assembled from various locally available sources.

                STUDY SITE NO. 9                       ATLANTIC
                                                             HIGHLANDS
                                                                       CLIFF               NAVESINK           NAVESINK
                                                                                            R  IVER                      BE A CH                         ATLANTIC OCEAN

                                                                                                                                                                   SEA LEVEL

                                                          D                     B, C              A                   B                                        A

                                                                           MEAN HIGH
                          ZONE             ABOVE THE 20-FOOT CONTOUR       TIDE TO        BELOW MEAN       ABOVE MEAN HIGH rIDE,                  BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE
                                                                           20-FOOT        HIGH TIDE        BUT BELOW 10 FEET
                                                                           CONTOUR

                                            UPLANDS 200 FEET ABOVE         FOOT OF   THE
                     GEOMORPHir TYPE       SEA LEVEL                       HILLS          TIDAL CHANNEL     SANDY BARRIER BAR              NARROW SAND BEACH, GENTLE GRADIENT

                                                                           LOW AREAS
                    TYPE OF HAZARD               NO FLOOD HAZARD           SUBJECT To    FLOODED AT         WAVE SPRAY OVER             BEACH SUBJECT TO FLOODING AND EROSION
                                                                           FLOODING      HIGH TIDE          BULKHEAD                    DURING STORMS

                  DEGREE OF HAZARD                  NONE                                  DAILY             SOME HAZARD FROM                          SEVERE HAZARD
                                                                              MINOR       INUNDATION        EROSION

                                                                           MANY, TOWN                       MA NY SUMMER HOMES,
                       STRUCTURES                   FEW                    OF                  FEW          MOTELS                                         FEW
                                                                           HIGHLANDS

                                                                                                           A 10-FOOT WALL ALONG
                                                                           MARI.NA TO                      MOST OF THE STUDY
                       ADJUSTMENTS                      FEW                PROTECT              FEW        SITE.   MANY INDIVIDUAL        BEACH FILLING, GROINS AND JETTIES
                                                                           BOATS                           ADJUSTMENTS TO
                                                                                                           PROTECT STRUCTURES

                                                               FIGURE 2-9.    DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, SANov, HOOK, NEW JERSEY

                                                                                                      495

                          The first permanent residential structure in Sea Bright was built in 1869. How-
                 ever, a bad storm in 1915 undermined the beach near the house and it was moved across
                 the river on barges and located in Rumson. Much of the early growth in the area is
                 attributable to the transshipment business of Sandy Hook. As early as 1759 Sandy Hook
                 was the terminal for regular coach lines running from. Camden through Mount Holly,
                 Shrewsbury, and Middletown. Passengers disembarked at Sandy Hook and completed the
                 trip to New York by boat. The New Jersey Central Railroad route north from Long Branch
                 used the same system. Trains ran to Sandy Hook and then a boat was taken to New York.
                 The line was originally constructed along a narrow coastal strip in 1865, and maintained
                 until 1946. The railroad has been instrumental in the past for the construction of the sea
                 wall in this area, as during World War 11 when protection was needed for ammunition
                 trains running out to Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook was purchased by the
                 Federal Government in 1816. Fort Hancock was constructed from 1861-1866.

                          Sea Bright is now typical of the summer shore type of development. The whole
                 bar is occupied by residences (some seasonal, some permanentl motels, and hotels.

                          Land use changes.   The pattern of development has not changed greatly over the
                 past 20 years. - The most significant change has been the conversion of approximately 460
                 acres ,of undeveloped land into the Sandy Hook State Park. Accompanying the establishment
                 of the state park has been the addition of several structures serving as bathhouses, refresh-
                 ment stand, and restrooms. In HighAands the construction of a combination marina and
                 restaurant was the only change detected.

                          Although the number of structures in Sea Bright has remained approximately
                 the same, the uses to which some of the buildings are put has charged. A common develop-
                 ment is for the former large single-family residences to be converted to guest houses. As a
                 result many acres of beach which were formerly private with no public access are now open
                 to visitors staying in guest houses.

                          Elsewhere on the barrier bar there has been an increase of single-family resi-
                 dences, filling up the only remaining undeveloped land. Many of the approximately twenty
                 new residences 'are in the flood hazard area. The pattern of land use is shown in the over-
                 Lay to figure 9 (appendix). Recorded land use changes are shown in table 2-9.

                          Adjustments to hazard.   There is a high degree of awareness of storm hazard in
                 the Sandy Hook area. This is especially true among the residents in Sea Bright and other
                 parts of'the barrier bar. Associated with this awareness is a high rate of adoption of
                 private adjustments. These include construction of small seawalls, concrete aprons and
                 bulkheads. Other respondents reported using sandbags to keep out sea water. Evacuation
                 or preparing to evacuate is a common adjustment. Many residents also remove cars and
                 other items of value from the hazard area. One commercial establishment reported the
                 construction of a warehouse in a nearby town to which merchandise could be removed.
                 Another respondent had an iron door to keep water out of his property. At Least three
                 houses in Highlands have been elevated several feet on new foundations.

             496

                                                   Table 2-9

           Sandy Hook, New Jersey

                                   Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones

           7one        Lang Use               No. Structures                      No. Acres

                                       1940  1947 change 1963 change    1940  1947 change 1963 change

           A           4 Recreational     0    0     0      0     0      21    21     0    21      0
                       8 Undeveloped      0    0     0      0     0      89    89     0    89      0
           Tidal       Total              0    0     0      0     0     110   110     0   110      0
           B           2 Commercial      46,  -51  +11     61   +20      31    26   -162   26      0
                       3 Public           1   10   +900    21   +110      0    16    na    33    +lo6
                       4 Recreational     -    -            -             2   436+21700   429     -2
                       5b Recreational    -    -            -            53     5   -91    12    +140
                       6a Residential   520  548    +5    557    +2     105   100    -5   100      0
                       8 Undeveloped      -    -            -           586   183   -69   166     -9
           Tidal-101   Total            588  630    +7    659    +5     811   811     0   811

           C           6a Residential    37   28   -24     32   +14       0     0     0      0     0
                       6b Residential    11   11     0     13   +18      42    42     0    42      0
                       8 Undeveloped      0    0     0      0     0      52    33   -36    33      0
           107-201     Total             49   42   -14     51   +21     104   104         104      0

           D           6a Residential    18   22   +22     35   +59       4     4     0      4     0
                       8 Undeveloped      0    0     0      0     0       8     8     0      8     0
           > 20,       Total             23   27   +17     4o   +48      40    40     0    40      0

           F           2 Commercial      46   51   +11     61   +20      29    26   -10    26      0
                       5b Recreational    0    0     0      0     0      53    12   -77    12      0
                       6a Residential   500  534    +7    540    +1     102    97    -5    97      0
                       8 Undeveloped      0    0     0      0     0     473   174   -63   166     -5
           Flooded     Total            563  605    +8    624    +3     681   681     o   681      0

           All         2 Commercial      47   52   +11     62   +19      31    26   m16    26      0
           Zones       3 Public           1   12  +1100    26   +117     14    28 +loo     45     +61
                          Recreational    0    0     0      0     0      23   476  +197o  469     -2
                       5a Recreational    0    0     0      3    na       8    17   +112   17      0
                       5b Recreational    0    0     0      0     0      49     5   -90    12    +140
                       6a Residential   575  598    +4    624    +4     109   104    -5   104      0
                       6b Residential    37   37     0     35    -5      96    96     0    96      0
                       8 Undeveloped      0    0     0      0     0     735   313   -57   296     -5
                       Total            66o  699    -+6   750    +7     1065  1065    0   1065     0

                       1
                       2 Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.
                         na -- Calculation not appropriate.

                                                                                                        497

                          The major adjustment at Sandy Hook, however, is the ten-foot high seawall built
                  to protect property behind the narrow.beach. In severe storms waves can still top this
                  wait. - The wait extends from Sea Bright north to the southern boundary of the State-Park.-
                  Another major adjustment is the construction of jetties which appear to be effective in
                  reducing storm damage. jetties are also favored by a number of inhabitants for their beach
                  building qualities. The number of jetties could be increased but reluctance on the part of
                  the Federal Government to subsidize these works was often cited as the main obstacle to
                  their construction.

                          Future dev2Lopments.    The area comprises three quite distinctive settlement
                  units. Highlands is an otd compact and densely settled area consisting mostly of deteriora-
                  ting timber frame structures on closely spaced lots. . It is suffering from a continuation of
                  urban blight and repeated flood damage. Though advertising itself as "the striper capital
                  of the world" its attraction as a recreational area is very Limited. Large scale urban
                  renewal seems unlikely in the near future.

                          Rumson is quite different. Here is a more wealthy area with Large homes on large
                  lots. It is primarily for permanent residents who are likely to oppose any drastic change.
                  It has only a narrow coastal strip and recreational potential is strictly limited.

                          Sea Bright and its extension up the barrier bar is the recreational center. Its
                  importance stems in part from its proximity to New York City. It is the first real beach
                  south of the city comparable with Jones Beach on Long Island. The area offers boating and
                  fishing and the breakers and surf are a great attraction at the State Park. The bar itself
                  is now fully developed.

                          Future development wiLl be restricted to intensification of the present land uses.
                  High rise building may come to replace present two story guest houses, hotels, and motels.
                  Some commercial interests believe themselves to be on the threshold of rapid development.
                  .They foresee the growth of high rise apartments, yacht clubs, and beach clubs., and rapid
                  conversion of residential land to commercial uses. Others are more conservative and think
                  that the area is already fully developed.

                          Sandy Hook is an example of a densely developed summer shore. Storm hazard is
                  high and there is a wide range of adjustments to flood. Flood damage potential is not Likely
                  to rise rapidly, but may increase as the value of seafront property rises and as the area
                  becomes more like an urban than a summer shore.

                  10. . Cape May, New Jerseyl

                          Cape May is an old, fashionable resort at the extreme southeastern tip of the New
                  Jersey shoreline facing Cape Hentopen across the mouth of Delaware Bay. The -study area

                          I.Field work by IRobert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
                  following persons who supplied information: Mr. James Byington,.Mr. Jack Sweitzer, and
                  Mr. Leland Sanford.

             498

              extends from Washington-Street in the city of Cape May east to the United States Coast
              Guard Receiving Center on Sewell Point, and goes inland to include the dock basin at Cape
              May harbor. The area comprises 698 acres. (See figure 10 in the -appendix.)

                       Physiography.   Only about 2 percent of the study area can be classified as beach.
              The beach zone is only 1. 6 miles long, and in places is not even a.. true beach. The gradient
              of the coast offshore is not as gentle as at Wildwood Crest and as a result there is more
              beach cutting. The few remaining beaches have been protected by man-made groins and
              much of the present beach consists of fill. After the March, 1962 storm, new seawalls were
              constructed of concrete, rock rubble, and steel behind the back beach. Low dunes are found
              only at the eastern end of the study site.

                       Approximately 88 percent of the Cape May study area is part of a low coastal plain,
              with an average elevation below 10 feet. One small section in the center of the site rises
              above 10 feet. Although most of this plain is flat a few small water filled depressions dot
              the landscape. Materials making up the mainland consist of a thin veneer of sand overlying
              coarse Pleistocene gravels.

                       The northern part of the Cape May study site borders on Cape May harbor. This
              harbor connects with the Cape May Canal which gives a protected route for small boats
              traveling between the Newjersey inland coastal waterway and Delaware Bay. Several
              marinas have been built on fit[ along the south side of the harbor. This fill makes up about
              9 percent of the study site. Extensive tidal marshes surround much of Cape May harbor but
              only 1 percent of the Cape May study site is in this category.

                       The unpopulated sections of the study site are covered with a forest of mixed
              broadleaf deciduous trees, mainly oaks; and nettleteaf evergreen trees, mainly the Jersey
              scrub pine. Shrubs and grasses grow well in the Low moist areas. (See cross section,
              figure 2- 10@)

                       Storm hazard.   In spite of a relatively low storm frequency, Cape May has
              suffered heavy damage in the recent past, especially from the storm of March, 1962.
              Battering waves have eroded and will continue to erode the beach areas and cut back bulk-
              heads, groins, and jetties.1 During heavy storms, waves break over the seawall and flood
              the lower streets.

                       In the March 1962 storm the boardwalk decking was lifted from its supports and
              deposited along with large amounts of sand from the beach against the structures facing the
              sea and in the streets. Beach front hotels and residences were badly damaged. Damage
              has also occurred in the hurricane storms of 1933, 1938, 1944, 1950, 1954, and 1955.
              Although no hurricane in recorded history has passed directly over the study area, Cape
              May is vulnerable to large ocean waves and tidal surges. Being at the southern tip of the

                       I U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: Shore of New Jersey-Barnegat Inlet to Cape May
              Canal, Beach Erosion Control Study, 86th Congress, ist Session, House Doc. No. 208, 1959,
              pp. 42-47, and Horace G. Richards, A Book of Maps of Cape May, 1610-1878, Cape May
              Geographic Society, Cape May, N.J. , 1954, pp. 24- 28.

                 STUDY SITE NO. 10                                      CAPE MAY

                                       ATLANTIC
                                         OCEAN                      4     -f$                                                                                     CAPE My
                       MEAN SEA LEVEL                                                                                                                               HARBOR

                                                     A                                                                  c                                                     A

                           ZONE             BELOW MEAN HIGH TICE      BETWEEN MEAN HIGH TIDE        BETWEEN ID-ANO 20-rOOT CONTOUR               BETWEEN MEAN       BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE
                                                                      AND 10 FEET                                                                HIGH TICE AND
                                                                                                                                                 10 FEET

                    GEOMORPHic TYPE                BEACH            FLAT TERRACE LAND WITH A FEW LOW MARSH AREAS - SANDS A140 GRAVELS                               TIDAL LAGOON MARSH

                                            HEAVY WAVE POUNo-       AREAS BELOW THE 10-FOOT                                                      AREAS SUBJECT      TIDAL AREAS -INUNDATED
                      TYPE OF HAZARD        ING TO BEACH AND        CONTOUR SUBJECT TO             ONLY MINOR HAZARC@ LITTLE FLOODING            TO FLOODING        DURING STORMS
                                            PROTECTIVE WORKS        FLOODING

                                            SEVERE EROSION TO
                      DEGREE OF HAZARD      BEACH AND DAMAGE       SEVERE HAZARD FROM                                MINOR                       MINOR FLOODINC     -SOME MINOR FLOODING
                                            TO STRUCTURES          FLOODING

                         STRUCTURES                NONE                      MANY                               SEVERAL                           MANV                       FEW

                                            BEACH BUILDING AND
                        ADJUSTMENTS         PROTECTIVE WALLS                                                                                     MINOR Pfio-        MINOR PROTECTIVE
                                            AND JETTIES                       FEW                                 FEW                            TECTIVE WORKS      WORKS TO MARINAS

                                                                FoeuRE 2-10.     DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, CAPE My, NEW JERSEY

                                                                                                            499

                   peninsula,. Cape May: is particularly exposed to Large waves from the east, the south and
                   the southwest. The waves converging on this area have, cut away the continental shelf and
                   are now eroding the mainland itself.
                            The Weather Bureau's Storm Surge Warning Mapi indicates that most of the town
                   of Cape May, except for a small central area over 10 feet, is subject to flooding in severe
                   storms and evacuation is recommended for low lying areas and the settlements around Cape
                   May Lighthouse. . Cape'May Lighthouse is west of the study site at the extreme southwest
                   point of Cape May peninsula. Interviews with local residents placed the flood of record
                   over 10 feet in some places near the beach.
                            Settlement history@    The earliest inhabitants of Cape May County were the
                   Lenni-Lenapi Indians. Records show that this peninsula was visited by Henry Hudson as
                   early as 1609. Subsequent settlement by the Dutch West India Company was succeeded
                   by the English who were the first permanent white settlers in the area. The first known
                   vi[Lage,.Town Bank was founded in the 1630's and was devoted to fishing and whaling.

                            Indeed, the 17th century maybe thought of as the fishing and whaling period of the
                   Cape May peninsula, By the early 1700's whaling declined and the area's fishing industry
                   became supplemented by agricultural endeavors. In addition, pirates played a brief, but
                   picturesque, role in early years of the 18th century.

                            The city of Cape May, or Cape Island as it is often known, existed in its early
                   settled history as a tiny fishing village. In 1766, Robert Parsons ran an advertisement in
                   a Philadelphia paper extolling the virtues of Cape. May, New Jersey as a place to "resort
                   for health and bathing in the water". It is upon this early pronouncement of Cape Island's
                   attractions that_Cape May bases its claim as the oldest seashore resort in the country. In
                   any case, by 1801 a hotel had been built and by mid-century Cape May was famous-for its
                   large resort hotels.

                            A few recreational visitors or "resorters" appear to have visited the area in the
                   .1760's, but visitors remained few in number until later years. The 1800's saw Cape May
                   become one of the most famous and fashionable resorts in the country. At the same time
                   fishing and farming prospered, but economically played only a secondary role to
                   Peninsular Cape May's famous "watering- spots".

                            The early 1900's saw the recreation industry continue to prosper. However,
                   World War I, a severe depression, and the mobility of the roaring twenties, wrought havoc
                   with the resort hotel industry. -It is only since World War 11 that this depressed condition
                   has been reversed. The resort industry has again become the primary industry of the
                   county.

                            I U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Storm Surge Warning Map,
                   No. 19, May 6, 1962.
                            2 Based on field party notes assembled from various locally available sources.

             500

                       In the Cape Is land's ear dest days, access was pr.imari ly by means,of . water
              transportation. On the water, packet ships soon gave way to a relatively efficient steam
              transport. AsJor land transporation stage coach lines were succeeded by the railroad in
              the 1860.@s and better roads and the early automobile in early 1890's. Receilt roads and
              bridges have increased accessibility further.

                       Aside from the tourist industry, the only other important activity is fishing. A
              commercial Menhaden fishing fleet began in the 1850's and has continued to,prosper in
              smal I degree. Today it is supplemented by the sportfishing engaged in by the -more active
              of Cape May visitors.

                       Historically the Navy and Coast Guard have played important roles in the area.
              During World War I a large navy base was established on Cape Island. Base 9-was famous
              in both World Wars but in the late 1940's was handed over to the U. S.  Coast Guard which
              now uses the base as a recruit training center.

                       Land use changes.    The Cape May study site was completely developed at the
              time of the first available air photograph coverage in 1956. Changes in land use have there-
              fore been small. The most important is an increase of 30 in the number of single family
              residences --. 24 of these are in the flood hazard zone. This increase has been in the form
              of increasing densities in already developed areas, so that no new acreage of iesidential.
              land is recorded. (See table 2-10.)

                       There has also been a small increase in the number of commercial structures.
              The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 10 (appendix).

                       Adjustments to hazard.    The major adjustment to hazard at Cape May is.the
              large concrete seawall which keeps out all but the most severe storms. The wall was
              heavily damaged in the storm of March 1962 but has since been repaired.

                       Knowledge of the hazard is quite general in Cape May but there is little the
              average home owner or hotel manager can do. Private adjustments by seafront property.
              owners include construction of small seawalls and bulkheads. Some filling has taken place
              in Cape May harbor for new marinas.

                       Future development. Cape May is a curious mixture of old and dignified
              Victorian structures, many of them large hotels, and the brash modern motels andYnarinas.
              In spite of the new developments the city retains a 19di century air and present plans for
              urban renewal call for a retention of as much of this atmosphere as possible. The city
              appeared Likely to obtain the necessary Federal assistance for urban renewal at the tifne
              of our field survey.

                       Cape May is an example of a long established summer shore type of coastal
              development. Severe damage has been suffered in the past and is likeLy to occur again in
              the future. Adjustments to hazard are predominantly public and a reduction of damage
              could be achieved by a larger seawall xNhich might destroy some of the amenities of the
              resort. Future growth and development hinge!    .910.p tans for urban@ t@newa 6 and f Lood damage
              potential is not likely to be substantially increased.

                                                                                                     501

                                                       Table 2-10

                      Cape May., New Jersey
                                        Major Land Use  Changes by Hazard Zones  1

                      Tone         Land Use             No. Structures                No. Acres
                                                                       %
                                                      1956   1963   change      1956    1963  change

                      A            5a Recreational      0      0        0          8      8        o
                      Tidal        Total                0      0        0          8      8        0

                      B            2 Commercial       103    110       +7         77     79       +3
                                   6a Residential     6o4    628       +4        177    177        0
                                   8 Undeveloped        0      0        0        273    270       -1
                      Tidal-101    Total              728    763       +5        536    536        0

                      C            2 Commercial        35      36      +3         23     23        0
                                   6a Residential     132    138       +4         42     42        0
                                   8 Undeveloped        0      0        0         .81    81        0
                      101-201      Total              179    186       +4        146    146        0

                      D            None in study area

                      F            2 Commercial       100    103       +3         72     72        0
                                   6a Residential     552    576       +4        161    161        0
                                   8 Undeveloped        0      0        0        229    228        0
                      Flooded      Total              671    702       +5        479    479        0

                      All          1 Industrial         3      3        0          2      2        0
                      Zones        2 Commercial       138    146       +6        100    102       +2
                                   3 Public             7      8       +14         4      4        0
                                   4 Recreational       0      0        0          0      0        0
                                   5a Recreational      1      3      +200        11     11        0
                                   5b Recreational      2      2        0          0      1       na2
                                   6a Residential     736    766       +4        219    219        0
                                   6b Residential      20      21      +5          0      0        0
                                   8 Undeveloped        0      0        0        354    351       -1
                                   Total              907    949       +5       -69o    690        0

                           1 Minor land uses omitted and total   may exceed  land uses  enumerated.
                           2 na -- Calculation not appropriate.

             502

             11. Wildwood Crest, New Jersey-    I

                      Wildwood Crest is a new, rapidly growing, summer shore area five miles north-
             east of Cape May. The study site occupies 3. 3 miles of Atlantic coastline and extends
             south from Rio Grande Avenue in Wildwood City through Wildwood Crest to Cape May Inlet,
             and inland to Pacific Avenue (Ocean Drive) Which runs down the center of the barrier island
             on which these communities are built. Total acreage is 995. (See figure 11 in the appendix.)

                      PhysLography. Nearly half of this study site, about 45 percent, consists of a large
             sandy barrier island. (See cross section, figure 2-11.) This barrier island is the southern-
             most in New Jersey and, like the others to the north, is separated from the mainland by
             4 to 3 miles of tidal marsh.

                      About 33 percent of this site consists of a wide 300- to 500-foot, gently sloping
             beach on the ocean isde of the sand barrier. This beach is non-c[iffed and straight with
             very fine, almost clay-Like, sand. This is one of the finest recreational beaches on the
             east coast mainly because of, its width and gentle offshore gra'dient. -Ten-foot high sand
             dunes have formed behind the beach atTwo Mite Beach near the south end of the study site.
             Along the northern part of the beach scattered dunes occur between the new motels and
             housing developments. Most of the dunes here have been leveled by man and fill has been
             added to raise the structures above the flood mark. The remaining 22 percent of the area
             is marshland and tidal lagoons.

                      Storm hazard. The wide beach at WiLdwood Crest helps to protect the area from
             starrns which are relatively Low in frequency. There is no seawall however and the summer
             homes and motels that line the coast are largely unprotected by engineering structures.
             The shallow offshore continental shelf plus the Wide beach combine to absorb most of the
             wave energy before it reaches the dunes and coastal property. Hurricanes usually offer
             the greatest threat to this community. During the March 1962 storm which caused heavy
             damage on other parts of the New Jersey coast, the Wi[dwood Crest area received less
             wave damage than most other places. The town was affected however, the beach was
             eroded and several feet of water covered the streets.

                      Field work established a flood of record of 8 to 9 feet above mean sea Level for
             the Wildwood Crest study site. With only a few dune areas and a small section along
             Atlantic Avenue over 10 feet in elevation, flood inundation  remains a hazard for the future.
                      Settlement history.2  Prior to the 1880's there was  Little development in the Wild-
             wood area. Mr. Phillip P. Baker called the area uninhabitable and inaccessible in 1881, but
             proceeded to turn Indian trails into a railroad line, and a small fishing village into a summer
             resort.

                      1 Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
             following persons who supplied information: Mr. Donald Little, Mr. Edwin Nesbitt, and
             Mr. James Byington.
                      2 Based on field party notes assembled from various Locally available sources.

                STUDY SITE NO. 11
                                                                                  SUMMER RESORT
                                                                                  WILOWOOD CREST
                                                                                                                                        FIVE MILE
                                                                                                                                          BEACH                       ATLANTIC
                                       MEAN SEA LEVEL                                                                                                                    OCEAN

                                                                                      B                                          B, C                        A

                             ZONE                                                                                          MEAN  HIGH TIDE
                                                         BETWEEN MEAN HIGH TIDE AND THE 10-FOOT CONTOUR                    TO ABOVE 10-           BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE
                                                                                                                           FOOT CONTOUR

                                                                                                                           Low 10-FOOT         WIDE SANDY  BEACH AND CONTINENTAL
                     GEOMORPHic TYPE                               LARGE SANDY BARRIER ISLAND                              HIGH $AND DUNES     SHELF.   GENTLE GRADIENT

                                                                                                                           UNDERCUTTING
                       TYPE OF HAZARD                      LOW AREAS SUBJECT   TO FLOODING                                 OF DUNES BY              MINOR EROSION TO BEACH
                                                                                                                           WAYES

                      DEGREE OF HAZARD                                        MINOR                                        SOME  HAZARD       MINOR TO SEVERE EROSION DEPENDING
                                                                                                                           FROM  EROSION      UPON STRENGTH OF STORM AND TIDES

                          STRUCTURES                                    PUNY SUMMER HOMES AND MOTELS                                                          FEW

                                                                                                                           MST FRONT
                        AoJUSTMENTS                                             Fcw                                        DUNES HAVE BEEN    JETTIES 4NO GROINS HAVE BEEN BUILT
                                                                                                                           REMOVED. BULK- TO HELP BUILD BEACH
                                                                                                                           HEADS BEING
                                                                                                                           CONSTRUCTED

                                                          FIGURE 2-11.     DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, WILDWOOD CREsy, NEW JERSEY

                                                                                                             503

                            After obtaining a small tract of land called Holly Beach, he laid out Lots and streets.
                  Next he negotiated for and brought to Wildwood a branch of the railroad in 1895. Shortly,
                  highways began to bring automobiles and Wildwood enjoyed rapid expansion as a residential
                  resort.

                            In 1907 streets were laid out for an additional development known as Wildwood
                  Crest. In 1910 the Borough of Wi[dwood Crest was incorporated. Development in this area
                  expanded rapidly, particularly in the areas bordering WiLdwood itself. This development
                  resembled the residential type of development in Wildwood. After hard times in the 1930's
                  and early 1940's, Wildwood Crest had a very rapid expansion, and commercialization of its
                  resort facilities in recent years.

                            Land use changes. Wildwood Crest is a rapidly growing summer shore community.
                  There has been a substantial increase in the number of single family residences, mostly
                  summer homes, since 1956. Most of these are above the flood hazard area.

                            An even more spectacular growth has occurred in the commercial strip in the row
                  of blocks closest to the ocean. This consists primarily of shops, restaurants, motels and
                  other services. A large proportion of this new commercial development is in the flood
                  hazard zone. It seems unfortunate that this more valuable property with higher damage
                  potential should be located in such a vulnerable position. The focus of the community, how-
                  ever, is the beach. This is where the customers are or want to be. Hence those functions
                  which can afford to pay the highest rents buy themselves into the best business Locations. It
                  so happens in Wildwood Crest that the best business sites are also largely in the area exposed
                  to flood hazard. The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 11 (appendix).
                  Recorded land use changes are shown in table 2-11.

                            Adjustm ents to hazard. With very few exceptions the residents and entrepreneurs
                  of Witdwood Crest felt that storm hazard. was slight and not a cause for major concern. This
                  feeling of confidence seems to stem largely from the experience of the March,. 1962 storm
                  when little damage resulted in spite of the severity of the storm and the heavy damage else-
                  where along the New Jersey coast. Accordingly there are few adjustments to hazard by pri-
                  vate citizens. In no case did a respondent express a desire to move or to be in a Less hazard-
                  ous location. Some residents located two blocks from the ocean front expressed relief that
                  they were not so exposed.

                            The feelings of public officials were not as confident and optimistic as those of pri-
                  vate citizens. The city engineer expressed some concern about the development and did not
                  want to see buildings move any closer to the beach. However, the borough has decided,
                  since the storm of March 1962, to sell some beach front lots for the development of motels.
                  To protect these motels an ordinance was under consideration to require property owners to
                  provide bulkheads at their own expense.

                            Future developments. In 1963 there were approximately 100 acres of land left un-
                  developed. Local officials were of the opinion that this land and other land outside the study
                  area would be fully developed within five years. The undeve loped. land is being devoted to
                  the construction of single and double family residences with the exception of the land east
                  of Atlantic Avenue which is zoned for motels.

           504

                                                 Table 2-11

                Wildwood Crest, New Jersey
                                  Major Land Use Changes by Hazard    Zonesl

                Zone         Land Use             No. Structures               No-Acres

                                                1956   19,63 charge       1956   1963   change

                A            3 Public             0      0        0       285     285       0
                             4 Recreational       0      0        0       120     120       0
                Tidal        Total                0      0        0       405     4o5       0

                B            2 Commercial       284    364      +28        47      77     +64
                             3 Public             8      9      +12       205     2o5       0
                             6a Residential     510    609      +19       .138    145       +5
                             8 Undeveloped        0      0        0       141     102     -28
                Tidal-101    Total              8o5    985      +22       564     564       0

                             2 Camercial        .16     16        0.         2      5     +150
                             6a Residential      49     55      +12        15      15       0
                             8 Undeveloped        0      0        0          6      3     -50
                101-20f      Total               66     72        +9       26      26       0

                D            None in study  area

                F            2 Commercial        56    118      +111         9     41     +356
                             3 Public             5      9      +80       45o     450       0
                             4 Recreational       1      1        0       151     151       0
                             6a Residential      59     62        +5         5      5       0
                             8 Undeveloped        0      0,       0        60      27     -55
                'Flooded     Total-             122    191      +57       677     677       0

                All          2 Commercial       300    38o      +27        49      82     +67
                Zones        3 Public             9     10      +11       493     493       0
                             4 Recreational       1      1        0       151     151       0
                             5a Recreational      1      1        0          2      4     +100
                             6a Residential     559    664-     +19       153     160       +5
                             6b Residential       1      1        0          -      -
                             8 Undeveloped        0      0        0       147     105     -29
                             Total              871    1057     +21       995     995       0

                     1 Minor land uses omitted and total   may exceed land uses   enumerated.

                                                                                                      505

                          Wildwood Crest is an example of a rapidly expanding summer shore type of develop-
                 ment. . The area has escaped heavy damage in the past and the storm hazard is viewed opti-
                 mistically. There is a widespread lack of adjustments to hazard and protective dunes have
                 been removed. New flood damage potential, especially of comm erciaL property, is increas-
                 ing rapidly and the area could suffer very severe damage from. a future storm.

                 12.  Dennis, Massachusettsi

                          The sixth example of summer shore development is at Dennis, Massachusetts. The
                 study site includes four miles of coastline on the south shore of Cape Cod. It extends from
                 South Sea Avenue in West Yarmouth., east to the South Pond River in West Dennis. The in-
                 land limit of the study site is about one mile from the coastline. Political divisions include
                 a small section of South Yarmouth, and parts of West Yarmouth, and West Dennis. The
                 total area is 2,178 acres. (See figure 12 in the appendix.)

                          Physi2grap@y_ Uplands constitute 74 percent of area, marshland 19 percent, and
                 beaches 7 percent. Characteristics of glacial topography are interwoven with those features
                 which are typical of a low, drowned, coasta I region. The study area is quite f [at with numer-
                 ous small tidal channels, inlets, takes, and marshes. These fill the low areas between the
                 beach and higher ground.

                          .The so-called "uplands" of this study site are a very gently sloping outwash plain
                 which covers an earlier glacial terminal moraine. No bedrock is exposed at the surface but
                 stratified coarse materials, in uneven distribution, present an irregular, undulating, surface
                 unsuited for agriculture. Most of the upland is between 10 and 20 feet above mean sea level.
                 Only a few areas of the study site are over 20 feet. To the north of this site there is higher
                 ground which represents a moraine left by the glacier as it retreated. This moraine makes
                 up the backbone of Cape Cod. The materials carried off the moraine by glacial meltwaters
                 flowed south and formed the outwash plain of the study site,

                          The second major physiographic type is marshland that has formed in the Low areas
                 under five feet. Marsh grass covers the silts and clays deposited by the short rivers flowing
                 through the area. The Largest of these rivers is the Bass River which divides the study site.
                 Figure 2-12 shows the amount of marsh filling that has taken place between 1886 and 1961.
                 In the early days of settlement even more of the study site must have been marsh or bog
                 topography.

                          Beaches, averaging from 100 to 300 feet wide with a gentle offshore gradient, are
                 the third physiographic type. The entire coast is non-cliffed, but has small, regular,
                 straight stretches of beach that have been separated by jetties near the river mouths and
                 groins where beach protection is needed. The two main bathing beaches are Davis Beach and
                 Sea Gull. Beach. Very few sand dunes remain behind the beaches because these original small
                 coastal features have been leveled.

                          1
                           Field work by Robert Gardula and Roger Kasperson. We are indebted to the
                 following person who supplied information: Mr. Donald A Crane.

              506

                      The site is made up mainly of wave deposited or wind blown sand underlain by
              glacial tills and outwash. (See cross section, figure 2-13.) Large areas of lowland have
              @been filled in. The non-filled sections are either sand or silt and clay depending upon
              whether the locality is a beach or tidal marsh.

                      Vegetation on the upland surfaces is predominantly mixed trees with scattered
              groves of pines, and herbaceous plants. On the tidal flats marsh grass is found,but on the
              beaches, vegetation is largely absent.

                      Storm hazard.    Although storm frequency is relatively high, this study site does
              not have as high a degree of hazard as might be expected from its very low elevation above
              mean sea Level and its southward facing coast. A very shallow shelf extends about one-half
              mile into the ocean. This shelf is an extension of the glacial outwash plain and although it
              is narrow it is wide enough to prevent the buildup of large waves. The swells during severe
              storms drag bottom, crest up, and break before reaching the beaches. Many of the waves
              therefore become spilling and surging breakers rather than large plunging breakers which
              do great erosive work to the beach and coastal structures. Spilling breakers lose much of
              their energy as they cross this. half-mile stretch of shelf.

                      Damage at this site was found to be lo.calized with flooding of low areas, cellars,
              and structures being the greatest danger. There is some undermining of structures by waves
              along the immediate beach.

                      Major areas subject to flooding include the ocean edge of the beach; the tidal marshes
              and banks of the river beds; and th e banks of the larger ponds where water is able to cross
              the lowlands and raise their level. The marsh and pond areas found north of Route 28 and
              north of the Dennis study site are also considered probable damage areas on Crane's maps
              of coastal flooding 1                                                2 lists major flooding
                               g.  The Weather Bureau's Storm Surge Warning Map
              and evacuation problems south of Rz)ute 28, stating that beaches are subject to heavy wave
              action.

                      The hazard mne -diagram (figure 12, appendix), drawn after interviewing local
              residents of the area, puts the maximum flood line at about 8 to 9 feet above mean sea level.
              From extreme low water to extreme high water there is a range from 5 to 17 feet elevation.
              Minor flooding begins to take place at 4 feet above mean sea level. The cellars of summer
              houses are flooded at 6. 4 feet, and whole areas go under water at 7. 7 feet. The new housing
              development in the middle of the study site bordering on the Bass River and Ware Creek is
              barely 10 feet above mean sea level. It was found that any sections of the site under 10 feet
              were subject to inundation. Over 194, 000 dollars worth of flood damage occurred to the town
              of Dennis during the 1954 hurricane.3

                        Donald A. Crane, Coastal Flooding in Barnstable County, Cape Cod, Mass.,
              Mass. Water Resources Comm., December, 1962, p. 21.
                      2 U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, - Storm Surge Warning Maps,
              August. 1962.
                      3 Donald A. Crane, pp. cit., Table VII, p. 27.

