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






                  Coastal Hazard Management Plan


                         New Jersey's Shoreline Future
                             Preparing for Tomorrow






14-                                  Prepared By:


                                  Dr. Norbert P. Psuty


Z                   Daniel Collins               Janice McDonnell
                   Michael DeLuca                 Douglas Ofiara
V)                  Michele Grace                 Michael Padula
 @L                 Wendy Keppe                    Susane Pata
                   Dr. George Klein               Michael Siegel
                    Helen Mattioni                 Erica Spence
 IS                Greg Martinelli






                             Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences
                            Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey
                                 New Brunswick, New Jersey





















                                       This report was prepared for the Office of Land and Water
                                Planning, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
                                with support from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
                                Protection, the State Coastal Zone Management Prograin; the
                                Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers - the: State
                                University of New Jersey; the Fund For New  Jersey; and the New
                                Jersey Office of Emergency Management.







                COASTAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN


                                       ------------                     t@,,

                                                                                   4,
                                  New Jersey's Shoreline Future
                                        Preparing for Tomorrow























                                                                                  Prepared for
                                          New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

                                                                                   Prepared by
                                                       Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences
                                                    Rutoers the State University of New Jersey
                                                                                Summer, 1996








                 COASTAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN



                                       -----------


                                  New Jersey's Shoreline Future
                                        Preparing for Tomorrow















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



















                                                                                 Prepared for
                                         New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

                                                                                 Prepared by
                                                      Itistitute of Marine and Coastal Sciences
                                                   Rutoers the State Universitv of New Jersev
                                                                               Summer, 1996











                                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



                PHILOSOPHICAL DIRECTION


                        Development of a 'State Shore Master Plan' is an essential too[ in statewide planning that
                will become increasingly important to guide the development of the coastal zone to produce an
                enhancement of public safety and the reduction of storm-related losses. To produce this plan, a
                reassessment of the 1981 New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan was conducted. This
                led to a change of emphasis from the engineering approaches of shoreline stabilization to a
                consideration of a much wider set of management strategies and options to provide for public
                safety and loss reduction from coastal storms. Short-term approaches will suffice to manage
                minor storm effects. Major storms will require the application of post-storm recovery programs
                that emphasize long-term mitigation of the effects of natural hazards. Reducing the exposure of
                people in high hazard coastal areas will be the primary objective of the 1996 Coastal Hazard
                Management Plan.

                                                        Background Basics
                        More than most other areas of the State, the coastal zone is extremely dynamic and
                varied. A static approach to management is both inappropriate and unwarranted. Coastal
                management requires working within the limitations of the system and within the ranges of the
                dynamics functioning within the system.
                        1. The shoreline is characterized by a shortage of available sand. Each increment of
                        time results in some impact because of the decreasing amount of sand at the shore through
                        natural processes. It may be manifest in shoreline erosion, and/or the general flattening
                        of the barrier islands as sand is selectively shifted spatially. For most of the New Jersey
                        shoreline there are no new sources of sand being added to the beaches by natural
                        processes.
                        2. Sea level is slowly rising. The present rate is about 16 inches per century. All
                        of the coastline is drowning. The barrier islands are becoming narrower and lower as a
                        result of inundation from both the seaside and bayside. Some of the effects of the
                        inundation are perceived as erosion because the shoreline is being displaced inland.
                        Changes are also occurring in the wetlands; they are losing area. The bay shoreline is
                        being drowned, and flooding is more frequent in these sites. It is very likely that the rate
                        of sea-level rise will escalate in the next century, increasing by about 50%. Coastal
                        storms are penetrating farther inland and flooding more area as a rising sea level increases
                        the water levels associated with storm surges.
                        3. The natural and cultural characteristics of the New Jersey shore are quite
                        diverse. Cape May, Atlantic, and Ocean Counties have a barrier island shoreline and are
                        responding similarly to the effects of sediment deficit and sea-level rise. Monmouth
                        County has already lost its beach and is largely a cliffed coast (except for Monmouth








                       Beach and Sea Bright). The responses of the variable shorelines to forthcoming sediment
                       deficits and sea-level rise will be different and their management needs WHI also differ.
                       4. The coastal zone generates economic activity, such as income, sales, and jobs via
                       tourism and businesses that are water dependent and/or require to be located in close
                       proximity to the coastal area. Approximately $2.0 billion is generated annually from
                       beach related activities (excluding gambling). There is insufficient appropriate data to
                       address the issue of whether beach nourishment projects, on their own, generate economic
                       activity.

                       The New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan of 1981 incorporated a schedule to spend
               $10 million on structural improvements to the shore in the form of engineering structures and
               new sand added to the beaches. The Plan contained many statements about the.potential impacts
               of sea-level changes and shortages in sediment, but these issues were not incorporated in the
               recommended program. It constituted a static approach to the dynamic problems facing the
               State.   However, much of the shoreline characterization contained in that document is
               appropriate today and the data can be combined with the existing GIS coastal data bank to
               describe present conditions. Likewise, much of the discussion about State regulations and the
               history associated with the management of shore development can be updated and utilized in the
               new document.


                                                       Coastal Concerns
                       A summary of the key concerns and issues identified by coastal decision makers, the
               scientific community, and the coastal communities during the development of the 1996
               Reassessment are as follows:
                       1. Incorporate scientific information and reports about the dynamics related to the
                       natural conditions of-
                           Coastal Processes
                           Sea-Level Rise
                           Storms and Storm Frequency
                           Shoreline Change

                       2. Incorporate concerns and issues identified by the State's citizens and local officials in
                       public meetings and beach walks. Produce White Papers, Fact Sheets, or detailed
                       discussion on topics identified in meetings, including:
                          Coastal Dune Creation and Management
                          Coastal Economic Assessment
                          Coastal Processes
                          Sea-Level Rise
                          New Jersey Coastal Zone Bibliography
                          Engineering Approaches to Shore Protection
                          Public Education and Outreach
                          Public Access
                          Beach/Dune Ecosystems










                           Back Bay Flooding
                           Sediment Management
                           Beach Nourishment


                       3. Address other means to manage the shore in addition to engineered approaches,
                       including:
                           Coastal Dune Management
                           Natural Hazard Mitigation
                           Coastal Blue Acres
                           Pre-Storm Planning and Post-Storm Recovery Programs
                           Appropriate Programs from Other States

                       4. Conduct information transfer through local forums and town meetings leading to
                       increased concern for public safety and knowledge of coastal hazards. Incorporate
                       information into public school curricula through Project Tomorrow, an existing effort to
                       enrich coastal and marine sciences in the State's curriculum programs.

                                        New Approaches in the 1996 Reassessment
                       Whereas the issues of sea-level rise, shoreline erosion, and coastal economics are
               important variables that affect decisions in managing the coast, they eventually lead to questions'
               of what is the future of the coastal zone. What should the coast look like 50 years into the
               future? That is, if there were options available to alter land use and re-direct the management of
               resources toward specific goals, what decisions could be made at this time to attain the future
               objectives.
                       Management strategies implemented at the coast will result in large expenses. There are
               no inexpensive alternatives to shoreline management. Whether the decision is to put sand on the
               beach, build dunes, or purchase private property with public funds, all options involve great
               expense. Because of the high costs of accomplishing anything at the shore, it is necessary to
               establish objectives for management of the shore resources and to direct funds toward those
               objectives. The regional approach is paramount. All expenditures of public funds should be
               directed toward accomplishing the regional objectives that respond to local concerns.
                       Because the ultimate solution to enhance protection of life and property along the coast
               relies on local action by the citizens most directly affected by these concerns, development of the
               new coastal hazard mitigation policy must involve these stakeholders in the preparation and
               implementation of this plan. Public participation begun in the process of conducting the 1996
               reassessment established a basis of community involvement in coastal management decision-
               making. Citizen Advisory Committees provided a two-way avenue of information flow and
               enlightenment. The regional approach should be grounded in the local community involvement.
                       Mitigation is both a philosophy and an approach to coastal management. Participation in
               the National Mitigation Strategy Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency is
               especially timely. New Jersey has been developing a New Jersey Hazard Mitigation Plan that
               can lead to a more effective, more efficient utilization of the coastal zone,











                                                      The Coastal Future
                       1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been elevated to Cabinet status. The
               Director of FEMA has announced the creation of a National Mitigation Strategy, whose focus is
               to remove people from hazards, provide support for public safety, reduce the costs of recovery
               following damage from natural hazards, and reduce payouts from the National Flood Insurance
               Program by 50% by the year 2010.
                       2. The Federal Executive Office has zero-ftmded the Corps of Engineers for beach
               protection activity for the second straight year. No new projects will be funded. Costs are to be
               borne at State and local levels.
                       3. Insurance companies are targeting coastal areas as sites of unacceptable losses. Rates
               will be going up and/or insurance will be increasingly difficult to purchase (especially from
               international companies).

                       Therefore, in the absence of large subsidies from the Federal government or the State to
               rebuild and maintain the status quo, coastal planning will become the vehicle to direct and regulate
               the coastal zone. The focus will become 'Coastal Hazard Management' rather than 'Coastal
               Protection'. More effort will be directed toward increasing public safety at die shore with an
               effort toward identifying the high risk areas to natural hazards. Post-storm recovery programs
               can become steps to reducing future losses in high risk areas. With FEMA mitigation programs
               and the NJ Blue Acres program, it may become possible to purchase the high risk sites and
               reduce the public exposure.

                      For much of the coast, the short-term, band-aid approach associated with coastal dune
               development and small beach nourishment projects will provide adequate protection against the
               small storms. The effects of the slowly-developing negative sediment supply and sea-level rise
               will be masked by the manipulation of the observable shoreline. However, the large storms will
               produce larger displacements of the shoreline that are beyond masking and will require changes in
               land-use or will require major investments in re-nourishment to maintain the position of the
               shoreline. And the need for major re-investments will escalate into the future. Identifying and
               targeting the high risk areas for post-storm changes in land use is of critical importance because,
               realistically, the post-storm period will be the only opportunity to create land-use changes and
               alter any of the coastal development. Alerting the citizens to the risks at the shore promotes the
               concepts of public safety and recognizes the fiscal limitations of attempting to respond to the
               effects of the very large storms. The new plan must strive to achieve a public attitude that is
               grounded in awarness of coastal hazard issues, stresses safety, and provides disincentives to the
               occupation of hazardous areas.


                                                          Conclusion
                   ï¿½ Natural processes are diminishing the coastal resources
                   ï¿½ The rate of change will increase with time
                   ï¿½ The coastal zone is found to be a source of economic activity
                   ï¿½ Existing management approaches will be successful only with minor storms









                   ï¿½  Long-term shoreline management objectives developed by the State are needed to provide
                      leadership in directing the management of the shore
                   ï¿½  Management strategies should be developed and applied on a regional level
                   ï¿½  Post-storm recovery offers the only opportunity to create changes in land-use
                   ï¿½  Hazard mitigation programs can incorporate short-term approaches to the effects of
                      minor storms and long-term removal from high risk areas
                   ï¿½  Public attitude and perception must be altered to support public safety and risk
                      reduction
                   ï¿½  The new coastal program should be the 1996 Coastal Hazard Mitigation Plan










             GENERAL OUTLINE

             Executive summary

             Part I Concern for the shore
                    Perspective
                    Concerns
                    Outlook
                    Discussion of recommendations

             Part 2 1981 - Goals, Approaches, and Accomplishment
                    Establishment of a plan
                           Philosophical thrust
                           Engineering approach applied to reaches
                           Reassessment
                    The Process of Reassessment
                           Update of the 1981 Plan
                           Collection and synthesis of new information
                           Public participation
                           Other information transfer
                    Organization of the Process
                           Committee activities
                           Education, outreach, and interpretative programs for the precollege community
                           The education and outreach process
                                 Enrichment of curricula
                                 Teacher workshops
                                 Library information systems and an internet home page
                    Results of Public Interactions
                           Continued public involvement
                           Continued education and outreach

             Part 3 Background Basics, Information, and Updates
                    Updates
                    The Conditions at the Shore
                    The development of information
                           Waves
                           Tides/water levels
                    Beaches and Coasts of New Jersey
                           Beach profile
                           The coast
                           Coastal geomorphological history
                    Coastal Characterization
                    Critical Issues
                           Sea-level rise
                           Storms
                           Shoreline change
                           Coastal economics
                           Mitigation
                    Approaches
                           Structures
                           Beach nourishment
                           Dunes
                           Mitigation
             Part 4 Reconu-nendations
                    Organization
                    Policy








                    Directions/approach
                    Reaching out

             Bibliography
             Acknowledgments

             White Papers
                    Shore Structures
                    Sea-Level Rise
                    Storms
                    Coastal Dunes
                    Coastal Economics

             Appendices
                    Appendix A
                          July 12, 1994 Workshop Summary
                    Appendix B
                          One-Pager Project Description
                          Question and Answer Document
                          "Top Ten" List of Project Characteristics
                    Appendix C
                          Charges for Citizen Advisory Committees
                          List of Specific Tasks for Citizen Advisory Com nuttees
                    Appendix D
                          Questionnaire
                          Networking Flyer for Project
                    Appendix E
                          Two-Page Progress Report
                          Updated Two-Page Progress Report
                    Appendix F
                          Home Page Flyer
                          Home Page
                    Appendix G
                          Summary Report of Public Meeting and Interactions
                          January 18, 1995 General Summary Report
                    Appendix H
                          Coastal State Comparisons
                    Appendix I
                       . Beach Walks
                    Appendix J
                          Bibliography







                                                                                                DRAFr-JULY
                                                                                              Part I - Concems

                                                   Concern for the Shore


                  PERSPECTWE


                          Coastal managers and the citizens of New Jersey share a tremendous concern about the
                  character and quality of the New Jersey Shore. Most of the coastal zone is developed in some
                  sort of residential and/or commercial/service land use. There are a few open spaces and these
                  locations are also well-used by the tourism/recreation population. Although the multitude of
                  people and the high density of population during the tourist season contribute to the economic
                  well-being of the coastal zone, they are also a source of environmental degradation and
                  decreasing quality of life in many locations.

                          There is a justifiable concern that the coast is overdeveloped and that the millions of
                  visitors to the New Jersey shore are exhausting the remnants of the natural character and
                  quality that once was so prevalent. The obvious appearance of groins, jetties, riprap
                  revetments, and bulkheads are nearly everywhere and they are another feature of the human
                  interaction and interference with the shore processes.

                          A long time interest in the quality of the New Jersey shore and its economic, cultural,
                  and natural resources has been evidenced by the creation of the nation's first State commissiort
                  on coastal erosion, the Engineering Advisory Board on Coast Erosion of the NJ Bureau of
                  Conunerce and Navigation fortned in 1922. Its first report, The Erosion and Protection of
                  New Jersev Beaches, called attention to the problems of narrowing beaches and damaged
                  infrastructure in the seaside communities. Likewise, in 1930, the third report of the State
                  Commission on Beach Erosion chronicled the issues of loss of beach width and the recurring
                  damages to the buildings and infrastructure at the shore and portrayed the vast array of hard
                  structures that have been employed in attempting to control coastal erosion. The same theme
                  of loss of beach and damage to structures can be restated today along most portions of the
                  New Jersey shoreline despite decades of attempts to 'stop the erosion' and 'protect the
                  shoreline'.


                          As is common to most of the shorelines in the world, the New Jersey shore is being
                  eroded slowly, but inexorably, through time and the products of development, structures, and
                  resources are being threatened. This is not a recent revelation, as can be seen in the earlier
                  reports of the State Commission, and as noted in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationat
                  Shoreline Study (197 1). In the portion of this report describing coastal New Jersey, 82% of
                  the 127 mile shoreline is classified as areas of critical shore erosion, another 9% as non-critical
                  shore erosion, and only 9% as non-eroding or stable.

                          It is against the background of a naturally-eroding shoreline and a concern for the
                  utilization of the shore, that decisions have to be made. The New Jersey shore is a valuable
                  resource, the variety of natural, cultural, and economic attributes draw a multitude of
                  permanent and temporary residents each year to partake in the richness of that variety. The


                                                            -Part I - t -







                                                                                             DRAFT-JULY
                                                                                            Part I - Concerns
                  aftermath of the severe storms that have struck the coast bear witness to the 'vitality of the
                  coastal zone to return and to rebuild. The investments in housing, in commercial ventures, in
                  local infrastructure continue to push the development, to extend into the beach, to the water's
                  edge, and onto the filled land where water or marsh existed previously. Not surprisingly, the
                  quest to move to the water's edge, to transform the barrier island, and to extend into the bays,
                  has been accompanied by an increasing exposure to the natural hazards of the coastal zone,
                  erosion, flooding, and wind damage. and a concomitant interest in securing public assistance
                  and protection from these hazards.

                         Most communities are attempting to defend a line at the shore. It may be a building
                  line, a bulkhead line, a dune line, or a shoreline. Whatever it is, there is an outlay of public
                  ftinds to erect barriers or to replace sand, or emplace some sort of structure to, maintain the
                  line. However, the costs of maintaining the line are too much for most commimlities to bear.
                  Thus, they look to the State or to the Federal government to fund most of the cost.


                  CONCERNS


                         The presence of a wide beach and the existence of some sort of dune system are
                  regarded to be assets of communities that serve to draw the tourists and the s, ending that
                                                                                               P
                  fuels the commercial and service industries. Yet, there is a general unease that the conditions
                  of the natural system are degrading and the beaches and dunes will diminish ifleft alone. In
                  many quarters, there is a grudging acknowledgement that the coastal zone is dynamic, that
                  many of the conditions are hazardous, that it may be overdeveloped, and that it will not be
                  possible to continue to occupy and use the entire system into the future at the same level it is
                  being used today.

                         If the coast were in some sort of equilibrium and the problem was that some years it is
                  erosional and other years it is depositional, returning to some original position after a few
                  years, the problem would become much more simplified. The concern thenwould be to
                  protect against the bad years, assuming that the good years would be non-problem times.
                  However, the natural conditions are such that the shoreline will continue to be displaced inland
                  because the good years of no erosion do not balance the losses produced during the bad years
                  of severe erosion. Further, all of the tidal gauges and monitoring devices in the state show that
                  sea level is rising and drowning the shoreline, causing the shoreline to be displaced inland even
                  without any erosion of the beach sediment.

                         It is the dynamic natural processes of diminishing coastal resources pitted against a
                  coastal economy and a coastal land-use based on a static commitment of space that are pulling
                  in opposite directions. State and Federal funds directed to build back the beaches are a
                  temporary solution to a long-term problem. Placing sand on the beach is a short-term
                  solution. It is costly and must be repeated again and again to defend the line. Of course,
                  public funds serve the public and there are decisions to be made as to whether this is the best
                  use of these funds. This is a political/economic/environmentaI decision.


                                                           -Part I - 2 -







                                                                                                  DRAFT-JULY
                                                                                                Part I - Concerns
                          There is concern about public safety. The concentration of people in an area exposed
                   to storm hazards and flooding is an increasingly raised issue. Most of the coastal zone is very
                   low, either naturally or as a result of construction techniques in developing the land. In
                   conj unction with rising sea level, the frequency of inundation is increasing and damage
                   associated with flooding, problems of evacuation across low-lying routes, the traffic
                   congestion, are all raising questions about the exposure of the residents and the visitors to the
                   New Jersey shore. There are acknowledged high hazard areas that suffer damage or flooding
                   with every storm. There are locations where severe erosion threatens to undermine dwellings
                   and cause damage with nearly every storm.

                          Coastal dunes are regarded with almost holy reverence. The ordinances and fines in
                   support of dune development and maintenance are noteworthy. This is a good program but it
                   doesn't stop erosion. There is a limited amount of protection that is afforded because of the
                   presence of dunes, and that is important. But as with putting sand on the beach, the dune
                   provides an amount of protection that can be lost because of erosion and sea-level rise. The
                   most effective dunes are those that are allowed to migrate into some sort of buffer zone at
                   their inland margin. This buffer exists in very few places at the New Jersey shore and thus, in
                   most places, the dunes are short-term to medium-term approaches to shoreline management.

                          Most of the shore communities are hoping for beach nourishment to solve their erosion'
                   problems. They look eagerly to the placement of new sand on the beach to defend their line.
                   They all acknowledge that this is a temporary solution and that it is available at a high price.
                   However, they expect that their share of the cost will be low and that funds will be generated
                   at the State and Federal levels to cover most of the cost. With only a few exceptions, most of
                   the communities would not be able to raise local funds in support of the total cost of beach
                   nourishment programs for their locale.


                          The concerns about shoreline erosion and loss of the line are real. The concerns for
                   public safety are real. The massive development is a fait accompli. And the threats posed by
                   natural hazards and the potential damage to infrastructure, and property, and lives are also
                   real. There is an overabundance of manipulating the coastal system at the local level. The
                   early construction of walls, groins, jetties, and other defensive devices were all part of the
                   defensive syndrome that focused on protecting the line in one stretch of the coast. There was
                   no interest nor concern about the conditions of the neighboring communities. That has
                   changed. It is not possible to do anything along the shore now without causing some sort of-:--
                   effects that cascade downdrift. The local approach is no longer appropriate and should not be
                   condoned. There must be a regional approach to shoreline management. The conditions of
                   sediment transport and sediment exchange are occurring in regions (often referred to as reaches
                   or cells). This should be the basis of shoreline management. Regional planning should
                   establish appropriate land uses, land-use densities, and long-term strategies to attain the goals.
                   The flow of funds from the State and Federal sources should be related to these goals.         Too
                   often, the public funds are being reinvested in supporting the same approaches which have
                   demonstrated that they are not solutions to the problems only temporary respites. That


                                                             -Part I - 3 -







                                                                                                  EIRAFF - JULY
                                                                                                 Part I - Concerns
                    speaks to a reluctance to accept the basis of the problem and to begin to worl< on more
                    elemental problem-solving. We have become entrapped in a cycle destined to repeat the earlier
                    failures because of the lack of a broad, regional planning approach and the inability to look to
                    other solutions to the common problem.


                    OUTLOOK


                            Regional planning is in important step in taking leadership in directing the steps to
                    attain long-term objectives. The creation of such long-term objectives will provide the local
                    units with knowledge of the programs that are supportable at the higher 1@vel and where there
                    may be assistance. There is no question but that the availability of State and national funding
                    support will determine the future of the New Jersey shore.

                           Two major national policy developments are extremely important to the state's future
                    role in shoreline planning and management. First, the potential loss of Federal funding in
                    support of beach nourishment is critical to the 'defend the line syndrome' in. the state. There
                    is little doubt that the funds will become more difficult to procure, even if they don't
                    disappear entirely. That means that the State will have to make plans that involve much larger
                    expenditures for beach nourishment or some alternative scenario to placing large quantities of
                    sand (at great expense) on the beach. The second major federal initiative is a national
                    mitigation strategy to reduce the losses from natural hazards, including coastal erosion and
                    flooding. The national initiative is in support of moving people and structures out of
                    hazardous areas. Funds in support of pre- and post-storm removal and relocation will be
                    fueling this initiative.

                           Mitigation is also an expensive solution because of the extent of development at the
                    shore. It will require a dedicated pool of public funds to accomplish the reduction of people at
                    risk. It will not be possible to maintain all the existing construction and infrastructure at the
                    shore without massive and continuous expenditures. Likewise, it will not bi-, possible to attain
                    the goal of reducing the exposure to natural hazards at the shore without large expenditures of
                    public funds. The piecemeal approach will not be successful in facing the issue of the long-
                    term erosion and drowning of our coastal resources. We must fiinction at the regional level and
                    make decisions that make sense for the region. The opportunities to exercise decisions will be
                    in the immediate post-storm periods. But the decisions must be made before that time. The
                    long-range needs of the shore must be established in concert with the funds available to execute
                    those decisions.


                    DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS


                           As the effects of a negative sediment supply are increased by risingsea levels, the
                    present coastline of the New Jersey will continue to erode and encroach upon the coastal
                    communities. In the absence of large subsidies from the Federal government or the State to
                    rebuild and define the present shoreline position, coastal planning is shifting towards 'Coastal


                                                             -Part I - 4 -







                                                                                              DRAFT-JULY
                                                                                             Part I - Concerns

                   Hazard Management' rather than 'Coastal Protection'. More effort will be directed toward
                   increasing public safety at the shore with an effort toward identifying the high risk areas to
                   natural hazards. Hazard mitigation programs can incorporate short-term approaches to the
                   effects of minor storms as well as long-term removal from high risk areas.

                          For much of the coast, the short-term, band-aid approach associated with coastal dune
                   development and small beach nourishment projects will provide adequate protection against
                   small storms. The effects of the slowly-developing negative sediment supply and sea-level
                   rise will be masked by the manipulation of the observable shoreline. However, the large
                   storms will produce larger displacements of the shoreline that are beyond masking and will
                   require changes in land-use or will require major investments in re-nourishment to maintain the
                   position of the shoreline. And this need for major re-investments will escalate into the ftiture.

                          As demand for use of the shoreline continues to grow, better information and more
                   creative management strategies are needed to support continued resource use and stewardship.
                   An integrated, coordinated, management approach has been used by other coastal states to
                   address shoreline processes that occur at regional scales, and are more effectively managed at
                   these scales. Partnerships that transcend jurisdictional boundaries are desirable and necessary
                   to achieve this aim. A single administrative entity should be developed and charged with the
                   sole responsibility of managing the New Jersey coast. This agency would establish well-
                   defined objectives that are coordinated through a single office, and it would function in close
                   cooperation with the public and with county and local planning entities to achieve these
                   objectives.

                          There is a necessity to develop long-term objectives that strive towards increasing the
                   public's safety. These long-term mitigation strategies should be developed at the State level
                   and implemented on a regional basis. When determining the objectives, they should be
                   consistent with the State's coastal management objectives to the year 2050,* incorporating
                   sea-level rise and a modified coastal zone.


                          The State's coastal management objectives can be achieved through the development of
                   long-term approaches or directions, such as identifying and targeting the high risk areas for
                   post-storm changes in land use. This is of critical importance because, realistically, the post-
                   storm period will be the only opportunity to create land-use changes and alter any of the
                   coastal development. Of especial importance are those low-lying areas severely affected from
                   minor storms. To implement some of those approaches, new policies may need to be
                   initiated, such as enacting zoning ordinances that limit the density in high hazard areas. It is
                   imperative to continue to support collection of technical data so that local resource managers
                   have access to accurate, current information in their decision making. Additionally, there is a
                   need to foster the education and public awareness of the risks associated with the shoreline.
                   Alerting the citizens to the risks at the shore promotes the concepts of public safety and


                    2050 is an arbitrary year, indicating planning into the future.


                                                           -Part I - 5 -







                                                                                              DRAFT-JULY
                                                                                             Part I - Concerns
                  recognizes the fiscal limitations of attempting to respond to the effects of the very large
                  storms. The State Coastal Hazard Mitigation Plan must strive to achieve a plablic attitude that
                  is grounded in awareness of coastal hazard issues, stresses safety and provides disincentives
                  to the occupation of hazardous areas.
















































                                                            -Part I - 6 -






                                                                                                           DRAFT July
                                                                                        Part 11 - Reas,sessment/Process


                    1981 - GOALS, APPROACHES, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

                    ESTABLISHMENT OF A. PLAN

                           When the Beaches and Harbors Bond Act was created in 1978, the New Jersey
                    Legislature required that the Department of Environmental Protection produce a comprehensive
                    shore protection plan as a condition for allocating the funds destined for coastal expenditures.
                    Prior to the Act, funds were allocated by the Legislature for specific projects, or small amounts
                    were committed to conduct repairs or to react to emergencies. With a substantial amount of
                    funds, it was possible to think beyond local needs, to consider a more comprehensive approach,
                    and to exercise management by fostering certain objectives at the shore. As stated in Vol. I, p.
                    1-2, the general objective was "to reduce the negative aspects of and conflicts between shoreline
                    erosion management and coastal development, reduce hazard losses, and satisfy user demands
                    in an equitable way." In a traditional manner, the issue of shoreline management was
                    approached by a review of the physical processes causing erosion, the geographical distribution
                    of erosion, a review of shore protection approaches and plans, a review of National and State
                    policies related to shore protection and coastal policies, a discussion and evaluation of
                    alternative approaches to mitigating the effects of shore erosion, and a prioritization of shore
                    protection projects, combining to lead to the development of a comprehensive plan consistent
                    with State management policies and objectives.

                           A very important characteristic of this approach was using the reach concept as a
                    planning/management unit. This is an approach directed at regionalization or gTouping by some.
                    defined criteria. In this case, the region, or reach, was a geomorphological unit, a division of
                    the coastal zone nearly always described as sections of the coast, segmented by inlets. Only the
                    northem reach of Long Branch to Sandy Hook escaped from being bounded. by an inlet on at
                    least one side. The general thought was that this regional approach (reaches) delineated
                    sediment compartments and that the management of sediment was best accomplished in
                    geomorphological entities rather than artificial political units. Thus, management strategies
                    could be applied in reaches as the basic units. Realistically, it changed the sc,-de of management
                    by reducing the number of units to be considered but perhaps maintained the political
                    boundaries found at every inlet.

                           The general description of the conditions and processes of the New Jersey shore
                    remains an excellent portrayal of the knowledge available at the time. However, the report is
                    approximately 15 years old and there have been improvements in the data availability and there
                    are more refinements in the specifics of our knowledge. A combination of programs at the
                    national, state, and local levels have generated substantial data sets that did not exist previously
                    or were not so readily available.

                    PHILOSOPHICAL THRUST

                           The general New Jersey policy for shore management stated in the 1981 plan is based
                    on a non-disruption of coastal processes and sediment transport in the nearshore zone. Thus,
                    there is a movement away from hard structures either along the beach or at inlets that would
                    ,significantly' alter the transport process and sediment delivery. Further, it is stated that reach-
                    level engineering programs need to be evaluated and implemented only if they are cost-beneficial
                    and that long-term, costly reach projects should not be implemented as emergency projects.