                                                     0

                                                              Figure 2-12
                                                                     MARSH A  REA CHANGE
                                                                    DENNIS@ MASSACHUSET

                                                                     Is86 -1961 FILLED MARS

                                                                     1961 PRESENT MARSH

                                                                     STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

                 STUDY SITE NO. 12

                                                                                                                                     BASS                                      ATLAN  TIC
                                                 IJAN SEA LEVEL                                                                      RIVER                                       OCEAN

                                                                                                                                              A                                  A

                                                                                                                                                              ABOVE MEAN
                                  ZONE                                   ABOVE 10 FEET, BUT BELOW 30 FEET                            BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE     HIGH TIDE     BELOW MEAN
                                                                                                                                                              BUT BELOW     HIGH TIDE
                                                                                                                                                              10 FEET

                                                              ROLLING UPLAND COVERED WITH GLACIAL TILL.       SCATTERED              TIDAL CHANNELS AND         SANDY       WIDE SANDY
                           GEOMORPHIc TYPE                    ROUNDED FRESH WAYER PONDS.      GRAVELS AND CLAYS                      LOW MARSHLAND.  SILTS      BARRIER     BEACH AND
                                                                                                                                     AND CLAYS                  SPIT        GENTLE OFF-
                                                                                                                                                                            SHORE GRADIENI

                                                                                                                                     TIDAL INUNDATION DURING  FLOODING    FLOODING AND
                            TYPE OF HAZARD                                MINOR FLOODING IN THE LOW AREAS                            SEVERE STORMS            AND DUNE    BEACH EROSION
                                                                                                                                                              EROSION

                                                                                                                                                              SEVERE IN     SEVERE IN
                           DEGREE OF HAZARD                                            MINOR                                         MODERATE TO SEVERE       LARGE         LARGE STORMS
                                                                                                                                                              STORMS

                              STRUCTURES                                               PUNY                                                 FEW                 FEW             FEW

                                                                                                                                     CHANNELS ARE DREDGED     REMOVAL OF JETTIES AND
                             ADJUSTMENTS                      FILLING IN OF LOW MARSH AREAS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS                 AND IN PLACES            DUNEs@   A    GROINS TO
                                                                                                                                     PROTECTED                FEW SEA       PROTECT BEACH
                                                                                                                                     8
                                                                                                                                     AIS
                                                                                                                                     I'
                                                                                                                                     R VER

                                                                                                                                                              WALLS

                                                               FIGURE 2-13.     DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, DENNIS, MASSACHUSETTS

                                                                                                             507

                           This study site receives the most severe damage from hurricanes moving north-
                  eastwards. The 1938, 1944, and 1954 storms were the most severe.1 Other storms in-
                  clude the cyclonic depressions which develop rapidly as a coastal secondary in the region
                  of Cape Hatteras with the main depression over the continent. Wave development can take
                  place very fast as the storm center moves northeastward and passes over the ocean. How-
                  ever these storms are usually of short duration.
                           Settlement history? The early settlement of South Yarmouth and West Dennis was
                  contemporaneous with that of the nearby towns of Sandwich and Barnstable in the late 1630's
                  and early 1640's. The division of these settlements into individual villages was occasioned
                  by the establishment of distinct parishes within the church. Dennis, for example, was
                  organized as a new town in 1793.

                           Within the study area, the chief occupations of the inhabitants centered upon the
                  Bass River and the fishing industry that grew upon within this sheltered waterway. By 1795,
                  3 wharves had been built on the east side of the Bass River, and soon after 1800, 247 men
                  were employed in the fishing industry in West Dennis and nearly 1100 tons of mackerel and
                  codfish were taken.

                           Despite the economic focus of the area upon the Bass River, settlement tended to
                  grow up along major road arteries rather than in the Land adjacent to the river. Main
                  Street in both South Yarmouth and West Dennis was the most heavily populated route and
                  much of this was Located above the 20-foot contour.

                           The focus of both West Dennis and South Yarmouth encouraged intercourse between
                  the two communities. Even though the Bass River was not crossed by a bridge until 1870 in
                  this area, a ferry was present to facilitate travel. Throughout the history of the study area,
                 .South Yarmouth has provided the central place functions for the local population. Much of
                  the business of West Dennis was conducted here.

                           In the early 1800's, population growth in the area was rapid. By 1802 there were
                  100 dwellings south of County Road in West Dennis. They had been erected so rapidly that
                  essentially all of them were only one story high. In the first half of the 19d-1 century, the
                  study area broadened its economic base by supplementing its fishing industry with other
                  economic activities. The salt industry developed rapidly (as in Wellfleet) so that by 1803
                  there were 24 salt works in West Dennis alone. Ship building became important and while
                  large-class vessels were built on the Bay side, considerable construction of vessels in the
                  eight-ton class took place along the'Bass River. In South Yarmouth, a boot and shoe company
                  was established in 1829. Within the study area, the rapid growth of maritime and associated
                  industries produced a rapid population growth near the Bass River and in South Yarmouth.par-
                  ticu[arly.  This led to the development of a well-defined village nucleus prior to the Civil
                  War.

                           1 Donald A. Crane, op. cit. , pp. 9-15.
                           2 Based on field party notes assembled from various Locally available sources.

             508

                      After the Civil War, fishing declined as did the population of the area. In the
             early 1900's, the decline was checked by the beginnings of tourism and seasonal residence
             in the area. As would be expected much of this population increase occurred in areas along
             the coast. In South Yarmouth, rapid population growth took place south of South Shore
             Avenue and along the Bass River, while in West Dennis major increases took place along the
             Bass River and south of Lower County Road. In both cases, the conversion of the economy
             of the area from fishing to resort activities substantially increasedthe population below the
             10-foot contour and thereby augmented the damage potential from storms.

                      Land use changes. There has beer. rapid growth in the area. In 1952 the population
             still showed a marked concentration along and close to the major roads, and in the old
             village centers. By 1963 settlement had spread widely to include nearly all of the large but
             previously undeveloped tracts above marshland Level. Marsh areas have also been filled in
             and used as development sites as in the case of Surfside VilLage.

                      The main expansion has been in the construction of single family residences, many
             of them as summer homes for seasonal residents. Of the 2.227,new single family residences
             built in the period 1952 to 1963, 637 or one-quarter of them have been built in a flood
             hazard area. Development has been concentrated on and near to the coast both on high and
             on filled-in marshland.

                      The area has also been developed commercially. Prior to 1952 tourist accomodation
             was restricted almost entirely to guest homes, cottages, and cabins. The growth of large
             shore-front motels since 1952 has been extremely rapid. Another area of motel develop-
             ment is along Route 28.

                      Expansion into marshland areas has met with some local opposition. Local
             residents argue that marshland reclamation will adversely affect the shellfish and fish
             industry; that it wilt change for the worse the pattern of coastal flooding; and that it is
             undesirable because the mayshlands have aesthetic appeal and recreational value which new
             subdivisions do not have. Many think that the area is becoming too commercialized and that
             all further development should be stopped.

                      The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 12 (appendix), Recorded
             land use changes are shown in table 2-12. The process of land fill has gone on for a long
             .time and extensive changes have been made as shown in figure 2-12.

                      Adjustments to hazard.   For the most part, interviews in the study area suggest
             that while most of the inhabitants interviewed expected a serious storm or hurricane in the
             future, they do not expect serious damage. Among those who do expect damage, it does
             not appear to affect seriously the decision to locate there because this segment of the
             population is in a high-income class and are often willing to run the risk of damage. In fact,
             several expressed the opinion that in a future storm they would suffer damage, but were still
             unwilling to locate elsewhere.

                      The inhabitants who have recently Located in ahigh hazard zone are very often
             unaware of storm hazard. The people showing most awareness are the long-time residents

                                                                                                        509

                                                        Table 2-12

                      Dennis., Ylassachusetts
                                         M.ajor Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones   1

                      Zone         Land Use              No. Structures                 No. Acres

                                                       1952   1963    change      1952   1963    change

                      A            4 Recreational        0       0        0         53      53         0
                                   5b Recreational               0        0         54      43      -20
                                   8 Undeveloped                 0        0        431     431         0
                      Tidal        Total                 0       @o       0        539     539         0

                      B            2 Conmercial         25     214     +756          7      go   +1186
                                   4 Recreational        2       2        0         66      66         0
                                   5b Recreational       0       0        0         54      42      -22
                                   6a Residential      497    1319     +165        215     307      +43
                                   8 Undeveloped         0       0        0        298     123      -59
                      Tidal-101    Total               524    1535     +193        641     641         0

                      C            2 Commercial         34     123     +262         16      54      +238
                                   6a Residential      716    2092     +192        429     664      +55
                                   8 Undeveloped         0       0        0        454     181      -40
                      l0f-201      Total               750    2219     +196        900     900         0-

                      D            2 Cornnercial         4       36    +8oo          7      16      +129
                                   6a Residential      119     148      +24         28      38      +36
                                   8 Undeveloped         0       0        0         51      26      -49
                      > 201        Total               125     188      +50         98      98         0

                      F            2 Commercial         23     192     +735          6      83   +1283
                                   4 Recreational        2       2        0        119     119         0
                                   5b Recreational       0       0        0        109      85      -22
                                   6a Residential      484    1121     +132        204     290      +42
                                   8:Undeveloped         0     1 0        0        608     445      -27
                      Flooded      Total               509    1315     +158       1047   1047          0-

                      All          2 Commercial         63     373     +492         30     160   -+433
                      Zones        3 Public             22       8      -64         13      19      +46
                                   4 Recreational        2       2        0        119     119         0
                                   5a Recreational       0       0        0          2      25   +1150
                                   5b Recreational       0       0        0        108      85      -21
                                   6a Residential      1332   3559     +167        672   1009       +50
                                   8 Undeveloped         0       0        0       1234     761      -38
                                   Total               1399   3942     +182       2178   2178          0

                             Minor land uses omitted and total may      exceed land uses   enumerated.

             510

              who themselves have experienced serious damage from past storms. Several inhabitants
              who were located above the 10-foot contour cited elevation above sea Level and distance
              from the beach as an important factor in location.

                       Commercial establishments interviewed showed an awareness of storm occurrence
              in the future, but also did not anticipate serious future damage. It should be noted that most
              of these interviews were wid-i very recent establishments. Most seemed to feel income
              from location (usually on beach for motels) justified whatever damage occur.

                       There is a very Low rate of adoption of adjustments to hazard. There is no
              public protection, but some private citizens have adopted their own adjustments. These
              include use of seawalls and steel bulkheads especially for commercial property. Some
              houses have been erected on pi[es or cement block foundations. One house has its furnace
              on the second floor.

                       In contrast some new subdivisions are being built at the head of the beach on land
              formerly occupied by dunes. Commonly the dune is used as fill for the marshland behind
              the dune, and the whole site is leveled, thus increasing the danger of flooding. As noted
              above a controversy surrounds marshland reclamation.       Zoning, building, and sub-
              division regulations are in force in Yarmouth, where five feet of fill are required for sub-
              divisions adjacent to tidewater, and all low lying land must be raised to 7. 3 feet above
              mean sea level before building.

                       Future development.    Undoubtedly one important factor in the rapid development
              in the last 10 years has been the important change in accessibility. In the mid-1950's, the
              mid-Cape highway (route 6) was constructed. This greatly shortened the time requirement
              and lightened traffic density of trips to the Cape.

                       This improved accessibility, plus the recreational attractions of the area,
              especially its excellent beach and relatively warm water, are likely to continue to bring
              development to Dennis until all available land is developed. There are forces opposing
              further development, but these are unlikely to be able to achieve more than a stricter
              enforcement of building codes and subdivision regulations, and perhaps some reduction
              in the pace of development. It is also likely that the re-zoning of coastal areas from
              residential to commercial use will become more difficult with time.

                       In addition to-beach users, the Bass River, with its new marinas offers boating
              and fishing as a recreational pursuit and considerable potential exists for an increase in
              this activity.

                       Dennis is an example of rapidly expanding coastal development, where sub-
              stantial increases in flood damage potential are in process of creation. This development
              continues in spite of some local opposition and is surrounded by a good deal of uncertainty as
              to the likely effects of future flooding. In particular there is need for the establishment of
              minimum levels of fill for building purpo,ses, especially in West Dennis, but there is a lack
              of precise information about the degree of hazard which could be used to support the adoption
              of the necessary building codes.

                                                                                                         511

                 13, Nags Head, North CaroLinal

                          Nags Head is a summer resort community on Bodie Island, one of the outer banks
                 of North Carolina, It is 14 mites north of Oregon Inlet and is reached by causeway from
                 the mainland via Roanoke Island. The study area includes 9. 3 mites of coast line, extend-
                 ing from the north end of Jackey Ridge just south of the Wilbur Wright Memorial, south to
                 the northern part of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The total area is 3, 505 acres, and
                 the extent inland varies from 1 to 1. 5 miles. (See figure 13 in the appendix.)

                          Physiography.    The entire stildy site is part of a narrow sand.barrier spit 65 miles
                 in length. Although the name Bodie Island applies to the whole spit, it is divided by several
                 inlets into a number of barrier istands@ The study site has four Landform sub types: beach
                 and cOasta[ sand dunes; sand flats; dune masses; and tidal marshes. Bordering on the
                 Atlantic Ocean is a 150- to 399-foot wide, nearly straight, sandy beach. It is backed by a
                 series of low scattered dunes which in places reach a height of 24 feet. These two units
                 make up about 10 percent of the study area. Dune grasses, particularly American beach
                 grass (Ammophila breviligulata), and sea oats (UnioLa paniculata) grow well on the low dunes
                 when undisturbed, but they are not able to survive the heavy pounding of storm waves. Thus,
                 the coastal dunes are not very effective in stopping storm inundation.

                          .In the northern part of the study area, a narrow sand flat lies behind the ocean
                 beach and coastal dunes. It appears to be the main source area for the large dune masses
                 which make up the backbone of Bodie Island. These Low sand flats constitute about, 44 per-
                 cent of the Nags Head study site. The largest dune comp[e.-I.. called Jackey Ridge, contains
                 large rounded dunes reaching a height of 138 feet. Although only five miles long and
                 averaging half a mile in width, this dune mass is ab!e to withstand storm-driven wind and
                 waves. Winds from several directions keep the dunes in rounded heaps, but some of the
                 sand migrates west into Roanoke Sound. All the sand masses combined total about 22 percent
                 of 'he area under study.

                          The fourth landform subdivision is the Low marsh areas behind the barrier dunes,
                 constituting about 24 percent of the study site. The largest marsh area is in the southern
                 part of the site. According to the Park Engineer for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore,
                 there has been natural filling by sand which has been blown and washed in from the coastal
                 dunes and beach. Aerial photographs taken in 1962, soon after the March storm, show
                 large sand fingers extending into the marsh areas from the blowouts. The natural filling
                 is aided by man, who has dug canals to drain the area for mosquito control and to prepare
                 the area for possible housing developments.

                            Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
                 following persons who supplied information: John Donnelly, Mr. Edward Nash, Mr. William
                 Foreman, Mr. Rundell, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Cahoon,
                          2 Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Shore Line, Beach Erosion Study, 80th Cong. ,
                 2nd Sess., Doc. No. 763, 1948, pp. 6-8; and Beach Erosion at Kitty Hawk, Nags Head, and
                 Oregon Inlet, N. C. , 74th Cong. , Ist Sess. , House Doc. No. 155, 1935, pp. 4-5.

             512

                        Sand is the predominant material m  aking up the barrier spit. A thin veneer of
              clay and silt occurs in the tidal marsh areas. Less than a hundred years ago the Outer
              Banks had a thick covering of vegetation which extended from the sound almost to the edge
              of the ocean. Today, little vegetation exists on the coastal dunes, none of the large shifting
              sand dunes, and only small protected areas have pines which grow from 40 to 60 feet high.
              In the marshes, low, salt tolerant herbs and grasses are found. (See cross section, figure
              2-14.)

                        Storm hazard.   Both hurricanes and northeasters have caused considerable damage
              to the Nags Head area, but the March 1962 storm was one of the most severe that has ever
              struck the area. In a post-flood report prepared by the Corps of Engineers,1 an estimated
              tide of from 7 to 9 feet above mean sea level occurred, and this was capped by 12-foot
              breakers.

                        From interviews and other field information, a conservative estimate would place
              flood-free land only above the 15-foot contour. Evidence indicates that all the land area
              immediately behind the ocean beach is subject to flooding because of dune washouts.

                        Not only is there a high degree of hazard from the ocean at Nags Head, but also,
              because of the size of Pamlico Sound, the western side of the barrier bar is subject to
              severe flooding and wave damage.

                        With the exception of a few areas where 60- to 130-foot dune masses occur, as
              along Jackey Ridge, no section is safe from flooding produced by high storm tides and
              strong winds. Damage that has occurred at this site includes flooding, beach erosion,
              frontal structural damage, wind damage, and sand deposits around buildings and across
              roads.

                        The storm of 6-8 March 1962 (Ash Wednesday storm as it is called at Nags Head)
              was much more destructive than most of the hurricanes crossing this study site. A deep
              low-pressure area centered 300 miles south of Cape Hatteras on the morning of March 5,
              moved very slowly north during the next three days bringing 30- to 40-foot high waves
              against the coast. Although maximum wind velocities at Hatteras reached only 60 miles per
              hour storm surges were 8 to 9 feet above mean tide with breakers up to 12 feet high. Over
              a million and a half dollars worth of damage resulted from this one storm. Damage to
              structures was particularly heavy with three fishing yiers being destroyed. Theshorewas
              badly eroded resulting in very steep beach profiles.

                        Coastal changes.   In the southern part of the study area, a few miles from Oregon
              Inlet, natural filling by sand migrating over or through gaps in the coastal dunes is filling in
              the tidal marshes. Park naturalists report that these low areas no longer flood regularly.

                        I Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Coastal Areas: :Storm of 6-8 March 1962
              (Ash Wednesda  y Storm): Final Post-Flood Report, U. S. Army Engineer District,
              Wilmington,. North Carolina (6 September, 1962), pp. 1-11 and attachment 1.
                        2Corps of Engineers,, North Carolina Coastal Areas, op. cit. , pp. 1- 11.

                STUDY SITE NO. 13

                                                                                                                    JACKEY
                                                                                                                        RIDGE                     NAGS
                                                                                                                                                     HEAD              ATLANTIC
                                                                  ROANOKE SOUND                  A                                                                      OCEAN
                                     JEA"EA J.9VEL

                                                                          A                                                 B,CD                                         A

                            ZONE                         BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE                        ABOVE MEAN TIDE TO ABOVE THE 20-FOOT CONTOUR             BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE

                                                                                                     BARRIER ISLAND WITH SAND FLATS AND LARGE SHIFTING        WIDE SANDY BEACH AND
                        GEOMORPHIc TYPE                  LOW TIDAL MARSH 3ILTS AND CLAYS             SAND DUNES IN PLACES OVER 100 FEET HIGH                  CONTINENTAL SHELF WIT14
                                                                                                                                                              GENTLE GRADIENT

                         TYPE OF HAZARD                  FLOODING AND WAVE DAMAGE                    MIGRATION OF DUNES AND SOME WATER INUNDATION             FLOODING, WAVE DAMAGE,
                                                                                                                                                              AND EROSION

                                                                                                     MINOR HAZARD FROM WIND BLOWN SAND AND MINOR              SEVERE EROSION TO
                        DEGREE OF HAZARD                            SEVERE                           FLOODING IN LOW AREAS                                    BEACH, DUNES AND
                                                                                                                                                              STRUCTURES

                                                                                                     NUMEROUS SUMMER HOMES ALONG THE ATLANTIC COAST.
                          STR U CT URES                                FEW                           A FEW STRUCTURES ALONG PAMLICO SOUND                              FEW

                         ADJUSTMENTS                                  FEW                           MANY INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTMENTS TO PROTECT DUNES AND          PROTECTION OF THE
                                                                                                    STRUCTURES                                                BEACH WITH THE MOVE-
                                                                                                                                                              MENT OF SAND

                                                          FIGURE 2-14.     DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, NAGS HEAD, NORTH CAROLINA

                                                                                                          513

                           A major change is the gradual retreat of the coast which for the Nags Head region
                  appears to be from 3 to 5 feet per year over the Last 25 years. However, where the beach
                  erodes in one area, it may build up in another. The shore processes are dynamic. Change
                  is constant, and off-shore undulations can shift overnight. There is tear-down and buiLd-up
                  of beach sand, but the over-all governing factors are such that the net Long term result is
                  loss of land mass. . Thus, the Outer Banks are now in most places being eroded and,moved
                  toward the mainland by a combination of long shore currents, wave and tide action, and by
                  wind movement which generally carries the sand inland..'

                           Settlement history.    Although most of the buildings in Nags Head are on the
                  ocean side, this has not always been the case. In the early days cottages were built on
                  the Sound side beginning in the 1830's. A hotel was built in the early 1840's and there was
                  a bowling alley by 1850. Horseback riding and hunting were popular among the Middle
                  Atlantic plantation owners who frequented this popular resort.

                           Throughout most of the Eurlopean colonization of North America, the North
                  Carolina Outer Banks have been sparsely populated.2 The native "Bankers" who engaged
                  in fishing and farming were few. Some of them were reputed to have been involved in more
                  colorful activities such as smuggling, blockade running, piracy, and wrecking@ Nags Head
                  was an, exception to this pattern of aremote, simple, and unlawful life. It is one of the
                  oldest vacation resorts on the east coast.

                           By the time of the Civil War, Nags Head could claim a long history as a seaside
                  resort. It was also unusual in another way. . It had a large number of private cottages at
                  a time when hotels were dominant.

                           The area had a reputation as a healthy place, largely because of the absence of
                  malaria@ In addition, the beaches and the surf enjoyed increasing popularity among

                            Edward Nash, Beach and Sand Dune Erosion Control at Cape Hatteras National
                  Seashore, A Five Year Review (1956-1961), U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park
                  Service (Manteo, North Carolina: Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 1962), p. 12.
                           2 The history of the Outer Banks is described in Gary S. Dunbar, Historical
                  Geography of the North Carolina Outer Banks, Coastal Studies Series, // 3, James P.
                  Morgan, ed. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1958), 234 pp.; and David
                  Stick, The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-1958 (Chapel Hill: University of North
                  Carolina Press, 1958), 352 pp.
                           3 Nags Head reportedly gets.-its name from a legend which tells of Bankers who
                  attached lights to horses' heads. As the animals were driven along the beach, confused
                  ships at sea were lured to their doom in the treacherous surf of the Outer Banks. From
                  this activity came the name Nag's Head. The apostrophe has since been dropped.
                           4 The summer residents, of course, could not account adequately for the health-
                  fulness of the area. The characteristics and causes of malaria were not discovered until
                  later. The southern planters only knew that they were less Likely to get sick here at Nags
                  Head than they were in the heat and humidity of their homes.

             514

              19th century American visitors. Nags Head was easily reached by steamship or schooner
              from Norfolk or Elizabeth City. An early record claims that "of 500 or 600 visitors a
              greater or less number of them are on the beach or bathing at all hours of the day- III

                       After a brief decline during the Civil War, Nags Head recovered its former
              prominence as a resort. Another hotel was constructed and summer residents began build-
              ing cottages on the ocean side of the island. A long time resident of the area2 claims that
              most of the large summer cottages in the northern part of the study area were built in the
              first two decades of the 20th century. The Cape Hatteras National Seashore, administered
              by the National Park Service, was established on January 12, 1953. This park includes
              sections of the Outer Banks from Nags Head to Ocracoke Island.

                       The first available photographs of the study site are for 1945. At that time there
              were probably less than 50 structures in all, and one fishing pier. It is not possible to
              state precisely the number of structures because only part of the area is covered by the
              1945 photographs. These structures were old then, many of them dating back to the 1900-
              1920 period. In spite cf,the long history of recreational use, especially summer cottages,
              it was not until after 1945 that rapid development took place.

                       By the time a new topographic survey was made by the United States Geological
              Survey in 1953, the total number of structures had risen to 449. All of these were located
              in the flood zone established arbitrarily at 15-foot elevation, and most of them were
              below 10 feet above mean sea level. Structure counts by use and hazard zone are listed
              in table 2-13. Over half the increase between 1945 and 1953 was in single-family
              residential buildings, mostly summer cottages. A somewhat smaller number of new
              commercial buildings were also opened during this period. Most of this new development
              occurred north of Whalebone Junction, along the beach road. The normal process of
              development was for buildings to be erected on the ocean side first, between the road and
              the seashore, and then on the Sound side later.

                       The period since 1953 has been one of continued expansion and development.
              There has been a change in both location and type of development, however. Since 1953
              more development has occurred south of What ebone'juncti on, and a rather larger proportion
              has been in the construction of motels and restaurants. Two new fishing piers have also
              been opened.

                       The Sound side remains largely undeveloped, in spite of the fact that it was here
              that the development of Nags Head first started. There are two Sound side roads with
              cottages along them now, and a new State highway now parallels the beach road, also on the
              Sound side. It seems likely that this road will be the focus of new development in future
              years as the ocean side becomes filled. The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to
              figure 13 (appendix)

                       1 Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey, 1849, p. 87 quoted in
              Gary S. . Dunbar, op. cit. , p. 38.

                       2 Mr. Jones, a Manteo Insurance Agent.

                                                                                                       515

                                                       Table 2-13

                     Nags Head, North   Carolina
                                        Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones    1

                     Zone         Land Use              No. Structures                 No.,Acres

                                                      1953    1963  change       1953   1963    change

                     A            8 Undeveloped         0       0        0        772    772        0
                     Tidal        Total                 0       0        0        773    773        0

                                  2 Commercial        132     215      +63         56     79      +41
                                  6a Residential      140     221      +57         99    129      +30
                                  8 Undeveloped         0       0        0       1646   1593        -3
                     Tidal-101    Total               284     457      +61       1820   1820        0

                     C            2 Commercial          69    179     +159         34     46      +35
                                  6a Residential        9-1   233     +150         8o     92      +15
                                  8 Undeveloped         0       0        0        586    562        -4
                     101-201-     Total               165     414     +151        701    701        0

                     D            8 Undeveloped         0       0        0        20'1   209        0
                     > 201        Total                 0       0        0        211    211        0

                                  .2 Commercial       201     394      +96         91    126      +38
                                  6a Residential      233     454      +95        181    223      +23
                                  8 Undeveloped         0       0        0       2718   2641
                     Flooded      Total               449     871      +94       3010   3010        0

                     All          2 Commercial        201     394      +96         91    126      +38
                     .Zones       3 Public              9       6      -33         20     20        0
                                  5a Recreational       6       8      +33           0      0       0
                                  6a Residential      233     454      +952       1.81   223      +23
                                  6b Residential        0       9        na          0    .0        0
                                  8 Undeveloped         0       0        0       3213   3136        -2
                                  Total               449     871.     +94       3505   3505        0

                           1  Yinor land uses omitted and total     ma@y exceed land uses enumerated.
                           2 na -- Calculation not appropriate.

              516

                       Adjustments to hazard.     There is a high degree of awareness of the storm
              hazard at Nags Hea-d and this is accompanied by a wide range of adjustments and a high
              rate of adoption of adjustments by private citizens. Adjustments include the elevation of
              many houses on piles; the use of rock rubble to form a seawall; the use of snow fences to
              build dunes; increasing the height of dunes with a bulldozer and stabilizing the dunes by
              planting. Timber from structures are commonly strengthened by liberal use of cross ties.
              One resident also reported lobbying activity in Washington in support of an insurance bill
              for f Lood damage.

                       In spite of the high degree of awareness of hazard and high degree of experience
              and familiarity with damage (almost every resident could state precisely the dates of the
              Ash Wednesday storm - March 6-8, 1962), there is little or no effect on tocational
              decisions. A general attitude appears to be that the amenities of the site justify the risk
              provided that common sense adjustments are made.

                       Public adjustments are prominent at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore where
              a program of bulldozing sand into dunes, use of storm fences and seeding the dunes, has
              resulted in the creation of a stable, 10-foot barrier sand ridge along most of the sea front
              of the area. Proposals have also been made for the provision of more protection by the
              construction of groins, jetties, and seawalls, but action on these proposals did not appear
              imminent in the summer of 1963.

                                                                          1
                       The Nags Head Land development plan of July 1964 . recommends consideration of
              a municipal cost-sharing program for dune protection. It is also suggested that a
              hurricane building code be adopted and that provision be made for personnel to inspect
              buildings during the course of construction. The Nags Head zoning ordinance, adopted in
              June 1962, makes no reference to storm hazard and includes no provisions for minimum
              floor elevations or for keeping development out of the most vulnerable areas.

                       Future developments.     The amount of land available for further development
              was sharply reduced in 1953 with the creation of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore part
              of which is in the study area. This has resulted in an acceleration of development outside
              the Seashore area and appears likely to continue to do so. The National Seashore attracts
              almost one million visitors annually to the area and this is likely to promote an increased
              phase Cf commercial development also.

                       The threat of severe and damaging storms is not likely to be a deterrent to further
              growth. Even in the event of a major catastrophe, it seems highly improbable that the pace
              of development would be more than temporily slackened. The pattern of the immediate
              ,future will depend to some degree on the choice of a few large property owners. Higher
              taxes are likely to encourage them to sell out before long, thus liberating more land for
              commercial and residential development. The four-fold increase in taxes over the past

                       I North GYro[ina,. Department of Conservation and -Development, -Division of
              Community Planning. Economic Function and Population. Land Development Plan, for
              Nags Head,. July 1964.

                                                                                                          517

                 fifteen years is also encouraging the construction of large modern motels instead of
                 cottages. The quiet and peaceful summer cottage atmosphere is rapidly disappearing.
                 Each summer the 750 year-round population is swollen to 25, 000.

                           Nags Head is an area of rapidly expanding coastal development for summer
                 recreation. Although it is more exposed to severe storms than many coastal areas,
                 development pays little or no attention to areas of greatest hazard and further rapid build-
                 up of storm damage potential may be expected to continue, both by the extension of summer
                 cottages into previous Ly vacant areas, and'by interisificdtion of development'with the con-
                 struction of motels and other facilities for tourists and vacationers.

                 14.   Bethany Beach,. Delaware I

                           The eighth and final example of the summer shore type of coastal development
                 is the resort community of Bethany Beach. It is Located on the long sand bar that runs from
                 Cape Hentopen to Chincoteague. Bethany Beach resort is about six miles north of the
                 Maryland Line and just over four miles south of Indian River Inlet. The study site includes
                 8. 2 mites of Delaware coastline and extends   inland for about one mile. (See figure 14 in
                 the appendix.)

                           Physiography.    The beach itself is straight and gentle, 100 to 300 feet wide, and
                 is backed by low coastal dunes. These dunes have been removed near the settlements of
                 Bethany Beach and York Beach, but in unpopulated sections they grow, with some help, to
                 a height of a little over 10 feet.

                           In the southern part of the study area, the coastal duneIs are connected to the
                 mainland. In the northern section of the beach, the dunes extend as a barrier bar across
                 Indian River Bay, Indian River Inlet is a cut through the sand barrier kept open by
                 protective jetties. Beach and coastal dunes makes up 22 percent of the study site.

                           The bays, lagoons, and salt marshes that generally lie between the dunes and the
                 mainland are a second distinct physiographic type (about 29 percent of the study site ),
                 Behind the town of Bethany Beach is the only place in the study area where this separating
                 marshland is not found. Large sections of these marshes, all of which lie less than 10
                 feet above sea level, are being fitted in for marinas and housing developments.

                           Third , there is the mainland (49 percent of the study site) which is a nearly flat
                 terrace or plain with an average elevation of between 5 and 10 feet above mean sea leveL.
                 In places, this plain is broken up into a series of necks which jut out into Indian River Bay
                 and Assawoman Bay. . Lagoons and marshes occur between the necks.

                           I Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are iildebted to the
                 following persons who provided information: Mr. J. Pophan, Mr. J. Barker, Mr. S. Bennett,
                 and Mr. P. Short.

             518

                       Materials within the study site include sand and some silt on the coastal beaches
              and dunes; soft muds and clays in the lagoons; and older sands and gravels with some clay,
              on the'mainiand. . Sandy loam soils, also on the mainland, are usually under cultivation.

                       Vegetation on the dunes and barrier bars consists of scattered salt-tolerant grasses
              and herbaceous plants. Salt-tolerant marsh grass is found along the edges of the bays and
              Lagoons. On the mainland, vegetation is denser with mixed forests of pine and oak which
              surround the open farmlands. (See cross section, figure 2-15.)

                       Storm hazard. The frequency of storms at Bethany Beach is relatively low but the
              physiography of the area makes it highly vulnerable to inundation.

                       Field interviews put the flood of record at about 10 feet above mean sea level. A
              maximum high water n-ark d 10. 4 feet was recorded by the Coast Guard during the March
              6-8 storm of 1962. Since nearly 95 percent of the study area is below 10 feet the site has
              been and will continue to be subject to inundation and damage from large storm waves and
              tides.

                       Before the March 1962 storm, several dune areas had grown to elevations higher
              than 10 feet, but these were washed away by the con@dnued pounding of storm waves at that
              time. In 1963, only two small dune-areas were found to be higher than the 10-foot contour.
                       Settlement history.' The earliest settlement in the vicinity was at Lewes in the
              fee of Cape Henlopen, established by the Dutch in 1631. Subsequently English settlers also
              moved in, and during colonial times, the bays and lagoons behind the coastal sand bar were
              noted for oysters, clams, fish, and waterfowl.

                       It is unlikely that much use was made of the study site portion of this sand bar until
              close to 1900, although for two centuries the Indian River Inlet served as a gateway for small
              sailing vessels bringing finished products into the 150 and 200 square miles of the inner
              bay region. These same ships brought grain and forest products out to the coastal ports.
              Many of these vessels were built on the Indian River and this inlet was especially important
              prior to the era of railroads and paved highways.

                       The land on which the town of Bethany Beach now stands was owned by Cornelius
              Hall in the .1890's and had been in his family for approximately 150 years. He sold this
              land to the Bethany Beach Improvement Company.

                       "In 1890 this site was picked out from others up and down the Atlantic
                       Coast by several members of the Christian Church Disciples of Scranton,
                       Pa. , who were appointed to select a spot for the summer activities of the
                       Christian Church Disciples of Maryland, Delaware, and the District of
                       Columbia. Later forming the Bethany Beach Improvement Co., this group

                       1 Parts of this account are based on W. L. Bevan (ed.), History of Delaware, Past,
              and Present, V61s. I-IV (New York: Lewes Historical Publishing Co. , Inc. , 1929).

               STUDY SITE NO. 14

                                                                                                                                            BETHANY
                                                                                                                                                  BEACH
                                                                                                                                              -f., --                ATLANTIC
                                                                                                              SALT POND                                               OCEAN
                                         tLAN SEA LEVEL

                                                                           B, c                                 A                                                     A

                               ZONE                    ABovE MEAN HIGH TIDE, BUT BELOW 20-FOOT         BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE      ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE,     BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE
                                                       CONTOUR                                                                   BUT BELOW 10-FOOT
                                                                                                                                 CONTOUR

                                                       GENTLY SLOPING NEARLY FLAT TERRACE.             LOW TIDAL MARSH AREAS     SAND DUNES ON TOP OF      WIDE SANDY BEACH AND
                        GEOMORPHQc TYPE                OLDER SANDS AND GRAVELS                         SILTS AND CLAYS           A NEARLY FLAT COASTAL     CONTINENTAL SHELF.
                                                                                                                                 TERRACE                   GENTLE GRADIENT

                        TYPE OF HAZARD                 MINOR FLOODING TO THE 10-FOOT CONTOUR           SUBJECT TO TIDAL          FLOODiNG AND DUNE         FLOODING AND BEACH
                                                                                                       INUNDATION                EROSION                   EROSION

                       DFGREF OF HAZARD                                MI NOR                                 M5NOp                     SEVERE                     SEVERE

                         STRUCTURES                         A FEW FARM 14OUSES                                 FEw              NumEnous SUMMER HOMES               FEW

                                                                                                                                SOME INDIVIDUAL ADJUST-    MAJOR THROUGH BEACH
                        ADJUSTMENTS                                     FEW                                    FEW              MENTS WITH BULKHEADS       FILL AND PROTECTIVE
                                                                                                                                AND DUNE PROTECTION        WORKS

                                                         FIGURE 2-15.    DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, BETHANY BEACH, DELAWARE

                                                                                                        519

                          agreed to purchase land and develop it and to provide transportation
                          from the railroad to the isolated place, provided that the society would
                          purchase not less than 100 lots and give "moral support.

                          "On July 12, 1901 Bethany Beach was formally opened and the Tabernacle
                          dedicated. Transportation from the railroad at Rehoboth was provided
                          by the little steamboat Atlantic across Rehoboth Bay, Indian River Bay,
                          and up White's Creek to Ocean View, whence horse-drawn carryalls
                          covered the last two miles to the beach. Later a ditch was dredged a
                          mile long between the Assawoman Canal and the resort, so that boats
                          could land at the spot. Both canal and ditch have since silted up, so
                          that now only row-boats can approach the beach this way. "I

                          The permanent population of the settlement remained small for a Long time. It was
                 about 50 in 1910 and remained the same in 1920. By 1950 it had reached 170 and today it is
                 about 400. The town has continually been popular as a summer resort, and there was a good
                 hotel there at Least as early as 1929. Some of the religious atmosphere stemming from its
                 origins still remains. Services are held on the church land during the summer and there
                 is an annual meeting in June. By the terms of the deed for the resort, the sale of alcoholic
                 beverages on any piece of property forfeits the lot back to the developers. This has helped
                 to keep Bethany Beach as a relatively quiet resort compared with some others.

                          The Indian River Coast Guard Station was the most remote and inaccessible
                 station on the Delaware Coast until the paved road, which is now route 14, was completed
                 in 1934. During this period, most of the coastat barrier bar was state-owned Land that
                 had become dotted with squatters' cabins and huts. By 1938, the state had done noth ing
                 to evict these people and this may have something to do with the present controversy over
                 ownership of certain sections of the study site.

                          The history of Indian River Inlet is interesting as construction of a new bridge
                 is present'ly underway. This inlet was first bridged by a fixed-timber bridge in 1934 when
                 the road was built. When this structure proved inadequate in its resistance to storms, a
                 swing span drawbridge of concrete and steel was constructed in 1938- 39. The inlet was
                 partially stabilized at this time by two jetties on the ocean side of the bridge on either side
                 of the inlet. Previously, the inlet had alternatively opened and cLosed and the channel had
                 migrated up and down the coast under the influence of storms and tides.

                          This behavior was intensified by the digging of the Assawoman Canal about 1890
                 and the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal, both of which robbed water from the bay which would
                 have kept the inlet open. (Assawoman Canal was supposed to have been an important
                 intracoastaL waterway, but traffic never materialized and the canal was allowed to
                 deteriorate. It has been important as a drainage ditch, however.) In 1920, after a dry
                 spell, the inlet closed completely for several years, resulting in the disruption of

                          1 Delaware, American Guide Series (New York: Hastings House, 1955).

              520

              navigation, and the destruction of all marine vegetation and the seafood industry. It also
              provided an excellent place for mosquito- breeding. In 1935- 36, under mosquito- contro L
              auspices, mass meetings increased the pressure for opening the inlet and the District
              U.S. Engineer approved the project in 1937.

                       The presently-used bridge, built in 1938, has been damaged several times by
              storms and the south end was destroyed by a storm in 1948. That bridge was not recon-
              structed until 1951. , A new.bridge was under construction in the summer of 1963 which was
              to replace the one then being used.

                       Land use changes.     The largest change in the study area since the first available
              photo coveragein 1938 is the substantial increase of cottages. Of the 1041 single family
              residences in the study area in 1963, 856 have been built since 1938. This is an average
              rate of 34 per annum. But the average rate since 1954 is 52 per annum. We estimate that
              nearly half of the single family residences have been built in the last 10 years.

                       Seafront lots in Bethany Beach itself are in short supp ly, and development has
              spread out in a ribbon north and south along the seashore. In the south, development has
              pushed as far as military and wildlife reservations and can proceed no further. There is
              stiL1 room for development at the northern end where large amounts of land are controlled
              by a single owner. It is not possible to predict how rapidly this land is likely to be
              released for cottage development.

                       In the southern part of the study area at the place called South Bethany, there are
              considerable areas of reclaimed land. Several hundred acres of marshland have been
              designated for residential development, and marina access canals have been constructed to
              enable property owners on the marsh side of the bar to have a waterfront lot.

                       Such developments have not yet occurred in the north, where more readily
              developable land is still available. Development has also occurred on either side of Indian
              River Inlet since the early 19.50's. The houses here are of a temporary nature. Many of
              them are trailers, with residents holding only short-term leases to small parcels of
              property and access rights. Residents are permitted to make additions to the trailers,
              however, so that the development takes on a more permanent air.

                       The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 14 in the appendix.
              Recorded changes of land use are given in table 2-14.

                       Adjustments to hazard. There is a moderate degree of awareness of storm hazard
              at Bethany Beach and this is associated with a wide range and high rate of adoption of adjust-
              ments. The area is relatively unprotected and this has led to attempts to reduce the hazard
              by bulldozing sand into 10-foot high dunes and planting grass to stabilize them.

                       Private adjustments are very common and consist primarily of building protective
              works with rock rubble, bales of hay and sand bags. One respondent had made his own
              seawall from old railroad ties. Others reported efforts to make houses more secure by
              tying them down with cables.

                                                                                                      521

                                                       Table 2-14

               Bethany Beach, Maryland

                                       Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones

               Zone        Land Use               No. Structures                       No. Acres
                                                                                           %          7-
                                            1938  1954 change 1963 change   1938  1954 change 1963  change
               A           8 Undeveloped      0    0      0     0      0      360  36o      0   36o      0
               Tidal       Total              0    0      0     0      0      360  360      0   36o      0

               B           2 Commercial      32   36    +12    81   +125        6   13  +117     26   +1oo
                           3 Public          60   71    +182   64    -10       21   90  +329     90      0
                           4 Recreational     0    3     na     0     na      485  586   +21    595     +2
                           6a Residential   168  521   +210    957   +84      148  406  +174    607   +5o
                           7 Agricultural    10   10      0    10      0      215  200     -7   173   -14
                           8 Undeveloped      0    0      0     0      0    2o6i  1638   -20   1420   -13
               Tidal,-101, Total            27o  641   +137  1112    +74    2936  2936      0  2936      0

               C           6a Residential    17   44   +159    84    +91        5    8   +60     20   +150
                           7 Agricultural    16   14    -12    16    +14      123  123      0   118     -4
                           8 Undeveloped      0    0      0     0      0       50   47     -6    40   -15
               101-201     Total             34   60    +76    104   +73      178  178      0   178      0

               D
               > 201       Total              0    0      0     0      0        Negligible

               F           2 Commercial      32   36    +12    81   +125        6   13  +117     26   +loo
                           3 Public          60   74    +23    64    -11       21   90  +329     90      0
                           4 Recreational    -0    0      0     0      0      485  586   +21    595     +2
                           6a Residential   168  E521  +210    957   +84      148  406  +174    607   +50
                           7 Agricultural    10   10      0    10      0      215  2bo     -7   173   -14
                           8 Undeveloped     10    0     na     0      0    2421  1998   -18   1780   -11
               Flooded     Total            27o  641    137  1112    +73    3296  3296      0  3296      0

               All         I Industrial
               Zones       2 Commercial      32   36    +12    82   +128        6   13  +117     26   +loo
                           3 Public          60   72    +20    65    -10       21   90  +329     90      0
                           4 Recreational     0    4     na     1   -300      485  586   +21    595     +2
                           5a Recreational    1    0     na     1     na.       0    3     na    25   +733
                           5b Recreational    0    0      0     0      0        0    0      0      0     0
                           6a Residential   185  565   +205  1041    +84      153  414  +171    627   +51
                           6b Residential     0    0      0     0      0        0    0      0      0     0
                           6c Residential     0    0      0     0      0        0    0      0      0     0
                           7 Agricultural    26   24     -8    26     +8      338  323     -4   291   -10
                           8 Undeveloped      0    0      0     0      0    2471  2o45   -17   1820   -11
                           Total            304  701    130  1216     73    3474  3474      0  3474      0

                           1
                            Minor land uses omitted    and total mayexceed    land uses enumerated.
                           2 na -- Calculation not appro-priate.

             522

                       Future development. . There is every indication that demand for recreational
              opportunities will keep Bethany Beach expanding rapidly. One distinctive feature of this
              study site, not found to the same degree elsewhere is the waterfront lot type of development
              in which boat channels are constructed through subdivisions in such a Aay that each house
              fronts on a body of water, thus permitting the resident to keep his boat close to his house.
              Marshland areas are particularly suitable for this form of development and it appears likely
              to increase in the area. It is a pattern of development particularly associated with the
              F torida Keys and other areas further south than the shores of Megalopolis, but it is making
              itself increasingly felt further north. While its amenity advantages are clear, there is
              also a danger that in building boat channels new paths for storm waters are being created
              that wit[ cause heavy damage in the future. This is especially the case where development
              is unregulated.

                       Bethany Beach is an example of rapid and continuing summer shore development
              in the face of a recognized storm hazard. -Storm damage potential is mounting rapidly,
              although not without the adoption of private adjustments to attempt to reduce damage.
              Recent developments of marinas is pressing even closer to the mean high tide level in an
              uncontrolled fashion. Such developments appear likely to continue in the face of periodic
              setbacks in the form of storm damage, and to proceed until all available lots have been
              used.

              The Empty Shore - The Vanishing Shore
              15. 'Assateague, Virginia  I

                       The final case study is included to represent those miles of empty coastline on the
              shores of Megalopolis which are rapidly vanishing under the spreading highways, marinas,
              motels, and summer residences. It is located immediately adjacent to Chincoteague Island,
              (study site No. 4).

                       Assateague Island is a 32-mile long barrier bar, which has been slowly extending
              southward from Ocean City, Maryland. Most of the barrier bar is in Maryland, but a part
              of the southern end in Virginia was chosen for a study site, mainly due to its accessibility
              from Chincoteague. For most of its length the bar is I ess than a mile wide, but in the
              southern part a series of beach accretion ridges curve to the west in the shape of a hook
              making the bar nearly two miles Wide. (See figure 15 in the appendix.)

                       Physiography.   Physiographicatty, Assateague is very similar to nearby
              Chincoteague Island. Both are Low sandy islands subject to change in their shape and size
              as tidal channels and offshore currents move the unconsolidated sands and clays from one
              place to another.

                         Field work by Mr. Robert Arnold and Mr. Richard Hecock. We are indebted to
              the following persons who provided information: Mr. Roy Tolbert and Mr..Charles Noble.

                                                                                                        523

                          Assateague is a shifting barrier bar with a long, nearly straight, gently sloping,
                 sandy beach, 200 to 300 feet wide. Behind the beach are a series of sand dunes, sand plains,
                 and tidal marshes, which represent earlier shorelines. The sand dune ridges trend
                 parallel:to the present shoreline and have hooks at the south which parallel the present
                 hook that is growing south and west very rapidly. The entire barrier bar is made up of
                 wind-blown sand with some sitt and clay in the marshes and lagoons. The silts and clays
                 are found between the sand ridges and on the lagoon side of the barrier bar. About 46 per-
                 cent of the study site is made up of sand ridges and swales, and 54 percent consists of
                 marshland.

                          The Largest dunes, which reach a height of 47 feet, occur c n the west side of the
                 bar. The dunes and ridges are the only part of Assateague which escaped flooding during
                 the March, 1962 storm. This higher ground was where the Assateague ponies took refuge,
                 Pines are found on the ridges and grasses in the low areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service
                 plants grass in closed off fresh water ponds for the migrating birds. (See cross section.,
                 figure 2-16.)

                          Comparison with other study sites.   The tandforms found at the Chincoteague and
                 Assateague study sites are in many ways similar to the Nags Head study site. The barrier
                 bar at Nags Head is similar to the barrier bar at Assateague. Chincoteague Is Land can be
                 compared to Roanoke Island. The tidal marshes and lagoons are similar at the two sites,
                 but Chincoteague Bay is not as large as Pamlico Sound.

                          However, none of the study sites have such a complex of ridges and swales as on
                 Chincoteague- Assateague. Also, the dune ridges on Assateague are lower and more
                 stabilized by vegetation than the larger migrating dune masses at Nags Head.

                          'Me rapid growth of Assateague barrier bar at the tip can be compared with the
                 tip of the Sandy Hook region of northern New Jersey.

                          Storm hazard.    Both flooding and beach erosion occur at Assateague. The 10-foot
                 elevation for the flood of record ascertained from field interviews at Chincoteague can be
                 applied to Assateague also. During the March 1962 storm most of the southern part of
                 Assateague Island was flooded except for the small, narrow dune ridges on the west side
                 of the bar which are 20 to 40 feet above mean sea level.

                          Coastal changes.    Both Assateague and Chincoteague are subject to sudden and
                 severe coastal c 'hanges during Large storms. Generally 100 feet of sand is removed per
                 year along the 32-mile length of barrier bar. This sand is being deposited at the southern
                 tip of Assateague where a large hook is growing both south and west, about 100 feet per year.

                          Assateague is, in places, a very narrow bar. At times during storms, inlets will
                 be cut through the island to the bays. The opening and closing of these inlets is a normal
                 process for outer bars. During a storm in 1933, an inlet was cut through Assateague south
                 of Ocean City, Maryland, and this has been kept open with a series of permanent jetties.

             524

                       Past storms. Both hurricanes and northeasters have caused damage at
              Assateague. Of the 35 damaging storms recorded along the Virginia coast in the past
              40 years, 19 have been hurricanes. The greatest amount of damage was caused by the
              hurricanes of the 1930's and by the non-hurricane storm of March 6-8, 1962.

                      . During the 1962 storm two persons were drowned and three other injured when
              an 83-foot fishing trawler was grounded on Assateague. It was also reported that about
              150 of the famous wild ponies were drowned.

                       Settlement history and land use. There is no permanent settlement on
              Assateague Island within the study area. Land use data are incorporated with those for
              Chincoteague in Study No. 4.

                       The Assateague study site is made up almost entirely of the Chincoteague National
              Wildlife Refuge which was estabLished in 1943 and includes 9, 000 acres of Assateague Island
              in Virginia. It is located directly on the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds and hundreds
              of species regularly visit the area.

                       Assateague is famous for its wild ponies. According to legend a Spanish ship
              containing ponies was wrecked off the coast of Assateague in the 16th century. The ponies
              that survived came ashore on the island. Since only Chincoteague was heavily wooded at
              that time the ponies eventually made the narrow crossing between the two islands. Ponies
              have been on both islands right up to the present time and have long served as a tourist
              attraction.

                       One significant change on Assateague is the conversion of a portion of the Wildlife
              Refuge into a public recreation area. This recreation area is [eased from the Fish and
              Wildlife Service by the Chincoteague Bridge and Beach Authority.

                       Other parts of Assateague IsLand to the north are threatened with development,
              but this will change if the seashore proposal is passed, In any event at the southern end,
              the public ownership of land is likely to prevent intensive development and the area will
              probably be preserved as public open space in perpetuity. There are few such areas left
              on, the shores of Megalopolis.

              STUDY SITE NO. 15

                                                                                                      ASSATEAGUE
                                                                         AsSATEAGUE                                                                         ATLANTIC
                                                                           CHANNEL                                                                          OCEAN
                                        MEAN SEA LEVEL

                                                                         A                           8, C, 0                        AV B                            A

                                                                                                                             BELOW MEAN HIGH      ABOVE MEAN BELOW MEAN
                                 ZONE                             BELOW MEAN        ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDC TO ABOVE 20 FEET    TIDE TO LESS THAN    HIGH TIDE,   HIGH TIDE
                                                                  HIGH TIDE                                                  10 FEET              BUT BELOW
                                                                                                                                                  10 FEET

                                                                  TIDAL MARSH       LINEAR DUNES OVER 20 FEET Hirm,          LOW FLAT LANDS WITH   Low SAND   WIDE BEACH WITH
                            GEOMORPHic TYPE                       AND TIDAL         WIDE EXTENSIVE SANDY FLATS               SOME TIDAL MARSH      DUNES      GENTLE GRADIENT
                                                                  CHANNEL

                                                                  TIDAL INUNOA-                                                                    DUNE       BEACH EROSION
                            TYPE OF HAZARD                        TION AND                    SOME FLOODING                       FLOODING         REMOVAL    AND FLOODING
                                                                  CHANNEL EROSION

                            DEGREE OF HAZARD                        MoOERAeE                    Mi NOR                       SEVERE FLOOBONG      SEVERE FLOODING AND
                                                                                                                                                  EROSION

                              STRUCTURES                              NONE                  ONLY 2 OR 3                               NONE           FEW          NONE

                             AojUSTMENTS                               FEW                     MINOR                                  NONE           Few           NONE
                                                                         ASSATEAGUE                                                                         AOT L @A
                                                                           '"A N N E L                                                                        CE NT'C
                                                                                                                                                               AN

                                                         FIGURE 2-16.    DOAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, AssATEAGUF, VgHCHilk

                                                                                                            525

                                                        CHAPTER III

                                          CLIMATOLOGY OF DAMAGING STORMS

                  Introduction

                           In any study of human adjustment to hazards, it is necessary to have detailed
                  information on the actual occurrence of the hazard in order to evaluate the significance
                  of the human response. Inhabitants atong the coast have achieved a certain degree of
                  awareness of the hazards of coastal living, of the frequency of damaging storms, of the
                  likelihood of future damage from wind and waves. This awareness is based in part on
                  their own experience under storm or damage conditions and in part on other economic,
                  social, cultural, and educationaL factors. The relative importance of these factors and
                  the relevancy of any program to control or mitigate future damage can only be determined
                  by comparing human perception and understanding with actual occurrence. It is in the
                  discrepancies, those cases where reality confutes perception, that control programs will
                  fail or humans will initiate action that will be detrimental to themselves or to their
                  environment. In our present context, therefore, it is important to have a good under-
                  standing of the actual occurrence of coastal storms, the frequency of damage from wind
                  and waves, the nature of the damaging storms, and the changing pattern of damage both
                  in time and in space if we are to interpret the real significance of the human response.
                  The foLlowing chapter seeks to outline something of the climatology of damaging storms
                  that affect the east coast of the United States.

                  General Statement of Approach

                           The damage potential of a storm of a given intensity depends very much on a
                  large number of physical factors. Some coastal sites may be more vulnerable than
                  others by virtue of elevation, height of tide, aspect or orientation with respect to the
                  storm surge and waves, offshore bottom conditions, the condition of natural and man-made
                  coastal defenses, type and pattern of human development, and other factors. Proximate
                  sites may differ markedly in vulnerability due to one or a combination of these factors of
                  which we have only a very general understanding.

                           For this reason, it is extremely difficult to determine the vulnerability of parti-
                  cular sites along the coast. It is possible to deveLop a notion of the relative storm hazard
                  for different portions of the coast by examining the history of damage during the past
                  several years. In doing this it is necessary to remember that the damage caused by a
                  storm is taken as a measure of the storm's intensity. This has been done in an effort to
                  integrate the many independent meteorological and other factors, including astronomical
                  tide, that in combination determine the destructive potential of a given storm. Inherent
                  in this procedure is that its usefulness is limited to the broad scale of time and space;
                  that is, that while our approach should show the broad pattern of hazard as it differs along
                  the coast and has changed in time, the analysis will not be especially useful for understand-
                  ing the hazard at particular sites. For the latter, detailed historical and physical studies

             526

              of each site would be required. Such detailed studies of individual sites would, of course,
              be difficult to use for purposes of generalization because of the variability in the experience
              of neighboring sites,

                       The approach we have adopted has sought to identify the over-all pattern of storm
              damage on the east coast of the United States; to classify the sorts of meteorological con-
              ditions. that are responsible for coastal damage; to determine where along the coast
              damage (or the likelihood of damage, in the absence of actual reported damage) is most
              frequent; how this frequency of damage has changed in the past several decades; and to
              determine as far as possible whether the observed changes in damage frequency during
              the years are due to meteorological changes or changes in human use (or abuse) of the
              coa s t.

              Frequency of Coastal Storms

                       Records of coastal storms and related damage during the past 44 years are
              contained in a number of different periodicals, newspapers, and weather summaries. As
              the method of reporting such storms, the reporting group, and the public interest have at I
              changed, so also have the sources of data. The prime sources for at[ storm data during
              the period 1921-1964 have been U. S. Weather Bureau c[imatological publications. From
              1921 until the end of 1949, brief records of severe storms were published in the Monthly
              Weather Review, white more detailed articles on storms of significance were included
              in the Review itself when warranted. From 1950 until the end of 1958, these storm
              records were included in the publication Climatological Data,, National Summary. Since
              1959 a much more expanded record of all severe storms has been pubLished. monthly in
              the special report entitled Storm Data.

                       In order to supplement these records, several other sources have been used for
              varying periods of time. Included among these are the Mariner's Weather Log, Weekly
              Weather and  ICrop Bulletin, Weatherwise, New York Times, and various articles in
              periodicals.    The record of hurricane damage over the past half century is particularly

                         For example: A. I. Cooperman and H. E. Rosendat, "Mean Five-Day Pressure
              Pattern of the Great Atlantic Coast Storm, March 1962, " Mon. Wea. Rev. , 91, 337-344,
              1963; D. L. Harris, "Coastal Flooding by the Storm of March 5-7, 1962, " U. S. Wea. Bur. ,
              Manuscript, 22 pp. 1963; R. H. Simpson, "The Unique Development of the Severe Atlantic
              Coastal Storm, March 1962, " paper presented at 211 Nat. Meeting, AMS, 11 pp, 1963;
              D. M. Thomas and G. W. Edeten, Jr. , "Tidal Floods, Atlantic City and Vicinity, New
              Jersey, " Hydrologic Invest. , Atlas HA-65, U. S Geol. Survey, 1962; U. S. Weather Bureau,
              "Criteria for a Standard Project Northeaster for New England North of Cape Cod," Memo
              Hur. 8-5, Hydrometeor. Sec. , Hydrol. Ser. Div. , 91 pp,     1963.

                                                                                                      527

                 welt documentedl, but such storms constitute only about one-third of the totaL.that has
                 resulted in damage to the coastal areas.

                          While the portion of this study dealing with the human response to storms has
                 been confined to the coastal area from North Carolina to New Hampshire, the climato-
                 logical study has been expanded to include the whole east coast from Key West,. Florida,
                 to Maine since the data for the additional areas were directly available with no appreciable
                 increase in effort. . Storms affecting the Gulf of Mexico area, including the west coast of
                 Florida, have not been included. This climatological study was primarily concerned with
                 damage that resulted from the peculiar conditions existing at the sea coast (wave damage,
                 coastal flooding, and tidal inundation) so that storms which caused damage only by wind
                 or precipitation were not included.

                          Figure 3-1 gives the yearly record of all storms that have brought at [east some
                 water damage to part of the Atlantic coastal margin during the period 1921 to 1964. The
                 record shows a marked increase in the number of damage -producing storms in the past
                 two decades. From 1921 up-tit the late 1930's, there was fairly even distribution of
                 coastal storms, averaging two to three a year. Actual numbers ranged from one in 1921,
                 1923, and 1938, to a,maximum of seven in 1933. During the four years from 1939 through
                 1942, only one damage-producing coastal storm was reported in the sources studied.

                          During the 1940's the number of coastal storms increased from two in 1943 and
                 1945 to seven in 1947 and 1950. The average for this period is slightly higher than for
                 the pre- 1938 period, a [though the range of variation is consistent with the earlier period.
                 Beginning in 1950, however, a new pattern of storm. frequency has seemed to develop.
                 During the past 15 years, the minimum riumber of yearly storms has been five (1952-
                 1955), while the maximum numbers have been twelve in 1962 and thirteen in 1958. The
                 average number of storms per year for this period has been nearly eight compared with
                 two to three during the 1920's and 1930's. Because of the type of record that is available,
                 it is not possible to say whether i-his chaage In storm frequency is only the result of
                 random climatological variation. It is certainty possible that the great increase in
                 coastal occupancy and the resulting importance of damage -producing storms has led to
                 a certain bias in reporting. This question will be considered in more detail in a later
                 section.

                          1 For example: E. M. BalLenzweig, "Fluctuations in Frequency of Tropical
                 Storms, " Weatherwise, 10, 121-125, 1957; C. W. Brown, "Hurricanes and Shore-Line
                 Changes in Rhode Island, " Geogr. Rev., 29, 416-430, 1939; G. W. Cry, W. H. Haggard,
                 and H. S. White, "North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, " Tech. Paper 36, U. S. Wea. Bur. ,
                 214 pp, 1959; A. D. Howard, "Hurricane Modification of the Offshore Bar of Long Island,
                .New York, " Geogr. Rev. , 29, 400-415, 1939; C. P. Mook, "Hurricanes Entering U. S.
                 Mainland - Eastport to Hatteras, 1635-1955, " Weatherwise, 9,@ 125, 1956; D. L. Harris,
                 "Characteristics of the Hurricane Storm Surge, " Tech. Paper 48, U. S. Wea. Bur. ,
                 139 pp, 1963; C. B. Carney and A. V. Hardy, "North Carolina Hurricanes, " U. S. Wea.
                 Bur. , 26 pp, 1962; and D. M. Ludlam, "Early American Hurricanes 1492-1870, " The
                 History of American Weather, No. 1, AMS, 198 pp, 1963.

             528

              Classification of Storms Affecting the Coast

                       Study of the daily synoptic charts for each of the 195 storms that occurred during
              the 1921-1964 period shows that certain weather situations recurred many times. One
              obvious meteorological situation frequently associated with coastal damage was the hurricane.
              It appeared possible to classify all Listed coastal storms into one of eight different types on
              the basis of their origin, structure, and pjath of movement as follows:

                       1.   Hurricanes and severe tropical storms.

                       2.   Wave developments forming in the Atlantic Ocean well east of the United
                            States mainland or in the vicinity of Cuba.

                       3.   Wave developments along cold or stationary fronts over, the southeast
                            coastal states or in the Atlantic Ocean just off the southeast coast.

                       4.   Wave developments along cold or stationary fronts in the Gulf of Mexico
                            forming west of 85 W longitude.

                       5.   Depressions moving across the southern half of the United States that
                            intensify upon reaching the Atlantic coast; no secondary development ahead
                            of the storm center.

                       6.   Depressions which develop as strong secondary cyclonic disturbances along
                            the coast (often in the Hatteras area) ahead of a trailing wave or occluded
                            center.

                       7.   Intense cyclonic storms whose origin and entire path of movement are over
                            land surfaces so that the low center remains west of the coastal margin.

                       8.   Strong cold fronts accompanied by squall lines and severe local weather.

                       In addition, there were six storms with such diverse characteristics that they
              could not be grouped into any of the eight categories above. Since, in each case, the
              damage done by these storms was very small, they need not concern us further in the
              present study.

                       The above classes do not have sharp boundaries, and there are certain cases
              where storms fall near the border of divisions. Even within the classes, behavior of
              storms is variable; yet there seems to be sufficient consistency among the storms within
              a class and enough difference between classes to justify the present breakdown. In the
              present classification, the class 2 and 3 storms which form in the Atlantic are similar to
              Miller's type A cyclonesl, while the class 6 storms correspond to his type B cyclones.

                       1 J. E. Miller, "Cyclogenesis in the Atlantic Coastal Region of the United States,
              J. Meteor., 3, 31-44, 1946.

                                    FREQUENCY OF DAMAGING COASTAL STORMS
                                       EASTeRN UNITED STATES, 1921-1964

                         12 -

                         10-

                         ro

                        Z5

                         4

                         3

                         2

                                              1 J. L-Al
                           2i 23 25   Z7. '29 31 33 35 37 39   41 43 45 47   49 51  53 55 57 59 61 63
                                                               Year
                                                           Figure 3- 1

                                                                                                            529

                  Austin' has also discussed conditions which are favorable for cyclogenesis along the east
                  coast. Both his situation 1 and situation 2 cyclogenesis conditions correspond with
                  class 3@ storms as listed here. @ Desc'riptions of the different classes as well as sample
                  weather maps illustrating synoptic conditions during each major storm class follow.

                           1.   The unique characteristics of hurricanes are well known. Hurricanes
                  possess higher wind velocities than other storms that affect the east coast. Their
                  destructive power is great, although from the descriptive records of damage, hurricanes
                  do not generally appear more severe than rnany class 2 storms. This is undoubtedly
                  related to the more rapid movement of many hurricanes and to the relatively small dia-
                  meter of the storms which result in shorter over-water fetch of the winds and, hence,
                  less opportunity for wind-driven waves to pile up along the coast. . During the period of
                  record, 62 hurricanes brought damage to some part of the Atlantic coast. The synoptic
                  charts of figure 3@2, showing the movement of hurricane Donna on three successive days
                  in September 1960 along the east coast of the United States, are fairly typical for storms
                  in this class.

                           2. - Storms of the second class include waves that develop into storms at some
                  distance east or south of the continental United States in the Atlantic Ocean or in the
                  vicinity of Cuba. With such [ate-forming depressions, the high pressure system north
                  of the storm center has movedfar enough eastward to block the northeasterly movement
                  of the storm center. This results in very slow-moving depressions that often have a
                  pronounced east-west elongation. This configuration of the isobars will, in turn, Lead to
                  a long over-water fetch of the winds and the build-up of significant wind-driven waves
                  along the coast. As a result, this group is probably the most destructive of all of the
                  storms that irif luence the -coast. Figure 3-3 is an example of an intense class 2 storm
                  that occurred in January 1956. There were nine stcrms in this class during the 44-year
                  period of record.

                           3. . Class 3 storms include waves that form over the southeastern coastal states
                  or in the Atlantic Ocean fairly close to the coastal margin. These storms are also
                  frequently blocked by high pressure systems pushing eastw4rd north of the Low center.
                 .Often a pronounced east-west orientation of the isobars results from the juxtaposition of
                  the low center and the blocking high. In both the class 2 and 3 storms, the actual damage
                  may result as much from the pressure gradient around the intense blocking high and the
                  long east-west orientation due to the high as from the gradient around the low itself.
                  Figure 3-4 shows a portion of the synoptic charts for three days in November 1953      ,
                  illustrating the development and movement of a class 3 storm. There were 27 storms in
                  this class during the 44-year period of study.

                           4.  Class 4 storms include depression originating in the Gulf of Mexico west
                  of 85 W longitude. These storms as well as class 3 storms originate as waves that often
                  develop on the front marking the leading edge of a strong, cold mass of cP air moving

                             J. M. Austin, "Favorable Conditions for Cyclogenesis near the Atlantic Coast,
                  Bull. , Amer. Met. Soc., 22, 270, 1941.

             530

              southward from continental United States. The storms usually move eastward across
              Florida and often strengthen as they reach the Atlantic Ocean. Since they are seldom
              blocked, these storms generally move up the coast quite rapidly. Often they are pushed
              out to sea by the surge of high pressure which moves southeastward behind the storm
              center. Figure 3-5 illustrates the development and movement of a typical class 4 storm
              during mid-February 1960. During the period of investigation there were 25 storms of
              this type that brought damage to the east coast.

                       S.  Class 5 storms are relatively few in number. The original cold front ahead
              of a mass of cP air moves eastward from the central part of the country and out in the
              Atlantic. Cyc[ogenesis occurs on the front before it reaches the coast. As the low
              center moves over the ocean, deepening occurs, The center then generally moves fairly
              rapidly eastward or northeastward. There were only 15 storms of this class which pro-
              duced damage to the coastal areas during the 44-year period of record. Figure 3-6
              shows the pattern of development of a typical class 5 storm injanuary 1961.

                       .6. Class 6 storms are a more complex group. In general, cyclogenesis occurs
              in the vicinity of the coast on a warm or stationary front emanating from a parent cyclonic
              disturbance to the west. With the rapid development of the coastal secondary, often in
              the region of Cape Hatteras, the parent depression over the continental area fills and
              dissipates. Wave development over the coastal area can be most rapid, but generally the
              storm center moves rapidly northeastward so that damage is minimized. Figure 3-7 is
              an example of a March 1962 storm in this class. Twenty-six storms of this type have
              -resulted in damage to the coast since 1921.

                       7. . Class 7 storms consist of disturbances which generally move northward
              over the Great Lakes and down the St. Lawrence River valley. These storms are usually
              highly developed and often move rapidly. .. Damage results when a. strong pressure
              gradient develops between the storm center and a high pressure systeni to the east. There
              are 17 storms in this category. Figure 3-8 shows a typical example of the occurrence and
              development of one of these storms during a period in early February1960.

                       8.  Class 8 storms consist mostly of severe local storms accompanying squalL
              lines that'are associated with strong cold fronts. There are no well-developed cyclones
              associated with most of these storms and the damage produced is generally localized and
              rela.Avely u*nimportant. There were eight storms in this class during the 44-year period
              of study.

                       Only rough estimates of damage from coastal storms are possible. In certain
              cases, broad ranges of dollar amounts of damage are available in published form. More
              usually, only general descriptive accounts of the storm and the resulting damage are
              available. From this information, it has been possible to divide estimated damage into
              three broad classes: low, moderate, and severe. Assir      ing 1 for low damage, 2 for
              moderate damage, and 4 for severe damage conditions , it is possible to obtain a rough

                     Actual dam  Iage amounts increase more, nearly geometrically than linearly as storm
              intensity increases. Severe damage conditions thus should be emphasized in relation to
              low and moderate damage conditions.

                                  100                                           1006

                                                                                                                                                                O\?.
                                                                    rIC31

                                                                                                                                                    C)
                  Xk
                                                                                                           /0/61
                                                                                                                                                        006t

                                                                                                                           14.

                                                                                            99

                                                                           L

                     L

                                    1300 ESTSept.!D, 1960                               1300 ESTSept. 11.1960                               1300 EST, Sept. 12,196o

                                        Figure J-2.         Dcvclopnient and movement of typical clasS I storin alt)jIg t..,asl
                                                              k
                                                               -Ist of the Uvitcd Staics. 10                   -)cr 11
                                                              ),                                  12 Scplcnil        -)6().

                                                                                                        024
                                                      1008                                              101.6
                      -4b                                                                                                                                 %OOA
                                                                                                        1008
                                                                          -cr

                                                                                                        1000

                                                                                                         "2

                                                k004
                                                                                                         "2

                                                                                                        1000
                                                                                                                                                          1004

                                                     1012
                                                                                                        1008

                                            tole
                                                                             1016                     1012              1020              01
                                     1330 EST, ion.?, 1936                               1350CSTjon.8.1956']                               1330 EST, ion. 9,4956

                                       Figure 3- 3).      Development and 111twement of typical          c I a s -s2storm aloag ca,@t coast
                                                          of  the United   Staics,  7-4 January 1956.

                                                                          7

                                                                                           si

                  0      0

                                        v                                                                                                                         107-1@

                                                                                                                                                                  1020

                                                                                        Y@'

                    jr

                                                                                           L

                L

              1014-

                                                                     42.
                                                                                                                                                  L
                                   1530 EST, Nb@- 4,1953                                J330 EST, Nov. 5, 1953                                 1330 EST, Nov. 6,1953

                                       Figure 3-4@          Development and movement of typical class                 3. storni along, cast coast
                                                            Ofthe United States, 4-6 November 1953.

                                                                                                                                                              1016
                               L
                                                   L                                                    1004
                                     1               996                                                                                                      1012
                                                                                                        1008
                                                    1000
                                                    IOC4                                                101.2                                                1049
                                                    1008
                                                                                                        O"s
                                                                                                                                                   C@
                                                   1012
                             iL
                                                                                                                                                        \P&I
             JH                                                                                          1016
                                                                                                                                                            N

              10
                 ,1.  lb
                     S                                                                                                                                       V2

                                                                   Y
                                                                                                                                                            1016

                                                                                                  0

                                                                                                                         10,24

                   L

                           1006        1012                        1024  16?0 1016.
                                  1330 EST, Feb. 12, t960                              f.330 EST, Feb. 13,1960                             1330 EST, Feb. 14,1960

                                    Figure 3-5.         Do-elcpmcnt and movement of typical class 4               storin jlont@ Gutf and
                                                        c
                                                           -t coa,                                 -14 Fcbruavv l0m).
                                                         a,         r of the United States, 12

                                                                                       -----------
                                                L

                  fO28

                                                                                                                                 L

                                                                                                                   ko%6

                                                                                          1020

                               07-0
                                                                                                                                     0
                                       tBOO EST, ion-Is, 1961                                  1300 EST, Jon. 19,1961                                  1300 EST, Jon-20,1961

                                        Figure 3-6.           Developmenr .2:-,i movement of typical claSS               3  StOl:lll a[L);Ig C@ISI COdSt
                                                              of the United ST-a!es, 18-20 January P-)61.

                                                                                                                                                        14
                                                                                                                                                             1008
                1028
                                                                                                                                                             1000

                                                                                                           10                                       L
                                                                                                                             L

                                                                                                                                                            AO
                                                                     0

                    vr

                                                                                   le

                                                       H

                                         1012                                                         1012
                  0130 EST, M*rcb 11, 1962                                 ST, Marcb 12,1962                            0.130 CST, Merch 13,1962

                                     Figure   3-7.       E)CIVC10PIllellt alld 1110VOIllent of typical class    6 storm along cast coast
                                                         of the United States,. 11-13 March         1962.

                                                                                                         0

                5
                      1028                                                                                                io,20

                                                                                   1020

                                             "0                                                         6

                                                           L

                                           1020

              L

                                                                                                H

                                            1012

                  1004                                                                            1020
                             1300 EST, Feb. 411960                   1300 EST, Feb. 5.1960  t                1500EST,Feb.6,1960

                                                                             -)ic- ctass7storlil @Ijojjcr cast 4: oa s t
                             Figurc   S,     Dcvc ot'rl ont and movement (if tyl a
                                             of the Unitcd Statesi 4-6 February 1060.