                           It is evident that the thrust of the 1981 plan is to attempt to reduce the reliance on short-
                    term, stop-gap, local projects as a management tool and to replace them with broader, reach-
                    level programs that tend to foster beaches and dunes in locations where these -features existed or


                                                               - Part 11- 1 -







                                                                                                        DRAFT July
                                                                                      Part 11 - Reassessment/Process

                  could exist.     Further, the plan also moved away from trying to protect everything and
                  suggested that there be avenues to move out of hazardous areas and redefine the land uses in
                  exposed locations after damaging events. Thus, the plan called for support for those regions
                  that required minimal investment to continue their econornic productivity while enhancing their
                  natural resources; but it attempted to withhold support from those regions that required massive
                  financial support to continue to exist and were in areas of high erosion.

                          The 1981 SPMP was a very important step in the development of coastal management in
                  New Jersey. It served to focus attention to generic issues and to demonstrate the concept of
                  applying a regional approach to matters as basic as shore protection. This was important in
                  elevating the interest and concern for management from the local conditions of a particular beach
                  property to the broader issues of addressing entire reaches, or entire barrier islands. Further the
                  coastal zone was approached as a dynamic system that was undergoing change and that this
                  change was part of the natural condition that must be accommodated rather than fought. There
                  are many statements throughout the document that recognize that the shore is gradually being
                  modified and that trying to reverse the changes is both costly and futile. The first reports from
                  the State's Engineering Advisory Board on Coast Erosion said something similar and likewise
                  pointed to the continuing investment in the shore and the commitments that were being created
                  by virtue of the housing and the recreational industry (NJ Bureau of Commerce and Navigation,
                  1930). These reports acknowledged that erosion and shoreline migration were inevitable, but
                  suggested that short-term accommodations could be attempted and achieved. A half-century
                  later we seem to be in the same position of accepting the effects of the natural system but not
                  incorporating them into the goals for managing the shore.

                  ENGINEERING APPROACH APPLIED TO REACHES

                          The 1981 document was primarily directed toward evaluating the characteristics of each
                  reach and prescribing a course of action to maintain or enhance each reach. It was driven by a
                  $10 million fund that was derived from the 1977 Beaches and Harbor Bond Issue and a process
                  that allocated these funds among the highest ranked applications for engineered coastal projects
                  using a cost/benefit ratio.

                          A major portion of the 1981 plan was a cost-benefit analysis of each of the coastal
                  reaches relative to five engineering plans:       1) storm erosion protection; 2) recreational
                  development; 3) combination of storm erosion protection and recreational development; 4)
                  limited restoration; and 5) maintenance. Using traditional assignments of property values
                  protected and costs of the engineering plans, and the non-traditional contributions of the reaches
                  to the recreational economy of the state as well as the additional infrastructure demands, the
                  report concluded that four reaches were cost-beneficial to support. Three of the reaches, Peck
                  Beach, Absecon Island, and Seven We Beach achieved high values in support of the
                  recreational development alternative, whereas Sandy Hook to Long Branch supported the
                  maintenance alternative. None of the other reaches and alternative combinations met the 1: 1
                  cost-benefit ratio, although the recreational alternative for Long Beach Island was very close to
                  unity.

                          Significantly, the document incorporates considerable basic information beyond the
                  narrow concepts of applying a cost-benefit ratio. There is a lengthy section on basic coastal
                  processes that helps to explain the rationale for some of the erosional problems. The issues of
                  sediment deficits, human interference with sediment transport, and sea-level rise are raised and
                  noted as important variables in the totality of system dynamics.          The concept of hazard
                  mitigation is proposed as an approach to management of the coast. Generally, all of the issues
                  and concerns raised in the 1981 document exist today and, also, most of the approaches to
                  management are introduced in the 1981 plan. However, background data are missing in some



                                                              - Part 11- 2 -






                                                                                                             DRAFT July
                                                                                          Part [I - Reassessment/Process

                    instances because information was in the process of developing, and in other cases the approach
                    was introduced but procedures for implementation did not follow.

                    REASSESSMENT

                            Now, 15 years later, it is time to review the accomplishments of the original SPMP. It
                    is also time to revisit the objectives of creating a shore master plan and to consider the range of
                    strategies that may be possible in striving to reach those objectives. New knowledge and new
                    priorities have emerged at the state and national levels that will guide as well as limit what can be
                    accomplished in the future. With leadership, New Jersey can take advantage of these new
                    directions and look to a renewed emphasis on enlightened stewardship of the human and natural
                    resources that abound at the coast. It is time to consider the opportunities that exist to manage
                    the resources as part of the dynamic system that is in slow but continuous flux. With an eye to
                    the long-term objectives of reducing damage and loss while maintaining tlie economic and
                    natural vitality of the shore, it is necessary to turn to innovative strategies that provide for short-
                    term protection of the existing development and infrastructure, and long-term reduction of the
                    development in the high hazard areas.





                    THE PROCESS OF REASSESSMENT

                    CONCEPTUAL BASIS FOR PRESENT EFFORT

                           As with most studies of public policy issues or concerns, development of a Coastal
                    Hazard Management Plan (CHMP) required a thorough process to review and analyze existing
                    information, collect and evaluate new information, and to ensure broad-based participation from
                    the general public throughout the effort. In addition to the project team, the process involved
                    participants from many federal, state, local, and private organizations with expertise across a
                    broad range of coastal research, engineering and management issues. This expertise, combined
                    with public participation, ensured that the resulting report contained the best available
                    information on coastal hazard mitigation that responded to local needs.

                    UPDATE OF THE 1981 PLAN

                           One of the first tasks addressed by the project team was to conduct a thorough
                    evaluation of the 1981 Shore Protection Master Plan. This included a review of the process
                    used to collect information, an evaluation of the technical information contained in the
                    document, and identification of actions or public policy resulting from this past effort. From
                    this review an information gathering process was designed, elements of the; 1981 effort that
                    required updating were noted, knowledge gaps for new data collection and synthesis were
                    identified, and approaches to coastal hazards were evaluated for application to -the current studr:

                    COLLECTION AND SYNTHESIS OF NEW INFORMATION

                           Much information has been generated on the topic of shore protection or coastal hazard
                    management since the publication of New Jersey's Shore protection Master Plan in 198 1. This
                    includes many publications such as reconnaissance reports prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
                    Engineers, numerous studies including several conducted by the National Research Council,
                    and development of new mitigation approaches being used by other countries, other coastal
                    states, and several municipalities located right in New Jersey. The goal of the project team was
                    to assemble as much of this information as possible, ensure that it was accessible to users, and


                                                                - Part 11- 3 -







                                                                                                        DRAFT July
                                                                                      Part 11 - Reassessment/Process

                   to synthesize the information for potential application in New Jersey. This involved literature
                   searches, workshops, interactions with many technical experts and government agency
                   representatives, and employment of consultants. As this information was collected, it was also
                   made available to the public via maintenance of a home page on the world wide web,
                   construction of a bibliography, and the preparation and dissemination of white papers on coastal
                   hazard issues identified by the public. Throughout the information gathering process, emphasis
                   was placed on being responsive to local concerns, a consideration which demanded a process in
                   and of itself.

                   PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

                           An essential component of the effort to reassess shoreline management in New Jersey
                   was the design and conduct of a process that ensured public involvement in the evaluation of
                   existing and potential shore management alternatives. The importance of this component stems
                   from shortcomings associated with the timing and structure of the public participation process
                   used to prepare the 1981 N.J. Shore Protection Master Plan. In the 1981 effort, the process
                   was not initiated until the report had been largely drafted. This placed the public in a reactive
                   position during the latter stages of the project to respond to a report that was already prepared.
                   Consequently, there was little opportunity for substantive change emanating from key
                   stakeholders in this issue--the public. In addition, the structure of the process to solicit input
                   did not promote incorporation of local concerns into the project.

                           As a result of these shortcomings, much attention during the CHMP effort was devoted
                   to design a process that ensured public access and input to the project team. Given that policy
                   making authority in New Jersey is vested in local governments through home rule, and that
                   recommendations resulting from this study would rely on local government for implementation,
                   it was critical that the process be designed for grass roots participation. Consequently, the
                   process was structured to ensure that citizens in coastal municipalities became stakeholders in
                   the project and had a well-defined role in guiding the direction of the effort. With this approach,
                   results of the study were more likely to be accepted and used. In essence, state government was
                   not dictating how change would occur in shoreline management along the coast. Rather, local
                   governments would receive assistance in defining their long-term goals for coastal hazard
                   management, as well as help with evaluating the most appropriate strategies to meet their
                   specific shoreline needs and concerns.

                           Following efforts aimed at designing an accessible and participatory public process, a
                   kickoff workshop was held to begin to address key questions identified by the public, and
                   served as a key driver for the overall effort.     Specifically, the workshop was organized to
                   discuss and evaluate potential alternatives for coastal hazard management in three major areas of
                   public concern--shoreline management strategies, socioeconomics, and policy. Each thematic
                   discussion was led by a Chairperson who served as facilitator for each work group. Chairs
                   were selected from the steering conunittee which was established to review material generated
                   by the project team and public participants throughout the course of the reassessment project.
                   These three individuals were asked to solicit a list of priority shore management issues from ee
                   participants and posed a series of charges/questions to their groups (Table 1).

                           Table 1. Questions addressed at the July 12, 1994 workshop to
                           develop potential alternatives for coastal hazard mitigation.

                           Shore Protection Strategies
                                 What are the most important shore management issues that must be addressed by
                                 the project team? Which of these issues should be addressed by "white papers?"




                                                                Part 11- 4 -







                                                                                                         DRAFT July
                                                                                      Part II - Reassessment/Process

                              ï¿½ What coastal research and engineering factors/properties must be considered in
                                 order to select the most appropriate shore management strategies",
                              ï¿½ How would you characterize an area or coastal reach that is best suited to a "hard"
                                 management strategy? A "soft" management strategy?

                           Legal/Policy Issues
                              ï¿½  What are the most important legal/policy issues associated with shore management
                                 that must be addressed by the project team? Which of these issues should be
                                 addressed by "white papers?"
                              ï¿½  Which regulatory impediments (state and federal) are burdensome to local and
                                 county authorities responsible for shore management?
                                 What measures should the project team investigate to mitigate these impediments?
                                 What shore protection policies have proven successful for other coastal states,
                                 especially those with high population density?

                           Socioeconomic Issues
                              ï¿½  What are the most important socioeconomic issues associated with shore
                                 management that must be addressed by the project team? Which of these issues
                                 should be addressed by "white papers?"
                              ï¿½  Should the costs associated with shore management be allocated any differently
                                 from the present method?
                              ï¿½  What methods are best suited to ensuring public participation in the project to.
                                 reassess shore management?

                   Shore Management Strategies (Drs. Michael Bruno and George Klein, Co-Clwirs)

                           This work group focused on four areas: 1) strategies and associated needs in coastal
                   areas, 2) white paper topics, 3) data sources, and 4) contact groups for outreach efforts. The
                   group discussed a diverse range of strategy issues, with several emerging and demanding
                   immediate attention. These were:

                           o Incorporation of local needs into shore protection strategy.
                           o Advance planning to support a rapid response to emergencies.
                           o Consistency among building codes and enforcement.
                           o Strategies must reflect the inherent differences between post-disaster
                              planning and long-terrn planning.

                           The group recommended that case scenarios should address specific issues such as the
                   effects of mitigation strategies on neighboring communities (regional ap- ro h), and the
                                                                                                   p ac
                   compatibility of various mitigation strategies deployed within an area--especiafly compatibility
                   between "hard" and "soff' engineering approaches.

                           The group identified a broad range of existing data sources, and compiled a list of
                   outreach contacts for the project team. Finally, this group proposed five topics as potential
                   white papers:

                           ï¿½ Use of GIS in the planning process.
                           ï¿½ Compilation of existing data.
                           ï¿½ Review of protection priorities for individual coastal communities.
                           ï¿½ Post-disaster planning and long-term mitigation strategies.
                           ï¿½ Historical review of coastal planning and responses to disasters including



                                                               Part 11- 5 -






                                                                                                    DRAFT'July
                                                                                 Part H - Reassessment/Process

                           experience of other coastal states.

                  Socioeconomics (Dr. Peter Parks, Chair)

                         From the questions posed for this group, four major considerations were deliberated.
                  The first consisted of proposed white paper topics. These were:

                         o Assess the 1981 Shore Protection Master Plan as a resource for
                           data and methods.
                         o Quantify the magnitude and distribution of benefits from coastal hazard
                           mitigation.
                         o Specify the spatial and temporal scale by identifying stakeholders.
                         o Identify linkages between management alternatives and environmental
                           or natural resource indicators.
                         o Specify how multiple impacts will be incorporated by inside/outside
                           benefit-cost analysis.
                         o Clarify hazard mitigation options by linking socioeconomics with
                           varying approaches to shore protection.

                         The remaining considerations centered on the allocation of shoreline protection costs,
                  public involvement, and improving public access. The latter issue involved whether public
                  funding for shore protection projects should be linked to public access.

                  Policy (Dr. David Kinsey, Chair)

                         This group identified and discussed a variety of key policy issues. These were:

                         o Beach-ocean access.
                         o Coastal hazard and resource protection area maps.
                         o Economics of shore protection.
                         o Public perceptions.
                         0 Use of flood insurance claims.
                         0 Adequacy of coastal flood insurance.
                         0 Regulatory vs. non-regulatory approaches to shore protection.
                         0 Cost-sharing approaches.

                         The group also recommended that shore protection policies in other coastal states be
                  examined. Although New Jersey's shoreline is somewhat unique, the group noted that other
                  states do possess similar regions of coastline characterized by high population and use. North
                  Carolina was identified as one such state that possesses barrier islands and employs a land
                  acquisition program that appears to work. In addition and as with the other two work groups,
                  this group agreed that public input will be the most useful resource for the study.

                  Workshop Summary

                         Each Chair summarized results of their group deliberations during a final plenary
                  session, and submitted written reports following the workshop. Priority issues were then to be
                  addressed in white papers prepared by disciplinary experts with drafts distributed to and
                  discussed with the public to ensure that local concerns were indeed addressed. Copies of the
                  work group reports may be found in Appendix A.

                  OTHER INFORMATION TRANSFER





                                                            Part 11- 6 -







                                                                                                         DRAFT July
                                                                                       Part 11 - Reassessment/Process
                           The project team also participated in a variety of national and international meetings to
                    keep abreast of reform efforts associated with coastal hazard mitigation. Results of these
                    interactions were fed directly into a variety of communication mechanisms designed to reach the
                    public.


                    ORGANIZATION OF THE PROCESS

                           The broad scope and nature of this project demanded that expertise be brought to bear on
                    a diverse range of coastal research, engineering, and management issues. Therefore, the
                    Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University, as principal investigator for the
                    project, drew upon the expertise of individuals at a variety of educational and research
                    institutions throughout New Jersey (Figure A).        These included the Stevens Institute of
                    Technology, N.J. Marine Sciences Consortium, and Stockton State College. Some of these
                    individuals served on project committees and/or were subcontracted to complete specific project
                    tasks.

                           Three committees were established for the project (Figure B). These were a steering
                    committee, working conuilittee, and a local government committee (Figure C). The steering
                    committee consisted of legislators, researchers, state officials, and local citizens who were
                    charged to:

                           ï¿½ recommend and review white papers,
                           ï¿½ assist with one-on-one meetings with key individuals,
                           ï¿½ review education and outreach material,
                           ï¿½ attend public meetings, and
                           ï¿½ assist with development of the Coastal Hazard Management Plan and.
                             make recommendations for implementation.

                           The working committee, staffed by the project team, was responsible for the public
                    participation, education, and outreach components of the project. Specific dubles included:

                           ï¿½ development and dissenfination of education and outreach material,
                           ï¿½ coordination and conduct of the one-on-one meetings,
                           ï¿½ organization and conduct of public meetings,
                           ï¿½ establishment and management of citizen advisory committees,
                           ï¿½ documentation of information generated by the public and results of
                           public interactions.

                           The local government committee included mayors, freeholders, and other elected
                    officials, and provided a direct means to communicate and interact with local elected officials.
                    Consultants also were used to prepare and analyze information on issues requested by the public
                    for which outside expertise was required.

                    COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

                           One of the first actions taken by the working committee was to anticipate concerns held
                    by the public on issues associated with coastal hazard mitigation. Several documents were
                    prepared to address these concerns and included a I -page description of the project, a question
                    and answer document, and a "top ten" list of characteristics developed to describe what the
                    project was and was not. Copies of these documents may be found at Appendix B. Once the
                    priority issues had been developed via this process, fact sheets also were prepared on specific
                    topics such as sea level rise, dune management, and shoreline management strategies.



                                                              - Part 11- 7 -










                                          ELECTED
                            CONCERNED
               ACADEMIC                   OFFICIALS
                             CITIZENS
               SCIENTISTS
                                                       OFFICE OF
                                                      EMERGENCY
                             MANAGEMENT POLICIES
                                                     MANAGEMENT.,,:,
               PRIVATE
                   ERS
                            MITIGATION STRATEGIES
             ENGINE
                                                     GOVERNMEN
                           SHORE PROTECTION ISSUES
                                                      ENGINEERS
              BUSINESS
           ASSOCIATIONS

                                                     ASSOCIATION OF
                                                     ENVIRONMENTAL
           ENVIRONMENTAL:
                              WORKING/ADVISORY A
               GROUPS                                 COMMISSIONS
                                 COMMITTEES



                                 F
                                  A
                                 IN L REPORT

                                                     EDUCATION
            WHITE PAPERS/
                                                      MODUL
            INFORMATION         DEPARTMEN OF
            PAMPHLETS          ENVIRONMENTAL
                                 D
                                 IROTECTII
                       ........ ..
                                         DN



                                                 A.

                                                       ....... . .
                                 SHORELINE
                                MASTER PLAN


        Figure A. Chart of process@lland infomiation flow
                    - @ nT,


                 LES
                     S
                  TIONS_[

                                            Ily








                                         TOF
                                            L
                                        ,NT@A











                                                                                                 New Jersey's Shoreline Future
                                                                  Project Leader                       Preparing for Tomorrow
                                                                 Norbert P. Psuty
                                                                 (Rutgers, IMCS)





                              Citizens Advisory                                                     Science and Technical
                                Subconunittee                          Working                          Subcommittee
                            Sally Dudley, Chair                       Committee                      George Klein, Chair
                             (Director, ANJEC)                                                       (NJ Marine Science
                                                                                                         Consortium)




                                                                     Local Policy
                                                                    Subcommittee
                                                               Michael DeLuca, Chair
                                                                  (Rutgers, IMCS)



                     Figure B. Diagram of three subcommittees established for the project.








                                                                                                                                Figure C. Chart of Committee members
                                                         NEW JERSEY'S SHORELINE FUTURE:
                                                               PREPARING FOR TOMORROW


                                                                                Project Leader
                                                                                Dr. Norbert P. Psuty


                                                       Advisory                                                                            Working
                                                       Committee                                                                           Committee
                                                                                                                                           (Rutgers University)

                                                                                                                                           Tali P. Aldouby
                                                                                                                                           Daniel Collins
      Science and Technical                            Local Policy                      Citizens Advisory                                 Michael P. DeLuca
      Sub Committee                                    Sub Committee                     Sub Committee                                     Michele Grace
                                                                                                                                           Elizabeth Hanratty
      George Klein, Chair                      Michael De Luca, Chair                    Sally Dudley, Chair                               Wendy Keppe
      (NJ Marine Sci. Consortium)              (Rutgers, IMCS)                           (Director, ANJEC.)                                Gregory Martinelli
      Derry Bennett                            Thomas Gagliano                           Caron Chess                                       Janice McDonnell
      (American Littoral Society)              (Pres., Jersey Shore Part.)               (Rutgers, CEC)                                    Douglas Ofiara
      Michael Bruno                            Phillip Guenther                          Community Leaders                                 Michael Padula
      (Stevens Institute of Tech.)             (Mayor, Brigantine)                       Interested Public                                 Susane Pata
      Stephen Kempf                            Gary Jessel                               County Working Groups                             Marianne Shaffer
      (Vice President, Killam Assoc.)          (Cape May Cty. Freeholder)                Education and Outreach                            Kimberly Sheehan
      Mark Mauriello                           David Kinsey                              Working Group                                     Michael Siegel
      (NIDEP)                                  (Kinsey & Hand)                                                                             Erica Spence
      Bernard Moore                            Joseph Kyrillos
      (NJDEP, Div. of Coastal Eng.)            (NJ Legislature)
                                               Anthony Mangeri
                                               (NJ OEM)
                                               Kenneth Pringle
                                               (Mayor, Belmar)
                                               Robert A. Roman
                                               (Mayor, Mantoloking Bor.)
                                               P. Victor Sencindiver
                                               (Mayor, Beach haven Bor.)
                                               And other elected officials







                                                                                                         DRAFr July
                                                                                      Part 11 - Reassessment/Process

                           Initially, key stakeholders were targeted for one-on-one discussions with project
                   personnel to discuss the project goals and tasks, local concerns, and to solicit support to
                   disseminate information on the project to their respective constituents, peers, or group
                   members. Stakeholders included local elected officials (such as mayors and freeholders),
                   county engineers, state and federal officials, public interest groups, and marine trades groups.
                   These local meetings were followed by more formal presentations at "town meetings"in each of
                   the four coastal counties. Town meetings were designed to initiate the outreach process which
                   was designed to heighten public awareness of the project and coastal hazard issues.

                           Following the one-on-one and town committee meetings, the Working Committee held a
                   series of public meetings to discuss the reassessment project and organization of citizen
                   advisory committees. These meetings included presentations by disciplinary experts, fostered
                   dialogue between the project team and the general public, and led to the creation of the Citizen
                   Advisory Committees. Several documents were created for these meetings and included a list of
                   charges to Citizens Advisory Committees, and a list of specific tasks for the Citizens Advisory
                   Committees which are in Appendix C. A traveling exhibit also was constructed for display at
                   the project meetings as well as for use at organized events throughout the duration of the
                   project. Members of the project team capitalized on events such as seafood festivals and other
                   shore-related activities to discuss the project with event patrons as well as to hand out project
                   literature.

                           Questionnaires were distributed to help gather 'public concerns and flyers were
                   distributed among each of the coastal communities to network about the Project. Copies of
                   these handouts are located in Appendix D. Committees and interested citizens were updated
                   with the Project's progress through mini Progress Reports which are located in Appendix E.         '-

                           To assist with dissen-fination of information about the project and mechanisms for
                   participation, members of the Rutgers Cooperative Extension Service were briefed and asked to
                   inform their constituencies. These individuals also helped to publicize arid arrange public
                   meetings, and distributed written material such as fact sheets.

                           A kickoff meeting was then held to organize the citizen advisory conufflittees. At this
                   meeting, advisory committees were organized for each of the coastal counties (Atlantic and Cape
                   May County committees were merged). This structure reflected the different priorities held by
                   the public across diverse regions of the New Jersey coastline. Consensus was reached on the
                   charge for the advisory committees and the process to be used to meet their objectives.
                   Specifically, their charge was to:

                           o Identify local concerns (by community) related to coastal hazard management to
                             drive preparation of "white papers."
                           o Prepare a history of shore protection for each community including any information
                             on the date and extent of past beach nourishment projects, construction of engineered
                             structures, etc. -
                           o Collect copies of all local ordinances related to coastal hazard management, especiallS@@
                             those that address dune management.
                           o Become knowledgeable about the project and prepare to disseminate information on
                             shore protection and shoreline management to local municipalities including seminars,
                             distribution of handouts, exhibits, school projects, etc.
                           o Establish a timetable for advisory committee meetings to complete the tasks
                             identified above.

                           Chairs were elected for each coastal committee, priorities were initially discussed, and
                   plans were made to arrange a timetable and agree on a format for addressing these priorities.
                   Project staff were then assigned as a liaison to each of these committees and provided a direct


                                                                Part 11- 8 -







                                                                                                    DRAFT July
                                                                                  Part 11 - Reassessment/Process

                  link to any resources required by them. Several Citizens Advisory Committee meetings were
                  held thereafter where interested citizens gathered with Committee Chairs and Project Team
                  members to raise and discuss issues of concern (Figure D).

                         One of the most effective means to solicit input on local concerns resulted from the
                  conduct of beach walks with local elected officials (especially mayors), emergency services
                  personnel, and citizens (Figure E). These walks were held up and down the coastline and
                  provided the project team with examples of coastal mitigation measures that performed well and
                  those that presented problems for local decision makers (Figure F). In some cases, the project
                  team was able to deliver on-site advice and guidance to address some of the problem areas.
                  However, the intent of the walks was to ensure that local problems would be addressed by the
                  project, and to select suitable areas for case studies or scenarios to help guide coastal
                  communities in their selection of mitigation strategies to meet specific needs.

                         Other means of communicating about the Project included television news interviews.
                  Television stations spoke with Project Tearn members regarding the most pertinent coastal
                  issues of the time and gave the Project Team opportunities to discuss the Reassessment Project
                  (Figure G).

                         In association with the education and outreach effort, several exhibits were created to
                  enhance public awareness of the project, coastal hazard issues, and what citizens could do to
                  become involved in the process. These exhibits were displayed in a variety of formal and
                  informal venues ranging from legislative events at the statehouse to regularly-scheduled
                  meetings of public interest groups.

                  EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND INTERPRETIVE PROGRAMS FOR THE
                  PRECOLLEGE COMMUNITY

                         In the 1981 Shore Protection Master Plan, one of the report recommendations identified
                  public education and training as a means to raise awareness of shoreline management programs
                  and policies. In addition, it was stated that support for these programs should be provided by
                  the state and used to support public participation workshops, meetings, and hearings.
                  Although these activities are necessary for informing the general public, they typically do not
                  reach the precollege or K-12 community.        Because this community possesses the next
                  generation of decision-makers, our youth, and the process of change as it relates to public
                  policy and behavior islong-term, the value of targeting this community should be recognized.

                         A broad range of educational initiatives have commenced recently to capitalize on the
                  precollege community as a vehicle for developing an informed public. Through the existing
                  precollege school system, information on public policy issues can be incorporated into
                  existing curricula, and designed to enrich teaching of basic skills, problem solving, and the
                  development of critical thinking skills. Obviously, this approach can reach the many students
                  that comprise our next generation of decision-makers and educators, but it also can be designed
                  to reach the parents of these students or the present community of decision-makers. Throuï¿½b
                  Project Tomorrow, an existing collection of science-based learning programs aimed at the
                  precollege community which is based at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, these
                  approaches were used to foster education and outreach activities on the topic of coastal hazard
                  mitigation. At the core of this effort were activities that recognized the long-term nature of
                  increasing public awareness to reduce the loss of life, injuries, economic losses, and the
                  disruption of families and communities caused by natural hazards.






                                                           - Part 11- 9 -








                                                                           llr       Figure D.
                                                                            a        Monmouth County
                                                                                                  Grant and
                                                                                     Chair, Davi
                                                                                     Citizen Advisorv
                                                                                     Committee members

                                                                                     e
                                                                                         -n'
                                                                                      xat Me some Sandv
                                                                                     Hook shoreline
                                                                                     documents.


                                       13




                                                            t
                                                'A
                     7,







                                   ... .... . . . ... ....
                                                                      z@-
                                                                                     Fivure E.
                                                                                     Dr. Norbert Psuty
                                                                                     (center) discusses Sea
                                                                                     Isle Citv's coastal issues
                                                                                     with Katy Glebcl (left)
                                                                                     zind'Feresa Barry
                                                                                     (riohO. and Susanc Pata
                                                                                     notes the concerns 0'ar
                                                                                     rl,,htl














                                                               u
                                                                                     Fi-urc G.
                                                                                     Dr. Norbert Psutv is
                                                                                     Jersey News @egarding
                                                                                                     @ew
                                                                                     nterv'evved bv N


                                                                         J@          the Pr *oct and other
                                                                                          Oj
                                                                                        -el'ne issues.
                                V2
                          I Al


















                                                                          7







                                                                                                     DRAFT July
                                                                                   Part H - Reassessment/Process

                  link to any resources required by them. Several Citizens Advisory Committee meetings were
                  held. thereafter where interested citizens gathered with Committee Chairs and Project Team
                  members to raise and discuss issues of concern (Figure D).

                          One of the most effective means to solicit input on local concerns resulted from the
                  conduct of beach walks with local elected officials (especially mayors), emergency services
                  personnel, and citizens (Figure E),. These walks were held up and down the coastline and
                  provided the project team with examples of coastal mitigation measures that performed well and
                  those that presented problems for local decision makers (Figure F). In some cases, the project
                  team was able to deliver on-site advice and guidance to address some of the problem areas.
                  However, the intent of the walks was to ensure that local problems would be addressed by the
                  project, and to select suitable areas for case studies or scenarios to help guide coastal
                  communities in their selection of mitigation strategies to meet specific needs.

                          Other means of communicating about the Project included television news interviews.
                  Television stations spoke with Project Team members regarding the most pertinent coastal
                  issues of the time and gave the Project Team opportunities to discuss the Reassessment Project
                  (Figure G).

                          In association with the education and outreach effort, several exhibits were created to
                  enhance public awareness of the project, coastal hazard issues, and what citizens could do to
                  become involved in the process. These exhibits were displayed in a variety of formal and
                  informal venues ranging from legislative events at the statehouse to regularly-scheduled
                  meetings of public interest groups.

                  EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND INTERPRETIVE PROGRAMS FOR THE
                  PRECOLLEGE COMMUNITY

                          In the 1991 Shore Protection Master Plan, one of the report recommendations identified
                  public education and training as a means to raise awareness of shoreline management programs
                  and policies. In addition, it was stated that support for these programs should be provided by
                  the state and used to support public participation workshops, meetings, and hearings.
                  Although these activities are necessary for informing the general public, they typically do not
                  reach the precollege or K-12 community.         Because this community possesses the next
                  generation of decision-makers, our youth, and the process of change as it relates to public
                  policy and behavior is long-term, the value of targeting this community should be recognized.

                          A broad range of educational initiatives have commenced recently to capitalize on the
                  precollege community as a vehicle for developing an informed public. Through the existing
                  precollege school system, information on public policy issues can be incorporated into
                  existing curricula, and designed to enrich teaching of basic skills, problem solving, and the
                  development of critical thinking skills. Obviously, this approach can reach the many students
                  that comprise our next generation of decision-makers and educators, but it also can be designed
                  to reach the parents of these students or the present community of decision-makers. Through
                  Project Tomorrow, an existing collection of science-based leaming programs aimed at the
                  precollege community which is based at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, these
                  approaches were used to foster education and outreach activities on the topic of coastal hazard
                  mitigation. At the core of this effort were activities that recognized the long-term nature of
                  increasing public awareness to reduce the loss of life, injuries, economic losses, and the
                  disruption of families and communities caused by natural hazards.