                                                                                                                   531

                   estimate of the average severity of each of the foregoing classes of storms. Table 3-1
                   shows that class 2 storms are the most severe on the basis of this qualitative interpre-
                   tation of the record, followed by class I and class 3 storms. Class 8 storms resulted
                   in the lowest amount of coastal damage.

                                                              Table 3-1

                                         Frequency and Damage Estimate by Storm Type,
                                                     Atlantic Coast, 1921-1964

                                Class of Storm             Total Number           Damage Estimate

                                        1                         62                    2.40
                                        2                           9                   2.89
                                        3                         27                    2. 18
                                        4                         25                    2.00
                                        5                         15                    1.64
                                        6                         26                    1.84
                                        7                         17                    1.44
                                        8                           8

                              Table 3-2 gives the seasonal frequency of storms     of different types. The
                   seasonal maximum of class I storms comes as expected in September, with a range of
                   occurrence from June through November (except for one in February). Both class 2 and
                   3 storms are more frequent in the fall and early winter. While class 4 storms do occur
                   in the fall and winter, the maximum of these storms occurs in March. Class 5 storms
                   occur mainly from November through April, although two summer occurrences have
                   been noted. C Lass 6 and 7 storms are also most frequent in the winter and early spring,
                   while class 8 storms seem to favor the [ate summer although the number of storms is so
                   low that the distribution is not significant.

                                                              Table 3-2

                                              Seasonal Occurrence of Storms by Class

                   Type       J     F      M      A     M       J     J      A     S       0     N      D          Y
                      1             1                           1     3      15   24       15    3                 62
                      2       2                                              1             2     3      1          9
                      3       3     1      2      1     1       1            3      4      5     6                 27
                      4       2     4      5      3     2                           2      2     3      2          25
                      5       2     3      2      1             1            1                   3      2          15
                      6       3     4      3      5     1       1                          1     4      4          26
                      7             3      3      1     1                                  3     4      2          17
                      8       1   - - -                 I     -       1      1      3      1    - -                8

                   Tota 1    13     16    15     11     6       4     4      21   33       29    26     11      189

             532

              Area[ Distribution of Coastal Storms

                       In a hearing before the Congress following the storm of March 5-8, 1962,
              Simpsoni estimated that some portion of the Atlantic coast would experience appreciable
              storm damage about once in four years. He further pointed out that there had been ten
              storms since 1900 which compared in severity to the March 5-8, 1962 storm. Any one
              locality on the coast might experience a storm of the severity of the March storm About
              once in 30 to once in 60 years.

                       These figures give the impression of a relatively infrequent occurrence of
              coastal storms. While there is the qualification that the figures apply to storms of like
              severity to the disastrous storm of March 1962, this is often overlooked or misunderstood.
              It would be useful to both coastal dwellers and builders to have information on the total
              number of storms that have produced some damage to the coast. At the same time, know-
              ledge of the specific coastal areas subject to repeated damage would be desirable. It is,
              of course, important to know that, on the long-term average of once in every 30 years a
              very severe storm will bring extensive damage not only to a particular area but to the
              whole,.coastat margin. It may be of even greater significance, however, to know that an
              area has experienced 20 storms in 30 years that resulted in some damage to houses,
              streets, power lines, or commercial establishments. The individual who lives along the
              coastal margin may experience damage or toss from any of the 20 storms in 30 years.
              He will almost certainly experience some damage or loss from the once-in-30 years storm.
              His over-at[ chance of damage and loss is greater than once in 30 years because of the
              possibility that one or more of the smaller storms causing only localized damage will
              affect him particularly.

                      . Table 3-3 tists by states the number of coastal storms resulting in some
              reported damage during the 1921-1964 period. The storms have been separated by class
              as well as geographically by states. 'Me data show that the northern part of the coastal
              margin has experienced a considerably greater number of storms than the southern part.
              Coastal Massachusetts has experienced 88 damaging storms during this 44-year period,
              or two per year, while New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticut follow in that
              order. On the other hand the coasts of Georgia, Delaware, and South Carolina have
              experienced the fewest damaging storms, less than once every other year for Georgia
              and Delaware. Florida, with its long coast line exposed to hurricanes and other tropical
              disturbances, has experienced slightly fewer storms than has New Hampshire, with only
              a short coast line in an area removed from the general hurricane track. The more
              exposed location of North Carolina is clearly revealed, since it experiences slightly more
              than one damaging storm every year in contrast to one damaging storm approximately
              every two years for South Carolina and Georgia. Of course, this pattern of distribution
              sa@s nothing of the severity of the storms involved.

                       Table 3-4 includes a breakdown, by states, of the number of storms resulting
              in severe, moderate, and light damage that have affected the coast. This qualitative

                       I See page 10 of U. S. House of Representatives, "Improvement of Storm Fore-
              casting Procedures, " Hearing before Subcommittee on Oceanography, Merchant Marine
              and Fisheries, 87th Congress, 111 pp.

                                                                                                                 533

                                                              Table 3-3

                             Number of Damage -Producing Storms, by C Lass and State, 1921-1964

                                                                                                          Storms
                  State/CLass           1     2       3       4     5@     6       7       8    Tota L    per Year

                  Maine                 9     5       9       13    6       5      8              55        1.25
                  New Hampshire         8     2       8       11    3       5      4              41         .93
                  Massachusetts       22      4     14        16    7      14      7       4      88        2.00
                  Rhode Island        11      1     10        10    6      12      3       1      54        1.23
                  Connecticut         11      1       7       10    5      10      5       1      50        1.14
                  New York            11      1     10        8     4       9      4              47        1.07
                  New jersey          18      3     10        8     4       8      4       1      56        1.27
                  Delaware              8     1       5       4     1       2                     21         .48
                  Mary [a-nd          12      1       5       4     2       2              2      28         .64
                  Virginia            22      1       7       7             1                     38         .86
                  North Carolina      27      3       5       8     3                             46        1.05
                  South Carolina      19      i       3       2             1                     26         .59
                  Georgia             16              1       2                                   19         .43
                  FLorida             26      5       5       2                                   38         .86

                                                              Table 3-4

                           Intensity of Coastal Storms and Recurrence Interval for Storms Bringing
                                      Moderate and Severe Damage, by State, 1921- 1964

                                             Numbers of Storms                    Average*     Mean Recurrence
                                          Light   Moderate Severe               Severity        Intervat (years)

                  Maine                    25         24          6                1.76                  1.5
                  New Hampshire            15         21          5                1.88                  1.7
                  Massachusetts            31         46          11               1.90                   .8
                  Rhode Is [and            24         24          6                1.78                  1.5
                  Connecticut              22         23          5                1.76                  1.6
                  New York                 14         24          9                2.09                  1.3
                  New Jersey               25         26          5                1.73                  1.4
                  Delaware                  7         13          1                1.76                  3. 1
                  Maryland                 13         14          1                1.61                  2.9
                  Virginia                 11         22          5                1.97                  1.6
                  North Carolina           14         23          9                2.09                  1.4
                  South Carolina            7         15          4                2.04                  2.3
                  Georgia                   5         14          0                1.74                  3. 1
                  Florida                   7         21          10               2.34                  1.4

                     Based on I for   light damage, 2 for moderate damage, and 4 for severe damage.

              534

              assessment of damage has again been made on the basis of available descriptions. In
              this case, average severity does not vary greatly from state to state, ranging from 1. 61
              for Maryland, to 2. 34 for Florida. There seems to be a tendency for the southern states
              to be influenced by storms of greater severity, although the number of storms per state
              is generally greater for the northern part of the coast tine than the southern.

                       Storms that bring only light damage are often quite restricted in geographic
              extent. To determine the likelihood of a particular state with a coast line of a certain
              finite extent to receive appreciable damage, it is assumed that the less significant and
              more restricted light intensity storms should be disregarded. Assuming that storms
              bringing moderate and severe damage are sufficiently large to result in some damage to
              the whole coastal margin of the state in which damage is listed, it is possible to obtain a
              rough estimate, by state, of the recurrence interval for damaging storms. In the right-
              hand column of table 3-4, the number of storms resulting in only light damage to the coast
              has been removed from the total in each state, and the storm frequency is given as the
              number of years between storms resulting in moderate to severe damage.

                       The figures for frequency of damaging storms vary from one every 10 months
              (0. 8 year) for Massachusetts to one every 3. 1 years for Georgia and Delaware. The
              recurrence interval given for the entire Massachusetts coast is undoubtedly shorter
              than is really experienced along any particular coastal reach. This is because the
              coast is so oriented that it presents two distinct areas for coastal damage. The south-
              facing shore from Buzzards Bay to Chatham on Cape Cod is exposed to all winds from
              southeast to southwest. At the same time such winds result in generally offshore
              movement of,water along the coast from Orleans on the northern side of Cape Cod to
              the New Hampshire border. Storms that affect the shore north and south of Boston and
              the north shore of Cape Cod have winds from the north and east. These might bring
              relatively little damage to the south shore of Cape Cod and Buzzards Bay. Thus, the
              orientation of the shore tine has made part of the Massachusetts coast particularly
              susceptible to damage from storms with southerly winds and a different part of the coast
              susceptible to storms with northeasterly winds. Actually, the chance of coastal damage
              in Massachusetts is probably not much greater than in Rhode Island or New Hampshire.
              Separating the storm figures for Massachusetts into those affecting the southward-facing
              shore and those affecting the eastward-facing shore, the values of recurrence interval
              must approximate closely the figures of 1. 5 years for Rhode Island and 1. 7 years for
              New Hampshire. The low value of storm recurrence for North Carolina may similarly
              be influenced by the particular exposure of the coast line.

                                                                      I
                       Information on the occurrence of damaging coastal storms can also be obtained
              from a study of the records from the tide-gaging stations that have been established along
              the coast. Records of height of the tides during each of the storms that occurred during
              the period 1952-1962 have been collected from the Coast and Geodetic Survey. The data
              at 29 gaging stations have been summed in table 3-5 showing the relation between. intensity
              of damage and averages of the highest tide recorded during each storm. In this case, the
              damage estimates have been divided into five different classes -- very light, light,
              moderate, moderate to heavy, and heavy. The results show a reasonable relation between

                                                                                                                    535

                                                                Table 3-5

                            Average -of Maximum Tides Above Mea         .n High Water, by Damage CLasses.
                                                               .1952-1962

                                          Very Light           Light       Moderate Moderate-Heavy            Heavy
                                            No.    Avg.     No.    Avg. No.        Avg.     No.    Avg.     No.   Avg.
                   Gaging Station         Storms   Tide  Storms    Tide  Storms    Tide  Storms    Tide  Storms   Tide

                   Eastport                 34     1.89        5   0.60      6     2.62      2     0.20       2   2.35
                   Bar Harbor               37     1.42        7   1.24      8     2.15      2     1.05       3   1.27
                   Portland                 34     1.86     11     2.16      8     1.78      2     J. 65      4   3.63
                   Portsmouth               25     1.75        6   2.08      6     2.10      2     2.60       3   2.97
                   Boston                   37     1.55        9   1.90      9     2.00      5     2.86       4   3.58
                   Woods Hole               33     1.36     15     1.81      9     1* 77     6:    2.57       21  5.10
                   Providence               28     1.28     13     1.97      4     1.53      4     3.28       0
                   Newport                  38     1.38     14    ..1.87     5.    1.90      .4    2.80       1   7.40
                   New London               37     1.46     14     1.70      8     2.51      3     3'* 37     1   7.10
                   Montauk                  53     1.55.       4   2.18      3     2.40      4     2.52       4   4.25
                   Willets Point            58     1.96        5   2.60      4     4.40      3     2.97       4   5.00
                   Battery                  56     1.56        5   2.44      4     2.75      1     2.30       4   4.58
                   Sandy Hook               38     .1.71       7   2.71      3     2.97      1     5.70       2   5.15
                   Atlantic City            44     1.75        6   3.52      4     2.58      0                3   3. 80
                   Reedy Point              33     1.13        3   1.70      4     1.45      0                1   3.50
                   Breakwater Harbor        48     1.75        4   2.82      3     2.30      0                1   5.30
                   Baltimore                55     1.25        4   1.25      4     2.38      0.               1   3.30
                   Annapolis                53  .  1,18        3   1.47      4     2.15      0                1   3.60
                   So lomons                @55    1.08        3   1.50      4     1.72      0                1   .3.30
                   Hanpton Roads            21     1.54        5   2.32      0               3     3.93       4   2.68
                   Portsmouth               22     1.64        5   2.72      0               3     4.23       4   3.52
                   Little Creek             14     1.46        5   2.40      0               3     3.30       1   1.70
                   Morehead City            10     0.90        9   1.25      3     1.47      1     3.00       4   3.62
                   Wilmington               16     1.01        7   0.84      4     1.28      2     1.55       2   2.55
                   Charleston               22     1.73        2   2.15      2     1.90      0                1   3.40
                   Savannah River             8    1.99        1   2.70      3     0.90      0                0
                   Fernandina                 7    1.57        2   2.60      1     1.80      2     2.40       0
                   Mayport                    7.   1_27        3   2.10      1     1.60      2     .2.05      0
                   Miami                      1    0.80        2   1.45      1     0.70      3     1.63       0

                   Average                         1.48            2.00            2.04            2.66           3.79

               536

                height of the tide and damage category when the figures for all stations are averaged
                together although the relationship at individual stations varies markedly. . The results
                from single stations, of course, are strongly influenced by the number of storms that
                have occurred at the station, the assignment of damage categories, the exposure of the
                gage itself, and surrounding environmental factors.

                          . From table 3- 5 it can be seen that on the average with observed tides 2 feet
                above mean high water light to moderate damage was experienced. The damage increased
                to moderate to heavy as the tide exceeded 2.6 feet above mean high water. Heavy damage
                was generally experienced with tides more than 3. 8 feet above mean high water. The
                individual variation a m-ng stations still deserves special study in order -to determine the
                influence of topography and exposure on potential damage.

                          The data in table 3-5 refer only to the tides that occurred during periods when
                there were reports of storms in at Least one of the publications reviewed during the
                course of the study. A second method of looking at the data of high tides would be to obtain
                tide records for all tides above certain minimum values to see how often such tides occurred
                regardless of whether they resulted in damage. Since table 3-5 showed that tides 2 feet
                above mean high water resulted on the average in light damage, the tide records from the
                Coast and Geodetic Survey were rec'hecked'to                             number of iimes tides had
                exceeded 2 feet, 3 feet, and 4 feet above mean high water. The results for twelve
                selected stations along the coast are given in table 3-6. At the same time, the figures

                                                                Table 3-6

                                    'Number of Occurrences of Selected High Tidal Values

                                                                                                             Number of
                                                Tides Above Mean High Water                               storms causing
                                            2. 0-2. 9 ft      3. 0-3. 9 ft     4. O+ft          Total       some   damage
                Portland                         115               29              1              145              59
                Boston                            93               20              1              114              64
                Newport                           29                3              1              33               62
                Montauk                           29                7              2              38               68
                Sandy Hook                        44                8              4              56               51
                Atlantic City                     65                5              1              71               57
                Breakwater Harbor                 46                8              1              55               56
                Hampton Roads                     17                               1              22               33
                Portsmouth                        28                4              4              36               34
                Wilmington                          4               0              1                 5             31
                Char Les ton                      69                3              0              72               27
                Mayport                           12                0              0              12               13

                from table   3-5 giving the totat number of storms causing some reported damage (including
                very Light)  are also included in the right-hand column for comparison purposes. The
                discrepancies between the reported number of tides over 2 feet above mean high water and
                the reported number of storms causing damage are most revealing in indicating something

                                                                                                         537

                 of the difficulty in using tide records directly in assessing storm damage. In Portland,
                 Maine,, tides were more than 2 feet above mean high water 145 times during the eleven-
                 year period 1952-1962 yet only 59 periods of any type of storm damage were reported.
                 At Newport, Rhode Island, however, the tide exceeded 2 feet above mean high water
                 only 33 times yet damaging storms occurred 62 times. Damage will occur with quite
                 different heights of tide at different places along the coast. The relationship can vary
                 greatly even along relatively uniform coastal reaches. Consider the great variation in
                 the results from Wilmington, North Carolina, and Charleston, South Carolina, for
                 example. Tides 2 to 3 feet above mean high water at Charleston hardly ever result in
                 damage while tides considerably less than 2 feet above mean high water can cause
                 reported damage at Wilmington. While these differences are clearly related to exposure
                 of the gage and environmental factors in its vicinity, the individual or local nature of
                 damage problems and the great variability from place to place is sometimes overlooked
                 in an effort to draw general conclusion&br Long reaches of the coast.

                 Lateral Extent of Storm Damage

                          The damage history of storms may a   [so be considered from a different point of
                 view. While figures indicating the damage frequency at a point along the coast give some
                 idea of the relative hazard along different reaches of the coast, they give no indication of
                 the lateral extent of coast that might suffer damage from a single meteorological event,
                 If one could predict the frequency with which coastal storms damage various lengths of
                 coast line, such information, together with estimates of damage levels, would suggest the
                 magnitude of the total damage risk from a national rather than a local point of view. An
                 indication of the probabilities to be'attached to storms damaging various lengths of coast
                 line would suggest how often to expect total damages of various amounts and the geographic
                 extent of such damage. This information might be helpful in planning of coastal disaster
                 programs and estimating over-all levels of insurance risk that would be required for a
                 national insurance program.

                          The length of coast line affected by a particular storm will, of course, depend
                 largely on the intensity and size of the storm, its track, and speed of movement. A
                 large storm of moderate intensity moving slowly up the coast can generate destructive
                 storm surges and seas persisting for several successive high tides. Such storms will
                 often affect 400 or more miles of coast line. A very slowly moving storm such as that of
                 March J962 may be of only moderately great intensity and yet prove extremely destructive
                 simply because of its persistence and extensive area of wave generation.

                          Using the reports of damage that were available for each of the storms during
                 the well-documented period from 1952 to 1962, supplemented by the records from the tide
                 gaging stations, it has been possible to prepare maps of the lateral extent of damage from
                 each storm. The damage was separated into only two classes, light and moderate to severe,
                 because of the lack of detail in the data. Table 3-7 gives a summary of the average Lateral
                 extent in nautical miles of damage along the coast by each of the eight types of storms listed
                 previously. The high value of lateral extent for type 5 storms is undoubtedly related to the
                 fact that only three type 5 storms occurred during this period and they each covered a great

             538

                                                        Table 3-7

                                 Lateral Extent of Damage by Storm Types 1952-1962
                                                   (in nautical miles)

                                          Extent of Damage
                                                       Moderate to           Tota I           No. of
                     Type               Light            Severe             Extent            Storms
                                    (naut. mi.)        (naut. mi.)        (naut, mi.

                        1                175                 86               261                27
                        2                192                110               302                 9
                        3                197                106               303                is
                        4                195                 23               218                11
                        5                308                 83               391                 3
                        6                154                 21               175                11
                        7                262                 -                262                 4
                        8                  25                                   25                1

              horizontal extent. It is possible that this figure would be reduced with the inclusion of
              additional storms of this type. The tabulation shows very tittle real difference in the
              lateral extent of damage from type 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 storms. Type 6 and 8 storms are
              apparently much smaller in horizontal extent. Type 7 storms should influence a fairly
              short coastal area although the four type 7 storms that occurred between 1952 and 1962
              were fairly extensive.

                        It is interesting to note that type 2 and 3 storms, cyclones forming over the
              southeastern coastal area or on cold fronts that have moved well off the southeast coast,
              seemed to damage a larger extent of coast line than did hurricanes. This was especially
              true in the southern section of the coast although again, the small number-of such storms
              might bias the results. The results are probably influenced by the nature and orientation
              of the coast line in retation to the favored paths of movement of the various storm types.

                        At the present time only tentative predictions about the lateral extent of future
              coastal storms are possible. Predictions, in the absence of complete knowledge of the
              physical processes involved and with the important assumption of no climatic change,
              must be based on the record to date. However, this record is a shaky basis for pre-
              diction not only because the data themselves are in need of refinement, but also because
              it shows the over-all vulnerability of the coast to be increasing with time. Only if the
              pattern of coastal occupancy is frozen at the present [eve[ would it be in any way realistic
              to attempt to look into the future. With this proviso, we can now examine the record of
              the past 30 years in order to assess the future.

                        Maps of extent of coastal damage were prepared for each of the 121 damaging
              storms that occurred during the 30 years 1935 through 1964. For this analysis, the
              lateral extent of damage was defined as the not necessarily continuous length of coast line,

                                                                                                           539

                  in nautical miles, for which any significant water damage (any damage but that classed
                  very  light) was reported for a single storm event.

                           Table 3-8 shows the lateral extent of significant damage produced by the 121
                  storms by year. It is seen that 81 percent of the storms damaged less than 400 nautical
                  miles and that 97 percent of the storms damaged less than 700 nautical miles of coast.
                  Only 4 storms during the period significantly affected more than 700 miles of coast.

                           The over-all trend previously noticed (figure 3- 1) toward a higher incidence of
                  damaging storms has been reflected in an increase in the frequency of storms in all
                  classes of lateral extent. In figure 3-9, the lateral extent of damage per storm has been
                  plotted against the logarithm of the average number of storms per year having that extent.
                  For the 30-year period, this plot seems to be fairly well represented by a straight line
                  on semilogarithmic paper, implying that frequency per year is a negative exponential
                  function of damage extent. Because there are so few very extensive storms, the quality
                  of the fit deteriorates for very extensive storms.

                           One might be inclined to use the record to predict expected frequencies, assum-
                  ing that the past may be relied upon as a satisfactory guide to the future. That there has
                  been a change during the period of study is clear in figure 3-9 where the history of the
                  latter 15 years is compared to the whole period. The same general relationship between
                  frequency and damage extent appears to hold for the more recent years, except that the
                  incidence per year of storms in almost all classes has been higher than for the whole 30
                  years. Consequently, prediction would require assuming the pattern and level of coastal
                  development to be frozen at the present state and should be based on the most recent
                  storm record. Under these conditions, there would be some reason to believe that a
                  storm damaging about 600 nautical miles of coast would be expected to occur on the
                  average every 1/. 3 or 3. 3 years, and a storm damaging about 1300 miles (such as the
                  March 1962 storm) might be expected about once in 1/. 035 or 29 years.    1

                           A better and more useful prediction might be based on the theory of extreme
                  values. The statistical theory of extreme values applies to the frequency distribution
                  of the largest observation per sample of N primary samples, each of which primary
                  sample contains n observations of unspecified number, but assumed to be large and equal.

                           In the present case, this stipulation of n large and equal is not applicable since
                  we are actually dealing with relatively unlikely events; i. e., damaging storms per year
                  that have occurred only around 0 to 11 times per year.. We are trying to predict the
                  magnitude of damage extent of these events. The applicability of the theory in such a
                  case can only be tentative and will depend on the goodness of the fit of the data. There is
                  some reason to suppose that a double exponential distribution will adequately describe
                  the extreme values of the data since the basic distribution does appear to be exponential.

                           1 The east coast of the United States can be considered to be approximately 1600
                  nautical miles in extent if bays and other minor indentations are disregarded.

                                                                  Table 3-8

                                                                                                                                         C)
                                     Distribution of Lateral Extent of Storm Damage by Years (1935-1964)

                                                        Late-rat Extent in Nautical Miles
                     1-     101-    201-    301-     401-   501-    601-    701-    801-    901-    1001-    1101-    1201- Number
                        100    200  -300        400    Soo     600     700    800     900    1000    1100     1200     1300 Storms
           1964         6      1        1       1                                                                                 9
           1963         3      2        1              1                                                                          7
           1962         2      3                3      1                                      1                          1        11
           1961         2      1        1       1              1                                                                  6
           1960         3      2                1      1                                                        1                 8
           1959         2               3                      1                                                                  6
           1958         2      1        1       2      3               1                                                          10
           1957         3      1                1                                                                                 5
           1956         1      1        1       1              2                                                                  6
           1955                         3       1                                                                                 4
           1954                1                       2               1                                                          4
           1953                2        1       1              1                                                                  5
           1952                1                1                                                                                 2
           1951         2
           1950         2      1                2              1                                                                  6
           1949         1                                              1                                                          2
           1948                2                                                                                                  2
           1947         3      4                                                                                                  7
           1946         2      1        1                                                                                         4
           1945         1                                                                                                         2
           1944                         1                                                                                         3
           1943         1               1                                                                                         2
           1942                                                                                                                   0
           1941                                                                                                                   0
           1940         1                                                                                                         1
           1939                                                                                                                   0
           1938                                 1                                                                                 1
           1937         1                                                                                                         1
           1936                                                                                                                   1
           1935         4                                                                                                       -4
           Totals       42     2@4     16      16      8       6       5       1      0       1        0        1        1       121

                   RELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE NUMBER OF STORMS PER YEAR
                 AND THEIR LATERAL EXTENT OF DAMAGE FOR TWO TIME PERIODS
                 2.0   1    1    1    1   1

                 1.0-
                                      1950-1964
                 .8

                 .6-
                            5-19664X'
                 .4-      193

               CX .3
               U)
               E

                 2-
               0

               E

               z

                 .08-

                 .06-

                 .04-

                                                                      \7 -0-

                 .021
                           200      400       600      800       1000      1200
                                   Lateral Extent of Damage (Nautical miles)
                                            Figure 3-9

                                                                                                           541

                           The method described by Gumbel was used to fit the extreme value curves in
                  figure 3-10 to the most extensive damaging storms per year for the two 15-year periods,
                  .1935-49 and 1950-64. Comparison of the two plots clearly shows an increase in the
                  extent of the most extensive storms. . During the former 15-year period, the probability
                  of getting a storm during a year that damaged 600 or more nautical miles of coast was
                  about . 13; while during the latter period, the probability for such a storm had increased
                  to about . 42. Relying on the record of the recent 15 years, then the return period
                  implied for a storm of at least 600 miles extent is 1/. 42 or about 2. 4 years and for a
                  storm damaging at least 1300 miles of coast, 1/. 05 or 20 years.

                  Causes for Increasing Storm Damage Frequency

                           The foregoing analysis of stornis along the east coast of the United States has
                  shown a great increase in the number of such storms in recent years. The cause of this
                  increase needs real study. Is the present high number of damaging storms the result
                  of better reporting? Is it the result of a real climatic change.? Or is the increase the
                  consequence of more intensive development of the coastal margin so that storms that
                  formally would have been considered benign now result in damage?

                           There is some reason to believe that improved reporting isrot the major cause
                  of the increase in reported damage. If there were a marked improvement in reporting,
                  an increase in the number of reported storms causing comparatively insignificant damage
                  would be expected. Table 3-9 shows no such increase in the number of insignificant

                                                          Table 3-9

                                     Number of Cyclonic Centers and Damaging Storms
                                           During Two Different Periods of Time

                                 Number of closed Significant to        Significant         Insignificant
                                lows within 100 mi. heavy damage           damage              damage

                  1949                  68                  0                 2                   0
                  1950                  56                  2                 3                   2
                  1951                  65                  0                 2                   4
                  1952                  66                  0                 2                   3
                  1953                  61                  2                 3                   0
                  Tota 1                316                 4                 12                  9

                  1960                  62                  2                 6                   1
                  1961                  57                  3                 2                   2
                  1962                  64                  4                 7                   1
                  1963                  61                  2                 5                   2
                  1964                  67                  1                 7                   2
                  Tota                  311                 12                27                  8

             542

              damage storms. Of course, it could be argued that improved reporting may have resulted
              in the "promoting" of reported storms. That is, storms now assigned significant damage
              might previously have been listed inaccurately as insignificant as a result of poor reporting.
              Storms now called insignificant might not even have been reported in earlier years. How-
              ever, there is no evidence that this has occurred.
             @_2
                       In order to see whether there has been a climatic change in the number of storm
              centers, daily weather maps for two 5-year periods (1949-53 and 1960-64) were examined.
              There were reports of 25 damaging storms in the earlier period and 47 in the more recent
              period.

                       The appearance on the weather map of a closed low within 100 miles of the east
              coast (either inland or seaward) was accepted as a criterion for a possible coastal storm.
              All such lows for which there was no report of damage were considered non-damaging
              storms. Both the midnight and noon maps were examined for each day of the two 5-year
              periods (except for ten days when the maps were missing). If two or more closed tows
              appeared within 100 mites of the coast on the same map, and if they appeared to be part
              of a single meteorological disturbance, they were counted as only one storm. If a
              particular low appeared on more than one map, it was, of course, counted only once.

                       The total number of damaging storms for each year is compared with the
              number of closed lows in table 3-9. Despite the increase in number of damaging storms
              in recent years, the total number of closed lows moving within 100 mites of the coast has
              remained essentially the same, Consequently, if the increase in damaging storms is to
              have a climatological origin, there must have been a change in some other statistic such
              as storm intensity or storm track.

                       To test the possibility that low pressure systems tended to be deeper during
              recent years, the central pressures of all the closed lows occurring within 100 miles of
              the coast during the period 1952 to 1962 which produced significant damage were studied.
              The average minimum central pressures for these storms is given in table 3- 10. -The
              table shows that:

                       1)  The average minimum central pressure of heavy damage storms is in
                           general lower than that of significant damage .storms.
                           This seems to indicate that there is a relationship between central pressure
                           and damage.

                       2)  The number of damaging extratropical storms has increased, a fact pre-
                           viously established.

                       3)  Central pressures of damaging extratropical storms tend to be lower in
                           more recent years. This is evident for both significant damage and heavy
                           damage storms. In fact, the average minimum central pressure of all
                           damaging extratropical storms occurring during the years 1958-1962

                       CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF LATERAL EXTENT OF
                       LARGEST STORM PER YEAR. 1935-'49 a 1950-'64

                                                                           -100
                                                                          - so

                                                                           60
                       980
                                                                           40
                     ----.970                                              -,so

                                                                           20
                          C+@
                           C.
                     -,-.930           1935-1949
                       9                                                   10
                         00                     1              5.7
                                                                             8Z
                   2                           x
                                                                             6
                                                          1950-1964
                  >                           x
                       goo
                          Z
                                                                             V
                                                                             4
                     t.700
                          E                                                  3
                          U

                                                                             2
                          x                                                  X
                   0-                                                      1.6

                                                                        71 -1.2
                       .100                                                1.1

                                                                           1.01
                           150  300   450  600   750   900   1060  1200
                              Lateral Eittent of Storm Damdge-.- Nautical Miles
                                        Figure 3-10

                                                                                                                543

                                 is 11. 6 mb lower than the average minimum central pressure of storms for
                                 the years 1952-1957. . Students t test with 45 degrees of freedom shows
                                 this difference to be significant at the 1 percent level.

                                                             Table 3-10

                             Average Central Pressures of Damaging Storms by Years, 1952-1962
                                               Tropical and Extratropical Storms
                                                         (pressure in mb)

                                               1952 1953    1954 1955 1956 1957       1958  1959 -1960 1961 1962

                  Extratrop. -sig. damage          1     2     1      1     4       5     9    5      6     4     9
                  Avg. min. central press.     1011     994  1005  1000    996  1004  989    982   990   988    993

                  Extratrop. -heavy damage         0     2     0      0     3       1          2      1     1     3
                  Avg. min. central press.              994                991   996  982    984   980   984    985

                  Tropical-sig. damage             1     3     3      3     2       0     1    1      2     2     2
                  Avg. min. centralpress.      1005     975   980   976   1002        984    992   986   988    994

                  Tropical-heavy damage            0     0     3      3     2       0     1    1      1     2     1
                  Avg. min. central press.                    980   976   1002        984    992   976   988    996

                  Note: . Data are averages of the   lowest pressure found on the   synoptic map for each storm.

                            Does this difference in minimum central pressure indicate a climatic trend or
                  change or can it be explained in any other way? If, of course, there has been no ctimato-
                  logical change, then the increase in number.of damaging storms must have resulted from
                  the increasing vulnerability of the coast itself. Several different lines of evidence have
                  been used to study the possibility of climatic change or trend.

                            The frequency of high tides by years at selected east coast points is shown in
                  table -3-11. The table shows that there has been a small increase in the average maximum
                  high tide at five of the seven stations during the eleven years. Since the change has been
                  rather small, it would not seem to be related to the increase in storm damage found during
                  the period.

                            However, totaling the number of excessively high tides shows that there has been a
                  marked increase in the frequency of very high tides. For example, at Portland there was
                  only one tide over 3. 5 feet above MHW from 1952 to 1956, but there were seven in the
                  1957-1962 period. Montauk had three tides over 3. 0 feet above MHW during the early
                  period and six between 1957 and 1962. Atlantic City had one tide over 3. 5 feet above MHW
                  in the first period and three in the second. Thus, the evidence from the tidal record
                  suggests an increase in exce   ssively high tides that appears to be correlated with an increase
                  in the strength of the damaging Low pressure systems.

               544

                                                         Table 3-11

                           Frequency of Maximum High Tide above Mean High Water by Year

          Tide above MHW                  1953 1954 1955 1956              1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962
               (feet)
          Portland, Mai
               2.0-2.4                10     9      5      3                 4       7       5     7      4
               2.5-2.9                 2     3      4      5       0         7       8       3     5      7
               M-3a4                   2     3      1      4       2         0       1       2     3      2      3
               3.5-                    0     0      1      0       0         0       2       1     1      3      0
                        Total      -14'   -1@-      fl    =2     -7-       =1                   717-    =1      -117
                                            Avg. ht.    2.54                            Avg.  ht. 2.65
          Boston,, Massachusetts
               2.0-2.4                 4     5      5      5       7         5       7       6     6      lo     5
               2.5-2.9                 2     2      2      4       3         2       5       2     4      o      2..
               3.0-3.4                 2     2      1      1       0         0       3       1     2      3      1
               3-5-                    0     0      0      0       1         0       1       1     0      1      1
                        Total      -7        9     - r -fO-                -7      -17 =0       = -17- - 9
                                            Avg. Jht.   2.5o                            Avg.  ht. 2.55
          Montauk, Long Island
               1.5-1.9*                5     2      4.     4       5         3       6       0     4      4      3
               2.0-2.4                 1     1      1      0       2         1       7       1     5      3      1
               2.5-2.9                 0     0      0      1       0         0       0       1     0      3      1
               3-0-                    0     1      1      0       1         0       2       0     2      1      1
                        Total                              5                              -2    -11       11     '7
                                            Avg. ht.-2-59                               Avg.  ht.  2.49
          Atlantic City, New Jersey
               2.0-2.4                @5     2      5      1       6         7       6       3     6      4      1
               2 .5-2.9                1     1      1      3       3         0       2       1     1      2      3
               3 .0-3.4                0     0      0      0       0         0       0       0     0      1      0
               3 .5-                   0     1      0      0       0         0       0       0     1      1      1
                                   -7- = -77 --7 -9                        -7     --T        4     b      d
                        Total
                                            Avg. ht. 2.41                               Avg.  ht.  2.45
          Portsmouth,, Virgini
               2.5-2.9                 2     3      5      2       4         1       3       2     3      1      2
               3.0-                    0     0      0      0       2         1       1       0     1      1      2
                        Total          2     3     7- -2         --T-      -2     --7    772- --7 -2            --T
                                            Avg. ht. 2.58                               Avg.  ht. 2.73
          Charleston, South Carolina
               2.0-2.4                 1     2      5      3       5         6       8       4     8      6      9
               2.5-2.9                 0     2      1      1       0         1       1       2     2      1      1
               3-0-                    0     0      0      0       0         0       0       1     1      0      1
                        Total          1-                `-7               -7      -9     -7    -11       7      11
                                            Avg. ht. 2.30                               Avg.  ht. 2.34
          Mayport., Florida
               1.5-1.9                 4     4      7      6       5         6       4       6     4      4      5
               2.0-2.4                 0     1      2      0       0         2       1       1     3      0      1
               2@5-                    0     1      0      0       0         0       0       0     0      0      0
                                   `V -7- , = --7-                         = -7              7
                        Total                       9
                                            Avg. ht. 2.32                               Avg.  ht. 2.20

                                                                                                            .545

                           An increase in height of the tides or a decrease in the central pressure of
                  damaging low pressure systems would seem to be a climatological trend unrelated to
                  possible changes in coastal vulnerability. It is possible, of course, that something else
                  besides just a deepening of central pressures is involved. The possibility of a shift in
                  storm tracks or in the paths of movement of the Low pressure systems must also be
                  considered.

                           Previous studies have shown a greater increase in damaging storms in recent
                  years along the northern portion of the coast. It is further recognized that low pressure
                  areas at higher latitudes are more strongly developed and have lower central pressures
                  than in lower latitudes. Thus, it might be possible to explain the deepening of the central
                  pressures of damaging storms as well as the increase in the damage to the northern
                  portion of the coast line by means of a northward shift in the locations of storm centers
                  in more recent years. Figures 3- 11 and 3- 12 show the location of the minimum Low
                  pressure observed for each destructive storm for the two periods 1952-1957 and 1958-
                  1962. Aside from the more than twofold increase in storm frequency, two other changes
                  are obvious.