                                                             Part 11- 9 -













                                                                                        F1,2ure D.
                                                                                        Imonmouth Countv
                                                                                        Chair, David Grant and
                                                              JI                        Citizen Advisol-Y
                                                                                        Committee members
                                                                                        examine sonic Sandv
                                                                                        Hook shoreline
                                                                                        documents.
                                j










                                  ,@iZ
                                             ..... . . .

                                                                                        Fi,-,ure E.
                                                                                        Dr. Noi-bert Psuty
                                                                                        (center) discusses Sea
                                                                                        Isle C'tv's coastal Issues
                                                                                        with Katy Glebcl (Jeft)
                                                                                        andTcresa Barrv
                                                                                          orlit.). and Susane Pata
                          M                                                             (ri
                                                                                        note
                                                                                            s the concerns (far
                                                                                        r1uht.).















                                                                                        Fi(Ture G.
                                                                                        Dr. Norbert Psutv is
                                                                                                  d bv New
                                                                                        interviewc
                                                                                        J
                                                                                          -sey News regarding
                                                                                        er
                                                                                        the Pr 'ect and other
                                                                                             Oj
                                                                                        shoreline issues.










                                                            _,Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      SANDY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      HOOK

                                                                                                                                                                                                            . .........
                                                                                                                                                      ....... .. .. ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Sea Bright


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Monmouth Beach


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                @,7,  Long Branch
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Deal
                                                                                                  New         Jersey                                                                                                                Allenhurst/Loch Arbour
                                                                                                                                                                                  coastal     Citi 7en
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     sbury Park
                                                                                                "Division                                                                   Advisory          Committee                            Ocean Grove
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Bradley Beach
                                                                                                                St       Of
                                                                                                         Coa             at                                                                                                      won by the Sea
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Belmar
                                                                                                                                                                                                 OF
                                                                                                 Managernel
                                                                                                                         nt                                                                          U
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               S           Lake
                                                                                                                                                                                                 rdb C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               @iea Urt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Manasquan
                                                                                                                                                              Monmouth
                                                                                                                                                                                                          @4 @:,7' @,@       MAXASQUANINLET
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Point Pleasant Beach
                                                                                        N    w Jersey
                                                                                                                                                         Regional Mitigatiol
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Bay Head
                                                                                                                                                                Strategy
                                                                                    Coastal Hazard
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Mantoloking
                                                                                                                                A
                                                                                        Mitigation
                                                                                                                                             V
                                                                                               Plan
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Ocean Beach (Brick)
                                                                                                                         . .... .                                                                                        Lavallette
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Ortley Beach
                                                                                                                                                                Coastal Citizen                                   0     Seaside Heights
                                                                                                                                                                                                     -k^
                                                                                                                                                            Advisory Committee                                          Seaside Park
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       South Seaside Park
                                                                     7n

                                                                             V
                                                                                                                                                                   oadJn         @v,@Zji
                                                                                                                                                                              p
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Island Beach State Park
                                                                                                                                                                   6dTwdba&.
                                                                                                                                    O(ean                                   "M
                                                                                                                                Regional Mitigatio..
                                                                                                                                      Strategy                                                                       BARNEGATINLET
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Barnegat Light

                                                                                   ..... ........ ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                                Harvey Cedars


                                                                                                                                                                                                            Surt Uitv
                                                                                                                                                     fi
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Ship Botic'm

                                                                                                                                                                                                     Long Beach
                                                                                         Cape       May-Atlantic
                                                                                        R
                                                                                          C                                                                                                                                                     -N-
                                                                                            gional Mitigation
                                                                                                                                                                                              Beach Haven
                                                                                               Strategy
                                                                                                                                                    C
                                                                                                                                                                                   BEACH HAVEN INLET
                                                                                                                                                                                  LITTLE EGG INLET
                                                                                                                                                  ............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ATLANTIC
                                                                                                                -an
                                                                                                                                                     :,%@                      BRIGANTINE INLET
                                                                                                                         F
                                                                                                                         90.,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      OCEAN
                                                                                                                                                               A


                                                                                                                                                                   ABS17CONINLET
                                                                                                         ass tI Cit      e
                                                                                                                                                                   Atlan ic City
                                                                                         I     Advisory Committee                                           Ventnor C ty
                                                                                                                                           0           Margate City
                                                                  ji@ z:,@                                                                c_;,
                                                                                                                                                                               INLET          Citizen Advisory Commilittees Tasks
                                                                                                                                                          GG HARBOR
                                                                                                                                            GREATE
                                                                                                                                7
                                                                                                                                       Ocean City
                                                                                             C- P                                                                                                Assist in the preparation of regional
                                                                                             CAPE,,
                                                                                            .,,CAP
                                                                                                                                                                                                          coastal hazard management plans.
                                                                                                         Y
                                                                                                MA.
                                                                                                                                                                                              *Identify and incorporate local concerns
                                                                                                                                C ORSON'S INLET
                                                                                                          i@                    Strathmere                                                                into regional plans.
                                                                                                                         Sea Isle City                                                        ii Prepare model coastal ordinances for
                                                                                                                                                                                                          local implementation.
                                                                                                                         TOWNSENDS INLET
                                                                                                                                                                                              9 Collect, maintain, and disseminate
                                                                                                                         Avalon
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    t information on coastal
                                                                                                                                                                                                          curren
                                                                                                                                                                                                          hazard issues and mitigation
                                                                                                            Stone Harbor
                                                                                                                                                                                                          strategies.
                                                                                                         HEREFORDINLET
                                                                                                                                                                                              e Develop regional demonstration
                                                                                                         North Wildwood
                                                                                                     Wildwood                                                                                             projects.
                                                                                               Wildwood Crest
                                                        Cape May                           I-A P P A4A V IAILET
                                                            Point                    Cape May                                                                                           IMCS/Rutgers Cartography 1996
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Z@
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ----------

                                                     Figure H. Chart of integration of Committees and NJDEP







                                                                                                          DRAFT July
                                                                                        Part H - Rea,,;;sessment/Process


                    THE EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROCESS

                            Education and outreach programs employed a broad range of methods to elevate public
                    awareness of the policy issues associated with coastal hazard mitigation. Among these were
                    establishment of the Citizen Advisory Committees, creation of public exhibits, conduct of beach
                    walks, and the preparation of fact sheets and background material.           Since these activities
                    dovetail with the public participation process presented above, the scope of this section will be
                    limited to a discussion of those education and outreach activities that focused on the precollege
                    community.

                           In a joint effort with Project Tomorrow staff, the project team developed educational
                    activities for application in formal settings (i.e., public and private schools) and informal
                    settings (i.e., nature centers, aquariums, and museums). These efforts focused on development
                    of educational materials through the enrichment of existing curricula, conduct of teacher
                    workshops, and establishment of library information systems and a home page on the Internet.

                    ENRICHMENT OF CURRICULA

                           Efforts to enrich curricula were based on the guiding principle of the Project Tomorrow
                    program; a hands-on and minds-on approach that links real-time research to classroom science
                    education is paramount to the development of problem solving and critical thinking skills among
                    our students. Development of these skills, along with support of basic skills training by
                    capitalizing on the natural public fascination with the ocean, is essential to prepare the next
                    generation of informed decision-makers and to raise environmental awareness generally among
                    the public.

                           The project team organized a group of twenty precollege educators to assist with
                    development of classroom and field activities that focus on issues associated with coastal hazard
                    mitigation. Two supplementary curricula served as the basis for this effort--Marine Activities
                    Resources and Education (MARE) developed by the Lawrence Hall of Science at the University
                    of California at Berkeley and Event Based Science produced at the Univemity of Maryland.
                    Each of these curricula was used as a model to design and test a 14-lesson classroom and field
                    activity guide for precollegiate application. Activities were organized under four major themes
                    including coastal geology, coastal biology, sustainable development (environmental planning
                    and management), and global influences (e.g., sea-level rise and storm frequencies). The first
                    draft of this guide has been produced and will undergo pilot testing in several schools during the
                    1996-97 academic year. Once the field assessment is complete, the final guide will be
                    incorporated as a component of the MARE curriculum for New Jersey. Teacher Enrichment
                    workshops also will be held once the pilot testing has been completed. In addition, the project
                    team developed an Internet activity that employs real data to demonstrate issues associated with
                    sea level rise in an interactive manner as part of this exercise.

                    TEACHER WORKSHOPS

                           Two enrichment workshops were organized and conducted for precollegiate educators
                    on the topic of sea-level rise and its effects on the coastal zone. One workshop was targeted for
                    formal educatorg and the other for informal educators.             These workshops produced
                    supplementary curricula materials to illustrate the importance of a healthy cowstat ecosystem that
                    enables development to occur in a manner compatible with environmental concerns. The
                    curricular material addressed the 1996 science core standards for New Jersey students with a
                    focus on development of critical thinking and problem solving skills.




                                                              -Part II- 10 -







                                                                                                        DRAFT July
                                                                                     Pan 11 - Reassessment/Process

                           In addition, the project team presented information on sea-level rise and shore protection
                   strategies to precollege educators participating in the 1996 Earth Science Teachers Conference.
                   This meeting provided an ideal opportunity to demonstrate and disseminate classroom-based
                   activities for incorporation into existing curricula. More informal workshops also were held to
                   continue the process of incorporating coastal hazard information into the school system. These
                   included the Teach at the Beach Conference, Global Change and Sustainable Development
                   Teacher Workshop, and the annual meeting of the N.J. Marine Educators Association.

                   LIBRARY inFORMATION SYSTEMS AND AN INTERNET HOME PAGE

                           During the conduct of the overall study, the project team collected a wealth of reports,
                   articles and other literature ranging from technical reports on beach erosion to digital data of
                   coastal structures in New Jersey. This led to the creation of a comprehensive bibliography and
                   an effort to incorporate this information into a library information system for broad
                   dissemination and easy access. A copy of the bibliography is located in Appendix F.

                           The project team also constructed a home page for the project on the Internet. This
                   developed into an effective means for sharing information and updates on the project, and
                   enabled the project team to maintain a dialogue with the general public on coastal hazard issues.
                   Requests for project information also were received and handled electronically. The home page
                   can be reached at http:fl marine.rutgers.edu. A copy of the home page flyer indicating the email
                   and homepage address, and a copy of the home page are in Appendix G.

                           In association with the education and outreach effort, several exhibits were created to
                   enhance public awareness of the project, coastal hazard issues, and what citizens could do to
                   become involved in the process. These exhibits were displayed in a variety of formal and
                   informal venues ranging from legislative events at the statehouse to regularly-scheduled
                   meetings of public interest groups,

                   RESULTS OF PUBLIC INTERACTIONS

                           From the participation process and the educationioutreach effort, the project team was
                   able to develop priorities that were responsive to the public, focus discussions on specific
                   problem areas such as the demand for more recent information on dune management practices,
                   and to factor public concern into the products resulting from the study. A summary report on
                   the public meetings and interactions associated with the project and a summary report of the
                   General.Meeting held on January 18, 1995 which served as a follow-up to the July 12, 1994
                   Workshop, may be found at Appendix H. A list of the white paper topics resulting from these
                   interactions is provided in Table 11.

                           Many of the discussions fostered by this study centered on the need for new approaches
                   to mitigate the risk associated with maintaining the current infrastructure along the New Jersey
                   coast in the face of rising sea level, erosion and frequent storms. Clearly, the prescriptive
                   approach of the past does not promote the dialogue necessary to develop mitigation strategia
                   that respond to local concerns--consultation on a draft plan, as was done with the 1981 plan, is
                   not the same as direct involvement in the preparation and ownership of the final product, Since
                   the ultimate solution to enhance protection of life and property along the coast relies on local
                   action by the citizens most directly affected by these concerns, development of a new coastal
                   hazard rnitigation policy must involve these stakeholders in the preparation of the plan and its
                   implementation.

                   CONTINUED PUBIC INVOLVEMEN





                                                             - Part 11- 11 -







                                        Table H. List of White Paper Topics



                                          Coastal Processes
                                                   Erosion and accretion
                                                   * Dune management
                                                   Sand transport

                                          *Beach Structures and Engineering
                                                   Hard and soft protection measures
                                                   Artificial reefs
                                                   New technology

                                          *Socioeconomics
                                                   Costs and benefits
                                                   Beach use
                                                   Tourism


                                          *Sea     Level Rise
                                                   Rate of increase
                                                   Relationship of storm magnitude

                                          *Storm Frequencies

                                          Education and Outreach
                                                   Formal and informal education
                                                   Public awareness
                                                   Informed decision-making

                                          *Coastal State Comparisons
                                                   Federal coastal zone program
                                                   New Jersey coastal program
                                                   Coastal approaches used by other states
                                                   Regional strategies




                           Denotes that these topics were addressed in stand-alone documents as well al in the final report.







                                                                                                           DRAFT July
                                                                                        Part     Reassess ment/Process

                           An essential element of this stakeholder-driven process is to continue to engage coastal
                   residents and decision makers in the collection and dissemination of information on coastal
                   hazard issues.    Such a process should be designed to give the public greater access to
                   information and involvement in the decision making process. This can lead to a more informed
                   public where decision making is grounded in reality, and coastal management policies are more
                   likely to be accepted and implemented.

                           Recognizing that change in' the manner that coastal communities approach shoreline
                   management relies on an informed public, one of the most significant recommendations
                   resulting from this study is to continue the work of the Citizen Advisory Committees. These
                   groups played an important role in shaping this project and should be utilized to facilitate
                   implementation of a revised coastal hazard management plan, which is expected to be produced
                   in part from the results of this study in the near future. One can draw upon the experience of
                   other coastal states and nations to determine the appropriate structure and scope of activities for
                   such committees. One such example exists in the United Kingdom.

                           Regional coastal groups have been used in England and Wales to prepare regional
                   shoreline management plans (Oakes, 1994). Although these are voluntary groups, they are
                   empowered by the government to improve management of coastal hazards. This includes:

                           ï¿½ furthering cooperation between agencies with responsibility for coastal
                             management,
                           ï¿½ sharing data and experience,
                           ï¿½ identification of best practices,
                           ï¿½ identification of research needs,
                           ï¿½ promotion of strategic planning for coastal hazard management,
                           ï¿½ identification of impediments to implementation of altematives, and to
                           ï¿½ maintain awareness of policy developments, results of research and
                             initiatives.

                           The group   s meet quarterly and consist primarily of representatives from relevant
                   government agencies, technical experts, and citizens. Periodically, the group chairs meet to
                   discuss common concerns and to develop a national approach to coastal hazard management.

                           Although this approach has been used in England and Wales to foster national mitigation
                   strategies, organization of the effort is divided into "littoral cells" or reaches that recognize the
                   importance of compatibility among mitigation measures deployed within a reach. Coastal
                   processes do not respect political boundaries and therefore regional approaches which address
                   the broad scale at which physical forces operate along the coast are warranted. This situation
                   demands greater coordination among coastal municipalities, especially to develop and implement
                   reach-wide mitigation programs. The county-level nature of the citizen advisory committees
                   established in New Jersey is well-suited to address coastal hazard issues at such a regional scale
                   or on a reach by reach basis.

                           The NJDEP should establish the Citizen Advisory Committees as a formal mechanism to
                   assist with development and implementation of a new coastal management strategy that is
                   designed to mitigate the risk associated with coastal hazards as discussed in the
                   Recommendation Section.        Each committee should consist of representatives of relevant
                   government agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management
                   Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, NJDEP, NJ Office of Emergency Management and
                   Preparedness), technical experts from academe and the private sector, local elected officials and
                   emergency management personnel, and representatives drawn from coastal municipalities and
                   interest groups. These committees would interact directly with DEP on coastal management
                   issues (Figure H).


                                                                Part 11- 12 -


















                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          SANDY
                                                                                                                         96MERSET:E-'-4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          HOOK



                                                                                                                                                                                                                   i"X
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Sea Bright
                                                                                                                                                                  . .. ..                                                                 Monmouth Beach
                                                                                                                                                                                            N'.
                                                                                                                                                                    TiP
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          LongBranch
                                                                                                                         '14C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Deal
                                                                                                               k
                                                                                                                                                                                          M
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Alblenhumt/Loch At hour
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          As u Park
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Grove
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     B    and 1'e v , haSea
                                                                                                     0                                                                                                                                              B
                                                                                         ns,
                                                                                                                               f                                                                                                    Belmar
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  i@               Spring Lake
                                                                                                      %
                                                                                                                                                                                -Z'
                                                                                               IVAN

                                                                                                 ..... . ....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           @R@      ea
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Manasquan
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  S Girt

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                MANASQUANINLET
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Point Pleasant Beach
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Bay H a
                                                                                                                                                                      ... .... . ... ..                                                   e d
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Manioloking


                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Ocean Beach (Brick)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Lavallette
                                                                     77
                                                                                                                                                              M
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Ortley Beach
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      o     Seaside Heights
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Seaside Park
                                                                                                            "@W            NGTON
                                                                                                                    RU                                                                                                     South Seaside Park



                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Island Beach State Park



                                                                                                                                                                                                               a         BARNEGATINLET
                                                                                CAME,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Barnegat Light


                                                                                                               '5s'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      arvey Cedars
                                                                        0.          . ..... .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                Surf City
                                                                                                                                                                                                              Ship Bottom


                                                                                                                                                                                                          Long Beach




                                                                       z
                                                                                                                  ATLANTIC-
                                                                                                                                                        2                                          Beach Haven

                                                                                                                                                                                         BEACHHAVENINLET
                                                                                                                                                                               (Z:@ LITTLE EGG INLET
                                                                                                                                                                                     BRIGANTINE INLET

                                                                                                                         . . ............
                                                                                                            .........
                                                                                                                         -U-
                                                                                           AN[
                                                                    CUMBERL v,
                                                                                                                                                                          ABSECONINLET                                           ATLANTIC
                                                                                                                                                                         -at"', 'ay
                                                                                                                                                                    Venmor City
                                                                                          @s@  @zs@                                                           Margate City
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    OCEAN
                                                                                                                                                     GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET
                                                                                                                                                 Ocean City
                                                                                                                  y
                                                                                                                                       CORSON'S INLET
                                                                                                                                      Strathmere

                                                                                                                                 Sea Isle City
                                                                                                                                                        Er
                                                                                                                              TOWNSEND S NL
                                                                                                                                                                                                             his w'.

                                                                                                                            Avalon


                                                                                                                    HERFFORDINLET                                                                                   miles            10
                                                                                                                                                                                                          0
                                                                                                                  North Wildwood
                                                                                                               Wild ood
                                                                                                          Wildwoowd Crest                                                                                         kilometers 2'0
                                                                       CapeMav                       CA PE MA Y INLET
                                                                          Point                  ape
                                                                                               May                                                                                            IMCS/Rutgers Cartography 1996

                                                                   Figure F. Map of coastal communities






                                                                                                       DRAFT July
                                                                                     Part H - Reassessment/Process


                          The primary goal of these committees will be to assist the state with development and
                  implementation of a long-term, coastal hazard mitigation program. Specific duties are to:

                          o Assist in the preparation of regional coastal hazard management plans,
                          o Identify and incorporate local concerns into the regional plans,
                          o Prepare model coastal ordinances for local implementation,
                          o Collect, maintain, and disseminate current information on coastal
                            hazard issues and mitigation strategies, and
                          o Develop regional demonstration projects.

                          These responsibilities must be supported with state funding to enable the committees to
                  hire technical experts when necessary, establish regional information repositories at county
                  libraries, conduct public outreach efforts, and to establish volunteer mitigation and monitoring
                  efforts. An example of the latter is the organization of community groups and schools to
                  conduct remedial action on dunes damaged by storms or erosion and to monitor recovery of
                  these efforts. In addition, these groups could be mobilized and equipped to collect beach and
                  sediment information which can be used by the advisory committees to track coastal change
                  over time, much similar to the water quality monitoring efforts underway in Bamegat Bay and
                  other water systems throughout the state. This information could then be factored into the
                  decision making process.

                          With the construction of the program bibliography, home page, and background
                  information generated by the study, electronic means are available to store, manage, and make
                  available a great deal of information on coastal hazards. This system should be maintained and-
                  continuously updated as a support service for the advisory committees. The system also could
                  be linked with the county-based repositories and used to help coordinate activities between the
                  regions or advisory conuilittees. Further, and as with the regional coastal groups employed in
                  England, representatives from each of the three advisory committees should meet periodically to
                  foster interactions and transfer information among the county-based committees.              These
                  comi-nittees also should be used by the state to solicit public input on many coastal issues, not
                  just those related to coastal hazard management.

                  CONTINtJED EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

                          The nucleus of FEMA's national mitigation strategy focuses on how public education
                  and training can affect changes in the way coastal communities manage their shorelines.
                  Successful change is grounded in education. Change can be effected through the two principal
                  target audiences--the formal precollegiate and the informal education communities.

                          Many coastal education efforts and programs exist to reach the formal and informal
                  education communities. Obviously, partnerships with existing programs can be used to make
                  efficient use of resources and to capitalize on the participants already engaged with these
                  groups. For example, the current effort to designate a national estuarine research reserve In
                  New Jersey provides an excellent example where a productive partnership can be developed to
                  raise awareness of coastal issues. In this program, federal, state, and academic institutions have
                  united to design and conduct educational programs where students and the general public
                  receive information and training on topics ranging from shore protection to coastal monitoring
                  and stewardship. Partnerships should be used wherever possible to leverage the necessary
                  talent and make use of existing networks to disseminate information.

                  Formal Precollegiate Education




                                                             - Part 11- 13 -







                                                                                                       DRAFT July
                                                                                     Part 11 - Reassessment/Process

                          Efforts are underway to expand the MARE initiative throughout New Jersey by Project
                  Tomorrow staff. This, and other science-based supplementary curricula, can be used as an
                  effective means to transfer information to the precollege community on issues associated with
                  coastal hazards. The hands-on activities, Internet activities, and field guide based produced by
                  the project team and soon to be tested in New Jersey schools, will be incorporated into the N.J.
                  MARE program. Once the evaluation is completed and any necessary modifications made, the
                  supplementary materials will be made available generally to N.J. educators through the
                  Marine/Environmental Science Curriculum Repository located at the Institute of Marine and
                  Coastal Sciences.

                  Informal Education

                  InteMretive Media, Placards, and Signs
                          Interpretive displays and public placards are recommended as a general means for
                  creating a better understanding of coastal processes and human vulnerability to storms and the
                  longer term implications of sea-level rise. Actions to consider include a pole depicting the high
                  water marks and storm surges from past New Jersey storms to a display illustrating the
                  projected cumulative increase in water level due to sea-level rise over the next 100 years.
                  Interpretive displays such as these could be located in popular shoreline locations such as
                  boardwalks, nature centers, public meeting places, and the Coastal Heritage Trail that winds
                  through Cape May, Atlantic, Ocean, and Monmouth Counties.

                  Short V deos
                          Brief educational videos have provided an effective medium for interpreting scientific
                  information and represent an excellent tool for doing the same with the CHMP. Other states,
                  have had great success with this approach. This includes the Louisiana Department of Natural
                  Resources which developed a short video called Reversing the Tide that highlights the
                  importance of wetland restoration and the dynamic nature of the coastal zone. This video has
                  been played on public television and is available to all elementary, middle, and high schools at
                  no charge.

                  Public Service Announcements
                          The nation's Coastal Zone Management Program sponsors annual public events such as
                  Coast Week and Estuaries Day. These activities feature canoe trips, interpretive marsh walks,
                  beach clean ups and bird watches, all designed to heighten public awareness of estuaries and the
                  importance of their preservation. As part of these programs radio and TV air 1-2 minute public
                  service announcements to increase public awareness of these events and their importance.
                  Information on the CHMP could be piggy-backed with these events or developed as stand alone
                  announcements to CHMP information during these recognized public events. This would
                  increase public awareness and exposure to coastal hazard issues.

                  Print Media and Newsletters
                                  The education program can benefit from the widespread distribution of local
                  papers and popular press. Press releases to local papers, editorials, and short articles are @i
                  effective means of increasing exposure and awareness of coastal hazard issues. Submission of
                  short articles and editorials in environmental and civic group newsletters are an effective way of
                  keeping natural coastal hazards and mitigation measures in the minds of the readership.

                  Speakers Bureau
                          Throughout the development of the CHMP, a speakers bureau was used to conduct
                  outreach activities with state and local government agencies, the precollege community, and the
                  general public. This consisted of an informal group of disciplinary experts and project staff who
                  responded to requests for detailed project information, or information on a specific coastal



                                                            - Part 11- 14 -







                                                                                                      DRAFT July
                                                                                   Part H - Reassessment/Process

                  hazard issue. This was an effective means to raise public awareness and solicit local input on
                  the project.

                  Use of Existini-__ Education Programs
                         Formal precolleglate and informal education programs should be created in partnership
                  with existing programs in the coastal zone in order to take advantage of existing resources and
                  audiences. This approach will provide a focus so that groups and alliances already in existence
                  can synthesize existing information and concentrate actions.

                         The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) and the current effort to
                  designate the Mullica River - Great Bay as a NERR site is a primary example of a potentially
                  fruitful educational partnership. As part of the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act, the
                  NERRS program officially recognizes the resources of the coastal zone and their national
                  significance and is working with federal and state authorities to establish, manage, and maintain
                  reserves, and to provide for long -term stewardship. The Coastal Heritage Trail is an additional
                  venue for the outreach and education program. The trail is visited by millions of New Jersey
                  shoreline tourists and would serve as an excellent venue for informal education programs.








































                                                             Part 11- 15 -








                                                                                                DRAFF JUILY
                                                                               PART M - BASICS[UPDATES

                   BACKGROUND BASICS, INFORMATION, AND UPDATES



              UPDATES

                      The intervening years since the 1981 SPMP have been especially productive in the

              generation of information pertinent to the management of the New Jersey shore and basic

              processes pertaining to the shore, the human utilization and economic vitality, the effects of
              storms, the evolution of strategies to manage the shore , and the creation of new policies
              employing hazard mitigation. All of this new information has a bearing on the development of
              state policies toward shoreline management. It is improved knowledge that can better lead to the
              establishment of long-term goals in the utilization of the shore and short-term and long-terin

              strategies to attain those goals.

                      As identified in the National Research Council publication on Beach Nourishment and

              Protection (Seymour, 1995), the most critical component of shoreline management is the

              availability of appropriate basic information on the processes and function of the coastal system.
              With knowledge, it is possible to make better decisions about the long-term objectives and the

              various paths to achieve steps toward these objectives.
                      Among the new informative data sets that are highly valuable to shoreling managers are
              the data about basic processes. A very fundamental data base is the Wave Information Studies

              (WIS) produced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jensen, 1983). This program resulted in
              the development of wave data for the entire coast, in 10- 12 mile stretches. Created from 20 years

              of weather data (1956-1975), a wave climatology has been developed from a predictive model

              that provides information about the magnitude and direction of waves at the New Jersey shore.
              These data complement the limited wave gauges gathering empirical data and create a generalized-

              data set of waves conditions in these 10- 12 mile units. Using these climatologies, the US Army

              Corps of Engineers has further generated wave-induced current flows that illustrate the variation

              of longshore current directions related to wave approach (USACOE, 1990). They describe the

              persistence of the northerly currents in the northern portion of the coast, the southerly flows in





                                                        Part IH. I - I -








                                                                                                      DRAFT JULY
                                                                                    PART III - BASICS/UPDATES

                the southern half of the state, and the transition zone with similar magnitudes of flow in both
                directions located between the areas of more persistent flows.
                        Several types of studies have been completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that
                have collated a large range of data and provided descriptions of the segments of the coast. The

                Limited Reconnaissance Report (USACOE, 1990) provides an overview of the entire coast.

                Several other studies have been accomplished or are in progress for segments of the coast,

                including Manasquan Inlet to Bamegat Inlet (in Reconnaissance phase); Barriegat Inlet to Little
                Egg Inlet (Reconnaissance has been completed); Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet (in
                Feasibility phase); Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsehds Inlet (in Reconnaissance phase);
                Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet (in Feasibility phase),; and Lower Cape May Meadows to
                Cape May Point (in Feasibility phase) (USACOE, 1996). All of those projects currently in their

                feasibility phase have produced a reconnaissance report. Further, a design program product has
                been completed for Cape May, Ocean City, and the northern section of the state from

                Manasquan Inlet to Sandy Hook.

                        FEMA has produced a number of reports and studies that have revamped the Flood

                Insurance Program, redefined exposure at the coast, and fostered a strong emphasis on coastal

                dunes. Mitigation has been elevated from a catchall approach to a national strategy to reduce loss

                from natural hazards (FEMA, 1995). Mitigation is now a proactive approach to moving away

                from hazardous areas supported by funds for pre-storm mitigation planning and post-storm
                mitigation of hazard. This ties together with the New Jersey State Hazard Mitigation Plan of

                1994 (NJ Office of Emergency Management).

                        The state of New Jersey has generated significant data-producing projects that are

                contributing to the evaluation of risk and exposure in the coastal zone. On a historical level, thare

                is the shoreline mapping project that has registered the shorelines of 1836-42, 1855, 1866-68,

                1871-75, 1879-85, 1899, 1932-36, 1943, 1951-1953, 1971, 1977 and 1986 to the common base

                year of 1986. Thus it is possible to determine the past trend of shoreline migration form over a

                150+year period. This is part of a NJ Department of Environmental Protection program to
                develop and produce a Geographic Information System for the collection, storage, retrieval, and



                                                            Part III. I - 2-








                                                                                                 DRAF17 JULY
                                                                                 PART III - BASICS/UPDATES

                analysis of spatial data. Also, since 1986, beach profiles have been surveyed annually at about
                one mile intervals. The survey line extends from the dune down to about - 15 to -20 feet in water

                depth. The most recent product of this program is reported by Farrell, et al. (1995) The length

                of record is now approaching a point where the more general trends can be distinguished from the

                year to year perturbations. The NJ Geological Survey has produced a comprehensive report on

                the volumetric losses off sand as measured from these profiles and has identified opportunities to

                recover appropriate sand resources from the offshore (Uptegrove, et al., 1995).
                       A report to the Governor on the effects of sea-level rise has brought together information
                on the rates of rise in New Jersey that have been occurring this century and the longer term
                environmental effects that are being driven by sea-level rise (Psuty, 199 1). This effort joins the

                US Environrnental Protection Agency (Titus and Narayanan, 1995) interest in sea-level rise and

                the reports issued by the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Warrick,
                1993). Sea-level rise is a fundamental driving force creating a drowning of the coastal zone. Some

                of the coastal features are able to accommodate the rising water and adjust. However, much of

                the coast is 'stabilized' by development that it is unable to shift and adjust to the encroaching

                water. Further, a rising sea level is much more than inundation and drowning at the periphery.

                Higher water levels mean greater incidence and greater magnitude of flooding associated with

                storm conditions.

                       Shore erosion has received a lot of attention. The 1990s have been relatively stormy and

                there has been considerable loss of sand from the beaches and dunes. The State Legislature has

                responded in 1992 by approving an annual fund of $15,000,000 for shore protection efforts and

                it has reactivated its State Beach Erosion Cornmission. This Commission is largely responsible

                for the creation of a $15,000,000 'Blue Acres' program in 1995 that provides funds for the

                purchase of coastal properties at risk or are damaged by storms.

                       Whereas the growth in knowledge and information about the functions and characteristics

                of the coast is increasing, it is imperative that these facts be put to use in enhancing public

                protection and safety. It is necessary to decide on goals related to what do we want the shore to

                become over the next 3 0-50 years, or even to 100 years. And with these goals, we should create



                                                          Part III. I - 3-








                                                                                                      DRAFFfULY
                                                                                     PART III - BASICSIUPDATES

                State policy that provides clear direction regarding the expenditure of public funds. What is it
                that should be accomplished with the support of state funds? Given the improved knowledge of

                the trends of the changes in the shore and environs, to what end should efforts be directed to be

                most effective in accomplishing programs at the state, regional, and local levels. The
                establishment of realistic goals should lead to the creation of procedures and strategies to achieve

                these goals. Further, the integration of state programs and objectives within national programs
                and strategies toward common objectives could open avenues of financial support to assist in the

                achievement of the state's coastal plan.



                THE CONDITIONS AT THE SHORE

                        The coastal zone may be thought of as waves, currents, and winds operating upon

                sediments to form features such as barrier islands, spits, inlets, and dunes; with people situated
                on this coastal landscape and accessing the coastal resources. The coast is an area of dynamic
                processes shaping and molding the landscape. It is constantly changing, and either accumulating
                or losing sand within the system and across the boundaries of the system. As we gather more
                information about the coast, we begin to understand the conditions that occur today and the

                conditions that have occurred in the past. The future, on the other hand, is not so clear. There

                are trends that can be interpreted from past conditions and there are forecasts of events that are

                derived from the historical record but continue to have a measure of uncertainty about them. We

                can list the storms of the current century and apply probabilities to their future occurrence and

                be reasonably certain that storms will occur and there will be some big storms in the future, but it

                is nearly impossible to predict the 'big storm'. Yet, we know it will happen. Also, we can

                determine that sea level has risen in the past century and we can apply a rate to it. However,,

                nearly all scientists predict a higher rate of rise in the next century. There are many estimates

                about what that rate may be. There is agreement that the rate will be greater than the rate of the
                past century, but then the absolute numbers tend to diverge, from about 50% greater to several

                times greater.





                                                            Part III. I - 4-








                                                                                                DRAFT JULY
                                                                                PART III - BASICS[UPDATES


                THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION

                       WAVES

                       Although there are, and have been, several wave gages in operation in coastal New Jersey,

                the information is scattered both temporally and spatially. This is an area where more data are

                needed to determine the conditions that are created by storms of varying direction, duration, and

                intensity. Some information is available in the form of a 20-year record of hindcast wave data
                produced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jensen, 1983). The National Ocean Data
                Center has a station at Ambrose Light (#ALSN6) that has been collecting non-directional wave

                data since December, 1989. Additional non-directional and directional wave data are available

                from a moored buoy (#F29 1), located about 40 miles off Long Branch, since April, 199 1. A more

                time-lirriited wave data set has been collected at the Rutgers University Long-Term

                Environmental Observation Site (LEO- 15), located about 3 miles (5 km) off of Little Egg Inlet.

                Directional waves measurements have been recorded sporadically at the LEO- 15 site from

                October 1991 to February 1996, deploying one or two S4 current flow meters equipped with
                pressure transducers. The time periods of record vary from weeks to months.

                       The 1983 U. S. Army Corps of EngineersWIS data set (Jensen) was produced by

                simulating the weather systems of that 20-year period and allowing the wind to blow over the

                water to generate waves. These waves then move onshore with wave heights, wave lengths, wave

                periods, and wave direction determined by the physical relationship of winds moving across the
                water surface and transferring energy to the waves. This methodology of using wind information

                to back-calculate the dimensions of the waves associated with a storm or wind is known as wave

                hindcasting. This method produces what is referred to as the significant wave, it is the average

                dimension of the largest one-third of the generated waves at a site.

                       Waves that are created out at sea and then move out of the storm area to traverse the

                ocean conserve most of their energy as they pass through the water. They are referred to as deep

                water waves because their progress is not impeded by the ocean bottom. However, as they

                approach the continent, they begin to enter shallower water and the orbital motion of the water

                particles in the waves begin to interact with the bottom and cause most of the wave dimensions



                                                         Part III. I - 5-








                                                                                                      DRAFT JULY
                                                                                     PART III - BASICSIUPDATES

                to change as the waves come onshore and the wave crests begin to bend or refract. The WIS data

                set recognizes the effects of the bottom and creates a wave climatology near the boundary

                between the deep and shallow water waves. This is in about 30 feet of water. Inland from this

                depth, the wave orientation to the shoreline is more greatly affected by the bottom topography.
                The WIS data, therefore, describe the waves as they occur in the offshore, before they are

                subjected to much refraction.

                        The WIS data are assigned to compartments along the shore which extend for about 10-12

                miles (Fig. 1). They are composed of wave heights and percentages of occurrence of these

                heights from the offshore directions. Individually, each 10-mile compartment documents the
                exposure of that section of the coast to wave buildup from the offshore directions. In the
                aggregate, the full assemblage of I 0-mile sections portrays the role of Long Island and New

                England in shielding the northern coast from the direct impact of northeasterly storms. Because

                the large waves from northeasters must be refracted around New England before they arrive in
                New Jersey, the direction of the waves is out of the east or southeast. As a result, nearly all of
                the waves reaching the Monmouth County Atlantic coast arrive from the east or southeast and

                produce beach sediment transport to the north (Fig. 2). In Ocean County, the protective effect
                of New England is reduced and more waves arrive from the northeast (Fig. 3). Although the

                calculations show most of the waves are from the southeast, the larger waves are out of the east-

                northeast. The southerly drift direction becomes more pronounced toward the southern margin of
                the county. However, for the northern half of Ocean County, there is a considerable portion of

                the wave rose that is directly out of the east, indicating that nearshore longshore drift may be

                determined primarily by the local topography at the inshore position, or that the predominant

                exchange of sediment is onshore/offshore rather than alongshore. The protective effect is absent

                for Atlantic and Cape May counties and the presence of larger waves out of the east-northeast

                causes net sediment transport to the south (Fig. 4).

                        Although the WIS data are excellent for generating the regional variations in wave

                climatiology and potential drift directions, they are not a detailed description of the actual wave





                                                            Part Ill. I - 6-
















                                          74'



                                                                         IV IEW BEDFORD
                                                                             Cp
                                                                        9
                                                NEW 14AvEN
                                                                    41
                                                                              36
                                                                                   PHASE ILI
                                                                  42@                 021
                                                                               02
                                                                               PHASE ]a
                                                                018     PHASE 31
                                                         46     PHASE
                                                                     3X
                                 NEW'YOR               47@
                                                   49 48
                                              51


                                                   024    PHASEn
                                           55 23
                                            PMASr= it PHASE 11

                                          57
                                             027                               PHASE I
                                             PHASE 1E
                            ATLANTICI;r'@`
                                        so

                                    62 028
                                  63-PHASE 11
                                 64

                               66
                               66 4030                     A r L A N 7' C 0 C C A )V
                                 PHASE Ir



                              69  032
                             70   PHASE IL
                           71



        Figure IDistribution of Wave Information Stations 54 to 64 along coastal New Jersey. Phase I and 11 stations are deep water locations in the computer
        simulation program. 'Me inshore locations are identified as Phase III stations. Source: Jensen, 1983



                                             Part 111. 1 - 7-








                                                                                                                         DRAFT JULY
                                                                                                     PART III - BASICS/UPDATES



                                                      STATION 54     20 YEARS     FOP ALL DIRECTIONS
                                           SHCRELINE ANGLE :     4 0 DEGREES AZIMUTH
                                           WATER DEPTH = 10.00 kETRES
                                           PERMIT OCCUPRENCE(XIDO) Of HEIGHT AND PERIOD FOR ALL DIRECTIONS
                               HEIGHT(METRES)                               PEPIOD(SECONOS)                              TOTAL
                                                  9.0-  3.0-    q.0-  5-0-   6.0- 7.0-    8.0-  9.0- 10
                                                    2.9   3.9    4.9   5.9    6.9    7.9    8.9      9.9 i00-9"L'0;GER
                               0.     0.49         538   902    SS3    3S6    577 1301     7@4    14;   65     134        5453
                                  so                     162    589    272    79    403    272       5  as     27         2066
                               Ho     '1:4"9                      26   178    88    124     92       18 19     37          S82
                               I.S8   1:99                               6    54     e5     31@      7     3   15          z0v
                               2.0    2 49                                      7    5j     J7       2           4          93
                               2.50   Z.99                                                   5       2           1          2j
                               3.90   1.49                                                           1
                               3. 0     .99                                                          1                      1
                               4.00  -4.49                                                                                  a
                               4 50  -4 99                                                                                  0
                               5:00  iGAEATER                                                                               0
                                  TO AL             08 1144 1168       8@2    865 19t3 1169          Z@j 1ï¿½2   3j8
                                     AVE H54M)    0.4Z   LARGEST MS(M)      3.70  TOTAL CASES         58440






                                        5TATION 54

                                        zo YERR3
                                        SHORELINE ANGLE = 4'
                                        WATER DEPTH = 10 M








                                                    OVER 2.99                                              0
                                                                                                       0
                                                    2 -50_ 2-Sp M             too            0       0

                                                    2.00-2-49 K




                                                    1-60-1-99




                                                    1.00-1.49 ft












                                                    0.00-0.49 K





                      Figure 2. Wave rose for northern Monmouth County, Station 54. Largest and most frequent waves are
                      out of the east and southeast, respectively. Source: Jensen, 1983






                                                                          Part III. I - 8-








                                                                                                                DRAFr JULY
                                                                                             PART IR - BASICS[UPDATES



                                                  STATION 57      20 YEARS     FOP ALL DIRECTIONS
                                       SHOPELINE ANGLE = 12 0 DFGPEES AZIMUTH
                                       WATER DEPTH = 10.00 @ETRES
                                       PERCENT OCCURRENCE(XIO0) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD FOR ALL DIRECTIONS
                          HEIGHT( HETPES I                               PERZOO(SECON05)                              TOTAL
                                             0-0-    3.0-   4.0-  5.0-   6.0-  7.0-    8.0-  9.0- 10.0- 11 0-
                                                2.9    3.9   4.9    5.9    6.9   7.9    6.9    9.9 10.9 LONGER
                          0.      0.49          430   938    572   421    501  1159    643     167   95     110        5124
                          0.50                        25S    732   28     128    450   40      155   61     102       2 So 9
                          1.00      Z '9                      47   23     109    168   111     19    la      41         743
                          1.50    1.99                              it     81    120    51     14      E     19         306
                          2.00    2.49                                     14    91     12       5            4         147
                                                                                 10     29       9     1      1          4@
                          ilos    1:4"9                                                  z       6     1
                          3.SO    3.99                                                                                    1
                          4.00    4.49                                                                                    0
                          4.50    4.99                                                                                    0
                          5.00    GREATER                                                                                 0
                             TOTAL              4t8 11ï¿½3 13@1       949    9B Z066     12@1    315   112    2@7
                                AVE HS(M)    0.51    LARGEST HS(M)     3.97    TOTAL  CASES        58440







                                  3TATION 67

                                  20 YEARS

                                  SHORELINE RNGLE = 12

                                  WATER DEPTH = 10 M








                                                OVER 2.99 M                                            0
                                                                                                  0
                                                2.50-2-99 m               i8o
                                                                                         0

                                                2.00-2-49 m                    90


                                                1
                                                   -1-33 M
                                                .50




                                                1-00-1.49 M





                                                0.50-0.99 m
                                                                                                       " PO

                                                0.00-0.49 h






                  Figure 3. Wave rose for southern Ocean County, Station 57. Largest waves out of the east and northeast. Most
                  frequent waves out of the southeast and east. Source: Jensen, 1983






                                                                  Part 111. 1 - 9-








                                                                                                                  DR-AFT JULY
                                                                                               PART III - BASICS/UPDATES


                                                  STATION 61       20 YEARS      FOR ALL DIRECTIONS
                                       SHORELINE ANGLE : 54.0 DEGREES AZIMUTH
                                       WATER DEPTH = 10.00 METRES
                                       PERCENT OCCURRENCE(X100) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD FOR ALL DIRECTIONS
                          KEIGHT(METPES)                                  PERIOD(SECONDS)                                TOTAL
                                              0.0-    3.0-  4.0-    5.0-  6.0-   7.0-   8.0-  9.0- 10 a- 11.0-
                                                Z.9     3.9   4.9    5.9    6.9    7.9    8.9    9.9 iO.9     LONGER
                          0.    - 0.49         389    884     402    372   528   1094    443     71     198   197         4478
                          0.50  - 0.99                403    1084    394   107    617    446     63     13    227         3454
                          1.00  - 1.49                         74    352   147    Z20    146     23     50    119         T1
                          I'S   - 1.99                               is     91    155     71     12     19      22           5
                          2.00    2.49                                      17      81    44     10       5      6         163
                          2.50    2.99                                               8    19     11       3      4          45
                          3.00    3.49                                                      1      3             1           8
                          3.50    3.99                                                                                       1
                          4.00    4.49                                                                                       0
                          4.50  - 4.99                                                                                       0
                          5.00  - GREATER                                                                                    0
                              TOTAL             369   IZ67 1560      103    840   205    11@O    143    3ï¿½2   06
                                AVE HS(M)    0.65     LARGEST HS(M)      4.13    TOTAL CASES          58440







                                  STRTION 61
                                  20 YEARS             = 546                                              J4
                                  SHORELINE ANGLE
                                  WATER DEPTH = 10 M







                                               OVER 2.99 n                                                0

                                               2.60-2-99 M                 180

                                               2.00-2-49 N                  - so


                                               1.50-1-99 M                  0




                                               1.00-1.49 M





                                               0150-0-99 M






                                               0.00-0.49 M






                   Figure 4. Wave rose for Atlantic County, Station 6 1. Larger waves out ofthe east-northeast, more frequent waves
                   out of the south-southeast. Source: Jensen, 1983.




                                                                     Part 111. 1 - 10-








                                                                                                  DRAFT JULY
                                                                                  PART III, - BASICS/UPDATES

                 data. Further, the numbers present average conditions for long time periods and thus diminish
                 the effects of storms. Wave dimensions are especially low for planning purposes.



                        TIDES/WATER LEVELS

                        The tides along the coast of New Jersey are semi-diurnal, two high tides and two low

                 tides each day (Fig. 5). Because the tides are based on the gravitational attraction of the sun and

                 moon on the earth's oceans as they pass through their predictable orbits, it is possible to predict
                 the water levels that will be caused by the interaction of the three planetary bodies. Tide tables

                 are available for years in advance from the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and

                 Atmospheric Administration.. Tide ranges at Sandy Hook average 4.66 ft, reaching over 7.0 ft
                 during maximum spring tide and only about 3.0 ft during minimum neap tide. Atlantic City has
                 an average tidal range of 4.1 ft, increasing to about 6.5 ft during spring tides. These are the
                 predicted tides, or water levels produced as a result of the gravitational effects of the three

                 planetary bodies.

                        The actual water level will vary from the predicted because of wind or storms which

                 cause water to accumulate at a site or to remove water from an area. Recently, the National

                 Ocean Service has begun to make available actual water levels recorded at their gauging stations.

                 With these data, it is possible to determine the effects of the wind or storm on the predicted

                 water levels and to determine the accompanying storms surges (Fig. 6).



                 BEACHES AND COASTS OF NEW JERSEY

                        Beaches differ from coasts primarily in terms of scale. The beach is the mass of sand that

                 exists near the water line and it is in constant interaction with the waves, currents, and windtbat

                 move sediment around. The beach is often referred to as a sand-sharing system that extends from

                 the coastal dune out to the offshore bar. That means that sand moves among the beach, dune, and

                 offshore zones, usually building up one aspect at the expense of the other. Coasts may be

                 thought of as broader views of the shoreline. The coast is the zone that extends along the
                 shoreline, and also is thought to be farther inland as well as seaward. We often speak of the



                                                          Part M. I - I I -


















                                                                                                       PREDICTED HIGH AND LOW TIDES
                                     1.9                                                                           Atlantic City, N.J. November 1995                                                                                             4.92



                                       1                                                                                                                                                                                                         3.28




                             >      0.5                                                                                                                                                                                                          1.64
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        >

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        z

                                      0                                                                                                                                                                                                          0       Q





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 -1.64





                                      -1                                                                                                                                                                                                         -3-  28
                                        11/01        11103         1110.11      11107         11109        11/11         11/1)        11/15        11/11         11/19        11/21         11/23        It/1.9        11/21        11/19
                                              11/01         11/04         11 M6        11109         lillo        11112         11114        11116        tills         11/20        11122         11124        11126         1 IJ28        11130
                                                                                                                                      DATE









                                                                      k
                     Figure 5. Predicted tidal variation of water levels at Sandy Hook, November, 1995. Source: National Ocean Service, 1995.



                                                                                                                                   Part 111.1 - 12-












                                                  HOURLY WATER LEVEL ELEVATION
                                                             Atlantic City N.J. August 16-21, 1995


                            2.5                                                                                                                    8.2


                             2                                                                                                                     6.56


                            1.5       ----- -- -- - -----                                                                                          4.92


                             1                                                                                                                     3.28    >

                     Z
                            0.5                                                                                                                    1.64


                             0                                                                                                                     0


                           -0.5                                                                                                                    -1.64


                                                                                                                                                   -3.28
                             08/16                 08/17                  08/18                 08/19                  08/20                 08/21
                                                                                    DATE

                                                                                                                      PREDICTED HIG" TIDE LEVEL





             Figure 6. A comparison of the predicted water levels and the actual water levels reached during Hurricane Felix at Atlantic City, August 1995. Source:
             National Ocean Service: Websi t : www.olld.nos.noaa.gov



                                                                                 Part 111.1 - 13-








                                                                                                                      DRAFT JULY
                                                                                                  PART III - BASICS[UPDATES


                   coastal counties of New Jersey, or the southern coast of the state. The coast includes the beach

                   (beach, dune, and offshore bars) but it also includes the entire barrier island, the inlets, the

                   wetlands, the bluffs, and anything else that is near the oceanic boundary of the state.



                   BEACH PROFELE

                            In areas of adequate sediment availability, the classical beach/dune profile can develop

                   which is in harmony with the processes that mobilize sand and shift the sand from one portion of

                   the profile to another (Fig. 7).


                                                                                                           A) Winter beach profile







                                              ..........

                                                 ..........-



                                                                                                                  OFFSHORE BAR
                       ...............                             . .........
                                                               . ..........
                                                              .............
                             ....                             ...............


                                                                                                                   . . .......





                                                                                                           B) Summer beach profile




                                                               1 .9 T.- ME





                         . ..... .......                                        ..
                                                                                                             .......... . .
                            ..... .                                             ...             ......
                                                                                                    ........................ . . .
                                                                                                       . ........ . . .......
                                                                                                . .. .. ..
                                                                                                    ... ..... ........ . ....
                                                                                                           . ........
                                                                                ...           ... ....... . .......... . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                       I I I I I I I I 1 1.
                                                                                                    . . . . . . . . . .
                   Figure 7. Sand sharing system of dune/beach/offshore bar.    Panal A. Winter profile of narrow steep beach and well-
                   developed offshore bar. Panal B. Summer profile of broad flat berm, flatter offshore.



                   The beach/dune profile is a sand-sharing system that extends from the position of the offshore

                   bar through the beach and into the coastal foredune. Waves, currents, and wind interact with the

                   components of the beach/dune profile to mobilize, transport, and deposit sediments. If more


                                                                     Part III. I - 14-








                                                                                                      DRAFrJULY
                                                                                    PART I][[ - BASICS/UPDATES

               sediments are received by the profile than leave, the result is accumulation and buildout.

               However, if more material is removed from the total profile, the result is erosion. Because the

               profile is a product of the processes that are operating on it, the features and forms of the profile

               are usually retained as the profile either advances of retreats. The erosion or accretion is seen as a

               seaward or landward shift of the profile.

                       Waves begin to interact with the beach profile in the offshore zone because waves extend

               vertically through the water column and introduce motion where the water is in contact with the

               sediment. Generally, the initiation of sediment motion on the profile caused by surface waves is

               considered to be at a depth of 30-35 feet. Thus, inland from that depth, waves have a capacity to

               interact with the bottom and set sediment in motion. The amount of sediment mobilized

               increases as the waves enter shallower water.

                       As the three-dimensional wave comes onshore, it may break on an offshore bar or it may

               break directly on the beach is no bar is present. In the case of the wave breaking on the offshore

               bar, or with multiple bars, a new wave will be generated in the shallower water and eventually,

               the wave will break on the beach. The breaking wave sets a lot of sediment in motion, which may

               settle quickly, or which may be entrained in nearshore currents and transported.

                       The low, long waves tend to have low breakers and the level of agitation of the bottom is

               reduced. The sand tends to move up the beach profile and accumulate on the beach, building out

               the beach. Much of this sediment is derived from the sand that formerly composed the offshore

               bar. In conditions of larger, steeper waves, there are usually areas of sediment agitation in the

               vicinities of the bars and at the beach face. A lot of this sediment is transferred from the beach to

               the bars, and from the beach and bars to greater offshore depths. This is a time of bar

               development. However, is sediment is transferred to depths greater than 30-35 feet, it is lost tQ_.

               the system because the calm-water surface waves are unable to remobilize these sands and return

               them to the beach. In other words, transfers of sand to deep water represent a loss to the

               beach/dune system and consequently an erosional condition.
                       The importance of this process is seen at the beach in association with storms. After a
               stonn, the beach profile recovers by a return of sand from the offshore. The recovery is related



                                                           Part III. I - 15-







                                                                                                  DRAFFJULY
                                                                                 PART III - BASICS[UPDATES


               to loss of sediment to deep water, to the downdrift beaches, and to the input from the updrift
               beaches. If the total exchange is balanced, the beach profile returns to an original configuration. If
               the total shows a negative balance, there will be some loss in the profile and that'is represented

               by a net displacement of the profile and the shoreline to an inland position. Transfers of
               sediment that stay within the sand-sharing system effectively are not lost. They are temporarily
               rearranged but can be continually redistributed to rebuild the profile.

                       Dunes and offshore bars are important components of the beach profile. They represent

               sand in storage; dunes store sand above water whereas offshore bars store sand below water. In

               those locations where there is a shortage of sand, it is likely that the dunes will be very small if

               they are present at all, because there is not much sand in storage above the beach. Also, in areas

               of sand shortage, there will be a lack of offshore bars. This absence is noted in front of structures

               such as seawalls in which the offshore slope continues to drop seaward without any evidence of

               sand storage in the form of offshore bars. This means that no sand is available to return and

               rebuild the beaches after storms. The same condition tends to apply to sand placed in front of

               seawalls. The slope remains steep and no offshore bars develop and no sand returns after storm

               events.




               THE COAST

                       The coastal zone of New Jersey is a highly diverse component of the State. It retains

               aspects of the natural landscape in parts of Island Beach State Park and Little Beach while

               hosting the high rises and complete development of Atlantic City. It displays the ultrawide sand

               beaches of the Wildwoods in contrast to the much narrower and, at times, diminished beaches in

               most other portions of the State. Variety and diversity are important characteristics of the coast

               They are the attributes and the allure that are part of the coastal zone and provide for a wide

               range of experiences to the citizens of this State and neighboring states. If the shoreline were not

               eroding, the concerns for the shore would relate to the types of land use and the opportunities

               available to meet the needs of the citizens. If storms did not threaten the safety of the citizens
               and cause damage to the infrastructure, the community concerns would be directed to managing



                                                         Part III. I - 16-







                                                                                                DRAFT JULY
                                                                               PART III - BASICSIUPDATES

              the resources within the political unit. However, a fundamental truth in the coastal zone is that
              long-term erosion is displacing the shoreline and shifting the beaches and dunes inland. Further,
              the short-term events such as particular storms, storm surges, flooding, and wave attack provide

              dramatic and immediate modification of the coastal forms and cultural features found in the

              coastal zone. These long-term and short-term natural processes are responsible for the dynamic

              and changing nature of the coastal system. However, the coastal zone is replete with many static

              cultural phenomena and the severe dynamic processes that create the natural forms pose a

              constant threat to the lives of the coastal inhabitants, to the investments in the form of houses,

              buildings, and general infrastructure, and to many of the forms of livelihood practiced in the

              coastal zone. Management of the coastal zone is management of the exposure of the human
              occupants and their infrastructure to the hazards of being at the coast and adapting to the
              dynamic conditions that are continually modifying the system. Understanding the basis for the
              changes and longer-term directions of the changes provides a foundation for the application of
              management to enhance public safety and to encourage appropriate stewardship of the natural

              and cultural resources of the coast.




               COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HISTORY

                     The coastal features that occur on the New Jersey shore are products of events that began

              several millennia ago. What we see at the shore now are but the latest forms that have been
              developing* as sea level has risen and inundated the ancestral coastal zone. Conditions have been

              altered as periods of barrier island development have waxed and waned as a result of the natural

              processes of wind, waves, and currents transporting sediments along the coast.

                     It is likely that sea level was on the order of 150 m (450 feet) lower than today about

              20,000 years ago. This was during the last major stage of glacial ice accumulation during the

              Pleistocene. With a great quantity of water locked up on the continent in the form of the large
              glacial mass, the world's sea level was lower. At this time, the shoreline off New Jersey was
              about 100 miles (160 km) from the present shoreline. As the glacial ice began to melt, the water
              returned to the ocean and sea level began to rise and submerge the margin of the continent and



                                                       Part III. I - 17-







                                                                                                 DRAFT TULY
                                                                                 PART 1111 - BASICS/UPDATES

               encroach upon the exposed continental shelf The rate of sea-level rise was not uniform and there
               were times when the level probably dropped as small glacial re-advances occurred. However, by
               about 7500 years ago, sea level was about 45 feet below the present and the shoreline may have

               been only a few miles offshore from its present day position. The rate of sea-level rise was
               slowing as can be determined by comparing the large vertical change of sea level in the earlier

               period and the remaining 10% of the rise in the last 7500 years. Sea level continued to risle at a

               diminishing rate until about 2500 years ago when it slowed markedly (Fig. 8). At this time, sea

               level was about 5-6 feet (<2 m) lower than today and the shoreline was in the general vicinity of

               where it is today. In the northern portion of the state it may have been seaward, whereas in the

               southern part of the state it may have been landward. It is likely that the shoreline at about 2500
               years ago was a modest, low, narrow sand ribbon that was frequently overwashed and was
               extremely mobile. During the rapid sea-level rise of the previous millennia, the shoreline was
               probably very poorly developed and resembled the condition presently found in parts of
               Brigantine Island (Fig. 9). The constantly increasing water level continued to operate higher and

               higher on the continental shelf and whatever beach existed was continually propelled inland
               accompanying the encroaching sea (Fig. 10A). However, with the slowing of the sea-level rise, it

               is likely that the shoreline began to accumulate a little more sand and became a better-defined,

               linear sand ridge. With the virtual cessation of sea-level rise, about 2500 years ago, it is likely that

               the rate of accumulation of sand at the shoreline became sufficient that the beach began to build

               out and the barrier islands began to increase in width and height (Fig. 10B). It is likely that

               washover became less frequent and the barrier islands either ceased migrating inland or certainly

               reduced their rate of inland migration. The sand that now accumulated and that led to the
               enlargement of the barrier islands came from the offshore. It was probably material that was

               previously inundated as the sea was rising quickly in the past. Now there was an opportunity

               for the waves and currents to transfer the sediment to the shore and build the beach. Also,

               sediment began to fill the bays at this time and change the bays from an open water habitat to one

               which was initially composed of a fringing marsh and later to large tidal flats and marsh expanses

               that extended from the margins of the bays into the diminishing open-water habitat. It is



                                                        Part III. I - 18-







                                                                                           DRAFT JULY
                                                                           PART III - BASICS[UPDATES



                 0-          * Rapid Rise of
                               Sea Level                      0                Slow Rise

                             * Inland Penetration             0.  1
                                                                               Sedimentation,
                               and Estuarine Flooding
                 -2 -
                                                                               Barrier Island and
             Ca                No Habitat                     Z                Wetland Expansion
             a)  .  -
             U)  3             Equilibrium                        1
             0
             0)                                                                Toward
                 4                                            Z
             0                                                <   I            Ecosystem
                                                              cc
                                                                               Equilibrium
             >   5


             Cr- -6


                 -7



                 -8 ..........                   .......                    ........
                 -5500         -4500          -3500          -2500         -1500          -500     0     500


                                                      YEARS (before present)
             Figure 8. Generalized sea-level rise curve at coastal New Jersey. Most of the coastal features developed after the
             slowing of sea-level rise about 2500 years ago, and before the rapid rise of the past few centuries
































                                                    Part III. I - 19-













                                                                                                                          FIIILII'C 9.
                                                                                                                          Narrow beach. low
                                                                                                                          clune, broached bv
                                                                                                         gig
                                                                                                                          ovcrwash. inland
                                                                                                                          migration systern. Old
                                                                                                                          marsh exposed in hcach
                                                                                                                          as sand shifts island.
                                                                                                        7-@- 1 M. mm-@
                                                                                                                          Northern Brigantine
                                                                                                                          Island.