                           1. The marked increase in the number of damage producing centers that attain
                                greatest intensity outside of the zone 100 miles east and west of the coast.

                           2. The marked increase in number of damaging storm centers reaching their
                                greatest intensity north of 40 0N.

                           This second point -might indicate a northward shift in the Location of the storm
                  centers except that a count of storms both north and south of latitude 40 ON (table 3- 12)
                  reveals no corresponding decrease in number of storms south of 400N. If nothing more
                  than a northward shift of low centers was involved, assuming no significant change in
                  total numbers of lows affecting the coast (table 3-9), it would be expected that an increase
                                                               0
                  in low pressure centers north of latitude 40 N should be almost balanced by a corresponding
                  decrease in the number to the south of that latitude. This evidently has not occurred so
                  that a mere shift in location of low pressure centers can be discarded.

                                                           Table 3-12

                                      Changes in Number and Central Pressure of Lows
                                         North and South of Latitude 40ON 1952-1962

                                                      North of 40ON               South of 40ON
                                                              Avg. Min.                Avg. Min.
                                                   Number      Pressure    Number       Pressure
                                                                  (mb)                    (mb)
                                 1952-1957             1          998          13          1001

                                 1958-1962            17          987          16           992

             546

                        Table 3-12 shows a 3 to 5 mb change in pressure between lows south of 40ON
               and those north of 400N. This change is evidently related to the stronger development of
               cyclones at higher latitudes. The significant trend is the change in pressure of a[[ Lows
               between the 1952-57 period and the 1958-62 period. There was a deepening of pressure
               of 9 mbs during this time in those Lows south of 40ON and of 11 mbs in those north of 400N.

                        The results would seem to verify a change in intensity of low pressure areas
               without necessarily suggesting any change in storm tracks or locations of the damaging
               Low pressure centers. Still no physical reason for this trend is readily apparent. And,
               of course, there is no indication that this apparent trend is the only thing responsible for
               the increase in damage along the coastal margin.

                        It is clear from the results expressed elsewhere in this report that there has
               been a rapid and, in most cases, unplanned and possibly even unsound, development of
               most coastal areas over the past ten or more years. This development has undoubtedly
               resulted in a weakening of the natural coastal defenses against storms, and of course,
               made possible the greatly increased dollar values of damage. Thus, these two aspects,
               the increase in number and strength of damaging low pressure areas and the weakening
               of coastal defenses, both will result in the same end -- an increase in damage frequency
               and amount. It is not yet possible to separate out the exact contribution of each but it
               appears that they have both played a part in our recent coastal damage experience. A
               great deal of further study of these aspects needs to be done in an effort to identify the
               real contribution of each.

               Analysis of Damage Frequency

                        Thirty years of detailed recorded storm damage covering 1935-1964 have been
               analyzed to determine the frequency of damage to all points along the east coast of the
               United States. The coast line as defined here omits the interior shorelines of bays and
               estuaries, such as the De[aware'   Chesapeake, and Cape Cod Bays, and Long Island
               Sound. The coast thus defined extends 1600 nautical miles from Eastport, Maine, to
               East Cape,. Florida. The coast has been divided into sixty-four increments or reaches
               of 25 miles each.

                        Descriptions of the damage sustained along the coast were obtained and
               evaluated for severity for each 25-mile reach of the coast. Damage reports for interior
               coast Lines of bays and sounds were averaged with those for the exterior coast lines.
               Damage to property judged from the reports to be due to flood or wave action and
               incidents of beach erosion were mapped for each storm. Information on the heights of
               abnormal tides along the coast were also used to Judge the severity of each storm at
               various points along the coast. The tide information aided in determining the lateral
               extent and intensity of the storm damage. It was used as a supplement to and a check on
               the actual damage reports. By using both damage and tide information, it was possible to
               get some idea of the broad pattern of the potential for damage along the coast including
               uninhabited places and sites between points of definite reported damage. The resulting
               pattern is, therefore, a combination of actual damage to vulnerable points along the coast

                             LOCATION OF DAMAGING EXTRA-TROPICAL STORM CENTERS
                                     AT THE TIME OF MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE

                                           1952-1957                                                         de 1958-1962

                                J

                                     4,

                                                  dashed lines approximately
                                                     100 miles from coast)

                             Figure  3-11                                             Figure 3 -12

                                                                                                                 547

                   and a generalization of this damage frequency to nearby points that may or may not be
                   vulnerable at future times depending on local circumstances. In this way, it was hoped
                   to free the analysis from excessive reliance on detailed Local topographic and human
                   occupance factors, and thereby to obtain a measure of the board patterns of hazard along
                   the coast.

                             There were some storms in which the damage reports indicated only inconse-
                   quentiaL damage. In other cases, it was difficult to distinguish between major and
                   inconsequential beach erosion. Therefore, the 121 damaging storms analyzed here
                   include only those storms in which there was judged to be greater than minimal damage to
                   real estate or natural coastal. defenses somewhere along the coast. Intermediate points
                   were sometimes considered to have been damaged when tides were as high as the tides
                   known to be associated with damaging storms.

                             A map of the damage (actual and potential) produced by each storm was prepared
                   for each of the 121 storms. From these maps the frequency of significant damage for each
                   25-mile reach of coast was determined.

                             The over-all frequency of damaging storms for the whole Length of coast line has
                   increased over the 30 years from about I per year to a current frequency of about 8
                   damaging storms per year. The frequency of damaging storms per 25-miLe reach of
                   coast line is shown in figures 3-13, 3-14, and 3-15 for the three decades 1935 through
                   1964. (The number of storms per segment has been rounded up to the nearest even
                   number to simplify the results.)

                             Of the total of 121 damaging storms during the 30-year period, the number per
                   decade increased from 12    during the years 1935-44 to 35 during 1946-54 and to 71 during
                   the final ten years 1955-64. In each of the three decades, just under one-half of the
                   .storms seriously affected the vicinity of Cape Cod on the southern New England coast. It
                   is clear from figures 3-14 and 3-15 that since 1945 the New York-New England coast has
                   been significantly more subject to storm damage than has the remainder of the United
                   States east coast lying to the south of New York City. . During the just completed decade,
                   for instance, there were an average of 22 damaging storms for each 25-miLe segment of
                   coast line between New York City and Eastport, Maine. By contrast, there were only an
                   average of 8. 3 storms bringing damage to each of the 25-miLe segments south of New York.
                   Within New England, storm damage was most frequent along the Rhode Is land- Mas sachu setts
                   coast line, where there were an average of 28 damaging storms per 25-miLe segment
                   between Provincetown, Massachusetts, and Groton, Connecticut. North of Provincetown,
                   the number of damaging storms is only slightly lower.

                             Nowhere south of New York does the total number of damaging storms exceed the
                   storm frequencies experienced in New England. And the average frequency, as noted
                   above, is less than haLf that experienced in New England. Yet, within the southern coast
                   (in this context, the whole coast south of New York) the region immediately north and south
                   of Cape Hatteras, from Albemarle Sound to Cape Fear, not surprisingly, has been damaged
                   more often than any other reach of the southern coast during the past ten years. It is
                   interesting to note, however, that there has been a marked increase in the relative damage

              548

              frequency along this reach of coast since 1955. This may reflect accelerated development.
              The number of structures in the Nags Head study site almost doubled in the decade 1953-
              1963.

                       There are two reaches of the coast south of New York where damage frequency
              during the past ten years has been notably Lower than the average for the whole coast.
              These include an extensive reach of the New Jersey coast north of Atlantic City and the
              bight of coast from the vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina, to the vicinity of Palm
              Beach, Florida, During the decade 1945-54, however, this reach of coast line showed a
              greater relative frequency of damaging storms than was observed during the other two
              decades of the 30 years under study.

                       Maps were also prepared to show the frequency of heavy damage -producing
              storms for each of the three decades. Figures 3- 16, 3- 17, and 3- 18 show the frequency
              of heavy damage for comparison with the frequency of a[[ significant damage shown in
              figures 3-13, 3-14, and 3-15. Of the total 121 storms, 48 resulted in heavy damage some-
              where along the coast.

                       Again, the whole New England coast is significantly prone to damage.   During the
              last decade, each ofthe nineteen 25-mile segments between Eastport and New York City
              received an average of almost 6 heavy damage-producing storms during the ten years.
              To the south of New York, only in the Hatteras area, and the area near Norfolk, Virginia,
              is there found an equivalent frequency of heavy damage during the just past ten years.

                       Broad categories of relative storm hazard were assigned to individual segments
              of the coast line from the storm frequencies shown in these two sets of maps. In
              evaluating the relative hazard, it seemed appropriate to give more weight to storms
              producing heavy damage. This is necessary since the dollar value of damage is usually
              given in damage classes increasing by factors of ten. Consequently, the difference
              between moderate and heavy damage may correspond to dollar loss differences of several
              orders of magnitude. In order to make some allowance for this fact in assigning values of
              relative hazard, double weight has been given to heavy damaging storms.

                       Figures 3-19, 3-20, and 3-21 show the relative coastal storm hazard by 25-mile
              sections of coast line for the three decades. The relative hazard is simply the total.
              number of damage occurrences per reach, with heavy damage occurrences being given
              double weight. (The actual, unrounded storm frequencies were used. Consequently,
              there may be a discrepancy of one storm between the hazard value and the sum of storm
              frequencies in figures 3-13 to 3-18) The weighi6d d4magifig.. storm, frequencies were
              broken down into four classes of hazard: 1-10 (tight hazard), 11-20 (moderate hazard),
              21-30 (considerable hazard) and 31-up (great hazard).

                       Figure 3-21 indicates relative hazard of coastal damage at the present time
              based on the history of the last ten years. The New England coast around Cape Cod is the
              only reach of coast that experiences great hazard. Two other regions, the balance of the
              New England coast line south to New York together with the Hatteras region from Albemarle

                                      NUMBER OF STORMS PRODUCING SIGNIFICANr REPORTED                                         DAMAGE
                                                           ALONG INDICATED REACH OF COASTLINE

                                                                                           16
                                             1935-1944                                       1945-1954                                 1955 -1964
                                                                                       V
                                        0                                                    8 10                                   22       28
                               N.@                                                         8
                                                                                                                                         6
                                                                                            10                                           18
                                  J                                                                @c                                    20
                                             4                                                                                           22
                                                                                                    14                                   24          34

                                      4   6
                                    2                                      )t    2   6    10 12                                            426   32
                                                                                   4                                                115  24
                                      4
                                    2                                            2                                              8
                                                                                   4
                                       4                                         2 4                                              12 14
                                                                                  2
                                                                                      4                                                  Is

                                                                                       6

                                                                                                                                   14
                                                                                  4
                                                                                                                              8
                                                                              -2                                            6

                                                                                                                         4
                                                                                                                        2                  31
                               2                                              4                                         4
                                                                                                                         6
                                  12 damaging storms                           6  8 35 damaging storms                 4      71 damaging  storms

                                                                                   6                                         6

                                                                                      4

                                                                                          6
                                                                                                                                      8
                                         2                                                 Number of storms grouped
                                                                                             to nearest even number

                           Figure    3 - 13                             Figure 3 - 14                                Figure 3     15

                                             NUMBER OF STORMS PRODUCING HEAVY DAMAGE
                                                  ALONG INDICATED REACH OF COASTLINE

                                       1935-1944                                                             )c
                                                                          1945-1954                           1955-1964

                             je   0                                                                         3

                                                                                                           4
                                    2                                                                         7 8

                                                                        2
                                                                                                                 T

                                       3                                                                      6
                                                                      4                                    5

                                                                                                           5
                                                                                                           4

                                                                                                             6

                                                                                                        4

                                                                A

                                                                                                     0

                                                                   0
                                                                                                           2

                                       2
                                       23                                                                   3

                         Figure 3     16                    Figure 3    17                      Figure .3  18

                                               REGIONS OF RELATIVE COASTAL STORM DAMAGE HAZARD

                                          X
                                           1935-1944                                   1945-1954                                   1955-1964

                                                                          Y

                                                                                                                       K

                                                                                                                  x

                                              A-
                                    Hazard Scale                                Hazard Scale                                Hazard Scale
                                      low                                         low                          x              low
                                       less than 6                                 less than 6                                  less than I I
                                         6-1  0                                       6-10
                                                                                  moderate                                      moderate
                                                                                      11-20                                         11-20
                                                                                                                                considerable
                                                                                                                                   21-30
                                                                                                                                great
                                                                                                                                   over 30

                                       Ar

                          Figure   3      19                          Figure 3    -20                             Figure   3 -21

                                                                                                       549

                  Sound to Morehead City are found to be considerably hazardous. The coasts of New Jersey,
                  the Delaware peninsula, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida are all found to experience
                  only low hazard. Of course, -it is to be remembered that these definitions have been made
                  in terms of frequency of damage and occa sional highly damaging events occur on these low
                  hazard coasts. The high damage caused by the,occasional severe storms along a low
                  hazard coast may, of course, be more a consequence of the pattern of coastal development
                  than the severity of the infrequent attacks by storms.

                  Conclusions

                          The foregoing study of coastal climatology has shown something of the great
                  increase in storm hazard that has occurred in recent years. A review of possible reasons
                  for this increase suggests that man as welt as nature have been responsible. While the
                  likelihood of a devastating storm Like that of March 1962 may be only one in 20 to 30 years
                  the more frequent storms of restricted extent result in an over-all frequency of damage that
                  is much greater. Continued action by man in developing the coastal margin can only increase
                  this damage potential unless great care is exercised in the future development of the coast.

                          White the present study should now be refined to permit determination of the likeli-
                  hood of damage area by area, the broad scale picture is clear. The southern New England
                  coastal margin is particularly vulnerable to coastal storm damage. Further developments
                  here should be carefully considered. Many parts of the New Jersey and Maryland- Delaware
                  coasts are more favorably situated but of course here, use of the low lying offshore bars
                  invites damage. The exposed Hatteras region is an area subject to great damage potential
                  as is the gouthern Florida area. The other areas while suffering damage from time to time
                  seem to be much more favorably situated although along no part of the coast should unre-
                  stricted development be permitted. Coastal storms occur too frequently to permit the
                  increased occupancy of the coast without adequate warning or understanding on the part of
                  all users concerning the potentials for damage. It would seem that only through education
                  of the coastal inhabitants and builders to the damage potential from coastal storms can any
                  permanent and effective solution to this serious problem be achieved.

            550

                                                  CHAPTER IV

                                HUMAN ADJUSTMENT TO COASTAL FLOODING

                      Over the long span of settlement on the outer shore, many adjustments to the
             hazards of coastal flooding have evolved. These range from construction of massive
             engineering works designed to keep the sea away to the passive acceptance of losses when
             storms occur. Between these extremes are many alternate strategies designed to minimize
             danger to life and damage to property, to keep water out of structures, to keep structures
             out of floodable areas, and to bolster natural defenses against coastal floods.

                      This chapter explores the prevalence of these adjustments considering their
             extent, diversity, and efficiency in reducing damage. For this we have drawn heavily
             upon special surveys of damage from tidal flooding, or on studies of the extent of coastal
             engineering structures, zoning laws, and interviews with nearly 400 commercial and
             residential users of the shore.

             Loss Bearing

                      The most common adjustment to coastal flood hazard is simply to suffer damages
             when they occur. Estimates of the extent and value of such damages are, however,
             extremely difficult to make. Damage stems from the action of both wind and water, and
             in general, wind damage is insurable and water-borne damages are not. Data on flood
             damages are collected consistently only by the Weather Bureau and the Corps of Engineers;
             the former by written questionnaire; the latter by survey. Seldom do their estimates
             agree. . Some coastal damages enter into these general estimates of flooding, others into
             estimates of storm or wind damage, and estimates of beach erosion losse-s are usually
             prepared only in connection with specific studies. No agency collects data specifically on
             losses from tidal flooding.

                     . Therefore, to provide an order of magnitude estimate, data on losses from tidal
             inundation have been brought together from the hurricane studies prepared under the
             authorization of P. L. 71 by the Corps of Engineers.1 The studies available to date cover
             about one-third of the 1300 miles of study shore, and tend to concentrate on areas of high
             damage. They do not provide an adequate sampling of the whole shore. Within these studies,
             two types of damage estimates are found: average annual damages calculated for the rela-
             tively small areas where projects were recommended or considered, and estimates of the
             recurrence of a. single large storm, such as the 1938 hurricane, for more extensive areas.

                      1 Public Law 71, 84th Congress, Ist Session, authorized the Corps of Engineers
             "to cause an examination and survey to be made of the eastern and southern seaboard of
             the United States.with respect to hurricanes, with particular reference to areas where
             severe damages have occurred..

                                                                                                        551

                   Thus for 215 miles of the study area (16 percent) recurring average annual damages are
                   estimated by the Corps of Engineers at about $ 10, 000, 000 and for 441 miles of the study
                   area (34 percent) damages exceeding $385, 000, 000 are estimated to arise from the
                   recurrence of a single catastrophic event. This might be further compared with the losses
                   estimated to have occurred from the March 6- 9, 1962 storm of $192, 000, 000.

                           A somewhat different measure of the magnitude of loss bearing is derived from
                   the interview data. Using a qualitative measure, damage was classified into light,
                   medium, and heavy. Light damage, reported by 15 percent of the 371 respondents, was
                   damage mainly to lawns and grounds. Medium damage, reported by 16 percent, includes
                   damage by inundation mainly to contents of buildings. Heavy damage suffered by 22 per-
                   cent of respondents involved major structural damage as well. Thus well over half of the
                   respondents had suffered some sort of water damage in their occupance of the shore.

                          . Not subject to classification or evaluation is the loss of life from coastal storms.
                   Fortunately the cases reported occurring on shore are few and far between. . Dangerous
                   situations do exist; the large causeway at the Pt. Judith site is evidence of the recognition
                   of the danger especially on isolated barrier bars. Loss of Life has been reduced by the
                   widespread implementation. of warning procedures and emergency adjustments, the next
                   set of adjustments to be considered in this review.

                   Warnings and Emergency Actions

                           The sensitivity of coastal dwellers, recreationists, and commercial interests to
                   weather has always been high. Marine interests actively seek accurate weather forecasts
                   and the chain of warning, communication, and action related to tidal flooding is built, in
                   part, on the existing network of coastal warning facilities. This chain shown in figure 4-1,
                   involves the assemblage of three types of information required for a tidal flood warning.
                   Meteorological forecasts of atmospheric systems whose winds provide the major motive
                   force for onshore water movements, are combined with tidal predictions and topographic
                   data on the shore and foreshore. At Least four major agencies are involved, but primary
                   responsibility rests with the Weather Bureau.

                           A specific warning then enters the warning network for dissemination to both
                   shore and marine users. In the study area the warnings are issued from 10 stations along
                   thestudyshore.1 The warnings reflect their maritime history and are based on the flag
                   display system for small craft in which wind speed is the major variable. -For seaward
                   display, warnings go to communications media, the Coast Guard, marinas, and yacht clubs.
                   For Landward dissemination, they are sent to police, civic officials, civilian defense
                   organizations, and through various arrangements to the business and agricultural commu-
                   nity. Table 4-1 presents a typical notification list used at one of the stations along the
                   study shore.

                           I Memorandum dated April 22, 1963, N. A. Matson, Chief,. Emergency Warning
                   Section, U. S. Weather Bureau.

              552

                                                        Tabie.4-1

                                     Sample Warning Network, by Type of Warning

                            Type of Warning                        Cumulative Network

                            Small Craft                          Coast Guard Stations
                            (Winds < 33 knots)                   Life Guard Stations
                                                                 Marinas, Yacht Clubs
                                                                 Other Flag Display Stations
                                                                 Radio Stations

                            Gale, Whole Gale                     Shore Police Departments
                            (Winds     34-63 knots)              Utilities
                                                                 Airfields
                                                                 Newspapers
                                                                 Piers

                            Hurricane                            Civil Defense
                            (Winds > 64 knots)                   Red Cross
                                                                 School systems
                                                                 Inland Police Departments
                                                                 Chamber of Commerce List
                                                                 Agricultural Network

                            .Tidal Flood                         Included where appropriate with
                                                                 above storm warnings

                       .The prediction of tidal floods.   Tidal  flood warnings are but one of the variant  s
              of storm warnings in the network, but one that places critical pressure on the predictive
              capacity of the forecaster. This problem     has been summarized well by the Weather
              Bureau at a Congressional hearing.

                                 "The problem of predicting inundation, erosive wave action, and
                       damaging wind along the coast is a complex one. It is basically a
                       meteorological problem involving the development and movement of atmos-
                       pheric storms. However, the problem embraces a spectrum of related
                       oceanographic factors, including the process of interaction between ocean
                       and air which generates large waves and causes storm surge, the latter
                       augmenting the normal astronomical tides. The height and. frequency of
                       wave crests generated by storm winds depends both upon the strength and
                       duration of strong winds, and the fetch or distance over which the
                       generating winds follow the waves without change of wind direction. . For
                       example, the waves generated by a small circular storm are not as
                       damaging to the coastline as those from an oval-shaped storm in which
                       strong winds blow from the same direction for several hundreds of miles.
                       And in the same way the waves generated by a rapidly moving storm are

                                                            Geological       Corps of             Coast.and
                                                               Survey        Engineers         Geodetic Survey

                                                                  4-
                               Meteorologic                     Topograpfiic'!-          Tidal
                                  Forecasts                         Data              Predictions

                                                  Tidal Flood
                                                    Warning

                                                        Warning Network

                                                    Communications Media

                                        Police,  Civic Officials             Coast Guard
                                        Civilian Defense                     Marinas
                                        Business, Agriculture Nets           Yacht Clubs

                                              ShoreUsers                      arine Users
                                                                           IM

                                            Emergency Actions

                                            Evacuation
                                            Temporary Removal
                                            Elevation and Securing
                                               of Property

                         Figure 4- 1.     The communication chain for reduction of tidat flood damage
                                          by warning and emergency action.
                                       -as

                                                                                                           553

                           generally less damaging than one which is stationary or slow moving,
                           since the wind at any one locality changes its direction continually as
                           the storm moves by.

                                    "Experience and theory have provided reasonably effective
                           tools for predicting the size of waves generated by winds of known
                           strength, direction, and fetch. . Thus if one can predict the development,
                           strength, and geometry of storm winds, and the movement of the storm
                           system, useful wave forecasts can be computed.

                                   .."A. more subtle -but,equally important factor in: coastal inunda-
                           tion, and the resulting Loss of life and property damage, is the storm
                           surge. This effect is one in which the tidal Level of the sea is raised
                           due to the accumulation of water transported by stresses of the wind
                           on the sea. Wave action itself is responsible for little or no actual
                           transport of water except when the churning wave motion touches bottom
                           as it approaches the coast. However, the term "storm surge" refers to
                           an unspecified number of effects which combine to transport and
                           accumulate water along coastal regions. The storm surge associated
                           with a hurricane may cause water Levels to rise more than 15 feet above
                           the [eve[ of astronautical tides. It is in this area of prediction that the
                           greatest gap in knowledge exists, even though great progress has been
                           made since studies of this effect were inaugurated in connection with
                           hurricane research in 1956. Hence, if one knows the exact size and
                           frequency of waves which will reach the shore, the extent to which
                           damage will extend inland remains dependent upon the rise of water levels
                           due to the storm surge.

                                    "Finally, if meteorological prediction has been accurate, the
                           computation of wave heights dependably determined, and the rise of water
                           level due to the storm surge adequately anticipated, there remains an
                           important problem of beach topography which may strongly influence the
                           extent of inundation. This concerns the initial condition of beaches at the
                           onset of the storm. If beaches are well stocked with sand to begin with,
                           wave erosion may stop short of the protective dunes which in many areas
                           act as a levee to inhibit massive flooding of the coastal plain, However,
                           if the beach is already deeply eroded by earlier storms, the battering
                           action of waves may extend far inland. "I

                  But the problem of prediction is not the only one of concern. There is a question of inter-
                  pretation as well. Consider this statement from the Weather Bureau forecast of 5 AM
                  Tuesday, March 6, 1962 from the Washington Airport.

                             U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session,
                 .Improvement of Storm Forecasting Procedures, Hearing before the Subcommittee on
                  Oceanography, Washington: April 4, 1962, pp. 201-21.

            554

                      "Tides caused by strong onshore winds wit. L increase to 3 to 5 feet above
                      normal today to the north of the storm center. This will cause extensive
                      flooding in coastal lowland New Jersey northward into Southern'New
                      England today and tonight."I

                      An adequate interpretation of the warning by an individual coastal dweller would
             require both knowledge of the normal tides for the period and the elevation and expected
             runup at his own particular location. Except by experience such information is difficult
             to obtain. Only three maps designed to show coastal inundation specifically have been
             prepared and these were in the nature of an experiment@ To help bridge the interpretive
             gap-, most Weather Bureau stations have developed detailed surge maps for use in Local
             instructions. A series of surge warning maps for some of the coast has been developed
             by the Weather Bureau giving key elevations, critical causeway heights, information as
             to past inundation, and the like.3

                      The effectiveness of the warning network. How many shore users are reached
             by a warning? How many respond, and what is the nature of the response to a specific
             situation? The questions,could not be readily investigated within the design of this study.
             But, it is possible from the interview data to derive a rough measure of aggregate
             responsiveness to the warning network and participation in emergency actions. . From the
             respondents at the study sites, it was found that minimal emergency actions involving
             persona[ safety, or the temporary removal, elevation, and securing of property were
             very widespread. At least 60 percent of our respondents had employed them at some time.
             (See table 4-2.)

                                                    Table 4-2

                                   Extent of Floodproofing Adjustments, by Type,
                                                 368 Respondents
                                                                      Number of        Percent of Total
                   Type of Adjustment                                Respondents         Respondents

             Emergency actions, evacuation, elevation and
                 temporary removal:
                      Without prior preparation                            224                61
                      Requiring prior preparation                            10                 3
             Land elevation                                                  10                 3
             Other structural changes                                        16                 4

                      1 .Ibid., p. 73.
                      2 Ibid., p. 35. These were prepared for Atlantic City, N.J. ; Providence, R.I. ,
             and Charleston,. S. C. One additional map can be found in D. A. Crane, Coastal Flooding in
             Barnstable County,. Cape Cod, Mass. (Boston: Mass. Water Resources Commission, 1962).
                      3 An unpublished location diagram for storm surge warning maps lists 124 maps,
            .8-1/2 x.14 from 1:250,000 base maps, prepared or being prepared for the Atlantic and
             Gulf coasts.                                 I

                                                                                                         555

                          Major public concern is with evacuation procedures which is as it should be,
                  especially in areas subject to hurricanes. The Weather Bureau publication, "A Mode[
                  Hurricane Plan for a Coastal Community, "I deals almost exclusively with planned evacua-
                  tion. The most outstanding example of evacuation to date has been the Hurricane Carta
                  experience, which saw over half a million persons evacuated from the Louisiana and Texas
                  coasts in 1961.2

                          Emergency actions without prior preparation. Most emer    gency actions that may
                  be taken in response to a warning involve little or no prior preparation. These include the
                  removal of life and property from the path of the water, or taking protective action to mini-
                  mize damages from actual inundation. The pr   *otection. of property may involve "battening
                  down" or various forms of placing portable property where it cannot be damaged. Some
                  procedures are part of wintering routines of summer cottages. Simple adjustments involve
                  the tieing up of boats or removal of lawn furniture; more elaborate ones might find furniture
                  placed on a second floor.

                  F loodproof ing

                          A comprehensive damage reduction program that employs combinations of minimal
                  emergency actions, adjustments requiring more elaborate prior preparation, and permanent
                                                                                      3
                  changes to structures has become commonly known as floodproofing.

                          Emergency actions requiring prior preparation. Sixteen respondents employed the
                  more elaborate emergency actions that require the advance stockpiling of special materials.
                  By example, one commercial manager covered metal parts of machinery with grease to
                  prevent rusting; another had constructed special crates to place around gasoline pumps to
                  prevent their damage from floating debris. One householder constructed a special rig to
                  use in elevating household appliances above flood levels.

                          Structural change. A more permanent set of adjustments involves changes to
                  structures -- homes, commercial buildings, factories, and the like. These adjustments
                  are basically of four types: (1) land filling and elevation designed to place buildings above
                  the level of tidal floods, (2) anchorage devices designed to prevent structures from being
                  washed away, (3) installations designed to keep water out of buildings and (4) measures to
                  allow water through buildings to reduce buoyancy or hydrostatic pressures.

                          Many adjustments are incorporated into original construction. Land filling,
                  elevation of structures, or deep piling (see figure 4-2) may be specified as part of the

                          1 U. S. Weather Bureau, "A Model Hurricane Plan for a Coastal Community,
                  National Hurricane Research Project Report No. 28,. U. S. Weather Bureau, 1959.
                          2, Harry E. Moore, et. at. , Before the Wind: A Study of the Response to
                  Hurricane Carla, NAS@NRC Pub. 095, 1963.
                          3 Sheaffer, op. cit.

             556

              subdivision plat, in architectural plans, or in the course of replacement of previous
              damage. .(See figure 2-12 for the extent of filling at the Dennis site.) But existing
              structures have been elevated as well. Interviews at Hampton Beach. turned up two. cases
              of elevation of existing structures (18 and 30 inches respectively). (See figure 4-3.)
              Similarly, anchorage devices are often provided as part of quality construction, but many
              have been installed as a result of subsequent experience. At Bethany Beach one resident
              tied down his building with steel cables as a kind of land anchor.

                       More difficult to effectuate are provisions to keep water out of structures. This
              type of floodproofing technology is now partly developed for riverine situations, but the
              structural requirements for successful seating are stringent. The wood construction most
              commonly found along the shore does not lend itself well to this -type of adjustment. Still,
              several examples of attempts to keep water out, using special doors combined with sand-
              bags, or even bath towels, were discovered in. the course of interviewing. Equally
              common and more adapted to coastal construction were adjustments designed to let the
              water run through. The use of piling was common. Other examples including the con-
              struction of a special trapdoor to let water out were observed. It should be noted that
              unlike land elevation, some of these adjustments require action after a warning in order
              ,to initiate them, i.e. opening a trap door, placing sand bags, etc.

                       Altogether, there were 10 cases of land filling and 16 exampLes.of other
              structural adjustments among the 368 interviewed shore users. (See table 4-2.) While
              these provided evidence of the wide range of adjustments and testimony to individual
              ingenuity, most coastal dwellers and commercial interests place their main. reliance on
              protective works.

              Protective Works

                       Major reliance for the prevention or reduction of tidal flooding is placed on pro-
              tective works of various types. In the main, there appear to be two types of works; those
              that attempt to bar the passage of surges by artificial means, bulkheads, seawalls, and
              revetments; and those that attempt to use the natural defenses of beach and dune. The
              sloping beach up to and including the berm is usually considered the outer line of natural
              defense. Sand dunes which normally absorb a great deal of wave energy are considered
              an inner natural defense.1 'To maintain these inner and outer defenses, groins and jetties
              are constructed, beaches artificially nourished, and dunes are built and stabilized.

                       All protective works interfere with natural shore processes and their impact and
              effectiveness varies. The state of the coastal engineering arts seems to be continuously
              improving but the shore is littered with earlier structures whose effectiveness has been
              obviously impaired or that have apparently created problems equal or even greater than

                         U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Land Against the Sea,
              Miscellaneous Paper No.@ 4-64, May 1964, pp. 23-33.

                                             zr
                                                  A@

                                                                W,

                                          e
                                                                                                                     P

                                             Figure 4-2                                            Figure 4-3

                          At,Bethany Beach, piling is being driven deep         View of marsh fill at Hampton Beach, New
                          into the sand upon. which a house wi I I be bui It.   Hampshire. Fill is placed on the landward side
                          When property designed, this construction is          of the barrier bar. Houses raised above the
                          well suited for a shore location providing            fill are still subject to flooding during severe
                          excellent views and protection at the same time.      storms.

                                              Figure 4-4                                            Figure 4-5

                           Air view of groins in southern New Jersey.            The jetties at Point Judith which protect the
                           At this particular period, fall 1964, waves are       inlet between Point Judith Pond and Block
                           coming directly onshore and material is evenly        Island Sound connect with a large breakwater
                           spread along the beach,                               which forms the Point Judith Harbor of Refuge.
                                                                                 The buildings on stilts in the background are
                                                                                 part of the town of Jerusalem.

                                                                                                              557

                  those they were intended to solve. Some specific examples observed at the study sites are
                  cited in the detailed discussion of protective works that follows.

                           Groins.    The walls or fences installed across the beach from the dune or bulkhead
                  down to, in some instances, a 6-foot depth in the ocean, are called groins. (See figure 4-4.)
                  They are built both to retain the beach by interfering with lateral transport and to help build
                  it up by trapping sand between them. As early as 1898 these structures were being built
                  along the Atlantic coast to help improve beach conditions and today, groins comprise about
                  90 percent of the major engineering structures found along the study shore. They are found
                  most frequently in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts while Virginia, Maryland,
                  and North Carolina have groins only near beach resorts where beach erosion is a serious
                  problem. In New Jersey, the state with the largest number of groins, about 64 miles of the
                  total 150 miles of coastline are protected by them. More than 200 groins can be counted
                  along this coast. 1

                           The effects of groin construction can be illustrated by its history at Bethany Beach,
                  Delaware where recession of the shoreline has averaged nearly three feet per year since ..
                  1843@ The problem is particularly serious at Bethany Beach because the Littoral supply of
                  sand is limited. Ocean currents move away from this section of the coast both towards the
                  north and the south.

                           In 1929 nine groins were built along the beach front of this resort and shore erosion
                  since then has been lessened. Generally the nine groins at Bethany Beach showed accretion
                  on the south side in summer and on the north side in winter with the net accretion indicating
                  a slight northerly Littoral drift. But changes in the contours of the coast indicate that there
                  has been an average over-all Loss of about 8 feet per year. Along one critical mile of
                  beach approximately 20, 000 cubic yards annual [y is removed. It appears that this particular
                  section of the coast has been a supplier of sand to other parts of the Eastern Shore of
                  Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

                           When groins were first built along the east coast of the United States it was
                  generally believed that the sand came from offshore and that a groin would create a beach
                  regardless of other factors., But in reality most sand is derived from headlands or nodal
                  points and transported along the immediate shore by Longshore currents. Many groin fields
                  have obstructed the normal movement of sand and helped to dry up the so-called stream of
                  sand. Thus, groins in a number of instances have done great damage to adjacent sections
                  of shore. This appears to be the case at Bethany Beach. A design now permits the stream
                  of sand to pass over the top of the groin and to continue downstream to nourish neighboring
                  shores. It is hoped that these will perform better.

                           1 U. S. Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center, "A Pictoral History of
                  Selected Structures Along the New Jersey Coast, " Miscellaneous Paper No. 5-64, October,
                  1964, Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers.
                           2 Corps of Engineers, Delaware Coast from Kitts Hummock to Fenwick Island,
                  Beach Erosion Control Study, 85th Congress, Ist Sess. , House Doc. No. 216, 1957,
                  pp. 21, 29, and 35.

             558

                       jetties. . jetties are built to modify or control sand movement at navigation
              openings. When sand moves zigzag along the beach and arrives at an inlet it flows into
              the opening and is carried inward on the flood tide to form an inner bar and out on the ebb
              tide to form an outer bar. Both of these bars are navigational hazards. -In many ways a
              jetty is similar to a groin, but usually the jetty is larger and completely blocks all sand
              movement along the coast. Nearly all of the inlets along the east coast of the United* States
              have some type of protective work, usually a rock jetty.

                       These structures are major sources of sand depletion along the coast because
              when no jetties exist sand is transported intermittently across the inlet to help feed the
              downstream side of a beach. Attempts are now being made to dredge or pump the sand
              through pipelines across the inlets. A good example of this is at Absecon Inlet in New
              Jersey where sand from Brigantine Island is being'pumped across the inlet to supply the,
              beaches at the north endof' Atlantic City. This process appears to be much too slow and
              costly, and it is a never-ending task.

                       Study sites where jetties are particularly important in protecting inlets include:
              Wildwood Crest and Cape May where the jetties at. Cold Spring Inlet protect the entrance
              to the Cape May Canal; Bethany Beach where jetties protect the entrance through Indian
              River -Inlet; Point Judith where the jetties protecting the entrance to Point Judith Pond have
              been extended to form a breakwater and a harbor of refuge; Dennis where jetties protect
              the entrance to the Bass River; and Hampton Beach where jetties Line the entrance to
              Hampton Harbor Inlet.