                                                                                                                          Fl-ure 11.
                                                                                                                          Verv wide barrier
                                                                                                                          island. site of-reat
                                                                                                                          sediment accumulation
                                    ..........                                                                            during low sea level rise
                                                                                                                          period.
                                                                                                                          Occan city







                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   DRAIFT JULY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                PART III - BASICSIUPDATES


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          A) Fast Rise of Sea Level



                                                                                                                                                         \@"V            BARRIER ISLAND MIGRATES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             sea level -



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



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          B) Slow Rise of Sea Level
                                                                                        BARRIER ISLAND
                                                                              ENLARGES IN PLACE





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            sea level
                                                                                                                                                                                   .....................................................................................................................................................................

                                                                                                                                                  ..........


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ...........                   ..........
                                                                                                                                                                                            ........ ...                   ......  .......... .......     .........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . .........                                                 ............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ............          . .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              7                         -1                                              . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . .
                                                                                                      . . . . . . .              . . . . . . .                                                                                            . . . .                                                                                                                                     ... . . . . . . .
                                                          7    X:-    X,.@:                        7. . .                                                     1:                                                                             . . . . . . ..                                                                                                               . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                          Figure 10. Stages of barrier islands development associated with sea-level rise. A. During rapid rise of sea level,
                                                          barrier was low and narrow. B. During recent slow rise of sea level, barrier widened and became higher, with dune
                                                          ,growth.
































                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Part IIIA - 21-







                                                                            DRAFT JULY
                                                               PART III - BASICS/UPDATES

            important to realize that the reason for the change to a condition of shoreline growth and wetland

            development was the relative reduction in sea-level rise and the availability of sediment. The
            very slow rate of rise was now accompanied by a rate of sediment delivery that was greater than
            the rate of drowning and the result was a change from a narrow sand ribbon that was being
            overwashed and displaced inland to a barrier island with dune development and sufficient width

            that washover was infrequent. Now the barrier islands were storing sand and building seaward.

            The bays were also storing sediment and building extensive wetlands were open water existed

            previously (Fig. 11).
                 However, the sand supply in the offshore, the area inundated by the rising sea, is a finite

            source. That is, the amount is limited. Once the sediment that was available to build the islands

            and fill the bays was exhausted, the process of accumulation ended and there became a transition

            from stability to slow loss. This transition was of varying time periods. It was dependent on

            whether other sources of sediment replaced some of the offshore source. Some of the barrier
            islands had accumulated large masses of sand and it is likely that sediment from one group of
            islands helped to nourish some of the downdrift islands. However, the primary source of

            sediment that was responsible for the height and width of the islands was completely used up

            and the situation had changed to one of slow losses of sediment as conditions now transferred

            sediment alongshore and offshore out of the New Jersey shoreline.

                 This general reversal may have occurred about 500 years ago. It was later in some areas.

            What we see now is a general reduction of the available sediment in the barrier islands and in the

            nearshore zone. Sediment is moving into deeper water and is not returning. Parts of the barrier

            islands are disappearing. In some cases, we see the loss as erosion of the beach and dunes. In

            some cases, we see that the ends of the barriers have been lost. In other cases, we see the remajA_s

            of a low, narrow sand sheet that is being displaced inland as washover events begin to occur

            again. Washover is common in the very early stages of barrier island development and in the very

            late stages of barrier island attenuation (Figure 9). Barrier islands migrate inland during these

            two end stages, when sediment supply is at a minimum and the islands have little height or

            width. Many of the New Jersey barriers still have sufficient sediment (Figure 11), washover is



                                            Part III. I - 22-








                                                                                                 DRAFT JULY
                                                                                PART I][[ - BASICS/UPDATES

               uncommon, and therefore island displacement does not occur. However, in those locations where

               washover is occurring, it is symptomatic of barrier island attenuation and it is the process by

               which sediment is transferred from the oceanside to the bayside of the island. It is the same

               process that was dominant when the low, narrow islands migrated inland during the time of rapid

               sea-level rise.

                      Thus, the development of the features that are composing the New Jersey Shore can be

               traced back thousands of years to times of lower sea level, but the features that we currently see

               at the shore are only a couple thousand years old at most. Most of the barrier island

               development can be traced to the time when sea-level rise slowed markedly about 2500 years ago.

               As noted by Fisher (1967), New Jersey shares an association of coastal barrier island

               configuration that is repeated several times along the East Coast of the United States (Fig. 12).

               Starting with the central section of Monmouth County that is currently devoid of barrier islands,

               there is a short spit, Sandy Hook, extending alongshore from the mainland. In the other direction,.

               there are several long narrow barrier islands (Island Beach spit, Long Beach Island), leading to a

               series of shorter, drumstick-shaped barriers (the southern section of islands). The presence of

               numerous active inlets in the south is also accompanied by more extensive wetlands in the back

               bays. The end product of the long-term development is a shoreline that incorporates considerable
               spatial variability. Further, the processes of shoreline development have not stopped. There are

               waves, currents, and wind acting upon the existing shoreline to continue to modify the remaining

               features.






















                                                        Part 111. 1 - 23-








                                                                                                                                                     DRAF17 JULY
                                                                                                                            PART III - BASICS/TJPDATES



                                                                                                                                        SANDY
                                                                                                                                        l1OOK



                                                                                                       M
                                                                                            -W;
                                                R
                                            5' V
                                                                                        J7

                                                  R'.
                                                                                                                           EZ,
                                                              VE
                                                                       5 '@IM
                                                                                                                                      ArbLwy Park

                                                KPK
                                                  il AM
                                    -@@WA     @'-v OF,                                        . . .....
                                                                                                                             71
                                                                                    t,4'   11@,,                                   MANASQUAN INI.4FT
                                                                                                                                  Bay Ifead
                                                                                               Na
                                                                                                          n*r'ffl.
                                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                   ,I M
                                                                                                  GGeA%@
                                                                                                         Rr!M-.W1              Scasido Park

                                                                 7A,                .. . .......
                                                                       ?




                                                                                                                        10   BARNEGATINLtT










                                                                                                                                            -N-

                                                                      LANTI C-
                                                                                                         U
                                                                                                             C1fHAvENINL&-j-
                                                                                                          EA
                                                                                                         LJME Eca INLET


                                                                                                      DRIGA NTINF INLk.T
                                                                                             A
                              CUMBgRL:,-AND.ri",,-".-*:'::'::'I
                                                                                                ANSECONINLET
                                                                                               Atlantic City                      ATLANTIC


                                  --r ... ..... . .. .-f,$
                                                                                                                                    OCEAN
                                                                                  GRFATEGG HARHOR INLET
                                                                               Ocean City

                                                                  21
                                                                          ORSON'S INLET



                                Delaware
                                                                      WNSENDS INLET
                                   Ba
                                      y



                                                            HEREFORD INLET
                                                                                                                         miles
                                Cape mjv.                 Wild.-.)
                                                                                                                         kilometers
                                                                                                                   0                    20

                                                                                                           IMCS/RULgers Cartography 1996

                     Figure 12. Map of coastal New Jersey.





                                                                                     Part III. I - 24-







                                                                                             DRAFF JULY
                                                                             PART III - BASICS[UPDATES


              BEBLIOGRAPHY


              Farrell, S. C., B. Sullivan, S. Hafner, T, Lepp, and K. Cadmus, 1995. New Jersey Beach Profile
                     Network: Analysis of he Shoreline Changes in New Jersey Coastal Reaches One throug
                     Fifteen, Raritan Bay to Delaware Bay. Coastal Research Center, Richard Stockton
                     College, Pomona, NJ.
              FEMA, 1995, National Mitigation Strategy: Partnerships for Building Safer Communities.
                     Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D. C.
              Fisher, J. J., 1967. Origin of barrier island chain shorelines: Middle Atlantic States. Geological
                     Society of America Special Paper 115, 66-67.
              Jensen, R. E., 1983. Atlantic Coast Hindcast, Shallow-Water Significant Wave Information.
                     Wave Information Studies Report 9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
                     Vicksburg, Mississippi.
              National Ocean Service,        , National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

              Psuty, N. P. (Panel Chair), 199 1. The Effects of an Accelerated Rise in Sea Level on the Coastal
                     Zone of New Jersey, U.S.A. Rutgers University, Institute of Marine and Coastal
                     Sciences, New Brunswick, Contribution 91-55, 51 pp-
              State of New Jersey, Office of Emergency Management, 1994. Hazard Mitigation Plan, DR-973-
                     NJ, New Jersey State Police, Trenton, NJ.
              Titus, J. G. and V. K. Narayanan, 1995. The Probability of Sea Level Rise. U.S. Environmental
                     Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 186 pp.
              Uptegrove, J., L. G. Mullikin, J. S. Waldner, G. Ashley, R. E. Sheridan, D. W. Hall, J. T. Gilroy,
                     and S. C. Farrell, 1995. Characterization of Offshore Sediments in Federal Waters as
                     Potential Sources of Beach Replenishment Sand -- Phase 1. Geological Survey, Open File
                     Report OFR 95-1, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ
              U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Spring 1996. New Jersey Shore Protection Study Update.
                     Philadelphia District, 6 p.
              Warrick, R. A., E. M. Barrow, and T. M. L. Wigely (Eds.), 1993. Climate and Sea Level Change:
                     Observations, Projections and Implications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
                     UK, 424 pp.



















                                                      Part 111. 1 - 25-






                                                                                                  DRAFr - July
                                                                                         Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                        New Jersey Coastal Reach Characterizations

                       Coastal New Jersey is composed of five broad geomorphological units. They are the
               products of coastal processes operating on the continental margin to produce an assemblage of
               coastal forms. They incorporate the amount and direction of sediment transport. These speeific
               geomorphological areas include the following sections (Fig. 1):
                                      Northern Barrier Spit (10 miles)
                                      Northern Headlands (19 miles)
                                      Northern Barrier Islands Complex (42 miles)
                                      Southern Barrier Islands Complex (50 miles)
                                      Southern Headlands (3 miles)
                       Within these geoniorphological areas exist 13 separate oceanfront entities called "reaches
               (Fig. 2). These New Jersey reaches are defined as coastal regions where a particular set of coastal
               processes affect the physical characteristics of the area. The combination of processes and
               resulting forms describes each reach. In many cases, inlet positions define reach boundaries and
               break the coast into sediment transport or circulation cells.
                       The reaches contain finer geomorphological associations and definitive erosional/
               depositional patterns. The Shore Protection Master Plan of 1981 includes maps of erosion rates
               of particular areas within reaches. This erosion rate system ranges from I through IV, describing
               a predominant erosion or accretion trend:
                                              Category I - Critical erosion
                                              Category II - Significant erosion
                                              Category III - Moderate erosion
                                              Category IV - Non-eroding
                       Because particular magnitudes and spatial associations of coastal processes are specific to
               reaches, and not jurisdictional regions, coastal management options for New Jersey's coastal
               region should be employed based on a "reach" approach. In avoiding the reach-breakdown of the
               coast, coastal management methods can actually aggravate problems found on adjacent shore
               areas because these management methods would be "piecemeal" and may not involve the entire
               area which is affected by simil  'ar coastal processes. The reach concept for the management
               process endeavors to reduce the potential for any shore erosion control program to produce
               adverse effects in adjacent shore areas (e.g. down-drift effects) (1981 SPMP).
                       The following list of New Jersey reaches is derived from the New Jersey Shore Protection
               Master Plan of 198 1. The first reach is numbered "2 " because it is the first "oceanfront" reach in
               the list. Reaches 1, 15 and 16 in the 1981 SPMP are "bay" and "river" reaches and as these areas
               are not included in this reassessment of the 1981 Plan, they have not been included in this list
               (Fig. 2).

                                      2. Sandy Hook to Long Branch
                                      3. Long Branch to Shark River Inlet
                                      4. Shark River Inlet to Manasquan Inlet
                                      5. Manasquan Inlet to the Borough of Mantoloking
                                      6. Mantoloking Borough to Barnegat Inlet
                                      7. Barnegat InIet'to Little Egg Inlet (Long Beach Island)
                                      8. Little Egg Inlet to Absecon Inlet (Pullen Island & Brigantine Island)
                                      9. Absecon Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet (Absecon Island)


                                                          Part 111.2- 1






                                                                                                DRAF7 - July
                                                                                       Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                     10. Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Corsons Inlet (Peck Beach)
                                     11. Corsons Inlet to Townsends Inlet (Ludlam Island)
                                     12. Townsends Inlet to Hereford Inlet (Seven Mile Beach)
                                     13. Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet (Five Mile Beach)
                                     14. Cape May Inlet to Cape May Point

                      Much of the data within these characterizations were obtained through sources such as
              USACE Reconnaissance Reports, Living with the New Jersey Shore, actual tours of the area,
              New Jersey Beach Profile Network Reports, the 1981 New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan,
              aerial photography, and personal communication with experts of the coastal area in question.
              The main USACE publication utilized for the characterizations was the Limited Reconnaissance
              Report of 1990, This source contained an inventory of the engineered structures that have been
              placed along the New Jersey coastline, a list of beach nourishment projects which have been
              completed along the New Jersey coastline between the years 1936 through 1990, and general
              characterization summaries of New Jersey coastal areas. The book Living with the New Jersey
              Shore was helpful in providing an overview of coastal characteristics. The actual tours aided in
              proving a firsthand observation of the coast in its most recent condition. The New Jersey Beach
              Profile Network Reports of 1986 through 1995 provided infort-nation of sediment accretion and
              erosion specific to the area, outlined a historical background of coastal processes of New Jersey,
              and helped indicate what coastal areas may be dangerous to people and development. The 1981
              New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan was used for its background information, which was.
              updated with other sources, along with mapping erosion rates up and down the coast, and,
              delineating the geomorphological breakdown of the entire coast. Aerial photography taken in
              1995 provided a recent holistic view of the coastal area enabling updates to older sources used to
              describe the coastline. Beach tours and meetings with local town officials and coastal experts
              helped to outline the main issues of concern at the coast based on the factors that were affecting
              development, beach width, dune development, and the effectiveness of structures and beach
              nourishment operations.























                                                        Part 111.2- 2
















                                          VC'A R ,It I N












                                                                                     RARITAN BAY



                                                      sc  me0 @x-

                                                                                             S
                                                                                              ANDY HOOK TO
                                                                   ';7'
                                                                                               LONG BRANCH
                                                          7

                                                                                             LONG BRANCH TO
                                                                      uqm     v           3,SHARK RIVER
                                                                                                 INLET

                                                                                              SHARK RIVER
                                                                                         4- INLET TO
                                                                                            MANASQUAN INLET
                                                                                            MANASQUAN INLETJ
               DELAWARE RIVER
                                                                                            TO MANTOLOKING1
                                                                           A''. N


                                                          N_trT
                                                              0 N                     6,MANTOLOKING TO
                                                                                            BARNEGAT INLET




                              4.1 L ilu:.c C.T-A


                           A-:,A,,-. M,
                                   ..,7'                                         7---LONG BEACH ISLAND


                                                  A   L     T   C
                                                               7

                                                                                 PULLEN ISLAND AND
                                                                         8
                             c U'.@!_A` KR "Ll", @,-b                            BRIGANTINE ISLAND
                                                                            ABSECON ISLAND
                                                                            (ATLANTIC CITY,VENTOR,
                                                                            MARGATE,LONGPORT)
                                                               10-- PECK    BEACH
                                   W 4 0                              (OCEAN CITY)
              DELAWARE SAY                                    '---LUDLAM ISLAND
                                                                  (SEA ISLE CITY,STRATHMERE)
                                                          12-SEVEN MILE BEACH
                                                               (AVALON,STONE HARBOR)
                                                     3-, FIVE MILE BEACH
                                                          (THE WILDWOOD S)
                                     CAPE MAY   INLET                SHORELINE REACHES
                                   TO CAPE MAY PaINT



                                                        1-4                               FIGURE    I B- 1






                                                                                                    DRAFr - July
                                                                                           Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                              Reach 2: Sandy Hook to Long Branch

                       Reach 2 forms the northernmost portion of the coast of New Jersey. It extends for 11.2
               miles (17.9 km) from the northern tip of Sandy Hook southward to Long Branch. It consists of
               the Sandy Hook Unit of the Gateway Recreational Area, Sea Bright Borough, and Monmouth
               Beach Borough. Geornorphologically, Reach 2 is the portion of the Northern Highlands leading
               to and incorporating the Sandy Hook Northern Barrier Spit. The Northern Highlands has a
               cliffed coast, on the order of 15 to 20 feet from water level to the top of the small bluff that looks
               out to the ocean. This portion of the coast is exposed to the direct attack of waves which,
               because of the protective effect of Long Island and New England, either approach from the east
               or more commonly from the southeast. The result is a longshore drift carrying sediment
               primarily to the north throughout the year. Through time, the northerly drift has transported
               great quantities of sediment from the eroded cliffs toward Raritan Bay and has built and extended
               Sandy Hook spit which is presently approximately 5.8 miles (9.3 km) long (Fig. 1).
                       The attachment of Sandy Hook to the Northern Highlands, however, has waxed and
               waned as variations in sediment availability, storm effects, and drainage from the Navesink River-
               Shrewsbury River systems have alternately breached and sealed inlets in the spit. At times,
               Sandy Hook has been an island, it has been connected to the Highlands, and it has been attached
               to the Northern Highlands at Long Branch as it is today.
                       Most of Reach 2 is sediment starved.          The only portion which has a history of
               accumulation and accretion is the northwesterly-trending component at the distal end of Sandy
               Hook. Otherwise, the cliffed portion of the Highlands and the lower portion of Sandy Hook spit
               are eroding. Around the turn of the century, the construction of a 15 foot high seawall was begun
               to prevent breaching of the spit and to protect the very narrow southern portion of the spit. The
               seawall eventually lined the entire oceanfront of Monmouth Beach, which has 1.6 miles (2.6 km)
               of oceanfront, and Sea Bright, which has approximately 3.7 miles (5.9 km) of oceanfront.
                       Numerous groins of varying dimensions and shapes extended seaward from the seawall in
               efforts to catch and hold meager amounts of sand in northerly transport. Sandy Hook has five
               timber groins and six stone groins which extend from 100 to 600 feet in length; Sea Bright has 25
               groins: six of stone, twelve of timber, four of stone and timber, and three of stone and steel with
               groin lengths varying from 160 to 600 feet; Monmouth Beach has only four groins: one of stone
               and steel, two of stone and one of stone and timber (USACE, 1990). At times small pocket
               beaches would be created in the comers of the attached groins. For long stretches, the waves
               would break directly on the seawall with no beach to intercept them. Even after the seawall was
               constructed, erosion continued to remove sediment from the spit. The offshore zone was
               steepened and the seawall was undermined by the loss of supporting sediment. Storm conditions
               would cause collapse of portions of the wall.
                       When the seawall was completed in 1926, it terminated in what is now part of the
               Gateway National Recreation Area. The seawall curved seaward, following the trend of the
               shoreline, and ended at a wide portion of the spit, about 2000 feet at the time. However, small
               quantities of sediment transported in the beach zone to the end of the seawall were insufficient to
               maintain the beach at this position and erosion began to displace the beach inland (Fig. @). By
               1978, the erosion had extended so far that the Hook was in danger of being breached. In 1978,
               the first of several overwashes occurred and eventually a small breach destroyed the road and
               threatened to sever the connection to the northern portion of the spit. Two major episodes of
               beach fill have temporarily filled the critical zone at the end of the seawall. However, the


                                                           Part 111.2- 4







                                                                                                 DRAFT - July
                                                                                        Part 111.2 - Reaches
               shoreline erosion continues. This portion of Sandy Hook is classified as Category 1, critically
               eroding, in the 1981 SPMP. The area to the north of the Critical Zone has been relatively stable
               during this century, indicating that there is a sediment balance. The extreme northwesterly
               portion of Sandy Hook is accreting and extending into Sandy Hook Channel and into Raritan
               Bay.
                      The Sea Bright-Monmouth Beach shoreline had been directly at the base of the seawall
               for many decades. However, in 1994-96 a major beach nourishment project began that was
               designed to create a beach 100 feet wide, at an elevation of 10 feet above mean low water (Fig. 3).
               This project is active now. Previously, the Sea Bright shoreline was at the seawall. Prior to the
               beach nourishment, both areas had been classed as Category 1, critically eroding (1981 SPMP).
                      There are no dunes in front of the seawall, not even on the beach fill portion. Several
               areas of well-developed dunes exist in the Sandy Hook Park, north of the Critical Zone. Some of
               the foredune areas are natural, whereas others have been constructed by the managers of the Park
               or by the previous occupants of this section of SandyHook.
                      Sea Bright is mostly a recreational community. Residential development with commercial
               development is concentrated in the center of town. There is a trend toward townhouses and
               condominium units. There is also a trend toward more year round housing. The elevations are
               very low and flooding is a recurring problem and will remain s 'o even with a beach in front of the
               seawall. Monmouth Beach is a residential community, and as in Sea Bright, there is a tendency
               for more townhouse and condominium development, with more year round housing.

































                                                         Part 111.2- 5













                                                              TOT

                                                                                                                            I- ure
                                                                                                                          Base of Sandv t look
                                                                                                         1W
                                                                                                                          spit attached to the
                                                                              F M104
                                                                                                                          uplands. South
                                                                                                                          Monmouth Beach.
                                                                                       Ir
                                                                                                                          Seaxall lining occan
                                                                                                                                of'spit.
                                                                                                                          si












                                                                                                                           'i,, tire 2.
                                                                                       ggq
                                                                    . ... .                                               Narrow Sandv Hook
                                             . . . . .........
                                                                                                                           pit. Seawall at ocean
                                                                                          0,
                                                                                                                                ends In fore,_,rOLInd.
                                                                                                                          causing critical erosion
                                                               X

                                                                                                                          Zarc,a                    un
                                                                                                                                 Sandv Hook             it,
                                                                                                                          Gatewav National
                                                                                                                          Recreation Area.






                                                                                               30







                                                                                                                          F to tire
                                 @z
                                                                                                                          1995 beach
                                                                                                                          nourishment in front of'
                                                                                                                          scawail. Sea Bright.






                                                                                                DRAFT - July
                                                                                       Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                          Reach 3: Long Branch to Shark River Inlet

                      Reach 3 occupies the northern area of the Northern Headlands section of the coastline. It
              extends from Long Branch to Shark River Inlet and is approximately 7.2 miles (11.5 km) in
              length. It consists of Long Branch City, Deal Borough, Allenhurst Borough, Loch Arbour
              Village, Asbury Park City, Ocean Grove (Neptune Township), Bradley Beach Borough, and
              Avon-by-the-Sea Borough. Reach 3 is a cliffed coastal zone with the predominant littoral drift to
              the north. The elevation of the scarp in the bluff is the greatest between Long Branch and Deal
              and gradually decreases heading south to Avon-by-the-Sea. The bluff elevation is interrupted in
              places by shoreline perpendicular stream valleys which reduce the upland elevation to below sea
              level.
                      There are numerous freshwater lakes along the central Monmouth County coast which
              occupy stream valleys that drain eastern Monmouth County. These valleys were blocked at the
              beachfront by a sand ridge (bay-mouth barrier) preventing direct water flow to the sea during the
              early history of shoreline development (Fig. 1). Deal Lake, Wreck Pond and some other valleys
              have been temporarily open to sea after storm events, but were closed rapidly by post-storm
              wave activity because stream flow was not sufficient to keep inlets open. None of these small
              valleys had any significant estuary associated with it to allow the existence of a tidal prism.
                      Reach 3 has been losing sediment offshore and alongshore over an extended period of
              time. Generally, the beach width increases from north to south. Beaches in Long Branch are
              very narrow and do not normally exist between the West End area and Allenhurst. The beaches
              gradually widen south to Ocean Grove, and finally, narrow near the north jetty of Shark River
              Inlet. According to the New Jersey Beach Profile Network (NJBPN, 1987-95), these beaches did
              not show rapid changes in accretion or erosion, and very few trends of chronic accretion or
              erosion. The gains and losses within Reach 3 did not occur in any particular sequence.
                      Shore protection in Reach 3 is varied. The seawall from Reach 2 continues south into
              Reach 3, ending just north of 404 Ocean Avenue in Long Branch (Fig. 2). There are no shore
              protection structures at Long Branch's Seven Presidents State Park, but a rock revetment and
              vertical steel bulkhead begin at the north end of Ocean Avenue in Long Branch and run
              continuously south to the West End. Deal and Allenhurst have both groins and shoreline parallel
              walls for most of the length of oceanfront. The Darlington Avenue site in Deal does not have a
              bulkhead at the bluff s edge. From Asbury Park south, shore parallel structures are mostly
              wooden bulkheads, a few with rock toe protection. There was little beach nourishment activity
              in the period from 1986 to 1992, but modest fill was placed on Allenhurst beach in 1989
              (NJBPN, 1993). Between Allenhurst and Deal there is a very long groin and it acts to restrict the
              littoral transport of sediment, adding to the scarping. in Deal. The beach conditions at this area
              allow for hundreds of feet of beach on the south side of a groin and no dry beach on the north
              side of the same groin. The minor reentrants in the bluff edge have left healthy "pocket" beach
              segments which see intense use (Long Branch's Seven Presidents State Park), or no beach (West
              End in Long Branch, and Phillips to Roosevelt Avenues in Deal) because of varied land use
              decisions or structural failure.
                      Recent development in the Reach 3 area demonstrates a trend towards townhouses and
              condominium units. The area behind the revetment in Long Branch is extensively developed with
              many stately homes lining the shorefront. The land use in Deal is single-family residences on
              large lots. The coastal area has also seen a trend towards more year round housing. There are



                                                        Part 111.2- 7







                                                                                                  DRAFT - July
                                                                                         Part 111.2 - Reaches
              very few open space segments of this shoreline. The Seven Presidents State Park is the only
              public use open space, along with five or six public/private beach clubs.
                      The oceanfront in Long Branch is about 4.3 miles (6.8 km) in length. From Lake
              Takanasee south, the erosion rate classification is Category 1, critically eroding (1981 SPMP);
              Long Branch from Lake Takanasee north is Category 11, significantly eroding (1981 SPMP). The
              city has approximately 34 groins and five T-groins having lengths of 200 to 500 feet in front of a
              stone and timber seawall/bulkhead that extends for 10,450 feet (USACE, 1990). The groins were
              made of several materials: 13 were made of stone-timber, one of timber, 23 of stone and two of
              stone-steel (USACE, 1990).
                      Deal's oceanfront area runs approximately 1.6 miles (2.5 km) and is characterized by
              narrow pocket beaches between stone groins, backed by a scarp varying by ten to 20 feet in
              height at different places (Fig. 3). This scarp erodes during storms, and in most cases there are no
              dunes at the back of the narrow beach. Deal is identified as Category 1, critically eroding (1981
              SPMP). As local short-ten-n protection to the upland, concrete riprap and bulkheads have been
              used in scarped places by Deal residents. The borough has ten groins extending from 200 to 585
              feet: six are made of stone and four of stone-timber (USACE, 1990). The revetment is made of
              stone and stone-steel, and is sectioned into three parts measuring 700 feet, 650 feet and 1500 feet
              in length (USACE, 1990). The steel bulkhead is 23 feet high and 500 feet long (USACE, 1990).
                      Loch Arbour and Allenhurst have a very small shoreline and essentially act as a single
              unit. Both municipalities have shorefront located between two long groins. The oceanfront
              section of Allenhurst is about.3 mile (A km) and Loch Arbour's is around .2 mile (.3 km). Loch
              Arbour and Allenhurst differ in profile in that Loch Arbour has one vegetated dune at the back of
              the beach and Allenhurst has no dunes. The 1.981' SPMP had classified the entire area as
              Category 1, critically eroding. Allenhurst has two groins: one of stone and one of stone-timber
              ranging from 105 to 564 feet in length. Allenhurst also has a large concrete bulkhead which is
              about 22 feet high and 1500 feet long (USACE, 1990).
                      The Asbury Park beach extends for approximately .9 mile (1.5 km). The elevation of the
              back shore is low, and storm waves have frequently washed sand onto the road. Erosion has
              occurred just downdrift of a very long groin and has produced a flanking of the groin at its
              northern landward end. This groin is now protected by a riprap wall constructed parallel to the
              shore, but fhis wall has also been flanked. The town does not have a dune system on the narrow
              beaches. The boardwalk runs along the beach with a bulkhead beneath it to prevent overwash.
              Asbury Park has five groins. One of them is in the shape of an "L" and located in front of the
              Paramount Convention Hall. Three are constructed of stone and two of stone-timber and they
              range from 548 to 603 feet in length (USACE, 1990).
                      Ocean Grove has slightly less than .6 mile (.9 km) of narrow beach, with a modest dune
              system at the back preserved with dune grass and dune fencing. Ocean Grove has four groins
              made of stone-steel that range from 444 to 548 feet in length. The two newer groins that have
              been built are notched (USACE, 1990).
                      Bradley Beach, with slightly less than a mile of ocean frontage is deprived of sediment in
              the littoral zone because of the northern drift and the impact of the jetty at Shark River Inlet.
              Bradley Beach is Category 1, a critically eroding zone (1981 SPMP). Bradley Beach has three
              stone groins and numerous dilapidated wooden groins. The stone groins have been reduced in
              length and the extra stone was placed at the inland margin of the groin on the beach to support
              the timbers. There are no dunes but there are intentions to create a dune system once the beach
              replenishment project has been completed in Bradley Beach. The new boardwalk is made of


                                                         Part 111.2- 8







                                                                           DRAFT - July
                                                                    Part 111.2 - Reaches
           patio blocks and it has been reconstructed back about 40 feet as a result of extensive damage in
           1992.
                 The oceanfront section of Avon-by-the-Sea is about .5 mile (.8 km) long and is
           immediately updrift of Shark River Inlet. Avon has very narrow beaches and no dune system.
           There is a jetty and four very long groins in Avon; the jetty is 620 feet long while the groins are
           between 192 to 615 feet in length (USACE, 1990).
















































                                            Part 111.2- 9

















                                                                                      Fil'Ure 1.
                                                                                      Manv uroins and other
                                         Ilk,
                                                                                                at upland
                                                                                      structures
                                                                                      edge. Lake   dr(.)wned
                                                                                      stream vallev.
                                                                                      Allenhurst to Asbury
                                                                                      Park.











                                                                                      I`ioure 2-
                                                                                      Upland edge at Long
                                                                                      Branch. multitude of'
                                                                                      -roins. revetment line
                                                                                      contact Drift is to the

                                                                                      n
                                                                                       rth. 1994.
                                                                                      o











                                                                                      F i o ure 3
                                                                                      Rip rap revctment
                                                                                      protect no erosional
                                                                                      margin of northern
                                                                                      hh,hlands. Narrow
                                                                                      beaches at reentrants
                                                                                      in coastal bluff. Deal.
                                                                                      1994.







                                                                                                   DRAFT - July
                                                                                          Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                         Reach 4: Shark River Inlet to Manasquan Inlet

                       Reach 4, which is both residential and commercial, lies between Shark River Inlet and
               Manasquan Inlet, and is approximately 5.9 miles (9.4 km) long. The reach consists of Belmar
               Borough, Spring Lake Borough, Sea Girt Borough, and Manasquan Borough and is a continuation
               of the Northern Headlands portion of the New Jersey coastline. As in Reaches 2 and 3, the
               littoral drift in this area is predominantly to the north and it is a cliffed coastal zone. The upland
               bluff occurs at the ocean's margin with the sand beach situated at the base of the scarp and some
               dune forms masking this scarp.
                       The area south of Shark River has the widest beach between this point and Sandy Hook.
               The inlet jetty traps large volumes of sand being transported to the north (Fig. 1). The beach
               narrows in the southern part of the Belmar oceanfront to a minimum at the boundary with Spring
               Lake, and beach widths are narrow between Manasquan and Sea Girt as well.
                       Reach 4 has dune systems running along the coastline. Belmar has a low, narrow,
               vegetated dune system alongside the boardwalk at the back of the beach. The dune system ends
               in the vicinity of Lake Como in South Belmar. There is a dune system that covers the bluff edge
               in Spring Lake and National Guard Beach (part of the National Guard Armory, a state-owned
               shorefront between Sea Girt and Manasquan). The original foredune still exists in Manasquan,
               but beachfront cottages are built on it. The new man-made dune system here was built in the
               1980's east of the walkway.
                       There is some variety of beach protection structures north of the National Guard Beach.-
               A Beachsaver Reef, which is a new form of engineered approach for coastal management, has
               been utilized in Spring Lake and it has been in place since July 1994. The studies regarding the
               Reefs effectiveness have not been conclusive. Groins, jetties and bulkheads are other forms of
               coastal management within this area. Groins and jetties are common south of National Guard
               Beach.
                       Shark River Inlet, the northernmost portion of Reach 4, was stabilized in the early 20th
               century with stone jetties to prevent the inlet channel from meandering at the area of its exit into
               the ocean. The accumulation of sediment, as a result of the jetties, is greater on the updrift side
               of this inlet.
                       Belmar's oceanfront is approximately 1.5 miles (2.3 km) in length with the beach at its
               widest at the north end near the jetty, narrowing to the south. At Lake Como in South Belmar
               the road is fronted by a concrete bulkhead and, to the north of that, by a riprap, concrete-capped
               bulkhead/seawall. The area from Shark River Inlet to Lake Como in South Belmar is classified as
               Category III, moderately eroding, (1981 SPMP) and the area in front of Lake Como is Category
               11, significantly eroding (1981 SPMP). The shore structures at Belmar consist of four notched
               stone groins and one stone jetty (USACE, 1990). The jetty is 885 feet long and the groins ranp
               from 600 to 620 feet in length (USACE, 1990).
                       Spring Lake has over 2 miles (3.2 km) of beach. The northerly end has a narrow beach,
               with an old bulkhead which is no longer effective. There is a boardwalk located in front of the
               dune system at this beach and parts of this coastal section have a concrete chain of discs located
               in front of the boardwalk as a form of coastal management to retain sand. Spring Lake is
               classified as Category 111, moderately eroding (1981 SPMP) and has eleven stone groins ranging
               from 325 to 640 feet in length (USACE, 1990).
                       Sea Girt has approximately 1.4 miles (2.3 km) of narrow beach. This beach has a high
               scarp masked by some sand, especially at the southern end, and no dune system. In the northern


                                                          Part 111.2- 11







                                                                                                  DRAFT - July
                                                                                         Part 111.2 - Reaches
               portion of Sea Girt, buildings are farther back from the beach. The infrastructure and boardwalk
               located in front of these buildings provide some protection from storm activity. The center of
               Sea Girt's coastal zone has a boardwalk over the beach in front of the cliffed area. The southern
               portion of Sea Girt is private and has no boardwalk and no infrastructure. Sea Girt is classified as
               Category 11, significantly eroding (1981 SPMP). Sea Girt has six stone groins and seven timber
               groins and the National Guard Armory's coastal zone has three stone groins and one timber groin
               (USACE, 1990). These structures range 120 to 550 feet in length (USACE, 1990).
                       Manasquan is I mile long (1.6 km) and characterized by narrow beach which is a result of
               the effects of the jetty at the Manasquan Inlet. A macadam "boardwalk," runs along the back of
               the dune system. At E. Preston Street, one side of the groin located in this area was well-exposed
               whereas the other side of the groin had accumulated sand up to the height of the groin's top
               surface. To the north of this street the groins are notched. Manasquan was classified as
               Category 11, significantly eroding (1981 SPMP). Manasquan has twelve groins along the coast
               and the j ettied Manasquan Inlet causes the downdrift, erosion. These structures are constructed
               of the following: three of stone, one of stone-timber, and three of stone-steel (USACE, 1990).
               The groins range from 150 to 545 feet and the jetties are 1230 and 1030 feet (USACE, 1990).




































                                                         Part 111.2- 12

















                                           FI-Ure
                                           Widenino, beach caused
                                           by inlet at Shark River
                                           inlet. zroiris at rnai-Lin.
                                           Northerly drift. Be6ar.









                      pqtu                 F '2 U re 2.
                                           Narrow Beach at contact
                                           with upland. boardwalk
                                           over beach. dunes
                                           capping upland contact.
                                           Sprin- L,akc.














                                  .......... .Fioure 3.
                                           Boardwalk and artificial
                                                     ITI
                                           dunes. Steep bea h.
                                           with structures.
                                           Manasquan.
                                    -6,







                                                                                                DRAFT        July
                                                                                       Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                     Reach 5: Manasquan Inlet to Mantoloking Borough

                      Reach 5 begins at the Manasquan Inlet and extends south to Mantoloking Borough
              making up the southern segment of the Northern Headlands and the beginning of the Northern
              Barrier Island Complex. Most of Reach 5 is within the headlands portion of the coast south of
              Manasquan Inlet and the extreme northern part of the peninsula around the middle of Bay Head's
              oceanfront. The rest of Bay Head comprises the beginning of the Northern Barrier Island
              Complex. This reach is approximately 3.1 miles (4.9 km) in length and consists of Point Pleasant
              Beach Borough and Bay Head Borough. The region is characterized by moderate-to-narrow
              beach widths, and steeply sloped beaches.
                      The bluff area, which is primarily in Point Pleasant Beach, has an elevation masked by
              beach sand which is only a few feet above sea level. Forsythe Avenue in Bay Head marks the
              southernmost point on the New Jersey coast where the older coastal plain sediments are exposed
              directly adjacent to the ocean shoreline.      The shoreline south of Forsythe Avenue is a
              combination of spits built from local headland segments, bay-mouth barriers, and small barrier
              islands. All the individual coastal features eventually coalesced into the present-day "spit-like"
              peninsula which ends at Barnegat Inlet. It is entirely constructed of sands eroded from upland
              bluffs and from sand moved westward on the continental shelf by wave processes as the sea level
              rose over the past 20,000 years.
                      The beach of the Reach 5 Northern Headlands segment gradually narrows to the south.
              The net littoral sand transport direction in Reach 5 favors the north as evidenced by an.
              accumulation of sand on the south side of the Manasquan Inlet jetties produced by the northerly
              littoral drift and the jetty interference with this sediment transport. Moving south of Manasquan
              Inlet, there is an increasing component of a southerly littoral drift to the longshore transport.
              Eventually, the balanced drift produces a null net transport zone and a moderately eroding
              shoreline.
                      Point Pleasant Beach has an approximate 1.8 mile long (2.9 km) coastal area that narrows
              to the south. The northern section of Point Pleasant Beach is classified as Category IV, non-
              eroding (1981 SPMP). The southern section of Point Pleasant Beach is classified as Category 111,
              moderately eroding (1981 SPMP). The northernmost portion of Point Pleasant Beach has greater
              width than the rest of the area and dunes should be present naturally, but extensive recreational
              activities have eliminated natural dune development (Fig. 1). There is a small dune line just east
              of part of the boardwalk that was constructed after Hurricane Gloria in 1985. The stretch of
              beach from New York Avenue to Carter Avenue has been contracted a proposal for dune
              enhancement. Dunes were to be created within the amusement park area of Point Pleasant Beach
              in 1995 as well. Homes have been built behind the dunes and some private owners have utilized
              dune fencing. A portion of Point Pleasant Beach has an amusement park area and accompanyin
              recreational facilities which classify it as a recreational community.
                      The oceanfront in Bay Head is about 1.2 miles (1.9 km). The beach is of moderate width
              and has a dune system which is moderate to large-sized, well-vegetated and fenced. This dune
              system is present all throughout Bay Head and serves for both buffering purposes and to fortify
              the gaps at street ends. Walkways through the dunes exist and are perpendicular to the
              beachtront. This residential community is classified as Category 111, moderately eroding (1981
              SPMP). Bay Head has ten groins which are exposed at low tide and are covered up the rest of
              the time. Eight of these groins are made of timber and two are made of stone (USACE, 1990).



                                                        Part 111.2- 14






                                                                                       DRAFT - July
                                                                               Part 111.2    Reaches
             These groins range from 150 to 250 feet in length (USACE, 1990). Bay Head also has a stone
             seawall that is 4150 feet long (USACE, 1990) located under the dune system (Fig. 2).




















































                                                   Part 111.2- 15















                                                                                        FH,ure  I
                                                                                        W'denln(z beach north to
                                                                                        Manasquan Inlet, sand
                                                                                        aouinst upland Margin.
                                                                                        lakes *n drowned
                              -A""                                                      valleys.
                                                                                        Point Pleasant.


                                                                                -Z









                                                                                        Fil'Ure 2.
                                                                                        Exposed rip rap seawall
                                                                                        at inner marunn of
                                                                                        beach, under dune
                                                                                        rid-c. after storm.
                                                                                        Bc-Innimz ofbarrier
                                                                                        island.
                                                                                        Bav Flca(L Dec. 1992.






                                                                                                DRAFT - July
                                                                                       Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                       Reach 6: Mantoloking Borough to Barnegat Inlet

                      Reach 6 extends from Mantoloking Borough to Barnegat Inlet and makes up the northern
              part of the Northern Barrier Islands Complex. This reach is approximately 20.3 miles (32.5 km)
              long and consists of Mantoloking Borough, Normandy Beach, Ocean Beach (Brick Township),
              Lavallette Borough, Ortley Beach (Dover Township), Seaside Heights Borough, Seaside Park
              Borough, South Seaside Park (Berkeley Township), and Island Beach State Park. The long
              Northern Barrier Island Complex is a peninsula which extends south from Bay Head to Barnegat
              Inlet, comprising a Holocene barrier beach complex.
                      Ma or storms have occasionally broken through this reach's long peninsula and created
              new inlets. The Ortley Beach-Seaside Heights boundary was once the site of Cranberry Inlet
              which existed immediately seaward of the mouth of the Toms River estuary. This historical inlet
              situation is an example of how inlet creation and inlet migration are commonplace on a long
              barrier island such as that in the Reach 6 segment. Barnegat Inlet had migrated 3,700 feet south
              (56 feet per year) between 1866 and 1932 when the first rock jetty structures were started
              (Farrell and Leatherman, 1989). Ten of the twelve miles from the Toms River estuary to
              Barnegat Inlet is presently the site of Island Beach State Park, which is the longest section of
              continuous open space on the New Jersey coast and the largest State-owned section of the
              shoreline anywhere in the State.
                      Beach surveys conducted from 1986 to 1995 indicate that the sediment losses occurred
              for the most part at the northern section of the reach and a substantial sediment gain occurred at-
              the southern end in Island Beach State Park at the jetty (NJBPN, 1986-95). Reach 6 has beaches
              of moderate width, and many communities have promoted the development of dunes. Removal
              of sediment has possibly been limited due to the lack of a significant net longshore transport
              direction along a large part of this shoreline segment. Dunes are present throughout most of this
              reach, except for the northern end of Seaside Heights south to Stockton Avenue.
                      The development in Reach 6 varies from a nearly all privately owned shorefront in
              Mantoloking to extensive public amusements and boardwalk-oriented recreation in Seaside
              Heights. South of Seaside Heights, the development is mostly single family homes and small
              motels. Island Beach State Park is an undeveloped coastal area.
                      Mantoloking has 2 miles (3.2 km) of beach. The beach is moderately wide, and has
              sizable dunes measuring 16 to 21 feet in elevation that remain because lots are large enough that
              the houses can be built well back from the beach. Mantoloking is classified as Category III,
              moderately eroding (198 1, SPMP). In the vicinity of South Mantoloking the dune system serves
              as a buffer to overwash and inlet creation which are characteristic of Reach 6. Downer Avenue,
              located on the southern end of Mantoloking is the most threatened section of the borough.
                      Normandy Beach is .5 miles (.8 km) long and the beaches have a moderate width.
              Normandy Beach has been classified as Category 111, moderately eroding (1981 SPMP). Near
              Normandy Beach the houses are protected by a dune, although it is narrow and discontinuous in
              places. Often, houses have been built on top of the dune. As a result, these houses are
              vulnerable because of dune erosion during large storms which may undermine their foundations
              and cause structural failure.
                      Ocean Beach has .8 miles (1.2 km) of moderate width oceanfront. This beach is classified
              as Category III, moderately eroding (1981 SPMP).. Portions of the beach have dunes with
              vegetation and fencing. A large exposed condominium is located on the beach, farther seaward



                                                        Part 111.2- 17






                                                                                                   DRAFT - July
                                                                                          Part 111.2 - Reaches
               than any other structure within the area, and it does not have any dunes or much beach width in
               front of it.
                       The generally narrow oceanfront of Lavallette is approximately 1.3 miles (2.1 km) in
               length. Lavallette is classified as Category 111, moderately eroding (1981 SPMP). A boardwalk
               lines most of the shore in this community (Fig. 2). The dune system, which measures 12 to 15
               feet in elevation, is sparsely vegetated and fenced. In some areas, sandbags have been placed
               underneath the face of the dunes in pyramid fashion and storm scarped dunes have been fenced
               for strengthening purposes as previous storms had washed them out. Lavallette has nine stone
               groins ranging from 300 to 350 feet in length (USACE, 1990). The town also has a timber
               bulkhead that is 2 100 feet long (USACE, 1990).
                       Ortley Beach is approximately .7 miles (1.2 km) long and has a beach of adequate width
               for recreational purposes. Ortley Beach is classified as Category 111, moderately eroding (1981
               SPMP). It has a vegetated and fenced dune system along the back of the beach seaward of the
               boardwalk, but the dunes are not fertilized. The beach does not have any structures. There is a
               boardwalk and a gazebo on each end of the boardwalk.
                       Seaside Heights has approximately .8 miles (1.2 km) of oceanfront with moderate beach
               width for recreation. Seaside Heights is classified as Category III, moderately eroding (1981
               SPMP). The town does not have any dunes or any particular       'beach management plan other than
               maintaining a moderate width for the recreational season. The beach has not eroded drastically
               within recent years. The boardwalk extends throughout Seaside Heights and into part of Seaside
               Park. The two piers extending seaward are the only structures on the beach in Seaside Heights.
                       Seaside Park is about 1.7 miles (2.7 km) long and the beach, which does not have any hard
               structures, is of moderate width with angled beach entrances located about every 500 feet. This
               beach is classified as Category III, moderately eroding (1981 SPMP). The town utilizes a dune
               maintenance program on its wide, artificial dune system. The continuous line of fenced dunes are
               fertilized regularly and have a significant amount of vegetation. In some parts of Seaside Park,
               the boardwalk is situated between dunes: the eastward dune is located at the back of the beach
               and the westward dune located alongside the road. There is an offset of dunes at Stockton
               Avenue, where the Seaside Park dune system ends and where the Seaside Heights amusement
               park boardwalk begins.
                       South Seaside Park has approximately .7 miles (1. 1 km) of oceanfront and has a
               moderately wide beach. The area is classified as Category III, moderately eroding (1981 SPMP).
               The fenced dunes in this area have developed over the past 15 years and have accumulated into a
               substantial size with most of the vegetation being natural.
                       Island Beach State Park has 9.5 miles (15.2 km) of natural beach of moderate width that is
               sectioned into different areas, with each area each enforcing a separate set of rules and regulations
               for maintenance and use. The northern area has limited beach use for recreation (Fig. 3); the
               central area is used for bathing and recreation; and the southern end allows beach buggies onto
               the beach as a recreational activity. The dunes are relatively natural and presently unaffected by
               construction or modification. There are multiple dune lines in this park and the rear dunes are
               .thickly vegetated with brush, dune plants and small trees. Some dune breaches that exist within
               the system are wide enough to permit four-wheeled drive vehicles to pass through, and although
               the access roads are not straight, they may permit entry of large storm surge waves into the
               interior parts of the park during serious storm events. The coastal foredune is a continuous line
               ranging from 15 to 20 feet in elevation with beach grass vegetation. The inland dunes are thickly
               vegetated with shrubs, trees and other vegetation. All of these dunes have been able to form


                                                          Part 111.2- 18







                                                                           DRAFr - July
                                                                    Part 111.2 - Reaches
           naturally without much human interference. The only engineered structure in Island Beach State
           Park, which had been raised in 1987-9 1, is the stone jetty located on the northern end of the inlet
           which extends for approximately 4900 feet.





















































                                           Part 111.2- 19








                                                                IM

                                                                                                                                 -c
                                                                                                                          Fi,,ui
                                                                                                                          Well-developed coastal
                                                                               ir
                                                                                       t                                  back f'rom rId,_,c. Barrier
                                                                                                                          dUne. most houses set.
                                                                                 aim
                                                                                                                           sland systern.
                                                                                                                          Mantolokoing




                                                                                                                 -X7.,
                                                                                         1"t -@R






                                                                                                                          Fl(,,ure 2.
                                                    - - - - - - - - - - -                                                 Variable width beach
                                                                                                                          associated with -'roins,
                                                                                                                          narrow dune zone in
                                                                                                                          front of* boardwalk.
                                                                                                                          Lavallette








                                                                                                            @A









                                                                                                                          Fl-ure 3.
                                                                                                                          Lar-e dissected dune
                                                                                                                          zone, northern area.
                                                                                                                          Island Beach State Park




                                                                                                         ks-







                                                                                               DRAFT - July
                                                                                       Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                Reach 7: Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet (Long Beach Island)

                      Reach 7, Long Beach Island (LBI), is a barrier island that extends from Barnegat Inlet to
              Little Egg Inlet. This island is 18 miles (28.8 km) in length and is the longest of any of New
              Jersey's barrier islands. It is the southernmost section of the Northern Barrier Islands Complex.
              The six municipalities within this reach include: Barriegat Light Borough, Harvey Cedars
              Borough, Surf City Borough, Ship Bottom Borough and Beach Haven Borough, all situated
              among four segments of Long Beach Township. Long Beach Island has a nearly straight, north-
              northeast ocean-facing shoreline. The entire island, classified recreational, is heavily developed
              with the exception of the southernmost 1.8 miles (2.9 kin) which is devoted to open space as
              part of the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (Holgate Unit). The island is vulnerable to erosion
              because its beaches are steep and narrow and barrier island breaching remains a threat.
                      The past 40 years of development have greatly changed the oceanfront side of the island.
              Before 1950, neither homes or motels existed within approximately 500 feet of the dunes in large
              sections of the oceanfront. Today, very few sites exist where buildings are either greater than
              200 feet from the mean high tide line or more than 50 feet from the seaward toe of the dunes.
              Some of the construction within LBI is elevated on pilings, but set so far seaward that severe
              dune erosion may enable breaking storm waves to reach under the building and cause collapse of
              the structure. Storm evacuation is a difficult task on Long Beach Island because it only has a few
              north-south roads, and only one road to the mainland.
                      The northern inlet boundary to LBI has been stabilized, but the southern boundary inlet
              has been active with tendencies to migrate along the shoreline and to change main tidal flow
              channels which rapidly alters the abundant flood-tidal and ebb-tidal shoals surrounding the inlet
              mouth. The reach has been generally classified as Category III, moderately eroding (1981
              SPMP). The littoral drift is dominantly directed to the south along much of LBI. The southern
              end of the island consists of a spit which in the past has extended southwestward at the rate of
              up to 200 feet per year. Although no area along Long Beach Island has been classified as
              Category 1, critically eroding, a few areas of significant erosion (Category 11) occur in the
              following areas within this reach: portions of Ship Bottom Borough, Brant Beach, and Beach
              Haven Borough. With the exception of these few locations, there is no imminent danger to
              dwellings or infrastructure, and sufficient setback usually exists between the eroding shoreline
              and the nearest buildings and roads.
                      Coastal management methods within this reach have featured both "hard" and "soft"
              engineered approaches in the form of groins and jetties, and beach nourishment. The entire
              barrier island had received beach nourishment in 1962-63, but in recent years, beach nourishment
              has mostly been confined to the northern quarter of the island because the sand supply has been
              derived from dredging Barnegat Inlet, although during the early 1990's in Loveladies there had
              been an episode of beach nourishment where sand had been trucked in. Harvey Cedars also had7a-
              beach nourishment project done in 1990. The groins present in this reach are mainly of the low
              rubble mound type and are located about four blocks apart. Rock groins in Harvey Cedars are an
              exception and are of higher profile extending back to the street end.
                      Barnegat Light is about 1.8 miles (2.7 kin) long and has a wide beach. It has large, well-
              vegetated dunes located at the back of the beach. There is no mapped dune zone, but the dune
              ordinance states that the dunes cannot be tampered with. A major 1991 south jetty renovation
              project had a major impact on the beach position of the northernmost part of the island. The
              shoreline has advanced seaward by hundreds of feet within a thousand feet of the jetty (Fig. 1).


                                                       Part 111.2- 21






                                                                                                 DRAFr - July
                                                                                        Part 111.2 - Reaches
              The accretion tapers off near the Barnegat Light-Loveladies boundary. Barnegat Light has 13
              groins, which mostly are buried and one jetty. These structures are constructed of the following:
              one of stone-timber-core, three of timber-stone, five of timber and five of stone. The groins range
              from 165 to 506 feet and the jetty is 2950 feet long (USACE, 1990).
                      Harvey Cedars is approximately 1.9 miles (3 km) long and has a very narrow beach (Fig.
              2). This area is classified as Category 111, moderately eroding (1981 SPMP) but has potential for
              critical erosion during storm events. Harvey Cedars has a dune system at the back of the beach
              and also has eleven stone groins reaching to about 320 feet (USACE, 1990).
                      Surf City has approximately 1.3 miles (2 km) of oceanfront and has moderate beach
              width. The dunes are maintained at 22 to 23 feet in height and are never lower than 16 feet. All
              dunes are vegetated and walkovers for beach access have been constructed above the dunes. Surf
              City has seven timber-stone groins that range from 335 to 340 feet (USACE, 1990).
                      Ship Bottom is 1.3 miles (2 km) long and has a moderate beach width. The fertilized and
              fenced dunes are maintained at a 1.6 foot elevation at the building line. The street ends that have
              groins are also the ones that have bulkheads which are maintained at a 14 foot elevation. There
              are seven timber-stone groins in Ship Bottom ranging from 335 to 340 feet in length (USACE,
              1990).
                      Long Beach, interspersed among the island's municipalities is approximately 9.3 miles
              (14.9 kin) long with moderate beach widths. There is a dune system, 14 to 16 feet high, at the
              back of that beach. Long Beach Township has 65 groins ranging from 235 to 420 feet (USACE,
              1990). They are constructed of the following: 60 of timber-stone, three of stone, one of sub-net-
              and stone, and one of sandbag and stone (USACE, 1990).
                      Beach Haven is approximately 1.8 miles (2.9 km) long and has moderate beach width.
              The dunes have vegetation and zig-zag fencing. A very high groin causing an offset beach at
              Holyoke Avenue in Beach Haven exacerbates the downdrift erosion in this area (Fig. 3). Beach
              Haven has ten groins: eight of stone, one of timber and one of timber-stone (USACE, 1990).
              These range from 300 to 340 feet in length (USACE, 1990).
                      The Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (Holgate Unit) is a natural,
              undeveloped, federally owned portion of coast that has a moderate width of beach running 1.7
              miles (2.7 km) in length. There is evidence of overwash in this area as evidenced by breaks in the
              vegetated dunes and sheets of sand spreading into the bay.



















                                                        Part 111.2- 22







                                                                                                  DRAFT - July
                                                                                         Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                          Reach I' ): Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet

                      Reach 13 extends from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and is approximately 7.6 miles
               (12.2 kin) in length. It is comprised of North Wildwood City, Wildwood City, Wildwood Crest
               Borough and the Coast Guard Reservation. This reach is part of the Southern Barrier Islands
               Complex in which the net littoral transport is southerly with a reversed local transport at the
               northern end. Reach 13, made up entirely of recreational communities, contains no Category I
               (critically eroding) erosion areas, and has significantly wide beaches (Fig. 1). Wildwood has the
               widest beach measuring approximately 1200 feet at its narrowest sections running the length
               from the boardwalk to the high mean water line. The beaches within this reach, however, have
               very low elevations.
                      There is natural accretion at the northern portion of the island and the jetty affects the
               southern portion where much of the sand that would be transported to Cape May City is
               trapped and accumulated north of Cape May Inlet. A combination of tidal currents and storm
               waves have removed much of the sand along North Wildwood's inlet shoreline so that there is no
               beach at all in the inlet throat. Beach protection structures such as bulkheads, seawalls, and
               groins have been built along the inlet shoreline to cope with erosion. The westernmost inlet
               shoreline in North Wildwood has been classified as Category 111, moderately eroding, (1981
               SPMP), whereas the inlet shoreline on the easternmost side of this "drumstick" -shaped barrier
               island's northern tip has been classified as Category 11, significantly eroding (1981 SPMP).
                      North Wildwood has about 2.9 miles (4.6 kin) of wide oceanfront with dunes at the back-
               of the beach. This beach had not always been very wide. In 1963, the high mean water line was
               at North Wildwood's boardwalk. The southernmost portion of North Wildwood has been
               classified as Category IV, non-eroding (1981 SPMP). North Wildwood has three groins
               constructed of rubble and concrete that range from 77 to 187 feet in length (USACE, 1990).
               North Wildwood also has four bulkheads that range from 933 to 5200 feet in length and 11.3 to
               12.5 feet in height (USACE, 1990). The bulkheads vary in construction: two are made of
               timber-sheet pile; one is made of steel piling; and, one is made of concrete, stone and brick
               (USACE, 1990). The city also has three revetments: one is made of stone-timber-rubble; one is
               made of concrete rubble; and, one is made of stone and grout (USACE, 1990).
                      Wildwood is approximately 1.3 miles (2.2 kin) long with a beach of great width and a
               very modest dune system (Fig. 2). This beach provides more protection against wave attack than
               at other locations in southern New Jersey. Most of Wildwood is classified as Category IV, non-
               eroding (1981 SPMP). The 1981 SPMP classifies the southernmost section of Wildwood as
               Category 11, significantly eroding; however, the beach is not presently threatened by any critical
               or significant erosion. This coastal community has no hard engineered structures on the beach.
                      Wildwood Crest has about 1.9 miles (3 kin) of oceanfront which is low in elevation and
               has a little less width than Wildwood. Wildwood Crest has natural, well-vegetated dunes and
               there are multiple dune lines on the beach. The southern part of Wildwood Crest contains dunes
               that have formed up against the bulkhead. Wildwood Crest had been classified as Category 11,
               .significantly eroding, for the most part, and Category 111, moderately eroding, at its southern end
               (1981 SPMP) even though this beach is presently fairly wide and not undergoing any critical or
               significant erosional processes. At this time, Wildwood Crest has a bulkhead that is 5200 feet in
               length and about eleven feet in height (USACE, 1990).
                      The U.S. Coast Guard Reservation makes up the southernmost portion of this barrier
               island. The Reservation's coastal area is approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 kin) in length (Fig. 3). This


                                                         Part 111.2- 37






                                                                                          DRAFT - Ju    ly
                                                                                  Part 111.2 - Reaches
             area has had accretion of thousands of feet since the construction of the jetties. The stone jetty
             at the inlet which stems from the Reservation's beach is 4548 feet long (USACE, 1990).





















































                                                    Part 111.2- 38















                                                                                Fl"Urc
                                                                                Wide bulbous end of'
                        4.
                                                                                island, Accretim-, beach
                                     mmw.
                                                                                w th ve-etated dune
                                 k-                                             zone. North Wildwood
                                                                                and Wildwood.















                                                                                Fi-ure 2.
                                                                                Low flat beach,
                     P
                                                                                a
                                                                                 -1711.1sernent picrs
                                                                                 t
                                                                                straddled over beach,
                                                                                patches of vegetation.
                                                                                110 dune line.
                                                                                W i wood


                                       L,













                                                                                Fi(ru e 3.
                                                                                Accretion at    groins
                                                                                            jetty
                                                                                in beach. DUncs ion
                                                                                Coast Guard
                                                                                Reservation and in
                                                                                Wildwood, Crest.