                       Breakwaters.     These structures are constructed mainly for navigation purposes
              and have both beneficial and harmful effects on the shore. Usually a breakwater is a
              stone wall, up to. 10 feet high, built to inclose a harbor area and then connected to the
              shore to provide a shelter for boats. It acts like a jetty in that it obstructs the free flow of
              sand along the coast and has been known to starve the downstream beaches of material.

                       Breakwaters are found at several of the study sites. The best example of a large
              breakwater is at Point Judith, Rhode Island where a 4- to 5-foot high rock wall has been
              built over a mile seaward. This stone wall helps absorb the energy of storm waves but
              does not protect from flooding. (See figure 4-5.)

                       Beach nourishment.     As more of the Atlantic coast is protected by structures,
              less sand is available to fill the areas between groins and jetties. It is now the policy of
              the Corps of Engineers to place sand artifically on the beach. There seems to be a grow-
              ing realization that in the long run the best methods of beach growth must be as similar as
              possible to natural ones. To simulate this natural protection, dunes and beaches are re-
              built artificially. Sand sources in the lagoons and marshes behind the beach are transported
              by pumping across the barrier islands onto the beach. Artificial beaches have been built
              in this manner at the Sandy Hook,. Cape May, and Hampton Beach study sites.

                      I The Bethany Beach site, previously discussed in connection with its groins, has
              also been the site of substantial nourishment. Because of the gradual erosion at Bethany
              Beach the Corps of Engineers proposed in 1957 to truck-haul 78, 000 cubic yards of beach

                                                                                                                    559

                   fi It in order to make a beach 4, 800 feet wide. The plan was then to add annually an
                   average of 20, 000 cubic yards of sand by truck-haul from a source one mile away on the
                   lagoon side of the barrier island.

                             But beach fitting is not always nature's requirement to detain beach erosion.
                   Figure 4-6@shows that in one storm at Bethany Beach in the summer of 1962, over half of
                   the new 20, 000 cubic yards of beach f i It trucked onto the beach in the spring was eroded
                   away. Part of this sand was returned during the next few weeks under calmer conditions,
                   but the beach was not returned to its former width or height. Since this section of coast
                   appears to be an area of natural erosion from which sand is moved north and south along
                   the coast, its nourishment would be a continuing task.

                             Land stabilization. As man has sought to improve the outer defenses by groins
                   and nourishment, there has been a belated recognition of the need for protecting the inner
                   defenses, as well. Dunes come under the attack of wind, water, and increasingly, the
                   bulldozer. Unfortunately efforts to deal with the bulldozer appear limited, but numerous
                   state and federal projects are now underway to hold the sand on the barrier islands and to
                   help sand dunes to grow.

                             At a number of places along the East Coast, including at least five of the study
                   sites' sand fences have been erected to trap the sand as it blows from the beach. Cape
                   Hatteras National Seashore, which is at the southern end of the Nags Head study site, is
                   an area where dune building has been very successful.' After the March 1962 storm,
                   bulldozers pushed sand from the foreshore to the backbeach to form a line of high dunes.
                   On top of these dunes, fences were placed to trap the sand. Figure 4-7 shows four foot
                   fences [aid out 300 feet from mean high tide. As the dunes build up (and sometimes it
                   takes only one year to bury the fence) a new line of fences are placed .16 to 20 feet closer
                   to the shore.

                             On top of the newly formed dunes, grasses such as American beach grass
                   (Ammophi[a breviligulata) and sea oats (Uniola paniculata) are often planted. The grass is
                   usually planted by hand or by machine but at Bethany Beach the dunes were seeded and
                   fertilized by plane. In figure 4-8 private individuals have planted grass by hand, in front
                   of summEr homes. 0     ne motet owner in Wildwood Crest has put down bales of hay, covered
                   it with sand, and planted dune grass on top. The grass is doing very well because the hay
                   holds the moisture and protects the plants from wind erosion while they are young. At
                   Nags Head, Assateague, Bethany Beach,. Sandy Hook, Wellfleet, and Montauk major efforts
                   are beingmade to stabilize the backbeach with grass.

                             Bulkheads, seawalls, and revetments.        When man first settled along the shore
                   adequate beaches and dunes served to protect the shore developments. An occasional

                              Edward Nash, "Beach and Sand Dune Erosion.Control at Cape Hatteras National
                   Seashore, " U. S.. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,. Cape Hatteras National
                   Seashore, Manteo, N. C., @1962, pp@ 4-12.

              560

              @severe storm would cause beach erosion, the opening or closing of an inlet, or the
              removal of dunes, but nature wouLd heat these wounds during the calmer summer months.
              Alt barrier bars, being temporary wave-built features, were subject to these changes.

                       As barrier bars were settled, dunes were removed to provide unobstructed views
              of the sea and to provide level Land. The removal of the dunes enabled storm waves to
              reach deep into a barrier island. Man soon discovered that some protection was needed.
              He turned to walls of various types as a partial substitute for the dunes he had destroyed.

                       The walls, called bulkheads, served as a secondary line of defense behind the
              beach which was the first line of defense. These structures are constructed of concrete,
              steel, or timber piling. It was found over time that the bulkhead acted only as a temporary
              solution because the beach continued to retreat and large waves would cross it. The bulk-
              head evolved into a massive seawall, capable of withstanding the direct force of the waves.
              Such a massive seawall is shown at Sandy Hook,. New Jersey; figure 4-9.

                       Large numbers of these'seawa[Ls have been built along the east coast of the
              United States. . In every one of the study sites where numerous structures occur close to
              the beach there is usuatLy some type of bulkhead or seawall.

                       But in developing this type of protection it has been found that white these
              obstr*uctions might protect structures behind them, they have little influence in holding or
              protecting the beach which in the long run is the greatest asset of shorefront property. In
              fact, a seawall is detrimental to the beach because as waves strike against the wall the
              backwash wilt cut away the beach in front of it. Often a stone apron has to be built out in
              front of the structure.

                       A revetment consists of covering the sloping face of a dune or bluff with one or
              more Layers of rock or concrete. This type of structure dissipates wave energy with less
              damaging effect on the beach than is caused by waves striking vertical walls.

                       At several of the study areas a boardwalk serves as a seawall because it helps
              break the energy of storm waves. 'Me boardwalks at Bethany Beach and Cape May helped
              to deter wave energy during storms. However, at both sites the boardwalks were very
              heavily damaged in the March 6-7, 1962 storm. (See figure 4-10.)

                       Bulkheads,. seawalls, and revetments are the favored substantial adjustment
              undertaken by individuals along the shore. However, most of these individual adjustments
              were modest in size and design. and often constructed to. prevent erosion or keep sand off
              lawnis as much as to prevent tidal flooding. (See figure 4-11.)

                       At Cape May,, New Jersey, the boardwalk which was destroyed is being replaced
              with a large bulkhead. Construction of this seawall (figure 4-12) consists of putting in an
              8-foot high wall of steel piles, then placing Large boulders around it and covering the whole
              structure with concrete. A 10-foot high completed section is shown in an air photo in
              .figure 4-13. It can be noted in the picture that the seawall is under heavy pounding by waves

                                                                    t

                                                   41

                                                              4110

                                                                                            "we

                                            Figure 4-6                                             Figure 4-7

                         In July 1963 a moderate storm off the Delaware        At Nags Head, a line of sand fences have been
                         coast cut away the beach fill at Bethany Beach.       put up to trap sand and help build up the dunes.
                         In two days time much of the sand was replaced        When this set of fences is buried a new line
                         by a calm sea, but the beach did not return to        will be placed 16 to 20 feet closer to the shore.
                         its former size.

                                                                                                             "OOTV

                                          Figure 4-8                                               Figure 4-9

                       View of hand planted American beach grass               View of the 10-foot rock bulkhead at Highlands
                       (Ammophita breviLigulata) at Bethany Beach,             Beach, Sandy Hook study site. This is a new
                       Delaware. The grass will grow best when new             stone wall built to an elevation of 10 feet above
                       sand moves around it and forces it to grow taller.      mean sea level. Damaged jetties are shown
                                                                               in the distance.

                                                                                    F7__             - ------------------- 71,

                                          Figure 4- 10                                              Figure 4- 11

                        View of the board walk at Cape May, New Jersey           At Fairfield, Connecticut study site residents
                        several weeks after the March 6-7 storm. Planks          have constructed their own form of groins and
                        of the board walk were carried across the street         bulkheads. Part of their structures have
                        against buildings. Cape May pier was very                suffered damage as shown by the posts stick-
                        heavily damaged.                                         ing out of the water.

                                            Figure 4-12                                             Figure 4-13

                          The new bulkhead being built at the eastern end        Air view of the completed 10-foot bulkhead at
                          of Cape May will consist of steel piling, then         Cape May, New Jersey. Note that a sandy
                          large boulders on both sides, And on top of this       beachis completely lacking from this section
                          cement. A section of the nearly finished bulk-         of the coast. Residences and hotel facing the
                          head is in the foreground.                             sea suffered minor damage in March 6-7,
                                                                                 1902 storm.

                                                                                                            561

                  with almost no beach in front of it. Great erosion is taking place along this section of the
                  coast.

                           Study sites, other than Sandy Hook and Cape May, where large bulkheads and sea-
                  watts have been built include Hampton Beach, and Point Judith. At Chincoteague a Low dirt
                  seawall has been constructed on the northwest shore of the island.

                           .Extent of protective works. Some of the many probLems that arise from inadequate
                  understanding of, and basic interference with, natural shore processes have been recounted
                  in the foregoing passages. But these should not deny the proven effectiveness of protective
                  works in certain situations.

                           In order to provide an order of magnitude estimate of the prevalence of use, a
                  rough tabulation was made of the length of coast in each state from Maine to South Carolina
                  with some type of protection through engineering structures. These figures are shown in
                  table 4-3. Of the 1095 mites of outer coastline tabulated, approximately 240 mites or
                  ,roughly 23 percent of the coast has some type of protection by either groins, jetties, bulk-
                  heads, seawalls, or revetmerits.

                           The tabulations were based on various official studies of the Corps of Engineers
                  including Beach Erosion Board reports and hurricane studies. The estimates are neces-
                  sarily crude because:

                           1.   Only large structures built by either the Corps of Engineers, state govern-
                                ments, counties, or cities are usually shown in Beach Erosion Control reports.
                                All small seawalls, bulkheads, etc. built by private individuals are not
                                included.

                           2.   Data were lacking for sections of the coast, especially the north shore of
                                Long Island and sections of Massachusetts. Because of this the measured
                                coastline was 1095 miles instead of 1302 mites.

                           3.   In measuring the length of coast it was difficult to define the extent of
                                coastal protection. An example is Wildwood Crest where jetties built at Cold
                                Spring Inlet at the entrance to Cape May Canal have resulted in sand being
                                deposited north of the jetty forming a wide beach at Wildwood Crest. As the
                                wide beach is the direct result of jetties this section of coast is considered
                                protected, but the lineal extent is difficult to measure. (See note on table 4-4.)

                           Table 4-3 shows that the New England and Middle Atlantic states have the bulk of
                  the protective works. The state with the largest number of engineering structures is
                  Connecticut with 68. 5 miles of coast, roughly 50 percent of its entire outer coastline
                  protected by man-made structures. New Jersey is a close second with 68 miles or roughly
                  45 percent of the coastline having protective works.

             562

                                                      Table 4-3

                    Coastal Engineering Structures and Protective Works Along the East Coast
                                  of the United States from Maire to South Carolina

                                                  Length of                Length of
                State                          Coast in Miles            Coast Protected       Percent

              New Hampshire                          17.0                      8.2                48
              Massachusetts                         116.0*                    40.0                35
              Rhode Island                           51.5                     21.0                4i
              Connecticut                           137.5                     68.5                30
              New York                              125.0*                    22.3                18
              New Jersey                            151.5                     68.0                45
              Delaware                               25.0                      1.8                 7
              Maryland                               31.5                      0.2                 1
              Virginia                              113.0                      3.0                 3
              North Carolina                        327.0                      7.0                 2

              Total                                 1095.0                    240.0               23

                        Of the total 370 miles of Massachusetts coastline only 116 miles were examined
              for engineering structures, and of the total 307 miles of New York coastline only 125 miles
              along the south shore of Long Island were studied.

                       The pGrtion of total coastline protected decreases rapidly south of New Jersey.
              Maryland with a total coastline of 31. 5 miles has only 0. 2 mi Les protected at Rehoboth
              Beach. For Virginia the resort of Virginia Beach has a few structures, mainly a series of
              bulkheads, Of the 327 miles of North Carolina coastline only 7 miles have any type of pro-
              tective works. At Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach there are a series of groins built
              to trap sand and protect the beach from erosion. Nags Head has several piers which were
              badly damage  'd in the March 6-7, storm in 1962, but their presence offers some protection
              to the structures behind them.

                       With the growth of resorts, especially along the eastern shore of Virginia and in
              North Carolina, the most likely adjustment to the hazards of erosion and storms will be
              the construction of more and more engineering works. The striking result of this survey
              is the similarity between the estimated percent of shore frontage developed, 21 percent,
              and the crude estimate of percent protected, 23 percent.

                       Protective works at the study sites.    Table 4-4 is a tabulation of engineering
              structures and protective works found at the 15 study sites. Although a more accurate
              count of the structures at each of the study areas can be given than for the outer coastline
              stretching from Maine to South Carolina it is still difficult to estimate the length of coast
              protected by a singLe jetty or groin. At several study sites, for example, Sandy Hook,
              New Jersey, the series of groins built at Sea Bright affect the entire coast to the north even
              though few protective works continue to the tip of the spit.

                                                                                                                          563

                                                                  Table 4-4

                                        Coastal Engineering Structures and Protective Works
                                                           at the 15 Study Sites

                     Study Site                               Length of                   Length of             Percent
                    No.       Name                              Coast                  Coast Protected         of Coast

                     1.  Point Judith                             8.3                         3.5                  34
                     2.  Wellfleet                                5.8                            0                   0
                     3.  Vi [ [as                                 1.3                         1.0                  77
                     4.  Chincoteague                           17.01,                        2.4                  14
                     5.  Lynn-Nahant                              7.2                         6.4                  88.
                     6.  Fairfield                                4.0                         3.2                  80
                     7.  Hampton Beach                            4.3                         2.3                  53
                     &   Montauk                                  8.4                           .4                   6
                     9.  Sandy Hook                               6.8                         5.3                  77
                    10.  Cape May                                 1. 6                        1.6  2              100
                    11.  Wildwood Crest                           3.7                         3.7                 100
                    12.  Dennis                                   4.4                         3.5                  79
                    13.  Nags Head                                9.3                           .3                 14
                    14.  Bethany Beach                            7.5                           .6                   8
                    15.  Assateague                               7.1                            0                   0

                                  Tota L                         96.7                         34.2                 35

                              1 Although the island of Cl@incoteague is not on the ocean,          the length of shoreline
                    around the island is given in miles.
                              2 The growth of the beach at Wildwood Crest is the result of jetties built at Cold
                    Spring Inlet. Therefore, the beach has been indirectly widened and protected by
                    engineering structures.

                              Of the 96. 7 miles of coastline included in the 15 study areas, approximately 34. 2
                    miles or 35 percent of this coastline is protected. This higher percentage in comparison
                    with 23 percent for the over-all coastline from Maine to South Carolina comes from the
                    more intensive use of the study sites as summer resorts, urban communities, and villages
                    requiring protective works.

                              A second measure of tbe wide prevalence of protective works come from the shore
                    user interviews. (See table 4-5.) Thirty-two have constructed some type of structure,
                    although often quite modest, as in the brush revetment at Bethany Beach shown in figure
                    4-14. Land stabilization practices were employed by twelve respondents and some were
                    quite elaborate. But to be truly effective, protective works need good design and
                    maintenance. This freqeunt[y exceeds the ability of individuals or even individual
                    communities.

             564

                                                        Table 4-5

                                       Extent of Adjustment by Protective Works,
                                                    368 Respondents

                                                                       Number of                Percent of
                   Type of Adjustment-                                Respondents             Respondents

                   Groins, seawalls, bulkheads or revetments               32                       9
                   Land stabilization                                      12                       3
                   Special activity to secure community
                      protection                                           15                       4

                       Therefore, as part of their individual adjustments, many shore users turn their
              attention to the Long and time-consuming process of securing public assistance rather than
              attempt to construct protective devices. The interviews turned up many instances of
              participation in,i4@provement,organizations,wi7.iting, Letters,. attending meeting, and the Like.
              In addition, some fifteen respondents were especially active in trying to secure protection;
              many having made trips to Washington or to the state capitol.

                       One interesting facet of the agitation for protection, and somewhat unexpected
              initially, was the prevalence of similar agitation against protective works. It almost
              appeared that every jetty had its proponents and opponents, depending on which side of
              the drift they lived. In a sense, this opposition mirrors the misgivings shared by the many
              technical experts and the authors themselves as to the desirability of protective works.
              There is no denying the effectiveness of a massive seawall against tidal flooding; the concern
              is with the cost, incl@udin ton . term costs not. initially foreseen, and,the paradoxical des-
                                     .. @. 9 .: 1 9
              truction of some of the amenities desired to be protected. The cottages shown in figure
              4-15 at Hampton Beach are protected by an old and partially destroyed seawall and a new
              steel pile bulkhead, but the view of the seawall from the cottage window and the scant
              beach do not add to the attractiveness of the location. Thus it is not surprising to find
              reluctance upon the part of communities to implement apparently well designed engineering
              plans. The most outstanding case was Fairfield, Connecticut.

                       At Fairfield, the expressed opposition was not against protective works per se
              but against the specific seawall and its size. Residents tried to resolve the problem of
              need for protection and yet loss of attractiveness by suggesting that the wall, if it should
              be built, be a "small" one. In its most extreme form, the desire for amenity actually
              increases hazard as in the case of extensive dune leveling to improve the view.

                         A more recent example is found in the May 20,,1965 issue of the New York Times
              when "residents of Long Beach, Atlantic Beach, and Lido Beach turned out today to object to
              a proposal by the Army Engineers to build a 10-mile-4ong, , 100-foot-wide sand dune across
              the ocean front communities" in a hearing marked by "personal attack" and "persistent boos
              and hisses" directed to the representatives of the Corps of Engineers.

                                              al

                               'n'j

                                                                                                     @AA

                                                                                                      4k

                                            Figure 4-14                                             Figure 4-15

                         At Bethany Beach, Delaware, brush in front of a        The cottages shown in this picture at Hampton
                         private residence serves as a revetment. The           Beach, New Hampshire were formerly pro-
                         owner hopes that sand will pile up against this        tected by a sea wall, now partially destroyed
                         type of wall and help stabilize the man-made fill      as shown in the foreground. The new steel
                         behind it.                                             pile bulkhead behind the sea wall obstructs
                                                                                the view and probably accounts for the skimpy
                                                                                beach.

                                                                                                        565

                  Land Use Change and Control

                          The final set of adjustments employs a variety of devices to guide land use in
                  a direction that Will reduce damage from tidal flooding. The devices themselves are fairly
                  standard, based in law upon the responsibility of a community for health and welfare, and
                  employing both police power and the right of eminent domain. A community or state
                  employing them may purchase land outright,, specify permitted uses-through zoning
                  ordinances, or control building elevation and construction through zoning ordinances and
                  building codes.

                          Purchase of land.   Outright purchase of land to reduce tidal flood damage is
                  apparently extremely rare or nonexistent. More common is the purchase of land for
                  public uses, frequently recreational,::,. which. also leads to low. dama. e:_patterps of tand.use.
                  The prospective establishment. of the Assateague National Seashore, while intended pri-
                  marily for recreation, has been given urgency because of the impending subdivision and
                  construction on the Maryland portion of Assateague Island. The National Park Service
                  urges establishment of the seashores and other recreational areas to reduce potential tidal
                  flood damage.2

                          Zoning ordinances.    The major device used for control of Land use is the zoning
                  ordinance. Three types of zones have been suggested for riverine flood plains and the
                  classification would seem appropriate for coastal areas as weL0 The first is a prohibitive
                  zone within which all permanent s-tructures would be banned except those requiring direct
                  adjacency to water. Such a zone is provided for in the Warwick, R. 1. ordinance.4- Identified
                  as an area of "extreme hurricane danage, " all structures are banned within it except non-
                  commercial boating docks.

                          The second zone is a restrictive zone in which certain uses are permitted and
                  others are banned. The Warwick ordinance provides an example of one variant of the
                  restrictive zone. There, a zone identified as a zone of "hurricane danger" provides a
                  minimal structure elevation, "no building shall be lower than 15 feet above mean sea
                  level. " The minimum elevation device is common in restrictive zones as is the alter-
                  native of enumerating uses as in the Fairfield, . Connecticut ordinance.5 Permitted uses

                            See extensive literature cited in bibliography of Tennessee Valley Authority,
                  op. c it.
                          2 U. S. National Park Service, Region Five, Seashore Preservation and Recreation
                  Opportunities and Storm Damage, April 1962.
                          3 Robert W. Kates and Gilbert F. White, "Flood Hazard Evaluation, " Papers on
                  Flood Problems, op. cit., p. 142.
                          4 City of Warwick, R. 1. , Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, City Council, 1958.
                          5
                            Fairfield, Connecticut, Zoning Regulations, Section 22, Town Plan and Zoning
                  Commission,. p. IM3.

            566

             in the, "Flood Plain District" are parks, playgrounds, marinas, boathouses, landings,
             docks, clubhouses, and accessories. In both cases the underlying rationale seeks either
             to encourage the elevation of structures or the limitation of land use to low damage uses
             where structures are not elevated.

                      A third zone more theoretical than actual is the warning zone. Here the hazard is
             of such a nature that the community would desire to provide warning,@ but only as guidance
             to land users. No specific instances of such zones are known to the writer, but in.one
             sense, the area shown subject to tidal flooding on map sheets such as the Atlantic City
             sheets or Providence, Rhode Island serves this function- if they are widely distributed.

                      Building codes that specify a fixed elevation or storm resistant construction, may
             serve the same desirable ends as the restrictive zoning ordinance, In addition special
             regulations relating to filling of tidelands, protection for shellfish or navigation @channels
             may have some slight effect on damage reduction.

                      Nature herself may be an instrument of land use change by the destructiveness
             of storms themselves. The 1938, hurricane cleared much,of the property,out of tow-lying
             areas at Guilford, Connecticut and these have not b een rebu ilt. This may be more
             effective where the power to prevent rebuilding is established as in the Rehoboth Beach
             ordinancel and is exercised to reduce future damage potential.

                      .Me employment of land use controls to reduce tidal flood damage is not
             extensive. A nine month inquiry direcied to 150 communities.. mostlikeLy to be subject to
             damage elicited only fifty replies and ten.examples of specific flood plain regulation.
             Eleven c'ommunities'rbf6rred- to toastal%'hdzai@ds@"withou't'rtaking' specific regulatory pro-
             visions. Sixty percent of the responding communities had no. regulations relevant to
             coastal hazard. (See table 4-6.)

                      While the survey was in no way comprehensive it was strongly biased in favor of
             potential respondents that might have adopted land use controls. First relevant state
             agencies were canvassed from Maine to North Carolina for information relating to Land
             use guides and controls. Based on their replies and suggestions, the 150 communities
             were chosen. The letters to local planning authorities were most likely to be answered
             by those communities that had taken action, they naturally being most eager to share their
             experience. Thus it might be safety inferred that the limited use of land use guides
             revealed by the survey is characteristic of the entire study area.

                        Zoning Code for the City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, amended 1953
             Ordinance-Ro. 68, Sec. 804, p. 18.

                                                                                                            567

                                                          Table 4-6

                                 Extent of Land Use Controls to Reduce Tidal Flood Damage

                                                                  Specific     Some References            No
                                              Agencies          Flood Plain      to Flooding in      Reference
                        State,               Responding         Regulations          Plans           to Flooding

                 Connecticut                                          4                 2                  4
                 Massachusetts                     12                 1                 2                  9
                 New Jersey                        2                  1                 0                  1
                 New Hampshire                     0                  0                 0                  0
                 Maine                             4                  0                                    3
                 Delaware                          2                  0                                    1
                 New York                          11                 1                 4                  6
                 Rhode Island.                     2
                                                                      .2
                 North Carolina.                   5                  0                                    4
                 Maryland                          2                  .1                0                  1

                 Totals                            50                 10                                  29

             568

                                                  CHAPTER V

                                         THE CHOICE OF ADJUSTMENT

                      The range of adjustment is broad; but neither public agencie s nor private interests
             seem to combine adjustments adequately into a comprehensive program for damage reduc-
             tion. This chapter inquires into the process of choice employed both in the public and
             private sectors. However, a necessary, if not sufficient condition for choice among.
             adjustments is a motivation to reduce hazard. This can only come from a perception of
             danger and a knowledge of the available means for hazard reduction. Therefore, a first
             concern is to explore and measure the perception of hazard from coastal storms.

             The Perception of Storm Hazard

                      Public perception.  In one sense any public manifestation of the awareness of the
             hazard from coastal storms is. an expression of public perception. A local newspaper
             editorial anticipating the hurricane season, or a small craft warning flying from the Coast
             Guard masts are examples of public display. Rather than. catalogue the obvious, -the public.
             perception is best exemplified in the expression of the national policy found in Public Law
             71 adopted in 1955.

                      "Sec. 1.       That in view of the severe damage to the coastal and tidal
                      areas of the eastern and southern United States from the occurrence of
                      hurricanes, particularly the hurricanes of August 31, 1954, and September
                      11, 1954, in the New England, New York, and New Jersey coastal and tidal
                      areas, and the hurricanes of October 15, 1954, in the coastal and tidal areas
                      extending south to South Carolina, and in view of the damages caused by
                      other hurricanes in the past, the Secretary of the Army, in cooperation with
                      the Secretary of Commerce and other Federal agencies concerned with
                      hurricanes, is hereby authorized and directed to cause an examination and
                      survey to be made of the eastern and southern seaboard of the United States
                      with respect to hurricanes, with particular reference to areas where severe
                      damages have occurred.

                      "Sec. 2. Such survey, to be made under the direction of the Chief of
                      Engineers, shall include the securing of data on the behavior and frequency
                      of hurricanes, and the determination of methods of forecasting their paths
                      and improving warning services, and of possible means of preventing loss
                      of human lives and damages to property, with due consideration of the
                      economics of proposed breakwaters, seawalls, dikes, dams, and other
                      structures, warning services, or other measures which might be require

                      iPubtic Law 71, 84th Congress, approved 15 June 1955.

                                                                                                          569

                 'The law is evidence of public awareness that a problem exists and authorizes the making
                ,.of a more technical appraisal of hazard for the purpose of public action.'

                          A tec hnicaL appraisal of hazard.   In earlier chapters, aspects of the scientific-
                 technical problem of hazard appraisal were reviewed. In one instance, the problem of
                 prediction as envisioned by the Weather Bureau was set forth (see p. 552), and Chapter III
                 represents a large- scale attempt to appraise the hazard potential of the east coast. These
                 problems of prediction and appraisal are very germane to the over-all problem, but not
                 necessarily related to the situation of the manager of a shore front property - the owner,
                 renter, or public agent:who seeks to reduce his damage potential. Prediction is, of course,
                 required for the adoption of emergency actions but the uncertainties of prediction do not
                 enter into the consideration of other long-term adjustments. Thus the problem of fore-
                 casting the direction that a unique storm will follow need not be considered in making a
                 decision to build a seawall. Rather, some average expectation of direction, fetch, and
                 wave height is required. Or consider the problems raised in Chapter III. The difficulty
                 of generalization as to tide height and damage for the entire shore can be resolved for a
                 single small area in terms of the peculiarities of topography, prevailing wind, and the like.

                          Thus, a more appropriate model of how technical ap   praisal of hazard takes place
                 might be derived from a description of current practice of the Corps of Engineers in
                 designing protective works for a single area. Such practice, while less than the idea[ or
                 even best scientific technique, being constrained always by problems of funds and personnel,
                 does provide a hazard appraisal to which private perception of hazard can be compared.
                          The Corps estimate of its@ own capabilities is as follows:

                          "Since 1955 the Corps has intensified its research in the field of protection
                          from major storms, particularly those of hurricane force. As a result
                          there is now sufficient technical knowledge available to predict the height
                          of storm tides and waves, as well as the damage they @kou[d be capable of
                          inflicting, for almost any specified locality and for any storm of specific
                          magnitude and duration.

                          A recent example of such an appraisal might be taken from the interim hurricane
                 survey of Stratford, Connecticut@ The hazard appraisal begins with a historical review of
                 hurricanes going ba.ck to August 1.5, 1635, and a rough description of hurricane frequency-
                 Specific characteristics of hurricanes: origins and, tracks, winds and barometric pressure,
                 rainfall, waves, and tidal surges are examined. But these materials are background or
                 illustrative. The crucial calculation is the development of the "Standard Project Hurricane.
                 This is defined as a storm that may be expected from the most severe combination of
                 meteorologic conditions that are considered reasonably characteristic of the region involved,

                          1 U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Land Against the Sea,
                 Miscellaneous Paper No. 4-64, May, 1964, p. 10.
                          2 U. S. Congress, Stratford, Connecticut, An Interim Hurricane Survey, House
                 Document No. 292, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, 1964, pp. 20-38.

              570

              excluding rare combinations. The estimated frequency of such a Standard Project
              Hurricane is not found in the published report. The Standard Project Hurricane is derived
              in the case of Stratford by transposition of the hurricane of September 1944, which had,
              off Cape Hatteras, the greatest energy known of any hurricane along the Attar-tic Coast.

                       The hurricane was routed over water to provide high estimates of storm surges
              along the Connecticut shoreline of Long Island Sound -- 1. 4 times the recorded surge of
              the September -1938 hurricane. 'This hurricane surge was then placed on top of a spring
              tide to give a design -tide level of 13. 2 feet rnst or 4. 0 feet higher than the levels of flooding
              actually experienced in 1938 and 1954.

                       While unpublished estimates of frequency are apparently made in connection with
              economic analysis , no expression of frequency is provided other than a listing of the number
              of hurricanes in historical times. The emphasis in the hazard appraisal is placed on the
              estimation of maximum values of hazard for use in constructing engineering works that
              possess only very small probabilities of failure. Hazard appraisals for economic optimiza-
              tion or land use gu idance, probably within the technical competence of the Corps, are not
              routinely provided by Corps reports.

                       Private perception.   Compared to the procedures of the Corps in appraising
              hazard, which start with careful reconstruction of past experience, then include extension
              beyond actual experience by storm transposition, and the combination of extreme conditions
              of tide and surge, the perception of hazard by most managers of shore front property must
              appear rudimentary at best. This primitive appearance stems not only from the actual
              appraisals made by individuals but may be exaggerated by the interviewing procedures used
              to identify these private perceptions. The interviews themselves provide only rough insights
              into the surely complicated ways in which people perceive hazard.

                       Interviews at the study sites.  At fourteen of the fifteen sites (omitting the empty
              shore) over 1, 000 interviews were taken from a variety of shore users. Of this group,
              371 interviews were made with managers of property, those who controlled the use of an
              establishment found on the study shore. These managers were in three groups; owners of
              seasonal residences, owners of year-round or permanent residences, and commercial
              establishments. The sample at each site was not selected bj random process and it fluctuates
              in size from 9 interviews at Wetlfleet to 44 interviews at Chincoteague. The residences or
              businesses selected for interview were chosen to provide variation in elevation and hazard,
              and variation in the characteristic land uses found at each site. In contrast with the air
              photo sampling procedure, the lack of random selection was not considered critical as
              estimates of the characteristics of all shore users were not intended. Rather, the field
              workers were instructed to carry out, within a time constraint, a sufficient number of
              interviews to provide for the interviewer an understanding of the preception of hazard and
              modes of adjustment to be found at the study site. This was done, and these understandings
              have been incorporated into the case studies. For this section, the 371 interviews wiLl be
              considered as a group of characteristic users of the shore but not necessarily representa-
              tive of the entire study. shore. Informative data about these respondents are presented in
              table 5- 1, along with comparative characteristics of the general population. The interviews

                                                                                                                          571

                                                                  Table 5-1

                                        Characteristics    ofRes
                                                                  pondents in Study Site Interviews.

                                                                     Number of                                 U. S. Population
                                                                                                                             a
                       Characteristics                              Respondents             Percent                 Percent
                     (371 respondents)

                     Seasonal Resident                                   114                  31.7
                     Permanent Resident                                  127                  34.2.
                     Commercial                                          130                  35.0

                     Education:
                     .(230 respondents)

                                                                                                                      39.1
                     Grade (0- 8 yrs. completed)
                     High School (9-12 yrs- completed)                    99                  43. 1                   43.8
                     College (13+yrs. completed)                         1.00.,               43.5                    16.5

                     Income:.
                     (198 respondents)

                     less than    $ 2,999                                ..26                 13.  1                  20.5
                     $ 3,000    -     5,999                               38                  19.2                    @30.2
                        6,000   -     7,999                               37                  18.7                    18.2
                        8,000   -    14,999                               53                  26.8                    23.9
                       15,000  and over                                   44                  22.2                      7.2

                     Elevation of Ist Floor
                     ReLativelto Maximum Tidal Flood:
                     (274 respondents)

                     More than'l ft below                                 51                  20.8
                     Within I ft of maximum tidal flood                                       64.2
                     More than I ft above                                 41                  15.0

                    4-
                              a From St4ti8tica I Abstract of the U. S.      1964, pp. 113, 338

                     are divided almost evenly among permanent residents, seasonal residents,                 and commercial
                     managers. It is quite evident that the users of the shore are considerably above the national
                     average in education and income, a not unlikely finding considering that many were owners
                     of second homes or prosperous businesses.

                               The elevation of the first floor of the home and business relative to the height of the
                     maximum tidal flood is shown in the table as well. These elevations were estimated by the

              572

               field parties using topographic maps as a guide. They have been grouped into     .three
               general c[as'ses: more than one foot below the height of the maximum tidal flood, within
               one foot of the height of m aximum tida I f lood, and more than, one foot above the height of
               maximum tidal flood. Fifteen,percent of the respondents, had. Is t floor elevations at, Least
               one foot above'the maximum tidal flood.

               Respondents' Perception of Storm Hazard

                        Perception or awareness of storm hazardtas@'two compone,nts:' -(I) the evaluation
               of past,experiencei and (2) the expectation.of futdre,storni@. '. Just as. the., techn;.C'al,
               appraisal seeks to identify the historical record of storm experience, -respondents evaluate
               and assimilate What they know about storm haze@id and what they have experienced. In seek-
               ing to identify these experience,s it is not sufficient to -conclude that -a respondent experienced
               hazard because he happened to live at the site at the time of some h-iajor storm. Rather, it
               requires the recognition of the storm as such, by the respondent. As will be shown not all
               respondents accept the common appraisal. of a storm.

                        But if one.accepts as a definition of minimal knowledge, the simple awareness of
               storms, then 99 percelt ct the respondents share in this knowledge. For. a -more sophisticated
               standard of.knowledge 73 percent make very reasonable estimates of the maximum tidal
               f Loods. experienced.1 Ninety percent of the respondents have. exper ienced.a storm to the
               extent that they cite the fact of 1having-been the:present owner or.manager during, the passage
               of a storm. Over fifty percent recognize having suffered some water damage, and many
               more, wind damage. (See table 5-2.)

                        The coast dwellers. interviewed exhibited,an extremely high awareness of past
               experience, e ,ven when it is not their own. Two@thirds knew of storm hazard at the time of
               their original location at the study site. This would seem to arise from the distinct
               orientation of the respondents. In contrast to flood plain dwellers or inhabitants of zones
               of high seismic activity, coastal dwellers do not just happen to be there. Over half, in re-
               sponse to an open-ended question, suggested that it is the adjacancy to the sea that has
               attracted them to their location.  The coastal dweller attracted to the sea for recreation or
               commerce becomes uniquely aware of its variation. Even the seasonal residents, who only
               see the sea.in its usually more .placid moods seem to share this heightened awareness. On
               the coast the sea is always present, the daily variation of tide reminds one of its potential
               for changing its level. The use of boats, beach, and water sports, with their sensitivity to
               weather, provide at least some knowledge of phenomena thai contributes further to this
               awareness.
                        1 These estimates were calculated by first asking respondents to indicate the
               highest known water at.their Location. Then the interviewer converted this. s1tatement into-
               an elevation and this was compared with the range of tidal flooding given for each site in
               table 1-4. It is obvious that in the process of conversion many errors creep in and the data
               should only be considered as illustrative of the very high level of hazard knowledge found
               among coasta I respondents. The knowledge of maximum flood heig@its by Tiverine f [ood plain
               residents is much inferior.