                                                                                               DRAFT - July
                                                                                       Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                       Reach 14: Cape May Inlet to Cape May Point

                     Reach 14, extending for approximately 6.3 miles (10. 1 km), is the southenunost ocean
              shoreline in New Jersey running from Cape May Inlet to Cape May Point. This reach consists
              of U.S. Coast Guard Base, Cape May City and Cape May Point Borough. The U.S. Coast
              Guard Base and Cape May City occupy the barrier island, which is part of the Southern Barrier
              Islands Complex; and, Cape May Point occupies the southwest comer of the reach, and is part
              of the Southern Headlands region. Cape May Point State Park and a portion of land owned by
              the Nature Conservancy (South Cape May Meadows, Lower Township) forms the shoreline
              between Cape May and Cape May Point.
                     The paucity of sand caused by the Cape May City jetty (Fig. 1) is exacerbated by the
              groins and seawall that run along this reach's shoreline. The division between Cape May City
              and the South Cape May Meadows in Lower Township lies just southwest of the Third Avenue
              groin. It has effectively blocked the limited volume of sand being transported southwest (Fig. 2).
              As a result, the South Cape May Meadows, the Cape May Point State Park, and Cape May
              Point have become relatively starved of sand. Because of the recent beach fill, sand is in the
              process of by-passing the groin and forming a spit attached to the end of the structure extending
              south parallel to the beach in Cape May City.
                     The region from the Cape May Inlet (formerly known as Cold Spring Inlet) to Cape May
              City at Ocean Avenue has been classified as Category 1, critically eroding, (1981 SPMP) because
              of the accelerated erosion and deteriorated condition of the seawall which may provide protection-
              from very small storms, but not from large storms. The beach at the western portion of Cape
              May City has been classified Category 11, significantly eroding, (1981 SPMP) because of the
              dependence on the condition at the updrift beaches, even though this area has a narrow to
              moderate beach with stone groins which are presently functioning adequately. Sand starvation in
              this area could lead to immediate problems such as potential flanking of the terminal groin at the
              western end of the city. Despite the erosion of Lower Township and Cape May Point State
              Park, these areas have been classified as Category 111, moderately eroding, (1981 SPMP) because
              sufficient setback distance exists between erosion forces and the developed areas or
              infrastructure. Cape May Point has been classified as Category 11, significantly eroding, (1981
              SPMP) because of previous erosional trends.
                     The Coast Guard Base stretch of shoreline northeast of Cape May does not have much
              development in terrns of buildings, but it had at one time been developed into an airport. There
              has been rapid erosion here, estimated at 20 feet per year, which is a result of its location
              downdrift of the jetties at Cape May Inlet that trap sand carried by the longshore current on the
              north side of the inlet.
                     Cape May City has approximately 4.1 miles (6.6 km) of narrow shoreline. Before the
              beach nourishment operation in 1990, which had been done from the Cape May Inlet jetty south'
              to the Third Avenue groin in Cape May City there had been either a very narrow beach or no
              beach at high tide in certain areas of the beach fill section. Continued erosion has led to the
              construction of groins and reinforcement of the seawall. Extensive shoreline development and
              shore management structures have prevented shoreline retreat and as a result, offshore slopes are
              steep. One of the positive effects of the beach nourishment project was that the severely eroded
              southern end of Cape May had begun to form sandbars. Cape May has 15 groins and one stone
              jetty (USACE, 1990). The groins range from 150 to 786 feet in length and the jetty is 4385 feet
              in length (USACE, 1990). Five of the groins are made of timber crib and nine of them are made of


                                                       Part 111.2- 40







                                                                                                 DRAFT - July
                                                                                        Part 111.2 - Reaches
               stone (USACE, 1990). Cape May also has five stone seawalls which range from 400 to 4426
               feet in length and are about 14 feet in height; and, one timber bulkhead that is 3703 feet long and
               14.3 feet in height (USACE, 1990).
                      Cape May Point has about 1. 1 miles (1 .8 km) of narrow beach for the most part with an
               artificial dune system (Fig. 3). In some places, dunes are larger and wider than others, depending
               on the width of beach they are situated in. Slabs of concrete have been put up against the face of
               the sloped area in front of the Convent which serve as a buffer protecting the Convent from wave
               energy. Cape May Point's eastern section has been classified as Category 111, moderately
               eroding, and its western portion has been classified as Category 11, significantly eroding (1981
               SPMP). Cape May Point has nine groins: six are made of timber-stone and three are made of
               stone (USACE, 1990). These groins range from 275-500 feet in length (USACE, 1990). Cape
               May Point also has one timber bulkhead which is 12 feet in height and 400 feet in length
               (USACE, 1990). In addition to these structures, Cape May Point also has a Beachsaver Reef in
               place since May/June 1994 which is being monitored for positive and negative effects.







































                                                        Part 111.2- 41















                                                                                            Fioure 1.
                                                                                            Trapping oflittoral sand
                                                                                            updrift ofthe Cape may
                                                                                                       s downdrift
                                                                                            jCttV CaLISC
                                                                                            crosion of most of, tile
                                                                                            -each















                                                                                            Fl-ure
                                                                                            Groins have I'Lli-ther
                                                                                            limited sedinlent
                                                                                            transport beyond Cape
                                                                                                                 large
                                                                                            May City. causing
                                                                                            offsset in shoreline.
                                                                                            Cape .1v1av Citv




                                                      :a@







                                                                                            FiLure 3.
                                                                                            The southern highland
                                                                                            forms the south@rn point
                                                                                 ft::,      of' New Jersey.
                                                                                            Sedt,
                                                                                                ilient starvatiOn
                                                                                            results in narrow
                                                                                            beaches and scarped
                                                                                            dunes.
                                                                                            Cape May Point







                                                                                                DRAFT - July
                                                                                       Part 111.2 - Reaches

              THE REACH CONCEPT IN MANAGEMENT


                      The reach concept is a means to organize and integrate the physical processes, the
              sediment transport systems, and the geomorphology of the coastal zone.            It still remains
              relatively simplistic and there will be conditions that develop that blur the boundaries of the
              reaches and create more or fewer reaches. The absolute number of reaches is not of great
              importance. It is far more meaningful to approach the coastal zone as a series of segments that
              respond to stimuli in some holistic manner. Management should strive to consider the responses
              of an entire reach in deciding the application of a strategy or an approach to some coastal issue.
              Further, the boundaries of the reaches are not really closed systems which isolate portions of the
              coast from the other. Inlets are not absolute boundaries. Sediments do pass across inlets. Inlets
              are dynamic portions of the coast and interact with the reaches on either side. Jettied inlets
              obviously affect the positive and negative sand budgets updrift and downdrift.            However,
              unjettied inlets also store and release sediments and do interact with the adjacent shores. Inlets
              are convenient boundaries and do represent a change of processes, whereby tidal flows are
              introduced as a mechanism for sediment transfers in addition to the waves and wave-induced
              currents. The reach concept is a guideline for management. It is still necessary to use the
              knowledge of the range of processes, of sediment delivery, of beach-dune interaction, of human
              intervention to formulate strategies that function at a regional scale.


































                                                        Part 111.2- 43















                                                                                                                          F-ure 1.
                                                                                                                          Barne@-,at Inlet jetties.
                                                            W
                                                                                                                          extensions 'beach
                                                                                                                                          of
                                                                                                                          ad
                                                                                                                             Jacent to _jetty',
                                                                                                                          erosional condition
                                                                                                                          downdrift.      Barne-at
                                                                                                                          Inlet. Lomz      Beach
                                                                                                                          Island.













                                          WN
                                                                                                                          171.111.1re 2.
                                                                                                                          Narrow Beach and dune
                               M
                                                                                                                          zone. many groins.
                                                                                                                          fully developed island.
                                                                                                                                                Beach
                                                                                                                          Northcrn Lon,
                                       kl @M
                                                                                                                          Island, 1994.


                                           'A@


















                                                                                                                              u re
                                                                                                                          Multiple groins, offsets
                                                                                                             - - - - - - - - - - - - - -in island associated with
                                                                                                                          sequences of*
                                                                                                                          development. Southern
                                                                                                                          Lon- Beach Island.







                                                                                                DRAFr - July
                                                                                       Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                           Reach 8: Little Egg Inlet to Absecon Inlet

                      Reach 8, extending from Little Egg Inlet to Absecon Inlet is approximately 6 miles (9.6
              km) in length. It is made up of Pullen Island and the Brigantine barrier island which consists of
              the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (EBFNWR) and the city of Brigantine. This
              reach is part of the Southern Barrier Islands Complex where the littoral drift is southerly.
                      Pullen Island and the Brigantine barrier island have extensive estuarine systems on their
              western boundaries separating the barrier islands from the mainland. This area consists of three
              to five miles of small uninhabited islands, shallow bays, tidal marshes, creeks, and lagoons. The
              marsh exists because of the large amount of sediment that has been overwashed and transported
              through the inlets into the backbay. The average ground elevation of the barrier islands is
              approximately 10 feet above mean sea level.
                      The Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge is composed of Pullen Island and an
              approximate 2 mile (3.2 km) section of undeveloped beach on the northernmost end of the
              Brigantine barrier island. Pullen Island was breached in 1994, presently forming two small
              islands. Overwash is commonplace in this location. Although Pullen Island is under a constant
              state of dynamic migration, there is no development that can be threatened and therefore the area
              has not been classified with an erosion rate in the 1981 SPMP. The northern section of
              Brigantine barrier island is the southernmost section of the EBFNWR and has a consistently
              narrow beach.
                      Brigantine Inlet, also called "Wreck Inlet," lies between Pullen Island and Brigantine-
              Barrier Island interrupting the EBFNWR area. There are no structures at Brigantine Inlet.
                      The city of Brigantine occupies the remainder of the Brigantine barrier island, extending
              slightly over 4 miles (6.4 km). There is an offset at the border of the Refuge and the city of
              Brigantine. The northern part of Brigantine City has a very low, narrow dune system in front of
              a narrow beach. The developed northern portion of Brigantine Island has been classified as
              Category 1, critically eroding (1981 SPMP) because of the low, narrow beach and poor condition
              of groin structures. Existing development is very close to high water and storm waves pose
              considerable threat to the buildings located there. A dune system exists south of the Brigantine
              Hotel and continues for the length of the island becoming larger to the south as the beaches
              widen. The southernmost dunes attain an average of 190 to 230 feet in width and five to ten feet
              in height, and are well-vegetated. Brigantine barrier island has a wider beach width to the south,
              but has been classified as Category 11, significantly eroding (1981 SPMP) because developed
              areas are threatened by storm erosion. The southernmost portion of the island is influenced by
              the north jetty of Absecon Inlet. Sand is accumulating on the updrift side of the jetty forming a
              wider protective beach. This area is classified as non-eroding, Category IV (1981 SPMP).
              Brigantine City has 28 groins extending from 70 to 630 feet in length and one stone jetty that is
              3,730 feet long (USACE, 1990) bordering Absecon Inlet.             The groins vary slightly in
              construction: 21 groins are made of timber and seven are made of timber-stone (USACE, 1990).
              Brigantine also has seven bulkheads: six are made of timber and one is made of timber-stone
              (USACE, 1990).








                                                        Part 111.2- 24
















                                                                               @Aw  F-ure I
                                                                                    Undisturbed Barrier
                                                                                    island system. New
                                                                                    nlet developed    1994,
                                                                                    Pullen Island.



                                                        WOW,
                                                    .Z













                                                                                          2.
                                                                                    Raw
                                                   -7
                                                                                    Low Beach. overwash
                                                                                                 -oss low
                                                                                    into marsh aci
                                                                                    narrow dune. Old marsh
                                                                                    outcropping, in beach.
                                                                                    North Bri-antine Island













                                                                                    Figure
                                                                                    Widenin- dune zone
                                                                                    toward Inlet.
                                                                                    Accull"ILIkItion updrift of!
                                                                                    Absecon Inlet'jetty.
                                                                                    Bri-antine.







                                                                                                    DRAFT - July
                                                                                           Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                         Reach 9: Absecon Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet

                       Reach 9 extends from Absecon Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet and consists of the
               Absecon barrier island. It is the most intensively developed barrier island in New Jersey, with a
               shoreline that extends a little over 8 miles (12.8 km) gradually decreasing in width from north to
               south with segmented coastal dune systems. The reach is made up of four communities:
               Atlantic City, Ventnor City, Margate City, and Longport Borough. Absecon Island has
               extensive coastal and estuarine wetlands on its western boundary, consisting of a few miles of
               shallow bays, small uninhabited islands, tidal marshes, creeks and lagoons. It is part of the
               Southern Barrier Islands Complex, the dominant direction of longshore transport in Reach 9 is
               southerly.
                       Dynamic littoral change has been characteristic of this area. Around mid- I 9th century,
               Absecon Island was two barrier islands separated by a small tidal inlet, which is presently Inside
               Thorofare. The smaller islands have since merged to create Absecon Island.
                       As a result of wave action and the highly erosional Absecon inlet, a pronounced lobate
               deposit of sand had at one time accumulated, extending the beach seaward at the northeast comer
               of Atlantic City. The ebb-tidal flow had removed sand from the inlet shoreline and deposited
               most of it offshore around present-day Connecticut to North Carolina Avenues in Atlantic City.
               The area is presently eroding and the persistence of this erosion at Absecon Inlet caused by tidal
               currents and ocean waves has resulted in the construction of inlet jetties, groins, and the relatively
               high seawall/bulkhead.
                       Another set of inlet processes impacted the southern end of Absecon Island where the
               Great Egg Inlet channel migrated south breaking off a segment of Longport. Even though the
               littoral drift is southerly, little sand has accumulated at the southern end of Absecon Island in the
               recent past (early in the century 10 blocks of the city were lost).
                       Atlantic City has 3.4 miles (5.4 km) of shoreline. The Absecon Inlet jetty has helped to
               retain sediment at the inlet's border but the beach narrows toward the south. The beach is
               especially narrow in front of the intense development of hotels and casinos (Fig. 1). Atlantic
               City has several piers extending seaward and a boardwalk that runs along the length of the city.
               Geo-tubes are used as a core for the artificial coastal foredune ridge in the northern part of
               Atlantic City's beach, in front of the casinos. The remainder of the beach area has artificial dunes.
               Northern Atlantic City has been classified as Category II, significantly eroding, and to the south,
               Atlantic City has been classified as Category III, moderately eroding (1981 SPMP). Atlantic
               City has 19 groins ranging from 165 to 600 feet in length and one stone jetty that is 1,177 feet
               long (USACE, 1990). Six groins are constructed of timber-stone, seven are made of stone and
               seven are made of timber (USACE, 1990). Atlantic City also has two timber bulkheads and one
               stone revetment (USACE, 1990).
                       Ventnor City has 1.7 miles (2.7 km) of narrow beach with few sporadic sets of small
               dunes. The boardwalk is located at the high tide line and has piers extending from it to the street
               ends. Ventnor has residential development along the coastline and all oceanfront buildings are
               located behind bulkheads. To the south, the bulkhead and boardwalk are separated by a distance
               of approximately 150 feet, which serves as a type of back beach. The berm width varies between
               40 and over 100 feet. Northern Ventnor City is classified as Category III, moderately eroding
               and its southern portion has been classified as Category 11, significantly eroding (1981 SPMP).
               Ventnor City has one timber wavebreaker and 13 bulkheads, five of which are constructed of
               timber, six of concrete and two of concrete-timber (USACE 1990).


                                                          Part 111.2- 26







                                                                                              DRAFT - July
                                                                                      Part 111.2 - Reaches
                     Margate City has 1.6 miles (2.6 km) of narrow beach with remnants of dunes as Margate
              does not have much beach area to accommodate protective dunes. The beach at the southern end,
              however, almost triples in width. Margate has a "zig-zag" development line where certain
              developed areas jut out onto the beach. Margate City has areas classified as Category 11,
              significantly eroding, or 111, moderately eroding (1981 SPMP), depending on the local condition
              of beaches and shore protection structures. Margate has 15 groins ranging from 125 to 425 feet
              in length: nine are made of timber, three are made of stone and two are made of timber-stone
              (1981 SPMP). Margate also has 19 bulkheads: two are made of concrete, twelve of timber, four
              of timber-concrete, and one of concrete-block (USACE, 1990).
                     Longport Borough is 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in length and occupies the southern "drumstick"
              portion of the barrier island. The beach has low elevation, narrow width and no dune system
              (Fig. 2). The entire length of the Longport oceanfront is lined with either a bulkhead or seawall
              which has potential to be overtopped by overwash. A unique curved concrete seawall wraps
              around the end of the island and extends bayward. , Residential development sits a few feet
              behind the seawall. Very little sand accretion, if any, exists at this end in front of the curved
              seawall. Based on the severity of the erosion problem and the potential for danger to private
              property and the infrastructure, Longport is classified as Category 1, critically eroding (1981
              SPMP). Longport has eleven groin that range from 250 to 507 feet in length (USACE, 1990).
              One groin is made of timber, eight are made of timber-stone and two are made of stone (USACE,
              1990). Longport also has two concrete seawalls and one stone revetment (USACE, 1990).
































                                                      Part 111.2- 27














                                                                                       Fltzure
                                     Z,
                                                                                       Casino developnicilts at
                                                                                       northern bulbous end of'
                                                                                       island, Atlantic CItv
                                                   K
                                            4.
                                                                                       boardwalk above
                                                                                                   -crnnats.
                                                                                       sainil dunc i
                                                                                       Dec. 1992





                                                   AP,







                                                                                       Figure 2.
                                                                                       Boardwalk over heach.
                                                                                       No durics on profile,
                                                                                       bulkhead in Lipper
                                                                                       be ac h.
                                                                                       Ventnor















                                                                                       FIIILII-e 3.
                                                                                       Ifio-h densitv on
                                                                                       Southern en@ of' island,
                                  r4
                                                                                       no duties. bulkhead at
                                                                                       top of'narrow. low
                                                                            f
                                                                                       beach. Terminal -ro'n at
                                                                                       inlet. Longport







                                                                                                DRAFT - July
                                                                                       Part 111.2 - Reaches
                                      Reach 10: Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Corsons Inlet

                     Reach 10 is approximately 7.8 miles (12.6 km) long and is part of the Southern Barrier
              Islands Complex in which the littoral drift is southerly. It extends from Great Egg Harbor Inlet to
              Corsons Inlet and consists of Ocean City and Corsons Inlet State Park, both of which are
              classified as recreational land use (1981 SPMP, Vol 11). Reach 10 is the only barrier island Reach,
              other than Reach 8 (Brigantine barrier island), which consists of only one municipality, Ocean
              City. Corsons Inlet State Park, occupies the undeveloped portion of the southern end of the
              barrier island.
                     The northern end of Ocean City, bound by Great Egg Harbor Inlet, is presently an area of
              considerable erosion potential and critical hazard similar to the other inlet throat beaches. In
              1981, the SPMP had classified the area as Category 11, significantly eroding. Corsons Inlet,
              which bounds the southern end of the barrier island, is not stabilized and has not been dredged
              since 1971 when hopper dredging was suspended. The State has no plans to stabilize this inlet
              and it is currently officially "closed to navigation" since 1984. Corsons Inlet has been narrowing
              over the years due to sediment accumulation within the inlet.
                     Ocean City is approximately 7.1 miles (11.4 km) long. Prior to the beach nourishment
              projects in the 1990's, Ocean City's narrow beach provided little inland protection against
              storms. In addition, experience from the 1962 storm shows that the area is very vulnerable to
              flooding.
                     The dune line of Ocean City follows an offset path with the building line along the back-
              of the beach. The dunes are segmented in the northern and central areas (Fig. 1) and the southern
              area does not have any dunes (Fig. 2). Dunes have not only been created at the offsets but they
              also exist at the beach filled area and are moderately covered with dune grass.
                     Small timber groins have trapped sediment transported south from Ocean City's beach-fill
              operations. Groins are concentrated toward the north end of the island (Fig. 3), but extend to the
              limit of southern development with an increased spacing interval. There is a bulkhead in the
              central part of this segment and a rip-rap seawall in the southern section. The 1981 SPMP
              classified Ocean City's beach as Category I, critically eroding, however, the NJBPN of 1993
              states that the beach erosion problems are not as critical in this portion of the barrier island as
              they are to the north. Beach nourishment in conjunction with the bulkheads and groins may have
              helped retard the process of erosion within the area since the time it had been classified with an
              erosion rate in 1981. Comparison of storm damage caused by ocean waves from the October
              1991 and January 1992 events and the more intense December 1992 storm demonstrate the
              protective and sacrificial effects of the beach nourishment projects.
                     Ocean City has 48 groins ranging from 80 to 1070 feet in length (USACE, 1990) and their
              construction varies: 32 are made of timber, ten are made of stone, two are made of timber/steel
              sheet, two are made of stone/timber core, one is made of stone/timber and, one is made of
              stone/concrete (USACE, 1990). Ocean City also has 13 bulkheads with an average height of
              about eleven feet and the length varies from 130 to 1200 feet. (USACE, 1990). Twelve of these
              bulkheads are constructed of timber and one is made of sheet-pi.le steel (USACE, 1990). In
              addition to the groins and bulkheads, Ocean City has two groin breakwaters made of
              timber/stone, one revetment made of sandbags, and three bulkhead/revetments: one is made of
              timber, one is made of timber-stone-timber, and one is made of timber/stone (USACE, 1990).





                                                       Part 111.2- 29














                                                                                                          Fi-ure 1. Duries in
                                                                                                          SCINTICTAS caused hv
                                                                                                          offset 'n hous'
                                                                                                                             01
                                                                          -7                              development. Central
                                                                                                          Ocean Cltv.





                                                                7













                                                                                 ....... .. .
                                                 Wa



                                                                                                          Figure 2.
                                                                                                          Bulkhead at top of'
                                                                                                                     -nall (tune
                                                                                                          beach. si
                                                                                                                     arrow beach.
                                                                                                          forms. n.
                                                                                                          Southern Occan Citv.










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








                                                                                                          Fi(TUrL
                                                                                                          Groins Lit northern
                                                                                                          Bulbous end otbarriei
                                                                                                          island. Development
                                                                                                          covers entire island.
                                                                                                          coastal ClUnes in
                                            7@@ T

                                                                                                          Ocean ON



                                              74







                                                                                                 DRAF'F - July
                                                                                        Part 111.2 - Reaches

                                         Reach 11: Corsons Inlet to Townsends Inlet


                      Reach 11, Ludlam Island, is a narrow barrier island within the Southern Barrier Islands
               Complex extending for approximately 8.6 miles (13.8 km). This reach extends from Corsons
               Inlet to Townsends Inlet and consists of two recreational communities: Strathmere (Upper
               Township) and Sea Isle City. The littoral drift is southerly, and the bulbous northern end of the
               barrier island has a narrow beach (Fig. 1). The northern portion of the island, occupied by
               Strathmere, has a very narrow beach width. The beach widens at the southernmost area of Sea
               Isle City. Ludlam Island is unusual among the New Jersey barrier islands because the shorelines
               near Corsons as well as Townsends Inlets have been relatively stable to accretional over the past
               50 years, while the mid-section has retreated and is presently sand-starved. Much of the
               development, found mostly in Sea Isle City is located close to the high mean water line and can
               potentially be damaged during moderate storms. The entire reach is classified as Category 1,
               critically eroding (1981 SPMP). The bulbous northern end of the island was classified as
               Category 11, significantly eroding by the 1981 SPMP, but today is undergoing strong erosional
               processes. The inlet shore on Corson Inlet is classified as Category III, moderately eroding (1981
               SPMP).
                      Corsons Inlet has never been stabilized or managed.by dredging. Presently, the inlet
               opening is narrower than at any other time in the historic record (Farrell and Leatherman, 1989),
               due to the growth of the northern tip of Strathmere into the inlet opening.
                      Ludlam Island has a limited natural sand supply. Beach nourishment and moderate levels-
               of hard structure construction have not been able to sustain beach width stability and it is
               presently critically eroding.    Ludlam Island has had beach nourishment several times:
               Strathmere's most recent beach fill was done in 1984 and Sea Isle City's most recent beach fill
               was done in 1987. These projects have helped to somewhat stabilize the area which was not
               subjected to any greatly eroding storm until October 31, 1991.
                      Strathmere is about 2.3 miles (3.7 km) long with narrow beach widths that decrease to
               zero in central Strathmere (near Vincent Street), and increase to the north at the southern inlet
               shoreline. The beach is too narrow to support dune systems. The Strathmere dunes have been
               destroyed and rebuilt numerous times as storms have washed the duneline westward onto the
               marsh and onto properties located west of the roadway. Strathmere has 13 groins ranging from
               125 to 500 feet in length (USACE, 1990). Five are made of timber and seven are made of timber-
               stone (USACE, 1990). Strathmere also has one timber bulkhead that is 3175 feet long and nine
               feet high (USACE, 1990) and a wavebreaker (USACE, 1990).
                      Whale Beach is a segment of narrow beach on Ludlam Island in both Strathmere and Sea
               Isle City and is an area of critical hazard (Fig. 2). Wave refraction on the inlet shoals produces
               erosion along this stretch of shoreline which is not reduced by the effects of beach protectiq@
               structures (two groins) along adjacent shoreline segments as they interfere with the longshore
               transport of sand to Whale Beach. Dune creation attempts have not lasted due because of the
               low, narrow beach area which cannot support the dunes.
                      Sea Isle City has approximately 4.8 miles (7.7 km) of narrow beach and has a steep beach
               slope because of the constant erosion. Sea Isle City, an intensely developed section of the barrier
               island, is much wider at its southern portion, but low in elevation. A dune system was
               developed in front of the asphalt promenade that extends from 28th Avenue south to 58th
               Avenue and it has provided significant protection for the community during recent storm events.
               North of the walkway, much larger dunes have protected the houses from wave attack. The


                                                        Part 111.2- 31







                                                                                                DRAFT - July
                                                                                       Part 111.2 - Reaches
              relatively wide and high, well-vegetated dunes were severely cut back in Sea Isle City due to the
              October 1991 storm and the storm of December 1992. Since the storms, the dunes are missing in
              the center of the island (Fig. 3), but are in the process of being rebuilt with sand pushed up from
              the beach and replaced from the overwash deposits excavated from the properties and roads. The
              southern shorefront has no walkway, therefore private homes directly ftont the beach as recent
              storms had removed the dune system. Sea Isle City has 16 groins and they range from 300 to
              716 feet in length (USACE, 1990). Four are made of timber, eleven of timber-stone and one of
              stone (USACE, 1990).
















































                                                        Part 111.2- 32




















                                                                      741
                                                                                    F ia u i
                                                                                    Bulbous end ofbarrier
                                                                                    island. Accretion at
                                                                                    inlet, absence ofbeach
                                                                                    at bulkhead.
                                                                                    Strathnicre
                                                   MEN-?


















                                                                                    Faure 2.
                                                                                    Overwash across road.
                                                                                    Jan. 1992 storm.
                                                                                    Rebuildim, dike form
                                                                                    North Sea Isle City.













                                                                                    Fi-urc 3.
                                                                                    Groins in beach,
                                                                                    absence of dunes in
                                                                                    central portion.
                                   N.M
                                                                                    bulkhead and boardwalk
                                                                                    development.
                                                                                    SCU Isle city







                                                                                                  DRAFT - July
                                                                                         Part 111.2 - Reaches

                                         Reach 12: Townsends Inlet to Hereford Inlet

                      Reach 12, Seven Mile Beach, is approximately 13.5 miles (21.6 km) long and contains
               two recreational communities: Avalon Borough and Stone Harbor Borough. Reach 12, which
               extends from Townsends Inlet to Hereford Inlet, is part of the Southern Barrier Islands Complex
               in which the littoral transport is southerly. This "drumstick" -shaped barrier island has had a
               history of erosion/accretion on its northern bulbous end and a great deal of erosion at its southern
               end.
                      Northern Avalon has lost land to Townsends Inlet, an inlet which had begun to migrate in
               a southwest direction during the early part of the 20th century, and gradually eliminated almost
               all of the five blocks of the area's street plan. In 1978, when Townsends Inlet was dredged for
               sand used as beach nourishment for Sea Isle City, the main inlet channel began to migrate again
               and resulted in additional erosion. Beach nourishment projects were done as an attempt to
               counter the erosion, but they have not been successful in stabilizing the area, including the most
               recent beach fill operation done in 1995. The erosion near the inlet has been critical and
               continual, even though the 1981 SPMP had classified this inlet shoreline as Category III, a
               moderately eroding area.
                      The southernmost portion of Reach 12 has become a classic example of shoreline
               displacement downstream of a terminal groin. Hereford Inlet is now the widest inlet in the State
               due to the long-term erosion of the southernmost two miles of the barrier island, which was once
               Stone Harbor Point. The Hereford Inlet shoreline, classified as Category 1, critically eroding,
               (1981 SPMP) has no jetties, but is heavily lined with rock revetment and short groins. This
               portion of the barrier island is undeveloped and is currently protected by the borough of Stone
               Harbor as a nature sanctuary.
                      Avalon has approximately 7.8 miles (12.5 km) of oceanfront which is relatively stable and
               of adequate width. It has been classified as Category IV, non-eroding (1981 SPMP). As a result
               of the beach fill operation in 1995, the seawall at the back of the beach is covered by sand (Fig.
               1). The dune system located in a section east of Dune Drive has been preserved, and is one of
               the most extensive dune fields found in New Jersey, outside of those within the natural parks. A
               portion of Avalon fronts along Townsends Inlet and is continuously protected with bulkheads
               and revetments along the ocean frontage. Avalon has six groins that range from 228 to 800 feet in
               length: four are constructed of stone, one is made of stone-filled timber, and one is made of
               timber (USACE, 1990). Avalon also has a stone seawall that is 1300 feet long, a timber-stone
               bulkhead that is 4000 feet long, and a timber-stone bulkhead-revetment (USACE, 1990). In
               addition to these shore structures, Avalon also has a Beachsaver Reef put in place in July/August
               1993, which is presently being monitored.
                      Stone Harbor has about 3.6 miles (5.8 km) of oceanfront. The beach is of adequate width,
               at its northern portion, but it gradually narrows to the south. Stone Harbor has a dune system,
               with low and narrow dunes, which had been developed between 1986 and 1991. The dunes are
               smaller than those in Avalon. The northernmost area of Stone Harbor has been classified as
               Category IV, non-eroding (1981 SPMP). Stone Harbor has a protected shoreline consisting of
               widely spaced groins which retain sand on the beaches, but at the expense of the segment to the
               south. A combination of sediment starvation, refraction, and diffraction around the last groin in
               Stone Harbor has produced acute downdrift erosion within the southern area. Because of the
               narrow beach and proximity of development to the high water line, the southern end of Stone
               Harbor is classified as Category 1, critically eroding (1981 SPMP). Stone Harbor has eleven


                                                        Part 111.2- 34







                                                                           DRAFT - July
                                                                     Part 111.2 - Reaches
            groins: five are made of timber-stone, three are made of stone, and three are made of timber-crib-
            stone (USACE, 1990). They range from 350 to 804 feet in length (USACE, 1990). Stone Harbor
            also has four bulkheads, ranging from 450 to 6550 feet in length, and two revetments, ranging
            from 290 to 800 feet in length (USACE, 1990).



















































                                            Part 111.2- 35













                                                                                    Fi,,ure 1.
                                                                                    Buibous form ofbariler
                                                                                    island. Beach
                                                                                    noui hment has

                                                                                    w
                                                                                      'dencd beach   front
                                                                                      l
                                                                                    of seawal 1.
                                                                                    Avalon
















                                                      A',
                                                                                    Fic@
                                          ".X                                         -urc 2.
                                                                                    Large dUne field
                                                                                    preserves pre-
                                                                                    dcvelopincnt conditions.
                                                                                    Avalon
                  MOM
















                                                                                    Fl-ure
                                                                                    Groins in beach, narrow
                                                                                    beach. development of
                                                                                      'f c'al dunes.
                                                                                    art] 1 1
                                                                                    Stone Harbor.