                                                                                                           573

                                                          'Table 5-2

                                    Knowledge and Experience of Hazards of Respondents

                                                                                     Number of
                                                                                    Respondents        Percent

                  Knowledge of Hazards at Time of Location on Shore:
                           No knowledge                                                 117              33@ 1
                           Knowledge                                                    236              66.9
                                            Total                                       353             100.0

                  .Knowledge of Hazards at Present:
                           No kfiowtedge                                                   3              0.8
                           .Knowledge                                                   366              99.2
                                            Total                                       __@6_9          100.7

                  Knowledge of Maximum FLood:
                           Estimate more than 1 ft below maximum flood                   76              23.0
                           Estimate within 1 ft of maximum flood                        241              72.8
                           Estimate more than I ft above maximum flood                   14               4.2
                                            Total                                       331             100.0

                  Actual Hazard Experience

                       No Experience                                                     39             .1o.6

                       One Experience
                           No damage                                                     49              113
                           Light damage                                                  22               6.o
                           Medium damage                                                 19               5.1
                           Heavy damage                                                  21               5.7

                       Two or More Experiences
                           No damage                                                     86              23.3
                           Light damage                                                  33               8. 9
                           Medium damage                                                 38              10.3
                           Heavy damage                                                  62              16.8
                                            Total                                       369             10.71

                           But the realistic appreciation of what is possible by storm or tide, the universality
                  of knowledge of the past or present, does not carry over into the future. The high aware-
                  ness of past experience is diluted considerably in the second component of perception, the
                  expectation of future hazard. Table 5-3 relates information, and table 5-4 damage experi-
                  ence, to future expectations of storms and damage. Despite the fact that 90 percent of the
                  respondents experienced storms, only two-thirds expect them in the future. OnLy half

                574

                                                                   Table 5-3

                                        Present Hazard Information of Coastal Respondents
                                                  and Expectations of Future Hazards.
                                                             (368 Respondents)

                                                        Expectation of Future Hazards (% of respondents)
                                                             @ 11 No                      Storms
                           Present Hazard                    storms          Storms      expected        Storms
                              Information                       or             and       but no or         and              Total
                                                             damage          damage      uncertain       damage
                                                           expected         uncertain damage             expected I

                 No knowLedge                                   0.8              -                            -               0.8
                 Knowledge                                      2.2             2.4                         0.8               9.7
                 One experience                                 6.5             5.7          8.4            9.4             30.0
                 Two or more experiences                        4.6             8.7         22.7           23.0             59.0

                                    To -ta 1                    14.1           16.8         35.4           33.2             99.5

                                                                   Table 5-4

                                        Present Damage Experience of Coastal Respondents
                                                  and Expectations of Future Hazards
                                                             (370 Respondents)

                                                        Expectation of Future Hazards (% of respondents)
                                                                No                         Storms
                           Present Damage                    storms          Storms      expected        Storms
                              Experience                        or             and       but no or         and              Total
                                                             damage          damage      uncertain       damage
                                                           expected         uncertain damage             expected,

                 None                                           8.4             8.4         23.2            6.5             46.5
                 Light                                             2            2.7          5.4            5.1             15.4
                   edium                                        1.4             2.2          4.3            7.8             .15.7
                   eavy                                         2.2             3.5          2..7          14.0             22,4

                                   Tota 1                       14.2           16.8         35.6           33.4             100.0

                                                                                                      575

                 of the respondents that experienced damage in the past expect damage in the future. The
                 link between simple awareness of the past and expectations of future events is apparently
                 complex.

                          Interpretation, the link between past experienceand future expectations. Our
                 knowledge and our experience of real events in the world is personalized and even distorted
                 as it passes through preconceived frameworks of reference related to concepts of uniqueness
                 and repetitiveness in a process that we may cal I interpretation. In table 5-5 respondents
                 have been classified by a type of content analysis based on their responses to structured
                 and unstructured questions. The field party tried to get people to talk about storms, and it
                 is from these verbal clues that the categories of interpretation have been some-what sub-
                 jectively derived.

                          Most respondents appear to interpret storms as repetitive events and many feel
                 that the repetition is in some fashion constant. "Just the process of nature in this area for
                 storms to come every year. " ".We get storms, with serious ones at about ten-year intervals.
                 For others, storms are increasing, either by the hands of men, "They are shooting these
                 rockets up on Wallop's Island, " or as a. result of perceived spatial migration of hurricane
                 tracks, "They are running up theIcoast. " Spatial cycles are also reversed and others
                 perceive it as "the cycle goes from North Carolina to Florida. " For these respondents
                 storms are decreasing either in frequency or intensity.1

                          But for a fair number of respondents, storms are either unique or unknowable.
                 "The 1962 storm was a freak. " "Nature is too unpredictable. " And for a very small
                 number of respondents hazard is to be denigrated or even wished away by some semantic
                 magic. "We never have any bad storms, " "We might have a couple of hurricanes, but not
                 a storm.

                          These interpretations, garnered from the spoken clues of the world within
                 peoples' heads, do help to explain the gap between experieuce and future expectation? For
                 example, the coastal respondent who interprets his experience as a freak, unique event
                 derives no future direction from his experience, and uncertainty or deniaL are likely future
                 expectations. Or it is common for elderly retired couples, to feet, despite their awareness
                 of storm hazard, a sense of personal exclusion. Storms are spaced in time sufficient that
                 they wilt be granted a breathing spell, to spend their limited years in retative security.

                          I Note that these are spatial cycles and they may be compared with temporal cycles
                 identified in the perception of hazard by riverine floodplain. dwellers.
                          2 Statistically the improvement in relationship between present information and
                 future expectation can be measured by the use of @, appropriate for measuring the
                 strength of a relationship in 4x4 contingency tables. For the relation between information
                 and future expectation of storms and damage, -4) = . 34. It increases to . 85 in a 4 x 4 table
                 in which interpretation is substituted for information.

             576

                                                         Table 5-5

                               Present Interpretation of Hazards by CoastaL Respondents
                                           and Expectation of Future Hazards
                                                     (327 Respondents)

                                                Expectation of Future Hazards (% of responden s
                                                      No                     Storms
                Present Interpretation              storms        Storms     expected     Storms
                     of Hazards                       or            and     but no or       and            Total
                                                   .@daindge      dditi@]:ge@ U ncertdin  :ddrfiage
                                                   expected      uncertain   damage       expected

               I Respondents do not share
                  in the common knowledge
                  of storms                           0.9                                                  0.9

              II Respondents share in the
                  common knowledge of
                  storms but:
                   a) Deny the common..
                       image of storms                2. 1           0.3        0.6          0.3           3.3

                   b)  Think storms are
                       unique                         5.3            4.0                                   9.8

                   c)  Think storms are
                       repetitive and also
                       t1iink:
                       1. They are per-
                          sonaLly excluded            3.7            0.9        0.3                        4.9

                       2. Storms are de-
                          creasing in time
                          or -space                   1.2                       1. 5         0.3           3.0

                       3. Storm trend can not
                          be ascertained                             2.7        16.2        12.8           31.7

                       4. Storms are constant
                          in time or space            M              0.9       20.1.        21.6           43.2

                       S. Storms are increas-
                          ing in time or space          -                       0.3     1    2.4      1    2. 7

                                 Total                14.3           8.8        39.0        37.4           99.5

                                                                                                                  577

                            But by no means do interpretations always lead in the obvious direction of
                  expectations. Even for those respondents who find the repetition of storms an ordered
                  event, the cyclical frequency might be such that the occurrence of the event reinforces a
                  negative expectation in. the future. Consider, "We get storms once in ninety years, we're
                  not due for another. ". If a major storm occurs and an individual escapes serious damage,
                  the net impact frequently is to reinforce feelings of security as at Wildwood Crest. Storms
                  might be expected by a respondent in the future, but only as a remote depersonalized
                  observation of his habitat with no implication of possible liability.

                            These interpretations also help to answer the puzzling question as     to..why people
                  seemingly continue to place themselves in areas of high natural hazard by suggesting ways
                  in which the common experience can be individually interpreted to enhance the security of
                  expectations. In this sense, they suggest something of the way men think about natural
                  phenomena.

                            Most hazards ar  e apparently random phenom na. Those who are members of
                  the technicat-scientific community, have by. their training been prepared to accept a high
                  degree of uncertainty, at least in their scientific work, if not in their private lives. They
                  strive with the best scientific skiR to order the unknowns of natural phenomena within a
                  framework of random probability theory, but are prepared to accept the unexplained              to
                  await. tomorrow's knowledge.

                            The respondents, intelligent and articulate Lay people, seem to react to uncertainty
                  in one of two fundamentally dif f@rent. ways. They respond to the random occurrences of
                  storms either by making the events knowable, finding order where none exists, identifying
                  cycles on the basis of the sketchiest of knowledge of folk insight, and in general, striving
                  to reduce the uncertainty of the threat of hazard by making it certain. Or conversely, they
                  deny all knowability, accept the uniqueness of natural phenomena, throw up their hands,
                  transferring their fates into the hands of a higher power. (See table 5-6.

                  Choice of Alternative Adjustment

                            For both private agencies and private individuals there is widespread, although
                  far from complete, perception of storm hazard. This perception provides, as noted, the
                  necessary but not sufficient condition for action to reduce the toll of tidal flood damage.
                  Awareness of alternative adjustments, proper resources to undertake them, and a set of
                  institutional arrangements for their implementation are required for the choice between
                  adjustments. The process of public choice is partly formalized and differs from private
                  choice; thus each may be considered separately.

                            Public choice of adjustment.    It may help to recall the range of adjustment
                  described in the previous chapter. They were: loss bearing, warning and emergency action,
                  floodproofing, protective works, and land use change and guidance. No single agency seems
                  to choose among the entire range of adjustments for a combination that might provide for
                  beneficial use of the shore at Lowe  st cost to society. However, the Corps of Engineers,
                  especially after passage of P. L. 71 which empowers it to investigate - " . . . methods of ...

             578

                                                          Table 5-6

                                  Common Response to the Uncertainty of Storm Hazard

                           Eliminate the Hazard                               Eliminate the Uncertainty

                Deny or Denigrate its Deny or Denigrate           Making it Determinate       T ransfer Uncertainty
                     Existence             its Recurrence              and KnowabFe--           to a Higher Power

                "We might have a          "The 1962 storm is      "we get storms once          "An Act of God, im-
                couple of hurricanes,     a freak.                in ninety years,             possible to tell.
                but not a storm.                                  we're not due for
                                                                  another.

                "We never have any        "That was a freak,      "The cycle goes from         "God doesn't tell us
                bad storms.               won't happen            North Carolina to            things like that.
                                          again.                  Florida.

                improving warning services, and of possible areas of preventing loss of human lives and
                damages to property, " 1. comes closest to having such a com prehensive policy. A recent
                publication of the Coastal Engineering Research Center "intended to describe-in non-
                technical terms how the forces of the sea operate and the measures we can take to combat
                them, " provides an authoritative statement of the present view of the Corps as to appro-
                priate adjustments and the responsibility for their implementation? This has been
                supplemented by a review of seventeen studies made on the study shore under the author-
                i zati on of P. L. 7 1.

                         The range of choice for the Federal Government.          For the Federal Government,
                the range of choice seems to consist of: loss bearing in areas that cannot be protected
                within economic feasibility, protective works where feasible, and the provision of
                information, mainly hurricane Warnings.

                         The position on loss bearing is of course only implied. The Corps          'does not
                advocate that people bear losses, but it follows from the requirement that protection must
                show benefits in excess of costs that such an adjustment might be the cheaper,one in the
                long run.

                         The Corps strongly supports effective warning nets and emergency action, but
                here the emphasis is upon the Weather Bureau to provide and disseminate warnings to the
                local communities for their action.
                         1 Public Law 71, 84th Congress, approval 15 June 1955.
                         2 U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, La          nd Against the Sea, foreword.

                                                                                                            579

                           Protective works are the favored adjustment of the Corps. In the words of the
                  standard phrase of New England District reports, "the most positive means of protection
                  consists of structures which will physically reduce or,prevent the inundation of properties
                  by tidal flood waters.

                           Floodproofing and land use change and guidance are thought to be important
                  methods of reducing damages "with respect to future construction" but "Cannot be expected
                  to rectify past errors. "2 But it, is ",the responsibility of seaside communities to provide
                  zoning regulations so that no permanent buildings are constructed within the area of shore-
                  line fluctuations or without adequate dune protection, " and "to prcvide adequate build;ng
                  standards to minimize damages during extremely severe storms. "3

                           In their attitude. towards adjustments. over, which the Corps has no dire.ct control,
                  reports differ in two important aspects. In reports that recommend protective works, only
                  perfunctory discussion! is found regarding alternative. means of flood damage reduction. 4
                  Where such works are not found feasible (in half the studies examined) lengthy discussions
                  of damage- reduction adjustments that include warning and emergency actions, zoning,
                  building codes, dune, protection,,.and the pr.e aration of maps are found. But, considerable
                  differences.are found in.C Iorps of Engineers reports from district to district.'. Some"districts
                  include supplementary data designed to encourage development of evacuation procedures
                  or to encourage further work in providing information utilizing the provisions of the flood-
                  plain information program. 5

                           As part of any decision to employ protective works, there is need to consider
                  the amount of protection. As noted, congressional approval prescribes that the benefits

                             U.S. Congress, Wareham and Marion, Mass.              Interim Hurric- ane Survey,
                  House Doc. 548, 87th Congress 2nd Session, 1962, p. 54.                      1
                           2 U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, op. cit. , p. 36.
                           3U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, op. cit. , p. 36
                           4 Some adjustments, such as building code revisions, are seemingly dismissed
                  in advance because of local attitude: "Such measures are highly desirable but tend to meet
                  opposition when proposedin a high ly'deve Loped area where property owners and municipal-
                  ities face .   an increase in building costs due to more rigid building codes. " U. S.
                  Congress, New London, Conn. . . . An Interim Hurricane Survey, House Doc. 478, 87th
                  Congress 2nd Session, 1962, p. 34. The implication of providing protection to communities
                  unwilling to protect themselves is not discussed.
                           5For example: U. S. Congress, Atlantic Coast and Southern New Jersey and
                  Delaware . . . Interim Hurricane Survey, House Doc. 38, 89th Congress 1st Session, 1963
                  includcs a resume of Sec. 206, P. L. 86-643 Flood Control Act of 1960 and the objectives
                  of floodp[ain inforniation studies, procedures for application, etc. Another section includes
                  a complete copy of a "A Model Hurricane Plan for a Coastal Community.

             580

              shall exceed the costs, but this 'criterion is not sufficient to yield an economic optimum,1
              nor is one apparently sought. Rather, the informal rule that appears from a reading of
              these studies is to build to the level of the Standard Project Flood or provide the maximum
              protection within economic feasibility.

                       The range of choice of state and local governments.   Potentially, the range of
              choice of state and tocal..goverr.-ments should be greater than the Federal Government. In
              addition to authorizations similar to the congressional ones to provide for const ruction of
              projects, these non-Federal Governments have a set of police powers reserved to them by
              the Constitution@ One exercise of such power, found in a number of states, is the
              regulation of coastal structures. A second exercise of power is shown in these instances
              of floodplain zoning and building ordinances found in the course of the special survey. A
              third example is the use of health regulations on Assateague Island to delay proposed
              construction of summer homes in the area proposed for the -National Seashore.

                       How one state views its range of choice can be found in the following statement
              from a recent report prepared for the North Carolina: Department of Water Resources:

                      "(1) When it is realized that hurricanes, which may strike any part of
                       the North Carolina coast, can cause damages within a 13-month period
                       greater than the total state tax revenue, then it becomes clear that every
                       effort must be made to develop an effective program of damage prevention.
                       Not only are the initial damages great, but destruction of natural resources
                       and capital equipment paralyzes the coastal economy.

                       (2) In broad terms the elements of a program of hurricane damage pre-
                       vention appear to include adequate storm warning and disaster relief
                       systems, physical measures to control shore erosion and to rehabilitate
                       damaged beaches, and land use regulations designed to minimize damages.

                       1 The failure of the test of economic feasibility to provide optimal economic
              allocation of resources has been well documented in widely available literature. See:
              Otto Eckstein, Water-Resource Development, The Economics of Project Evaluation
              (Cambridge- Harvard University Press, 1958); Jack Hirshleifer, James De Daven,
              Jerome Milliman, Water Supply: Economics, Technology, and Policy (Chicago: Univer-
              sity of Chicago Press, 1960); Roland McKean,. Efficiency in Government Through Systems
              Analysis (New York: john Wiley and Sons,.Inc. , 1958); Arthur Maass, Maynard
              Hufschmidt, et at.,. Design of Water-Resource Systems (Cambridge: Harvard University
              Press, 1962);Maynard M. Hufschmidt,. John, Kruti Ila and Julius Margolis, Report of Panel
              of Consultants to the Bureau of the Budget on Standards and Criteria for Formulating and
              Evaluating Federal Water Resources Developments (Washington: U. S. - Bureau of the
              Budget, 1961); W. R. D. Sewell,. John; Davis, A. D. Scott, and D. W. Ross, Guide to Benefit-
              Cost Analysis (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1962).
                       2 Allison.Dunham, "Flood Control Via the Police Power, " Univ, of Pennsylvania
              Law Review, vol. 107 (June, 1959). pp. 1098-1132.

                                                                                                                       581

                              @(3) No serious questions have been raised concerning existing warning
                              and disaster relief measures. Federal and state programs apparently
                              operate to general satisfaction. At the local level a program such as
                              Dare County's shows what can be done locally.

                              (4) In the wake of recent destructive storms, rese        arch is still in pro-
                              cess to identify the most effective and economical physical means of
                              controlling shore erosion and rehabilitating damaged beaches. Its results
                              will bear upon financing questions as well as      upon a choice of physical
                              methods.

                              (5) It is apparent that the task of restoring and maintaining        shore pro-
                              tective works is beyond the capacity of local governments in         the area.
                              Continued Federal aid wiH undoubtedly be essential. A,.basic issue to be.
                              settled is the proper role of the state government in this area.

                              (6) Another element of a comprehensive damag          e prevention program
                              ties in the ap
                                           .pLication of building codes and other regulations retating
                              to land use.

                                        The: state has-moved di.rectly-in one aspect of land -use reguLa-
                              ti'on by-eni'ctme'nt of legislation  pr,ohibitifig unju 11stified damage to sand
                              dunes along the Outer,Banks.. Presently the application and enforcement
                              of this law is left to local government.

                              This surnmary represents a thoughtful attempt to grapple with the definition of the
                   proper role of the state and local government in the combination of protective works
                   (about which it is noted much remains unknown), warning and emergency actions, and
                   land use regulations. Unfortunately, this study is almost unique; only a simila           5 study made
                   int Rhode lsiand,- provides a comprehensive state review of the range of choice.

                              On the whole, the heavy reliance on protective structures found in Corps recom-
                   mendations are matched by state and local governments with all the study shore states
                   except one having various programs of funding protective works from state funds, or more                3
                   often, sharing with the local governments, in the non-Federal portion of Federal projects.

                              Trends in the public choice of. adjustment. Some important trends might be noted
                   in the public choice process. First and most important, the extent of Federal commitment

                              I
                               State of North Carolina, Department of Water Resources,. Flood Damage
                   Prevention in North Carolina,. Dept. of Water Resources, 1963, pp. 94- 95.
                              2 Rhode Island Development Council, The Rhode IsLand Shore: A Regional Guide
                   Plan Study, 1955-1970, Rhode Island Development Council, 1957.
                              3Coastal Research Notes, Oct. 1964, pp. 12-15, carries a reproduction of a
                   review of state participation in local shore protection projects made by F. 0. Diercks.

             582

              has grown over time although it is still far short of the commitment of the Federal
              Government to provide flood protection on rivers. The history of the expansion of commit-
              ment 'is linked to a now familiar pattern of crisis.1 Public Law 71 authorizing the hurricane
              studies followed on the heels of the devastating hurricanes of 1954 and 1955. Public Law
              87-874, which increases federal support for beach erosion control projects from one-third
              to one-half for public areas and up to 70 percent for public areas meeting park criteria,
              followed the storm of March 6-7, 1962.

                       Along with the increasing commitment has come greater knowledge of shore
              processes and the range of adjustment to hazard. The consequence of the first is a trend
              to greater reliance on providing artificial support for natural defenses of beach and dune.
              With the second has come further interest in other adjustments, but little implementation
              of these to date, except for the substantial improvement in the warning network.

                       Private choice of adjustment.  The process of public adjustment is formalized to
              a considerable extent and it is possible therefore to study it in some detail. Reports and
              surveys are available that attempt to set forth the adjustments considered at individual
              sites and some of the thinking employed in their evaluation. These reports are prepared
              by individuals with a major, professional commitment to reducing tidal storms damage.
              It is to be expected that their range of choice will be much broader than that of a single
              user of the shore, for whom the process:of decision-making for tidal storm damage re-
              duction is only a small part of the welter of decisions that face his every-day existence.

                       The range of choice of respondents. Because one expects a restricted, perceived
              set of alternatives for the private users of the shore, it may help to recall the findings in
              the previous chapter related to actual adjustments. Every form of adjustment to hazard
              was found to be applied in some form by the respondents, but these applications were
              limited in extent and in incidence.

                       A similar finding holds true for the range of alternatives perceived. Alternatives
              for tidal storm damage reduction recognized by respondents include the entire range of
              such adjustments, but no single respondent perceives more than a small set of adjustments.
              Nor is it necessarily reasonable to expect otherwise. The range of adjustments suitable
              for consideration over the entire study shore may not be practicable at every site and even
              less so in the individual situation of each respondent. Therefore, in order to explore further
              the process of choice of the private users of the shore, and to allow for variation between
              sites, a simple differentiation of adjustments was devised between common and uncommon
              adjustments.

                       In general, the common adjustments are those described in the previous chapter
              that require little prior preparation and are seldom of a permanent nature. They include
              all the emergency actions without prior preparation. By contrast a planting of imported
              beach grass for dune stabilization represents a higher order of adjustment requiring not

                       1 The classic discussion of this pattern is found in Henry C. Hart, "Crises,
              Community and Consent in Water Politics, " Law & Contemporary Problems, voL. 22 (1937),
              pp. 510-537.

                                                                                                          583

                   m
                   r
                    erely expense, but a higher order of attention and concern as well. For those respondents
                   who seek adjustments through public aid, the signing of a petition requesting the construction
                   of a seawall would represent a common adjustment. In contrast, participation in a personal
                   deleg.s.,tion to Washington seeking protection represents a higher order of action. In this way,
                   the large variety of hazard reducing acti.ons ar e categorized and the relative difficulty of
                   pursuing them at different sites considered. For the entire sample, the alternatives per-
                   ceived and adopted are identified in table 5-7.

                                                         Table 5-7

                             Perception and Adoption of Alternative Adjustments by Respondents
                                                      (368 Respondents)

                           AdjJustments only Perceived                     Number            Percent
                           No adjustments perceived'                           so              22.0
                           Common adjustments perceived                        40              10.9
                           Uncommon adjustments perceived                       4               1. 1

                           Ad4ustments Perceived and Adopted

                           Common adjustments perceived and adopted           159              43.2
                           -Uncommon adjustments perceived and adopted         85              22.8

                           Total                                              368              100.0

                           Two-thirds adopt some minimal action, one-fourth adopt at least one uncommon
                   adjustment, and on the other hand, one-fourth of the respondents perceive no possible
                   adjustments. As might be reasonably expected the willingness to adopt actions, especially
                   uncommon ones, is strongly related to the perception of hazard, and information about the
                   past conditions and future expectations. More critical though is the motivation that -stems
                   from previous damage experience and the availability of resources to undertake uncommon
                   adjustments. - Significantly larger proportions of uncommon adjustment adopters have
                   suffered heavy damage and possess higher incomes. (See table 5-8).

                   Comparison of the Perception of Riverine and Tidal Flood Hazard

                           The foregoing section presented a set of relevent characteristics of the perception
                   of hazard and of the choice and adoption of adjustments. However, these data cannot by them-
                   selves provide an adequate basis for evaluation. The perception of hazard seems high, and
                   the perception and adoption of adjustments appears widespread. But an understanding of
                   hazard perception requires some comparison, either relative to an absolute base, or
                   relative to other groups. No meaningful base seems to exist, but two comparisons are

              584

                                                       Table   5-8

                           Relation between Adoption of Uncommon Adjustments to Hazards
                                          and Characteristics of Respondents

                                                            No. of           Percent of          Percent of
               Characteristics of Uncommon                Uncommon       Total Uncommon            Total
                         Adopters                          Adopters          Adopters            Respondents

               Expect future storm and damage                  37              44.0                33.5
               Suffered heavy damage                           32              38.1                22.8
               Income over $8, 000                             28              59.5                49.0
               Income over,$ 15, 000                           16              34.0                22.2

               possible. The first has been presented; a comparison in hazard perception between shore
               users in the private sector and the technical experts employed by public agencies. A
               second comparison would be between the shore users and land users in somewhat similar
               hazard areas, namely riverine floodplains.

                        By agglomerating interviews with 216.floodplain dwellers at seven sites with
               varied physical situations and land use, a somewhat comparable sample to the 371 shore
               users is provided.' In both samples similar interview schedules were used. The compara-
               tive results for four major parameters of hazard and adjustment are presented in figure
               5- 1, Two major conclusions are easily drawn. There is clearly a higher order of hazard
               perception and adjustment adoption among the coastal respondents than among the flood-
               plain dwellers, confirming an intuitive estimate of the high state of hazard awareness by
               the users of the shore.

                        A second and most interesting observation deals with the amount of variation
               in the same characteristic in the two samples. For example, a variety of interpretations
               is found in both groups but 75 percent of all coastal respondents' interpretations fall into
               two categories (storms are repetitive, trend cannot be ascertained or trend is constant in
               time or space) and their interpretations are markedly more concentrated. It previously
               had.been felt that the amount of variation in interpretation was a function of the ambiguity of
               the hazard itself. If interpretation reflects the personalized view of the- world superimposed
               on some common knowledge, to the extent that the common knowledge is ambiguous or
               obscure -- then the distortion of that knowledge measured by the variance of interpretation
               should increase. Evidence on the floodpLain first suggested the hypothesis that variation
               of all sorts   in knowledge and experience, interpretation, future flood experience, and the

                        1 See R. W. Kates, Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management,
               Dept. of Geography Research Paper No. 78, Univ. of Chicago, Dept. of Geography, 1962,
               pp. 29-44; and R. W. Kates "Perceptual Regions and Regional Perception in Flood Plain
               Management, " Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 11, (1963),
               p. 219, for details.

                                     VARIATION BETWEEN FLOODPLAIN AND COASTAL
                                      RESPONDENTS IN MAJOR HAZARD PARAMETERS

                                             FLOODPLAIN                         % of               COASTAL
                                          (216 Respondents)                 Respondents       (371 Respondents)

                               a - No knowledge of hazard                                c - One damage experience
                               b - Knowledge of hazard                                   d - Two or more damage
                                                                                                            experiences

                                                                                 -25

                                 a             b            c            d                  a           b               c         d
                                                                            I nf ormation

                               a - Did not share in common knowledge                     e - Thought storms repetitive
                                                               of storms                                 but decreasitig
                               b - Knew about storM3 but denied                          f - Thought storms repetitive
                                              common image of storms                                  trend not known
                               c - Thought storms unique                                 g -Thought storms repetitive
                                                                                                       trend constant
                               d - Thought storms repetitive but
                                         they personally excluded               --So     h - Thought storms repetitive
                                                                                                        but increasing

                            a      b,    c      d     e      f      g    h                a     b      c     d     e      f     9      h
                                                                            Interpretation
                                                                       Figure 5 -1 (a)

                                VARIATION BETWEEN FLOODPLAIN AND COASTAL
                                  RESPONDENTS IN MAJOR HAZARD PARAMETERS

                                                                    % of
                                       FLOODPLAIN                Respondents            COASTAL
                                     (216 Respondents)                              (371 Respondents)

                                                                                                  Yes

                                                            Yes      --50
                                       No

                                                                     --25
                                               Uncertain                     No     Uncertain

                                                        Future Storm Expectation

                          a - No adjustment perceived                      c- Uncommon adjustments perceived
                          b   Common adjustments perceived                 d- Adjustment perceived and adopted

                                                                     --50

                                                                     --2

                                                                                      E:l
                             a          b          c          d   Adjustment 'a          b          c          d

                                                                 Figure 5-1 (b)

                                                                                                        585

                  perception and adoption of hazard-reducing actions were highest in areas where floods
                  occurred often enough to be fairly well known but not often enough to make their occur-
                  rence certain. Variation among,.indiv du                   off ln_aTe4s.@ofjrequen floods
                                                      41,
                  or very infrequent floods. Here the meaning of the absence or presence of events seemed
                  less confused and liable to variation in interpretation. , Ibis variance of behavior found in
                  interpretation is higher for floodplaih, respondents in all the other hazard parameters as
                  well. As suggested, this seems to be a function of the ambiguity of the hazard andt.he
                  greater variation in hazard settings at the seven floodplain. sites as compared to the
                  relatively greater consistency in hazard found along. the shores of Megalopolis. As an index
                  of this hazard differential, the weighted mean recurrence of floods for the 216 floodplain
                  respondents was about four every ten years and a similar recurrence of damage-producing
                  storms for coastal respondents was nine every ten years.

                          Stitt another comparison between coastal andfloodplaih respondents is the
                  ,adoption of adjustments. In previous study of riverine floodplaihs, a classification similar
                  to the one employed in this study showed evidence of scaling, i. e. , those that adopted
                  uncommon adjustments also adopted common adjustments andthose that adopted any adjust-
                  ment, generally perceived an uncommori.adjustment.1 In other words adopters appeared to
                  choose from a wider range of alternatives than non-adopters. Thi.s.does not seem to be
                  the case with the coastal respondents. Two-thirds of all respondents adopt some minimal
                  action but of the 159 common adopters only four perceived some uncommon alternative
                  which they did not act upon. The discrepancy between this study and the previous one
                  might arise from the classification employed, the sampling and interview techniques, or
                  may represent a genuine difference. The very high perception of hazard  by coastal dwellers
                  leads to a very high rate of adoption. of. alternatives. lf,th@ey are perceived,. they are acted
                  upon.

                            Robert W. Kates, Hazard and Choice Perception .       p 125.

                 586

                                                                      CHAPTER VI

                                                       THE HUMAN USE -.OF THE SHORE

                              The 1300 miles of outer shore studied in this report.provides                        recreation for
                   many of the,40 million inhabitants of Megalopolis. For thousands of them, it provides
                   home and livelihood.as well. Enough structures to house a city the size of Boston tine the
                   shore. Although protected by almost three hundred miles of engineering works, average
                   annual damages fromlidal flooding might be estimated conservatively at $25 million. @Vhat
                   appear to be the major trends in use of the shore and what is an appropriate strategy for
                   human occupance of this boundary between land and sea?

                   The Village Shore: Between Two Worlds

                              The village shore is an occupance type in transition between two very different
                   economies, one based on the food resources, the other based on the amenity resources,
                   of the sea. The former, despite the coloration lent by romantic nostalgia, is at best a
                   difficult livelihood, and the only sizable numbers of poor people found along the study shore
                   were at the village sites. Fishing was not the only source of income, and agriculture was
                   frequently found close to the village shore possibly attracted originally by the convenient
                   cutting of salt hay in.the tidal marshes. Today, the only sizable amount of agricultural
                   land encountered in the intensive study was along the village shore. (See table 6-1.)

                                                                       Table 6-1

                                               Land Use      by Occupance Type and Hazard Zone

                   Land Use                       Zone B: Tidal - 10 Feet                            Zone C: 10 Feet - 20 Feet
                                               Percent of Acreage Found in                          Percent of A@reage Found in'
                                               Village         Urban      Summer                    Village       Urban        Summer
                                                Shore          Shore        Shore                   Shore          Shore         Shore

                   Industrial                     0.5           3.9            1. 1                    0.0          16.4           0.0
                   Commercial                     1.4           1. 3           5.2                     1.8          13.4           6.6
                   Public                         0.5           3.9            4.5                     0.0            7.6          0.6
                   Recreation                     5..1          24.7         19.:2                     5. 5         10.5           S.7
                   Residential                   35.6           53.2         19.6                     27.6          37.4           37.9
                   Agriculture                    1.8           0.0            2.1                    11.6            0.0          4.4
                   Undeveloped                   55.1           13.0         48.2                     53.4          14.6          44.8

                   Tota 1                      100. 00       100. G.         99.9                     99.9     1    99.9     1   100.0

                                                                                                          587

                           The amenity resources attract a summer visitor who is different from the
                  permanent resident of the village, and with tastes and desires frequently alien to the host
                  community. Each of the four sites studied are in different stages of transition between a
                  food resource-based and amenity resource-based economy and they suggest varied
                  directions towards which the village shore might move. Sig-nificant findings for each site
                  are summarized in table 6-2.

                           In all except Chincoteague, fishing continues to decline to minor proportions, but
                  the degree that tourism flourishes varies. WeLlfleet appears most successful, a tasteful
                  transition preserves much of the favor of the original settlement and adds to the attraction
                  of the area, Vhlas represents another potential direction providing a low-cost site for
                  vacation or retirement. Point Judith suggests a major opportunity to use the valuable
                  small harbors of the village shore for small craft, with marina-type services and sport-
                  fishing replacing commercial fishing. A major growth opportunity is found on Chincoteague
                  especially if the road connecting the Maryland end of Assateague Island is built. Here the
                  community might strengthen its economy with the help of an outside infusion of capital and
                  tasteful direction.

                           The direction of the transition of the village shore is important for understanding
                  the nature of future damage potential. For in a rea[sense, the traditional village repre-
                  sents a long-term human adjustment to natura[ hazards: in the course of its evolution. Thus
                  the hazard potential of the village shore is quite moderate today, but it could change for
                  the worse if, in the course of transition to a recreational economy location decisions similar
                  to those made on the summer shore become common.                                               J

                  The Urban Shore: The Economics of Protection

                           The use of the urban shore differs markedly from the use of the village and
                  summer   shore (see table 6- 3). Almost all of the Land is built up and agriculture, of
                  course,  is nonexistent. Most of the industrial acreage, as expected, is found on the urban
                  shore.  Not ini-tially anticipated were the relatively large amounts of recreational land use
                  found on the shore in urban areas. This arises from. the formal character of urban redrea. tion,
                  usually set aside as public parks and beaches. The far more extensive recreation area on
                  the summer. shore may be in the form of commercial motels or, most commonly, private
                  beach residences.

                           Change in land use will come, in the main, from programs of renewal, both public
                  and private, and these opportunities for damage reduction should be vigorously pressed.
                  The substantial construction found on the urbanshore makes floodproofing and the use of
                  rigorous building codes for controlling new building and remodeling most feasible. But
                  the major outlook for substantial damage -abatement comes from the construction of pro-
                  tective works. Thus the problem of the urban shore is essentially one of dealing with the
                  economics of protection.

                                                                                                                                             C.n
                                                                                                                                             00
                                                                                                                                             00

                                                                   Table 6-2

                                                  Village Shore: Summary of Study Site Data

                                Past Growth         Relative            Pa- s _t    P e r c el@ti -on- Adoption
             Study Site              and             Storm             Storm            of          of Adjust-          Prognosis
                                Development       Frequency           Damage         Ha.zard         ments

             1. Pt. Judith      Slow growth of       High            Heavy          High            Wide range    Continued slow growth
                                recreation as                                                                     directed away from
                                fish and agri-                                                                    hazard area above 10-
                                culture decline.                                                                  foot contour.
             2. Wellfleet       Moderate growth      High            Moderate        Moderate       Few           Rapid growth expected
                                of recreation,                                                                    with development of
                                as fishing de-                                                                    National Seashore.
                                clines. Village                                                                   Large growth of
                                atmosphere                                                                        damage potential
                                persists.                                                                         unlikely.
             3. Villas          Steady growth        Low             Low             Low            Few           Continued slow growth
                                of recreation,                                                                    by marshland recla-
                                as fishing                                                                        mation. No rapid rise
                                dec lines.                                                                        in damage potential.
             4. Chincoteague    Slow growth of       Low             Heavy          Moderate        Moderate      Rapid growth possible
                                recreation, as                                                      range         at uncertain future
                                fishing remains                                                                   date. Big increase in
                                important.                                                                        damage potential also
                                                                                                                  possible.

                                                                                                             589

                                                           Table 6-2

                                          Urban Shore: Summary of Study* Site Data

                                                       Past. Growth               Relative          Past
                        Study Site                         and                     Storm            Storm
                                                       Devetopment-             Frequency'         Damage
                     S. Lynn-Nahant              Steady intensification of        Moderate           Low
                                                 densely developed urban
                                                 shore.

                     6.   Fairfield              Slow growth of urban             Moderate          Heavy
                                                 residential property.

                                                Perception of    Adoption of
                         Study'Site                 @Hazard      Adjustments             Prognosis

                     5.  Lynn- Nahant,               Low.         Moaerate      Change contingent upon
                                                                                urban renewal projects.
                                                                                Further increase in
                                                                                damage potential unlikely.
                     6.   Fairfield                  Low          Moderate      Public protection rejected.
                                                                                Slow increase of damage
                                                                                potential.

                            However, the economic's of protection need to be pursued further than the question
                  presently asked by the Corps -- namely, do the benefits exceed the costs? The apparent
                  emphasis on building for the standard , project hurricane does not insure an economic
                  optimum, although:it does lead to the construction of substantial engineering structures.
                  Moreover, all along the study shore there is substantial opposition to recommended works. 4-

                           Much of this disquietude arises from the suspicion that present benefit-cost
                  analysis does not weight sufficiently the loss of benefits arising from destruction of amenity
                  values, changing the ecology of esturine waters, increasing the problems of small-boat
                  navigation, and the like., Until such time as field-levet economic analysis appears more
                  able or ready to cope'with these external effects of engineering structures, one powerful
                  instrument for improved decision-making may simply be local willingness to participate
                  in sharing the substantial expenditures.

                             The attitudes discussed in Chapter IV are symptomatic of this, as is the more
                  recent opposition voiced against the hurricane barrier at Narragansett Bay and the proposed
                  protection for the North Shore of Long Island.

            590

                      The urban shore by definition is built-up, reflecting substantial fixed investment.
             The opportunities for reducing damage would seem to lie in the use of a broad range of
             alternatives,. subjected to a stringent analysis that recognizes the many negative effects
             of artificial control of the shore, and that insures local public concern by requiring large
             financial commitments from local interests.

             Summer Shore@ The Amenities of Sun, Sand, and Sea

                      The summer shore is the dominant form of occupance on the shores of Megalopolis.
             The future development of the summer shores is relatively simple to forecast. Except
             for areas earmarked for preservation by public action, the summer shore will cover all
             the barrier bars with a thin line of closely spaced housing, wilt fill much of the tidal
             marshes with niarina- type -subdivision,. and will dot the bluffs with dispersed housing.
             For part of the New Jersey shore this barrier bar and bluff development is completed or
             even going through cycles of renewal, and subdivision of the lagoons is being vigorously
             pressed. As one goes south, or north, extensive areas of development are still available
             and this is reflected in the forecast for an increase in damage potential for five of the
             eight summer shore sites summarized in table 6-4. . The disturbing aspects of this
             prognosis are underlined by the findings, in Chapter III, of the high vulnerability to storm
             hazard of the northern and southern margins of the study shore.

                      The summer shore poses a unique challenge to resource management. The major
             value of the summer shore is adjacency to the natural attractions of sun, sand, and sea.
             But the very desire for adjacency to the shore also makes conventional protection costly
             and impractical. Only one of the seventeen Interim Hurricane Studies recommended
             protection for a barrier bar area of the summer shore. Hazard reduction must come
             primarily from the rionstructural adjustments or from stiffening the natural defenses of
             beach and dune. A second challenge to resource management results from the present dis-
             tribution of access to the amenities of sand and sea. Should thepleasures of the summer
             shore be reserved for the farsighted or the fortunate or should public policy consciously
             strive for a more equitable distribution of access to these amenities?

             The Empty Shore: The Wilderness Preserve of Megalopolis

                      Part of the empty shore is in one sense the wilderness analogue of western
             America. Here, on the very shores of the most intense urban development in the world,
             elementary natural processes of birth, death,and renewal take place undisturbed by man
             with each return of the tide, change of the season, shift in climate, or passage of geologic
             time.

                      Of the four major opportunities for preservation of the empty shore foreseen by
             the National Park Service in 1955, three (or their equivalent) have been or will be shortly
                                                                                                      1
             ,realized in the form of Cape Cod,. Fire Island, and Assateague Island National Seashores'.

                        These were the'Great Beach, Mass., Shinnecock Inlet and Fire Island, New York,
             and Parramore Island, Virginia. National Park Service, Seashore Recreation Area Survey,
             Washington,, 1955.

                                                                        Table 6-4

                                                 Summer Shore: Summary of Study Site. Data
                                      Past Growth           Relative        Past        Perception     Adoption
                 Study Site               'and               Storm         Storm            -of        of Adjust-              Progno-sis
                                      Development          Frequency      Damage           Hazard        ments
                 7. Hamptou        Rapid_growth of            High        Moderate          Low       -Moderate     Further expansion into
                    Beach          residential                                                                      marshland areas probable,
                                   property.                                                                        with associated growth of
                                                                                                                    damage potential.
                 8. Montauk        Slow growth of          Moderate         Low         Moderate         Few        Rapid growth possible at
                                   recreation                                                                       uncertain future time. Big
                                                                                                                    increase in damage po-
                                                                                                                    tential unlikely._
                 9. Sandy Hook     Moderate rate of        Moderate         Heavy           High      Wide range    Further growth limited to
                                   growth in past 20                                                                intensification of'develop-
                                   years, now fully                                                                 ment. Rapid increase in
                                   developed.                                                                       damage potential unlikely.
               10.  Cape May       Steady growth by-          Low           Heavy       Moderate      Moderate      Change contingent upon
                                   intensification of                                                               urban renewal projects.
                                   existing develop-                                                                Rapid increase of damage
                                   ment.                                                                            potential unlikely.
               11.  Wildwood       Rapid growth of            Low         Moderate          Low           Few       Continued rapid develop-
                    Crest          recreation and as-                                                               ment and growth of damage
                                   sociated commer-,                                                                potential.
                                   dial development
               12. Dennis          Very rapid growth         High         Moderate      Moderate          Few       Continued rapid growth and
                                   of recreation and                                                                creation of new damage
                                   summer residen-                                                                  potential.
                                   tial property.
               13. Nags Head       Rapid growth of          Moderate        Heavy_          High      Wide range    Continued rapid growth and
                                   recreation and                                                                   creation of new damage
                                   summer residen-                                                                  potentia 1.
                                   tial property.
               14. Bethany         Rapid growth of             Low          Heavy       Moderate      Wide range    Continued rapid growth and
                    Beach          recreation and                                                                   creation of new damage
                                   summer residential                                                               potential.
                                   property.

            592

             (See table 6-5.) But much empty shore remains. The estimate made earlier in this
             report was that only 21 percent of. the. shore frontage had been developed by 1960. The
             challenge is to perserve and to make accessible many of the smalLer, less 'grandiose sections
             of empty shore, which by default might pass into summer shore precisely when society is
             showing a clear and high valuation for nondevelopment or. limited development in -the poLiti-
             caL marketpLace.1

                                                    Table 6-5

                                    Empty Shore: Summary of Study Site Data

                                                  Past Growth             Relative         Past
                 Study Site                           and                   Storm          Storm
                                                   Development            Frequency       Damage
               15. Assateague            Wildlife refuge partly convert-     Low            Low
                                         ed to recreation area

                                          Perception of Adoption of
                 S.tudySite                . Hazard      Adjustments             Prognosis
               15. Assateague            No residents    Not applicable To be preserved as.open
                                                                        space b.ut increased recrea-
                                                                        tional use Likely.,

             Process, People, and Policy: A Strategy for Human Use of the Shore

                      The shores of Megalopolis provide the meeting ground for two major systems
             man and nature. The former is characterized by processes and patterns of economic
             activity, urbanization, and civilization, on scales unparalLeled in human history. The latter,
             involves the complex interaction of the oceans of air and water upon the land. Meeting at
             the shore, these systems create unique forms of settlement, opportunities for respite and
             relaxation and increasingly important but still peripheral, economic values. An under-
             standing of the processes of the major systems and their relation to the people of the shore,
             seems fundamental to any prescriptions for policy.

                       Process.  The authors sense that the boundary of Land, sea, and water ispot
             merely, the joining of three sub-systems but an important research frontier as well.,

                      1,
                        For example, in contrast to opposition to the hurricane barrier, Rhode Island
             residents voted 2 to 1 for the expenditure of $5 million dollars to:develop seven new state
             parks,'fbur of them on the shores!of Narragansett Bay. Personal communication from
             Lewis M. Alexander, -December 22, 19,64.

                                                                                                               593

                   .Everywhere this study turned, evidence of human ignorance of the system was uncovered,
                   much af it painfully revealed in errors of yesteryear. At the same time, there is con@
                   siderable evidence of increased appreciation of the complexity of the natural processes at
                   work on the shore. . Effort and energy commensurate with both the problem and the
                   opportunities for knowledge are forthcoming.

                            The study of natural process per se has not been the task of this study; rather the
                   interrelation between the natural and human systems. In that light, it seems. to the authors
                   that there are four critical gaps in our knowLedge of natural process that directly affect a
                   strategy for use of the shore:

                            1.  Knowledge of the transport of material along the shore is a most pressing
                                need. Where does the sand come from and where is it going? Inadequate
                                knowledge of this sort is evidenced by the faiture of some protective works,
                                the unexpected adverse effects from others, and the costLy maintenance,
                                beach nourishment, dredging, and artificial transport required in many of
                                the successful efforts. It would seem desirable to construct materiel
                                balances, inflows and outflows, for the entire shore.

                            2.  A second pressing question. is related to the dramatic increase in damaging
                                storms discussed in the chapter on climatology. Rational use of the shore
                                requires reasonable estimates of the probability of inundation and such
                                estimates are not availabLe. Moreover, frequency estimation of climatological
                                phenomena involves a basic assumption of the essential stability of the under-
                                lying climatic conditions, an assumption requiring further investigation since
                                there is present evidence of an increase and intensification   of storm systems.

                            3.  A third area,:@. and one that will! increase, int, importance. deals with the tidaL
                                marshes. The effects of filling of marshes need further study, both in
                                relation to marsh ecoLogy and to the movement of materiaL in and out of the
                                estuary and its effect on shellfish and fish life in the estuary. A most press-
                                ing need is for a scientific base for setting elevations and conditions to be met
                                in permitting marsh filting.

                            4.  Finally, further study of the impact of surges on the shore, the effect of
                                differential topography on run-up, and the stability of dune forms subject to
                                repeated inundation is required. One goal of such study should be relatively
                                simple methods of routing surges overland in order to.assist in understanding
                                the amount and frequency of hazard.

                            Despite th e shortcomings of knowledge of natural processes, the natural system
                   is more regular than the system of spatial interaction that has fostered the development of
                   the shore. However, the broad outlines of the human system are cLear and can be described.
                   The initial advantage of coastal location is manifest , today in the great port cities on the
                   shores of Megalopolis. The nineteenth century saw a decline in many of the smaller, viable
                   settlements found on the outer shore, a decline marked by the exhaustion of marine
                   resources and the need of the marine industry for larger harbors. The remnants of these

            594

             communities are found today in the village shore. Concurrent with the decline of a
             coastal-based economy has been the rise of recreational activity along the shore. Recrea-
             tion fosters new forms of settlement along the shore and patterns of recreational occupance
             seem to follow rules different from the more work-oriented activity,

                      Trends relevant to this recreational growth can be briefly summarized. Recrea-
             tion activities are growing faster than population and increases in income. Growth rates
             of development of the shore and the coastal counties exceeds the rate of Megalopolitan
             growth and the highest rates (although still the lowest densities of development) are found
             in the zones of highest hazard. Associated with recreational development that places a
             very high premium on adjacency to water are two land-using practices that exacerbate
             natural hazard; inadequate filling of tidal marshes, and the leveling of sand dunes. Thus,
             unchecked, the rate of growth of recreational activity and the land use practices encouraged
             in private recreational development sets in motion a process leading to growth in damage
             potential- considerably higher than the general growth of the nation and its economy.

                      People.  The process of recreational development of the shore presented in the
             foregoing skei-ch has consequences for the character and attitudes of the shore population.
             There are in fact two populations reflected in the transition of the -village shore: a popuLa-
             tion of fishermen, seasonal workers, and older persons, with incomes considerably below

                        A major attempt was made to develop empirical relations between the amount
             and growth of development along the study shore as a function of a set of independent
             variables representing natural conditions, historical development, regional growth,
             accessibility, and public use using a step-wise multiple regression approach. The density
             and proportion of frontage developed, as well as the growth or decline between 1940-60 and
             1950-60, for the sixty-five sample areas were compared with a set of appropriate variables
             drawn from the following list- 1940 structures per acre, 1940 ocean frontage developed,
            -water'temperature, presence of developable sand beach, storms 1935-64, density of
             dwelling units in county, growth or decline of dwelling units in county, distance to town of
             50, 000 population or greater, and distance of town of 1, 000, 000 population or greater.
             That the findings were essentially negative, except for the expected relationship that highly
             developed places stayed developed, reflects in part the special nature of recreational land
             use.

                      For example in a yet unfinished dissertation study by Richard Hecock of beach
             use on Cape Cod, there is ample evidence that people do not tend to minimize their travel
             distance to the shore. On the other hand, once located on the shore, the friction of distance
             is very high and they tend to go to beaches located nearby. This same trend was observed
             in the five hundred beach user interviews made as part of this study. One explanation is that
             recreational travel has its own pleasurable value, evidenced by the Large amount of pleasure
             driving. But whatever the explanation, it is obvious that the process of growth and develop-
             ment of shore communities is not to be explained by simple indicators of accessibility or
             natural conditions.

                                                                                                                 595

                   the average --'and a@m_uth target  ,group of summ'er, p-e ,o,pfe with"- education' 'and incomes'.
                   con.,@id:erably higher than.the population at large.

                             For both groups it has been shown that their adjacency to the sea has Led to a
                   relatively high perception of the risks of Locating along the shore: knowledge of storms was
                   universal and knowledge of the highest tides of record was impressive. There is also a
                   high acceptance of hazard. ..For the first group it arises out of their long fannitiarity with
                   the sea, and in a.sense their adjustment to it. For the summer visitor it seems to arise
                   in part from his seasonal use of the shore, and in part from the Luxury aspects of
                   recreational consumption. The view and proximity of the. shore is desired; if nature is to
                   add on a surcharge, that is part of the price to be paid. With the acceptance of the hazard
                   is also evidenced a willingness to reduce it or ameliorate it, but not to the point that the
                   values of sun, sea, and sand are substantially diminished.

                             Policy. There are numerous policy implications raised by the findings of this
                   study. . Several proposals ref lect the@'personal views of the authors that arise from their
                   concern with problems of natural hazard and the use of the shore. In this sectioftP@" a set
                   of implications and, in some cases, frank prescriptions for public policy are made under
                   three levels of government: federal, state, and local community. To place thes        e in
                   proper perspective it is appropriate to begin by summarizing some of the personal views
                   of the authors as to the elements in a strategy for the human use of the shore.

                             The proper.use of the shore.,: The shore has a unique -character and servesa
                   special function for the population of Megalopolis. In both its natural state, and developed
                   for recreation, the shore provides opportunities for Leisure and refreshment for which
                   there. are no alternatives within easy reach of the region. The provision for a wide
                   variety of shore recreational activities is a proper use of the shore and should be assisted
                   by public policies.

                             At the same time,  there are still many and varied uses of the shore not directly
                   connected with recreation.    A useful classification of the uses of the shore might be the
                   following:

                             1.  Coast   based.   These are industrial,   commercial, or recreational enter-
                                 prises that require direct access to the shore (e. g. in the form of docks,
                                 pump houses, etc.) or to the shore-using public (e.g. in the form of bath
                                 houses, marinas, etc.).

                             2.  Coast-oriented. These are enterprises or residences found along the coast
                                 because their products or.services are related to the use of the shore. These
                                 include motels catering to recreationists, -stores.selling beach apparel, or
                                 fish-packing plants.

                             3.  Footloose.    These are enterprises or residences for which coastal location
                                 is coincidental to their major purpose.

             596

                       Within the framework -of this classification, it would appear proper for only coast-
              based structures to be found in high hazard zones. Coast-oriented structures are properly
              located near the shore but need not be in hazard areas, and for footloose structures,
              coastal location may even represent some misallocation of resources.

                      . The proper set of adjustments.    There is no best adjustment to storm hazard,
              but in general some combination of the range of adjustments available can provide opportu-
              nities to society to use the shore at lowest cost. Thus proper policies are those that move
              towards a wider consideration of adjustments.

                       As there is no best adjustment in general, neither is there a favored toot of
              coastal engineering. The physical features of the shore are too varied to reject out-of-
              hand any type of protective works. But clearly those defenses against the sea that are in
              harmony with natural processes have greater chances of success and are likely to be Low
              cost solutions to problems in the long run.

                       The proper role of government.     With the exception of a few villages inhabited
              by retired couples or *-impoverished fishermen, coastal users are well educated and we[[-to-
              do.  They have come to the shore to share the constant attractions found at the interface of
              .land and sea or to serve and profit by those who are so attracted. They are by and large,
              knowing and we[[-informed about the broad outlines of the hazard they face, and as to the
              details, the scientific-technicaL community is not much better off, A high proportion of
              coastal dwellers adopt minimal actions to reduce their hazard, but have chosen, on
              occasion, constant or even greater Levels of hazard rather than reduce their seaward
              amenities. In such a situation it is only by a vast extension of the concept of the welfare
              state that it would appear to be a function of the Federal government to protect private
              property along the coast.

                       Conversely, it would seem to be the very proper function of government to dis-
              courage the increase in hazard potential due to ignorance and lack of knowledge or when
              the increase in hazard potential will cause harm to others and encourage irrational demands
              on public agencies.

              Federal Policy Implications

                       Since 1955, the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of Federal programs for
              reducing coastal storm damage appear to be increasing. Substantial areas of empty shore
              have been preserved. New opportunities for storm damage reduction through purchase of
              recreational land will become possible with Federal grants to the states under the Land and
              Water Conservation Act. The warning system, especially as related to tropical disturb-
              ances, appears to @be considerably improved. A more knowledgeable and thoughtful
              appraisal of protective works has emerged from the research of the Corps of Engineers
              with major future emphasis on the conservation of sand and the maintenance of the natural
              defenses of beach and dune. Interim Hurricane Survey Reports reflect the beginnings of a
              comprehensive approach to storm-damage reduction, although a disturbing dichotomy
              between protective works and alternative adjustments still persists.

                                                                                                           597

                           In contrast with the improvement of@ Federal effort, each new crisis of damage
                  brings new pressures for an increase in commitment to protect the users of the shore.
                  Such pressures, fed both by the -intensification d use of the shore and the appareD.t short
                  term increase in damage-producing storms, will increh    *se, It thus seems important to
                  continue with damage reduction programs and create, as well, a climate whereby storm
                  damage might be placed in proper perspective. To this end, the following suggestions
                  are offered.

                           Information and research program.s. No other,,@ level, of government has the
                  capability for disseminating accurate information and for, undeftaking or encouraging
                  needed research than the Federal agencies with shore- oriented. missions. In this respect,
                  while part of the critical research needs no-ced in a previous section might be carried out
                  within the internal capability of these agencies, other aspects will require the use of
                  competent investigators wherever they rnay be found. . It would also be a, wasteful procedure
                  to neglect wide dissemination of information, much of it already in the files of the Corps
                  of. Engineers,. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Geological Survey, and Weather Bureau but not
                  in proper form for use by lay people.

                           Specifically, the information collected fox, the Interim Hurricane Surveys should
                  not require much additional x@ork to be developed into floodplain information reports
                  similar to those issued under Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960. . It would seem
                  logical to request of Congress funds for that purpose as be ing.in the spirit if riot the letter
                  of P. L. 71. A, requirement that coastal communities must apply for such information
                  would seem self-defeating. It is precisely in those communities where present develop-
                  ment is limited, but the possible increase in damage potential is considerable, that local
                  goverliment is weak and vacillating and unlikely to make formal requests for information.

                           Comprehensive dAmage-reduction programs. To improve the process of choice
                  of alternatives, several improvements ia the delineation and evaluation of alternatives
                  seem possible.

                           The first required action is to make loss-bearing respectable. Loss bearing is
                  and will continue to be a minimum cost solution for the use of the shore in many areas.
                  Although this is implicitly recognized, it is seldom explicitly set forth. But there is much
                  to gain through encouraging public understanding that bearing tosses is a legitimate way
                  to pay nature's rent for use of the shore, It is neither a confession of engineering in-
                  competence nor a failure of public responsibility to make clear thatfor much of the barrier-
                  bar portion of the summer shore, continued loss bearing by private individuals may be the
                  cheapest way they and society can obtain the use of the shore.

                           Secondly, a comprehensive damage reduction program should not have favored
                  solutions. The present predilection for constructing protective works, -and where
                  feasible to the level of the standard project hurricane, leads to an unfortunate choice
                  situation. In all of the eight hurricane reports reviewed m- aking. favorable recommenda-
                  tions for protective structures, other alternatives tend. to.be dealt @with in denigrating terms.
                 .But there is no guarantee that, even if structures built to maximum height are desirable,
                  they will be acceptable to the communities concerned. Thus, communities seem to be

            598

             offered only two choices, build the protective works or bear losses, where in actuality a
             variety of damage reduction programs exist.

                      Third, the planning for protection should be in accord with natural processes
             where possible, much as river basins have become standard in water resource develop-
             ment. Unfortunately for the shore, the Corps recognizes this and district office respons-
             ibility generally follows watershed boundaries. These watershed boundaries are not in
             accord with the critical lateral movement of materials along the shore. This is shown in
             figure 6- 1. Table 6-6 that accompanies the figure suggests a set of natural regions for
             planning shore protection and preservation. It is not known whether the district adminis-
             trative boundaries contributed to the fragmented protection process that characterizes much
             earlier planning, but adoption of more comprehensive planning regions seems advisable.

                                                  Table 6-6

                               Suggested Natural Regions for Coastal Engineering

             1. New England - A complex area with currents from several directions but pre-
                               dominateiy from north to south. All headlands are source regions.

             2.  Long Island Sound      Characterized by an internal circular current system.

             3. South shore of Long Island      Wave erosion takes place at Montauk Point. Main
                               current moves from east to west.

             4. New Jersey - Wave erosion takes place from Atlantic Highlands to Asbury Park.
                               Small current moves material north to Sandy Hook. Main current
                               moves material south.

             5.  Delmarva Peninsula - Wave erosion takes place between Rehoboth Beach and
                               Bethany Beach. Small current moves material north toward Cape
                               Henlopen. Main current moves material south.

             6. North shore of Cape Hatteras - Source area near Virginia Beach. Small current
                               moves material north toward Cape Henry. Main current moves
                               material south toward Cape Hatteras.

             7. South shore of Cape Hatteras - Bulk of the material moves north from source
                               region in South Carot.ina and Georgia.

             Source for ocean currents - Dean F. Bumpus and Louis M. Lauzier, Serial Atlas of the
             Marine Environment, Folio 7, American Geographical Society, 1965.

                                                                                                                               me.
                                                                                                   (V t.            N. H.

                                                                                                              Mass.
                                                                                            /L                      F
                                                                                 N. Y.                 Conn.         R.I.

                                                             Pa.
                                                                              N J.                         3

                                                                                         4
                                               Md.

                                                                                         P`R ESENT -CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                                                                                            DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND
                                                                                           SUGGESTED NATURAL REGIONS
                                                                          5                  FOR COASTAL ENGINEERING

                                              Va.

                                                                                                                Legend

                                                                                                                Study Shore
                                                                                                                Corps of Engineers
                                                                                                                District Boundarie3
                                                                                                                Suggested Natural
                                                                                                                Regions for Coastal
                                                                                                                Engineering
                                          N. C.                                                                 Predominant Currents

                                                                                                      Figure        6-1

                                                                                                                599

                            'Public access to the shore.   Fortunately, the public goals of increased opportuni-
                   ties for recreation and the reduction of damage potential are generally harmonious. Much
                   more work needs to be done in developing program.s that combine damage reduction and
                   increased recreation especially through purchase of land. Much of this is more appropriate
                   at other levels of government, but Federal encouragement financially and otherwise is needed.
                   In connection with the relation between public recreation and damage reduction, peripheral
                   observations made by the field parties in the course of study are relevant.

                            Everywhere, and in many guises, the public right of access to publicly owned
                   shore is abrogated by private or excessively parochial local governments. In a few
                   instances, this takes the form of actual misuse of the land but more often it is a de -facto
                   appropriation by a variety of devices including the following:   failure to inform of rights
                   of access, erection,of, trespassing orprivate property signs., closing of streets or paths
                   to be the beach, failure to provide passage across sea walls,    or prohibitions on traffic
                   and parking.

                            The provision for open public use is a clear requirement for FederaL.      Participation
                   in many protection and preservation projects. Provisions should be made for the inspection
                   to insure the maintenance of these rights and Congress should provide funds to -use pro-
                   jection projects as a [ever to extend public access to the -shore. At a minimum, signs
                   should be posted informing the public of their rights to open use, when such rights are
                   not self-evident.

                   State Policy Implications

                            In reviewing the entire gamut of actions that might be taken to reduce storm
                   damages, it appears that the major opportunities lie with the respective coastal states
                   and for the most part, these have been sadly neglected. The states have reserved
                   to themselves a wide variety of police powers. Each has distinctive laws and even
                   traditions relevant to the use of the shore which makes Federal legislation, even where
                   proper, somewhat complicated. And the states have a vigor and financial base not often
                   found in most.small shore front communities. A proper state program, blending reguLa-
                   tion, financial encouragement, and planning assistance can be a most effective approach to
                   reducing tidal flood damage.

                            All the coastal states have some program aimed at damage. reduction. Almost
                   all provide matching funds to local communities for protection. Many have ambitious pro-
                   grams for purchase of open space that may be artfully employed to reduce damage potential.
                   And at least two have attempted to assess the elements of a comprehensive damage reduc-
                   tion program. But there seem to be three neglected areas of improvement.

                            Planning assistance.    All the states in the coastal region has provisions for
                   planning assistance in local communities and some on the state level.as welt. Some states
                   employ personnel to work with communities directly, others merely act as certifying agents
                   for contracts with private consultants. Table 6-7 presents the general status of relevant

                                                                                                                                                   C)
                                                                                                                                                   CD
                                                                      Table 6-7

                                          Summary of Selected State Planning Activities and Legislation
                                                  for State Planning and Local Land Use Controls

                                            State       State has    State Plan-       State         State has local       State has local
                                            has          agency      ning Agency      provides          zoning           subdivision control
                                            State        actively   is concerned        local           enabling               enabling
                                          planning     concerned     with flood       planning         legislation?            legislation?
                                        legislation?  with over-        damage     assistance?
                                                        all State    prevention?.                    For        For         For        For
                                                       planning?                                     Cities Counties     Cities     Counties
                                         Yes   No     Yes      No     Yes No        Yes     No    Yes    No Yes No       Yes No     Yes    No

             Connecticut                                                              0            0                     0
             Delaware                                                                                           0              0      0
             Maryland                     0                                   0       0            0            40       0                 0
             Massachusetts                0                                   0       0            0                0    0                 0
             New Hampshire                0                    0              0       0            0                0    0                 0
             New Jersey                   0                                           0                             0    0                 0
             New York                     0.                                  0                    0                0    0                 0
             North Carolina               0                                   0                    0           .0        0                 0
             Rhode1sland                  0             0                             0            0           0         0            9
             Virginia                    .0                                                                                           41

             Legend:    0 certain classes of cities or counties; 0 no provision for county regulations        but boroughs (Alaska),
                        parishes (Louisiana), or towns (Connecticut and Rhode Island) may adopt regulations.
             Source:  H. F. Morse, Role of the States -in Guiding Land Use in Flood Plains, p. 27.

                                                                                                                          601

                    planning programs in the coastal states. Tennessee has the most extensive program of
                    planning assistance to communities for reducing riverine flood damage programs and their
                    actions might provide a model for other coastal states.

                               Regulation.    Three types of regulations seem suited for adoption on the state Level.
                    These should be regulations to control the filling of marshland, preservation of dunes, and
                    provision within the state building codes for hurricane- resistant construction and minimum
                    elevations in coastal areas. North Carolina, which has adopted state legislation to protect
                    the Outer Banks, leaves enforcement to the local communities. However, all three areas;
                    marshLand filling, dune preservation, and specialized building codes require services for
                    enforcement usually not found on the locaL government leveL. The widespread use and
                    acceptance of a state fire marshal might be duplicated in this need for specialized service.

                               Public access of the shore. The ownership of tidelands varies from state to state.
                    (See table 6-8.) In six coastal     states tideLands are held in public ownership from the mean

                                                                  Table 6-8

                                           Tidelands   Ownership and Access, Coastal States

                                      Upland Boundary
                                           of State                  Extent of Use              Rights of Upland Owner
                        State             Ownership
                                                                                                                Accretion
                                        High        Low                              Slight     Prior claim          and
                                       water      water    Extensiv Moderate or none           of purchase     reclamation
                  Conneticut              X         ....      (1/)        (1/)        ....          ....             X
                  Delaware                X                    X          ....        ....                           X
                  Maryland              ....                                           X            ....           ....
                  Massachusetts                       X                     X                       ....           ....
                  New Hampshire         ....          X        X          ....        ....                           X
                  New Jersey              X         ....       X          ....                       X
                  New York                X         ....       ....                    X             X             ....
                  North Carolina          X         ....       ....         X
                  Rhode Island            X         ....       X          ....        ....          ....
                  Virginia'                           X                                X

                    1/ Not available.
                  �o-urce: Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States, ORRRC Report No.                   4, p. 20

                               1 A comprehensive guide for state activity is found in H. F. Morse             Role of the
                    States in Guiding Land Use in Flood Plains, Georgia Inst. of Tech. Eng. Exp. Station
                    Report 38 (Atlanta, 1962) and its accompanying bibliography.

             602

              high water line to the sea. In these states, vigorous programs for access could provide
              almost the entire shore in public trust. Experimentation might be made with programs to
              purchase narrow strips of land paralleling the shore. Such a strip, possibly ten yards wide,
              does not have to interfere seriously with private property rights, and yet it @ould provide
              both public access to the shore and an extended buffer area that could be prepared to absorb
              the energy of a storm surge. In all states there are a considerable number of small pockets
              of empty shore. Imaginative use of funds provided by the HHFA open space program and
              the Land and Water Conservation Act might preserve and make accessible these parcels.

              Local Government Policy Implications

                       Many of the foregoing policy suggestions may be applicable on the level of local
              government as well as higher levels. There is some evidence of the desire of many
              communities for a stable, orderly pattern of development. But of all the actions best
              suited to local implementation, it has long been the consensus that zoning is most properly
              done on a local, and occasionally, regional basis.

                       As demonstrated many times in this study, natural conditions, hazard, settlement,
              and economy all vary tremendously even within short distances. Three very different
              communities were found adjacent to each other and studied intensively for that reason:
              Cape May, Wildwood Crest, and Villas in New Jersey. Regulation of land use by zoning
              ordinance or subdivision regulation should differ in each community. Yet there are two
              classifications suggested in this study that can provide a general framework for zoning
              legislation, the details of which might differ from place to place. Such a framework is
              offered in table 6-9.

                                                      Table 6-9

                             A Framework for Zoning for Tidal Flood Damage Reduction

                       Hazard Zones                              Functional Uses
                                                Coast-Based       Coast-Oriented         Footloose

                       Prohibitive                    x

                       Restrictive                    x                  x              Low damage
                                                                                          use only
                       Warning                        x                  x                   x

                       x = Use permitted

                       In Chapter IV, three types of hazard zones were suggested for the shore based on
              experience in riverine flood plains: a prohibitive zone, a restricted zone, and a warning

                                                                                                           603

                   zone. These may be illustrated in a sample application using local elevations resulting
                   from a model hurricane zoning regulation suggested for use in Rhode Island.

                            1.  Prohibitive zone., For shores of southerly exposure all the area within
                                300 feet of the tide, below 20 feet mst, would fall within this zone. Only
                                coast-based uses would be permitted.

                            2.  Restrictive zone.   AIL the area beyond 300 feet of the tide and above an
                                elevation of 10 feet mst falls within the restrictive zone. ALI coast-based
                                structures and coast-oriented structures are permitted. Footloose uses
                                are discouraged but permitted if damageable property is minimal. All
                                other footloose structures are not permitted.

                            3.  Warning zone. -This zone is all land not in the other two zones below
                                15 feet or the elevation of the*standard project hurricane, whichever'is
                                higher. There areno restrictions in this zone. It is advisory only, and
                                users are informed when they make application for building permits.

                            Several innovations might be used to introduce greater flexibility. Structures
                   with deep pile foundations and surge-resistant anchorage might be permitted in a zone in
                   which it is normally restricted by raising the critical elevation (usually the first floor) to
                   the level of a permitted zone. Thus a properly bui It beach house might be permitted in
                   the prohibitive zone if its first floor elevation exceeded 10 feet.

                            A community might want to permit for recreational purposes cheap cottage-type
                   construction. Without compromising the basic zoning ordinance, two classes of structures
                   might be created. These are permanent, to which the general ordinance applies, and
                   temporary. or expendable.-, Permits. would be granted for this type of building even in
                   hazard areas, provided: 1) the structures were occupied within prescribed seasons, 2) the
                   owner acknowledged that the structure was subject to damage, 3) assumes responsibility
                   for removal of debris in case of severe damage, and 4) agrees not to rebuild if severely
                   damaged. This provision is designed to allow for recreational use within reach of Lower
                   income groups provided that undue burdens are not placed on the towns when severe storms
                   arise.

                            This suggested framework seems to be within reach of any community, even those
                   that are unable to provide maps with sufficient detail to delimit these zones. They can be
                   stated in elevation with the burden on the would-be builder to demonstrate conformance.
                   Maps of course are desirable, but for small communities without sufficient resources
                   prompt action can still be taken.

                            Finally, the framework for zoning would appear to be legally sound. Although this
                   is but a layman's judgment, it does embody what appears to the authors as the essence of a
                   strategy for the human use of the shore: an acknowledgment of the awesome power of the
                   ocean and a recognition of the age-old human need to come to the edge of the sea.

                              Rhode Island Development Council, op cit. , p. VIII-3.

                                            PUBLICATIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY
                                                        (continued)
                VOLUME XIII        --    1960
                   No. 1    ..Site Evaluations for Nuclear Reactors, by C. W. Thornthwaite, J. R. Mather,
                            -and F. K. Davis, Jr.
                   No. 2    Annotated Bibliography on Precipitation Chemistry, by John R. Mather
                   No. 3    Equation and Table for Determination of the Wave of Leaching in the Soil,
                            by C. W. Thornthwaite and. Sally Thornthwaite

                VOLUME      XIV    --    1961
                   No. I    The Measurement of Vertical Winds and Momentum Flux, by       C. W. Thornthwaite,
                            W. J. Superior, J. R. Mather, and F. K. Hare
                   No. 2    Vertical Winds Near the Ground at.Centerton,.,N.J. , by C. W. 'fbornthwaite,
                            W. J. Superior, and J. R. Mather
                   No. 3    The Climatic Water Balance, by John R. Mather; Instructions for Use of the
                            IBM 602A Calculator for Daily Soil Moisture Accounting, by Ray F. Pengra;
                            Manual for Use of the IBM 650 Calculator for Computing Potential Evapo-
                            transpiration and the Water Balance, by Howard H. Engelbrecht

                VOLUME      XV           1962
                   No. 1    The Climatic and Hydrologic Factors Affecting the Redistribution of Strontium
                            in Soils, by J. R. Mather and J. K. Nakamura
                   No. 2    Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part I. Africa
                   No. 3    Evaluation of an Ocean Tower for the Study of Climatic Fluxes,
                            by C. W. Thornthwaite, W   J. Superior, and R. T. Field

                VOLUME      XVI          1963
                   No. I    Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part II. Asia
                            (Excluding U. S. S. R.)
                   No. 2    Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part III. U.S.S.R.
                   No. 3    Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part IV Australia,
                            .New Zealand, and Oceania
                   No. 4    Water Purification by Natural Filtration, by J. R. Mather and D. M. Parmelee

                VOLUME      XVII - -     1964
                   No. I    Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part V. Europe
                   No.      Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part VI. North
                            America (Excluding United States)
                   No. 3    Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part VII. United States
                   No. 4    Study of Climatic Fluxes Over an Ocean Surface, by Richard T. Field and
                            Wi I liam J. Superior

                VOLUME      XVIII        1965
                   No. I    Recent Developments in Meteorological Sensors and Measuring Techniques to
                            150, 000 Feet, Part I Analysis; Part 2 Bibliography, edited by John R. Mather
                   No. 2    Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part VIII. South
                            America
                   No. 3    The Shores of Megalopolis: Coastal Occupance and Human Adjustment to Flood
                            Hazard, by Ian Burton, Robert W. Kates, John R. Mather and Rodman E. Snead

                                                                                                    Lim I r- Ljur-

                                                                                 GAYLORD No. 2333                                 PRIVTED IN U S k

                                                                                                       3 6668 14106 5500