                               A Special Acknowledgment is extended to:

                 Mayor C.E. "Bud" Aldrich HI, Township of Dover                  Mayor Kirk 0. Larson, Borough of Barnegat Light
                 Joan Koons, Alliance for a Living Ocean                         Valerie Lazowski, Sea Isle Environmental
                 Karen Bage, Wetlands Institute                                  Commission
                 Mayor Aileen Barow, Borough of Lavallette                       Mayor William M. MacInnes, Borough of Sea Girt
                 Terry Barry, Sea Isle City                                      Robert Mainberger, Killarn Asociates
                 Charles F. Beirne, City of Ventnor                              Mayor James J. Mancini, Long Beach Township
                 D.W. Bennett, American Littoral Society                         Anthony Mangeri, NJ State Hazard Mitigation Officer
                 Mayor Theodore Bergman, City of Ventnor                         Mark Mauriello, NJDEP
                 Elizabeth Bergus, Strathmere                                    Kyle McCain, FEMA
                 Dr. Eleanor Bochenek, Ocean County Extension Center             Robert L. McCullion, North Wildwood Councilman
                 Linda Brennen, Monmouth Coastal Planning Board                  William J. Melfi, City of Ventnor
                 Robert Brewer, Atlantic County Planning Office                  Chris Miller, Natural Resources
                 Dr. Michael Bruno, Stevens Institute of Technology              Lynda Molodovitch, Brigantine
                 Mayor Thomas Byrne 111, Spring Lake                             Bernard Moore, NIDEP
                 Lorraine Carafa, Loch Arbour Clerk-Administrator                Kirk Moore, Asbury Park Press
                 Ronald E. Cassel, City of Asbury Park                           Mayor Robert W. Nissen, Ship Bottom
                 Caron Chess, Rutgers University                                 Anthony J. Nuccio, City of Asbury Park
                 Richard Chian, USACE                                            Mayor John J. Pantalone, Borough of Wildwood
                 Brian Conner, NOS                                               Crest
                 Mayor Leonard T. Connors, Surf City                             Peter Parks, Rutgers University
                 Harry deButts, Borough of Avalon                                Frank T. Pescatore, Township of Long Beach
                 Anthony J. Del Pizzo, Asbury Park Public                        Mayor John A. Peterson, Borough of Seaside Park
                 Maintenance                                                     Eugenia W, Pitts, Monmouth Ocean Development
                 Walter Donlan, Lavallette Councilman                            Council   ,
                 Dr. Patrick Doody, U.K.                                         Mayor Kenneth Pringle, Borough of Belmar
                 Clark D. Doran, Wildwood Planning and                           Michael Redpath, Borough of Seaside Heights
                 Development                                                     Mayor Robert A. Roman, Mantoloking
                 Sally Dudley, ANJEC                                             Mayor Charles Rooney, Borough of Sea Bright
                 Mayor Robert Elwell, Sr., Cape May City                         Mayor William H. Ross, Margate City
                 Dr. Stewart Farrell, Stockton State College                     Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli, Township of Brick
                 Mayor Malcolm Fraser, Cape May Point                            Mayor Adam Schneider, City of Long Branch
                 Dorina Frizzerra, NJDEP                                         Mayor Stephen G. Schueler, Bradley Beach
                 Vito Gadaleta, Borough of Allenhurst                            Pearl Schwartz, Toms River
                 Douglas A. Gaffney, USACE                                       Mayor P. Victor Sencindiver, Borough of Beach
                 John Garafollo, NJDEP                                           Haven
                 Thomas Gagliano, Jersey Shore Partnership                       John J. Serrell, Mantoloking
                 Kathy Giebel, Sea Isle City                                     Dave Shotwell, Ocean Grove
                 Clark D. Gilman, NJDEP                                          Kennth J. Smith, Ship Bottorn
                 David Grant, Sandy Hook                                         TerTy Smith, Minnesota OEM
                 Daniel Griesbach, Rumson                                        Jason Tsai, Rutgers University
                 Billie Jo Hance, Rutgers University                             Marilyn Treusch, Island Beach State Park
                 Ambrose Hardwick, Bay Head Councilman                           Dr. Michael Ty, Atlantic City
                 David Harris, Bordentown                                        William Vibbert, Island Beach State Park
                 Al Herman, Upper Township                                       Mayor Fred Wager, Wildwood City
                 Paul M. Hesse, Bradley Beach                                    Pieter Waldenmaier, Ocean County Planning
                 Acting Mayor Michael Hurley, Bay Head                           A. Jerome Walnut, Conservation Society of LBI
                 Gary Jessel, Cape May County                                    Keith Watson, USACE
                 Mayor Stanley R. Katz, Borough of Deal                          Steven Whitney, NJDEP
                 Tom Kellers, Monmouth County Planning Board                     Carol Williams, Oklahoma Public Works
                 Stephen Kempf, Killarn Associates                               Mayor John Winterstella, Borough of Manasquan
                 Mayor James V. Kiely, Village of Loch Arbour                    Kit Wright, Ocean City
                 Dr. David N. Kinsey, Kinsey & Hand                              Mayor Bill Zimmermann, Township of Berkeley
                 Dr. George D. Klein, NJ Marine Sciences
                 Mayor Henry S. Knight, Ocean City
                 Blanche Krubner, ANJEC
                 George LaBlanc, Beach Erosion Commission
                 Carol D. Lane, Avalon Environmental Commission
                 fan Larson, Ocean County Cooperative Extension





                        Thank you to all of the following people who have
                                                  contributed to                 this effort:


                  Dr. Robert S. Abel, Stevens Institute of Technology            Donovan Brown, Brick
                  Brent Ache, Louisiana                                          Mark Brunk, Sea Isle City
                  Bert Alexander, Toms River                                     Donald Bryan, Trenton
                  Thomas I. Alyasha, Trenton                                     Jack Bryson, Ocean City
                  John Ambery, Monmouth County Friends of                        Sophie Bubis, Loch Arbour
                  Clearwater                                                     Jean M. Buckeley, Eatontown
                  Roger Amato, Virginia                                          Dorrie and Richard Bull, Harvey Cedars
                  Stan Andres, Alliance for a Living Ocean                       Sheryl and Jack Burke, Point Pleasant
                  Janet & Milt Anderson, Beach Haven                             Peter Bush, Township of Dover
                  Peter Anderson, Highland Park                                  Phil Butler, Coastal Commission of Ocean City
                  James Armstrong, Seaside Park                                  Jack Cadmus, Short Hills
                  Gail Ashley, Rutgers University                                John Cadmus, Jr., Manahawkin
                  Alan Avery, Ocean County Planning Department                   Amy Caldwell, Bridgewater
                  Dr. Frederick L. Bach, Montvale                                Jeffrey Campbell, Point Pleasant Beach
                  R.F. Bahner, Borough of Beach Haven                            Sandra S. Campbell, Point Pleasant Beach
                  Mary Ellen Ballou, Sea Girt Council Planning Board             John Cantilli, Cranford
                  Elba Baldinger, Strathmere                                     William Cao, Jersey City
                  Stephen A. Barnes, Highlands                                   Beryl J. Capewell, East Windsor
                  David Barr, Highlands                                          John Carlo, Staten Island
                  Muriel G. Barron, Avalon Environmental                         Pam Carlsen, Americn Littoral Society
                  Commission                                                     Steve Carnahan, Cape May Seafood Association
                  Edward Baskin, Cape May Courthouse                             Tony Cavalier, North Wildwood Beach Patrol
                  Todd Bates, Asbury Park Press                                  William Caveley, American Littoral Society
                  Lisa Beach, Ocean County Tourism Advisory                      Cheryl Caverly, Cape May County Gazette Leader
                  Council                                                        A.M. Cavey, Seaside Park
                  Wayne Becker, Moorestown                                       David Charette, Edison
                  Paige Bedell, American Littoral Society                        Barbara and Jack Charlton, Monmouth County
                  Andrew J. Bednarek, Borough of Avalon                          Friends of Clearwater
                  W.T. Bell, Ocean Grove                                         Jessica Charniga, Colonia
                  Michele Bellinger, Mays Landing                                Mike Chavey, American Littoral Society
                  Cyndy Belz, Linwood                                            David Chosid, Dumont
                  Lois R. Benedict, Mantoloking                                  Leroy A. Christensen, Bradley Beach Public Works
                  Michael Benedict, Manahawkin Newspapers                        Norma Christiansen, Colts Neck
                  Senator John 0. Bennett, District 12 Monmouth                  Helyn Chrobocinski, Long Branch
                  C.A. Berry, Iselin                                             Thomas Ciccarone, City of Brigdntine
                  Karyn Bethanis, Parsippany                                     Sandy Cistone, Sea Isle City
                  Carmen Biase, Bradley Beach                                    Rita Clare, Loveladies
                  Martin Bierbaum, NJDEP                                         Norma and Roosevelt Clark, Loveladies
                  Robert Bifani, Red Bank Council Board                          Bill Clayton, Monmouth Beach
                  James E. Birdsall, Point Pleasant                              Ed Clement, Stone Harbor
                  Lisa M. Blackeby, Plainsboro                                   Dolores and Bill Cloyes, Brighton Beach
                  Carl Blumenthal, City of Long Branch                           Bruce Coe, NJ Business and Industry Association
                  Stephen Boehning, Killarn Associates                           Thomas Coffey, ACUA
                  Jackie and Dave Bolsman, North Beach Haven                     Skip Cole, Gateway NRA
                  Gabrielle Borin, Belle Mead                                    Betsy Colie, Mantoloking Council
                  Ann and Cosmo Borreggine, Beach Haven Gardens                  Beverly Conover, Ocean County Tourism Advisory
                  Robert A. Bowman, Sea Isle City                                Council
                  Linda Bradley, Pine Beach                                      Bud Cooper, Seaside Park
                  Senator William Bradley, US Senate                             Patricia Coren, American Littoral Society
                  Blanche Braillard, Highlands                                   Assemblyman Steve Corodemus, Monmouth District
                  R. Brandstetten, Tinton Falls Councilman                       I I
                  Joseph P. Breslin, Avalon Councilman                           Michael Cortese, Bay Head
                  Rosemary Brewer, Little Silver                                 Charlene Costaris, Atlantic County Cooperative
                  Edgar Bristow, Absecon                                         Extension
                  Ursula Brooks, Princeton                                       Paul Coward, Brant Beach
                  Renee Brousseau, Englishtown                                   Joseph M. Coyne, Allenhurst
                  Edward Brown, Medford                                          Michael Craghan, Manasquan





                        Thank you to all of the following people who have
                                                   contributed to                 this effort:


                  Joanne Cubberly, NJDEP                                          Mary A. Flood, Monmouth County Planning Board
                  Richard J. Curran, Borough of Wildwood Crest                    Joel S. Fogel, Somers Point
                  Marie A. Curtis, Oakhurst                                       Joe Forcella, Northfiled
                  Stanley Cwiklinski, Brigantine                                  Ben Forest, Tinton Falls
                  Leonard Dagit, Pennsylvania                                     Diane Foster, Beach Haven Gardens
                  Paul H. Daniels, Cranford                                       Thomas Fote, JCAA
                  Mel Davidow, Absecon                                            Michael P. Fowler, Township of Brick
                  Kathy Kilby Davis, Ocean City                                   Kevin Frechette, State Beach Erosion Commission
                  Mark Davis, The Philadelphia Inquirer                           Dahlee Fruzynski, Plainfield
                  Eileen A. Dayle, Ewing                                          Robert R. Fuggi, Ocean County Tourism Advisory
                  Kathy Decketnick, Brick Recreation Department                   Council
                  Steven DeCredico, Sea Isle City                                 William and Gloria Furlong, Toms River
                  Richard Degener, Atlantic City Press                            William G. Gaffney, Cape May Councilman
                  Chris Delaney, Brick                                            Tom Gage, Bay Head Home Improvement
                  Jay Delaney, Borough of Seaside Park                            Association
                  Barbara Derer, NJDEP                                            Joseph Galinas, FEMA
                  Edward Deveaux, Office of Senator Bradley                       Gerard Galligan, Ocean County Tourism Advisory
                  Anthony DeVico, Woodbine                                        Council
                  Kevin Dey, Lavallette                                           Dennis Galvin, Borough of Deal
                  Brian Dickerson, Township of Brick                              Tamara Garaffa, Breakwaters International, Inc.
                  Tim Dillingham, Princeton                                       Andy Gardner, U.K.
                  Jeanne DiPaola, Ocean County Chanber of                         Morris HJ.Garfunkle, Bradley Beach Planning Board
                  Commerce                                                        Henry Garie, NJDEP
                  Jerry Dobinson, FEMA                                            Herbert M. Gaskill, City of Margate
                  Joseph J. Dolci, Borough of Seaside Park                        German Georgieff, Tuckerton
                  Vince Domidion, ANJEC                                           Tammy Gerassil, Breakwaters International, Inc.
                  Michelle Donato, Lavallette                                     Phil Getty, Pennsylvania
                  Bill Dougherty, Wildwood Planning Board                         Matteo L. Giammario, Pennsylvania
                  Susan Draxler, Locust                                           Greg Gibson, Bay Head
                  R.L. Dreher, American Littoral Society                          Jack Gibson, Ocean View
                  William G. Dressel, NJ State League of                          Assemblyman John Gibson, Cape May Ist District
                  Municipalities                                                  Georgianna Gieser, Brick
                  Tony Druico, Middle Township                                    Thomas J. Gillen, Sayreville
                  Jim Duff, Lacey Township                                        Leslie Gimenc, Cape May County Planning Board
                  Richard Dunne, Manasquan Councilman                             Ben Ginsberg, Pennsylvania
                  Dennis Dutton, Cape May Courthouse                              Skip and Gerald P. Gladue, Stone Harbor Council
                  E. Barry Dutton, Ocean City                                     Joan D. Goebel, Lavallette
                  Michael Egenton, NJ Chamber of Commerce                         Dorothy B. Goldstein, American Littoral Society
                  Don Ehrenbeck, Cranford                                         Bob Golomb, Ship Bottom
                  David E. Ekelmann, Waretown                                     James T. Graham, South Belmar
                  Carol Elliott, Ship Bottom                                      George Grauvogel, Tuckerton
                  Ralph Ellis, Bayville                                           Lucy Greene, Toms River Chamber of Commerce
                  Anne Elskamp, Cape May Courthouse                               George J. Greitz, South Toms River
                  Madelyn Evans, Brigantine                                       Patricia Griggs, FEMA
                  Steven R. Ewing, Berkeley Township Engineering                  Paul Grosko, Lavallette
                  John Farina, Atlantic City                                      Joseph Grossi, NJ Department of Commerce &
                  Greg Farry, Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea                          Economic Development
                  Helen Fayad, Brick                                              Mayor Philip J. Guenther, Brigantine
                  William Feinberg, American Littoral Society                     Josephine Joann Guglielmelli, Jackson
                  Gary Felger, Seaside Heights Police Department                  Erik Haberstein, Hackettstown
                  Alcides Ferreira, Loch Arbour                                   Steven Hafner, Ocean City
                  Martha and Bob Ficke, Delaware                                  Ralph Hahn, Ocean County Tourism Advisory
                  A. Fickes, Loch Arbour                                          Council
                  Dan Finn, Spring Lake Beach Department                          Chip Haldeman, Cream Ridge
                  Ruth Fisher, South Dennis                                       Judy Halka, Tinton Falls
                  Shannon Fitzgerald, Massachussetts                              Dr. James F. Hall, NJDEP
                  Joseph Fitzpatrick, Haven Beach                                 Dr. Mary Jo Hall, Rider University





                         Thank you to all of the following people who have
                                                    contributed to                 this effort:                                          if


                   Jeffrey Hall, Pennington                                        Dr. Richard Knoblauch, Brant Beach
                   Dr. Susan Halsey, NJDEP                                         Joseph Kocy, NJDEP
                   Karen Hambergen, New Brunswick                                  Bud Koons, Beach Haven Gardens
                   Donald Hamer, Cape May Courthouse                               Gary Kramer, Township of Dover
                   Robert Hamilton, Pennsylvania                                   Mr. and Mrs. J. Krauss, American Littoral Society
                   Frank Hampton, Deptford                                         William J. Kruse, Middlesex County Planning
                   James Handley, Bradley Beach                                    Department
                   Jim Handley, Cape May Point                                     Michelle Kucerak, NJPIRG
                   Bruce Hartig, NJCDC                                             Anne Kuhn, USEPA
                   Peg and Hal Haskin, Cape May Courthouse                         Margaret P. Kuhn, Bound Brook
                   Kut Haus, Plainsboro                                            Shirley and Richard Kurtz, Beach Haven
                   Jerry Hauselt, Avon-by-the-Sea                                  George Kyle, WAC Civil Association
                   Beth Haviland, Clinton                                          Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos, State Senate
                   Frank L. Hay, Ocean City                                        Mark Lamhut, Monmouth County Friends of
                   D. Robert Heal, City of North Wildwood                          Clearwater
                   Jon Heffner, Spray Beach                                        Peggy Lanchon, American Littoral Society
                   Colleen Heilig, FEMA                                            Mary Lanko, Freehold
                   Alice M. Hemphill, Manasquan                                    Callie Lasch, Red Bank Environmental Commission
                   Keith W. Henderson, Forked River                                Andrea Latof, Forked River
                   Ron Hendrickson, Highlands                                      Senator Frank Lautenberg, US Senate
                   Robert & Eleanor Hill, Loveladies                               Dave Letinski, Metuchen
                   Chris Hoffman, Belmar                                           Bill Leute,,Loveladies
                   Augusta Hogan, Sea Isle City                                    J. Peter Lindquist, Times Beacon Newspapers
                   Joe Hogan, North Beach                                          Gerry Little, Borough of Surf City
                   David L. Homgren                                                Virginia Loftin, NJDEP
                   Rhonda Homer, Pemberton                                         John Lorenzo, Upper Township
                   Roman Horoszewski, NJDEP                                        Nancy K. Lotstein, Woodbury
                   Karen Lyn Horton, Atlantic Highlands                            John F. Luard, Locust
                   Lionel Howard, Lavallette                                       Kerry Lynch, NJ Marine Sciences Consortium
                   Mike W. Huber, Locust                                           Scott MacFadden, Township of Brick
                   Leita Hulmes, Spring Lake Heights                               Janet MacInnes, Bradley Beach
                   Betty Hummel, American Littoral Society                         Joe Mack, Haven Beach
                   Dennis Husserl, Ocean Grove                                     Victor Maene, ACUA
                   Rusty E. Husted, Mantoloking Councilman                         Daniel C. Malcolm, Hazlet Environmental
                   Jerome E. Inderwies, Cape May City Public Works                 Commission
                   Barbara Irvin, Manahawkin                                       Linda R. Malleck, Edison
                   Gary P. Israel, West Atlantic City                              Maria Maruca, Ocean County Tourism Advisory
                   Anna B. Jacobi, Tuckerton                                       Council
                   Karin Jakubowski, Bayonne                                       Patrick Mathelier, Frankiin Lake
                   Steven Jandoli, NJDEP                                           Carol and Jon Mather, Ship Bottom
                   Ted and Dot Jedziniak, Ship Bottom                              David Maxwell, Dover Township
                   Dr. Mike Joffre, Toms River                                     Jane and Ed McCrohan, Point Pleasant Beach
                   Scott Johnson, Ocean City                                       Bill McCrystal, Silver Beach
                   John H. Jones, Mantoloking                                      R.C. McDonough, Manolokoing Councilman
                   Chris Kahn, New Brunswick                                       Debbie McGrath, Normandy Beach
                   Rob Kanaly, New Brunswick                                       Marty McNulty, Borough of Surf City
                   Gary Kaplan, Millburn                                           Megan McQuarrie, Clean Ocean Action
                   Steve Keehn, Toms River                                         Francis J. Meegan, Allendale
                   William J. Keeler, Sea Bright Councilman                        George E. Meirose, Toms River
                   Mary Keely, Cape May Star & Wave                                Richard Merion, Alliance for a Living Ocean
                   Toni and Roy Keiser, American Littoral Society                  Dr. Charles and Dorothy Merriam, Harvey Cedars
                   Mark Kelly, Oakhurst                                            Richard C. Miller, Manasquan Environmental
                   Robert C. Kenney, Beach Haven Gardens                           Commission
                   Rochelle and Meredith Kiani, West Caldwell                      Bruce Montgomery, American Littoral Society
                   Carol Kish, Brant Beach                                         John D. Moore, Medford
                   Dorothy Kitmer, Cape May                                        Elizabeth Moritz, Tuckerton
                   Consortium                                                      Eve Morrison, Ocean City





                          Thank you to all of the following people -who have
                                                     contributed to                   this effort:


                   Paul Most, Ocean County Tourism Advisory Council                   Bruce Riordan, Strathmere
                   Fran Mullan, Baypointe Engineering Associates, Inc.                Leonard W. Roeber, Bayville
                   James S. Mullan, Baypointe Engineering Associates,                 Russell C. Roney, City of Margate
                   Inc.                                                               Art Rosder, Lavallette
                   Jamie 0. Mullenax, Eatontown                                       William P. Rosenblatt, Loch Arbour
                   John Munton, Brignatine Environmental                              Tom Rospos, Township of Brick
                   Commission                                                         George Ross, Northfield
                   Maureen Murek, Monmouth County Friends of                          Rick Rossi, Piscataway
                   Clearwater                                                         Dan Ruberg, Fair Haven
                   Cathy Mustacinolo, Belford                                         Robert D. Russo, Township of Brick
                   Diane Nafis, Laurel Springs                                        Lawrence Russo, Cranford
                   Lewis Nagy, NJDEP                                                  Pat Ryan, Harding Township
                   Ted Narozanick, Monmouth County Board of Chosen                    Mary Sanders, American Littoral Society
                   Freeholders                                                        Larry Sarner, Port Republic
                   Bill Neil, NJ Audobon Society                                      David Satter, Branchville
                   John and Gloria P. Ness, Surf City                                 Stephen Sautner, Mountainside
                   Helen Neugebauer, Haven Beach                                      Cheryl Savaney, Brielle
                   Frank and Linda Newton, American Littoral Society                  Maria Scandale, SandPaper
                   Bill Nordahl, Monmouth County Friends of                           Dr. Rita Schiavo, Strathmere
                   Clearwater                                                         Jan Schilling, Silver Beach Association
                   Jack Nydam, Township of Brick                                      Paul Schlitsey, Eatontown
                   Diane O'Brien, Maryland                                            Doris and Chris Schmid, ffigh Bar Harbor
                   Daniel O'Connell, Harvey Cedars                                    David E. Schmidt, Strathmere
                   John J. O'Grady, Point Pleasant Beach                              Fred and Thora Schmidt, Loveladies
                   Greg O'Mullan, Gillette                                            Pat Schneider, Long Branch
                   Richard Obal, Monmouth County Cooperative                          Peter Schnell, Ocean County Tourism Advisory
                   Extension                                                          Council
                   Mary H. Owen, West Long Branch                                     Al Schnitzel, Monmouth County Friends of
                   Susan Pachuta, Pennsylvania                                        Clearwater
                   Mayor Martin L. Pagliughi, Avalon                                  Fem Schoderer, Southern Ocean County Chamber of
                   US Congressman Frank Pallone, 6th Congressional                    Commerce -
                   District                                                           Kathy Schoemer, Newark
                   Glenn A. Palmer, Hightstown                                        Alan Schwartz, Holmdel
                   Mayor Aldo Palombo, City of North Wildwood                         Richard L. Scott, Monmouth County Environmental
                   Joan Parent, Monmouth Beach                                        Council
                   Cheryl Pavella, NJDEP                                              Anna J. Scotte, Sea Isle City
                   Ralph and Madeline Penevolpe, Beach Haven                          Neil Scully, Manasquan
                   Anne H. Phillips, Brigantine Councilwoman                          Paula Scully, Times Beacon Newspapers
                   Joseph Picciano, FEMA                                              Gene Sharpless, Barnegat Light
                   Gary Pierenger, Mantoloking                                        Commissioner Robert Shinn, NJDEP
                   J.R. Pilling, Mantoloking Reporter                                 Mike Shlala, Morris Plains
                   Gregory R. Pollack, Surfrider Foundation                           James Sinclair, NJ Business and Industry Association
                   Frank Polverino, Toms River                                        John Smath, American Littoral Society
                   John Pomianowski, Spring Lake Environmental                        Jim Smith, Cape May County Planning Department
                   Commission                                                         Lydia Smith, Hillside
                   Charles S. Potosnak, Beach Haven                                   Meg Smith, Cape May Point
                   Ted Proctor, West Orange                                           Robert E. Smith, Bradley Beach OEM
                   Fran Puskas, Barnegat Light                                        Aaron Smith, Farmingdale
                   Denise Y. Putlock, Ocean County Tourism Advisory                   Bill Smith, Beach Haven Gardens
                   Council                                                            David P. Smith, City of Ventnor
                   Robert N. Ralston, Ocean City                                      Mayor Louis Sodano, Monmouth Beach
                   Ronald Rausch, Monmouth County Friends of                          Walter M Sorizall, Beach Haven
                   Clearwater                                                         Mike Sorrentino, Deal
                   Greg Remaud, Highlands                                             Forrest Sprague, Stockton State College
                   Dennis Reynolds, Somerset                                          Mary Stanford, Ocean County Tourism Advisory
                   Les Reynolds, Township of Dover                                    Council
                   Robert Reynolds, FEMA                                              Barbara W. Steele, Ocean County Public Affairs





                       Thank you to all of the following people who have
                                                 contributed to                this effort:


                 Linda Stefanik, Ocean County Tourism Advisory                 Peter Weeks, Lavallette
                 Council                                                       Townsend Weeks, Lincroft
                 W.J. Stenger, Middletown                                      John Weingart, NJDEP
                 Dr. Dennis G. Sternberg, Freehold                             Alan Wheeler, Holgate
                 Robert J. Sterner, Hoboken                                    Mayor James Whelan, Atlantic City
                 Alex B. and Philip G. Stevens, Point Pleasant Beach           Grace C. Wile, Princeton
                 D.B. Stevens, Alliance for a Living Ocean                     Phobe Wiley, American Littoral Society
                 Joan P. Stevens, Alliance for a Living Ocean                  Douglas Wilke, Glen Head
                 Terry Stimpfel, Ship Bottom                                   Barbara Williams, Lawrenceville
                 Robert Stokes, Green Acres                                    Florence and Jim Wilson, North Beach Haven
                 John K. Stoner, Stone Harbor                                  James L. Wilson, Surf City
                 Sharyn Suarez, White House Station                            Warren Wilson, Borough of Bradley Beach
                 Beth Sullivan, Stockton State College                         Diane Windeler, Beach Haven Terrace
                 Thomas J. Sweehey, Fanwood                                    Janet Wolf, National Park Service
                 Greg Sykora, Somers Point                                     Assemblyman David Wolfe, 10th District, Ocean
                 John Szeliga, Belmar                                          County
                 Paul Szymanski, Manasquan Planning Board                      Wendy Wolverton, Matawan
                 Charles Takus, Department of Transportation                   Edmund Wood, Ocean City
                 Maria Tedesco, Bradley Beach                                  Alex Wypyzinski, Rutgers University
                 Faith Teitelbaum, West End                                    Timothy A. Yurcisicin, Township of Berkeley
                 Kathleen Ann Terry, Beachwood                                 Bonnie Zeigler, Alliance for a Living Ocean
                 Chris A. Theodos, Schoor Depalma, Engineers and               Cindy Zipf, Sandy Hook
                 Design Professionals
                 Ken Thomas, Monmouth County Parks
                 Rick Thomas, Manasquan Environmental
                 Commission
                 Chip Tilson, Borough of Bay Head
                 Charlotte Todd, Cape May City Environmental
                 Commission
                 Richard Tolsom, Upper Township
                 Anthony Totah, Clean Ocean Action
                 Bill Towhey, Tuckerton Beach Association
                 Curt Travers, Ocean County Tourism Advisoty
                 Council
                 Fred Treue, Point Pleasant Beach
                 William E. Tromm, Borough of Beach Haven
                 Marty Truscott, Henderson and Breen Engineenng
                 Dr. Robert Tucker, NJDEP
                 John E. Tunnell, USACE
                 Stuart Tweed, Cape May County Cooperative
                 Extension
                 Louise Usechak, Shrewbury Environmental
                 Commission
                 Peter Valesi, Killarn Associates
                 Bob Van Bochove, Ocean County Tourism Advisory
                 Council
                 Christopher Vaz, Borough of Seaside Heights
                 Valerie Velez, New Brunswick
                 Mike Verange, Lincroft
                 Walt Vreeland, Sea Isle City
                 Frank Wagner, Stockton State College Library
                 John E. Walsh, Baypointe Engineering Associates,
                 Inc.
                 Faith C. Walsh, Brant Beach
                 Joan Walton, Beach Haven Gardens
                 Harcourt S. Ward, Point Pleasant Beach
                 Matthew Watkins, Township of Barnegat





                                                           NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY


                                                       1 3 6668 14111784 8 ,