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




                COASTAL HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN



                                       -----------


                                 New Jersey's Shoreline Future
                                       Preparing for Tomorrow


                                                  Part III
                                    Critical Issues and Approaches







Y-















                                                                                  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







                                                                                                       DRAFT - July
                                                                                    Part 111.3.A - Sea-Level Rise


                                                         Sea-Level Rise'

                         The issue of sea-level rise has become a driving force behind coastal management
                strategies. The problem is not simply an increase of the water level against the land, but an
                increase of exposure to storm effects and an increase in the inundation and penetration of coastal
                storms acting upon higher water levels. Both international and national organizations have
                studied the rates of sea level rise on a global basis. The amount of sea-level rise along the New
                Jersey coast can be clearly identified through analysis of tide gage records. Its effects are
                manifested in a variety of changes that have occurred through the decades. As sea-level continues
                to rise, the coastal zone will be heavily impacted. This condition is further complicated by
                intense urban development that has occurred along much of our coastline. Therefore, it is
                incumbent that coastal decision-makers anticipate the effects of sea-level rise on the coastal zone
                and incorporate mitigation strategies which enhance public safety and reduce the exposure of the
                coastal zone from direct and indirect effects of sea-level rise.


                ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SEA-LEVEL RISE


                         Sea-level rise is composed of a combination of several factors. The most basic factor is
                the increase in the amount of water in the ocean. The melting of mountain glaciers and snow
                fields, along with a general expansion of the ocean as it warms, cause the ocean's surface to
                become elevated. This change in the amount of water in the oceans is referred to as the eustatic
                effect, or the absolute elevation of the water surface. A second factor of sea-level rise is that the
                coastal zone is subsiding or slowly sinking. Referred to as the tectonic effect, this is a
                characteristic of the older coastal margins of continents. Further, the new sediments which
                comprise barrier islands undergo some compaction because of their thickness and weight. As
                these sediments compact, it causes the overall lowering of the surface. The total change of sea-
                level is caused by the combination of these three factors which produce a net displacement of the
                water against the land. This is the referred to as relative sea-level rise. In discussing relative sea-
                level rise, it doesn't matter whether the land is subsiding or whether the sea is rising. Relative
                sea-level is the measure of how fast the land is becoming inundated. It is a measure of how fast
                you are getting wet.


                THE EFFECTS OF SEA-LEVEL RISE


                         The issue of sea-level rise is multifaceted because so many indirect effects are associated
                with it. The problem is not simply the increasing water level of the ocean, but sea-level rise is
                also related to the general displacement of the shoreline at all of the margins of the barrier islands,
                and on all of the bayside communities, including those on the mainland. Further, as               sea-level
                rises, the effects of storm conditions are able to reach farther inland. The smaller storms are able

                         I  This is a summary of the information contained in the White Paper, on Sea-
                Level Rise, included as an appendix to this document.


                                                             Part III.3.A -1 -






                                                                                                   DRAFT - July
                                                                                 Part 111.3.A - Sea-Level Rise
               to reach levels and locations which were attained only by the rare event in the past. As sea-level
               rises, the effects of a diminishing sediment supply are also magnified. Whereas, the displacement
               of shoreline is perceived to be shoreline erosion, it is also a combination of elevated water levels
               as well. Therefore, an effect of sea-level rise is to contribute to the measurable displacement of
               the shoreline, and additional sand will be required just to maintain a constant position. Other
               issues include the change in the extent of and distribution of wetlands, habitats primarily in
               estuarine areas, the intrusion of saltwater into upper portions of estuaries, the salinity intrusion
               into groundwater, increased frequency of the inundation of evacuation routes, and effects on
               hazardous waste sites.


               THE APPLICATION OF SEA-LEVEL RISE INFORMATION


                       In the 1981 SPMP, the issue of sea-level rise was introduced as a variable that is changing
               the condition of the coast. Some general information was known and there was a record of water
               level changes that was observed in the tidal gages. However, there were few studies on sea-level
               change in New Jersey. Further, most of the discussion that occurred was theoretical and focused
               on the problems associated with future sea-level rise. A major advance in the investigation of this
               phenomenon occurred when additional information about sea-level rise became easily accessible.
               This influx of information has made it possible to describe long-term records of sea level change,
               immediate past conditions of sea level, place the two in perspective, and produce a more
               confident statement about the consideration of future rates.


                       There are two major sources of information on regional sea-level rise: 1). The United
               States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and 2). the Intergovernmental Panel on
               Climatic Change (IPCC), created as a joint effort of the United Nations Environmental
               Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. Both sources have been attempting to
               address the issue by compiling information and analyzing the current state of knowledge. In
               addition, the U. S. National Research Council has produced a report on its findings related to the
               issue of sea-level rise (1987).


                       The existing rates of sea-level rise are determined by analyzing tidal records at the several
               stations in and adjacent to New Jersey. They show a persistent increase over the past century of
               from 0. 11 inches/year (2.74 mm/yr) at New York to 0. 15 inches/year (3.85 mm) at Atlantic City
               (Table 1). These past rates would increase in the future, according to various estimates (Table 2),
               and produce greater inundation.

               SEA-LEVEL RISE RATES IN NEW JERSEY


                       A number of studies have looked at the rate of sea-level rise in New Jersey. They have
               found sea level has been rising during the past several thousand years. Although these rates have
               fluctuated, they have continued to rise. An analysis of radio-





                                                         Part III.3.A -2 -






                                                                                                                    DRAFT - July
                                                                                               Part 111.3.A - Sea-Level Rise
                        HISTORIC RATE OF SEA-LEVEL RISE AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
                                                        IN THE UNITED STATES
                                                               (mm/yr) (in/year)

                                              Locations                     (mm/yr)            (in/yr)
                                              New York, NY                      2.74             0.11
                                              Sandy Hook, NJ                    4,06             0.16
                                              Atlantic City, NJ                 3.85             0.15
                                                            E                   3.11            0.122



                                      Table 1. Source: NOAA, 1987-1994. Yearly Mean Sea Levels and Monthly Tidal
                                      Summary Reports for: Atlantic City, NJ: Battecy, NY: Lewes. DE: Philadelphia, PA* and
                                      Sandy Hook, NJ. U.S. Dept of Commerce, National Ocean Service, Rockville, MD




                                      ELEVATION OF SEA LEVEL AT ATLANTIC CITY
                                                     UNDER VARIOUS SCENARIOS,
                                                     INCORPORATING SUBSIDENCE
                                                (elevation in centimeters, relative to 1990)

                                                     Year 2000             Year 2025             Year 2050              Year 2100
                   EPA (1984)*
                      Conservative                        4.9                   19.35                36.4                   81.3

                      Mid-range,                          6.9                   30.55                62.9                   167.3
                   moderate
                   National Research
                   Council (1987)*
                      Low                                 7.1                   25.2                 43.1                   78.6
                      Middle                              11.2                  39.4                 67.6                   123.8
                   IPCC (1990)*
                      Conservative                        4.5                   15.5                 32.0                   58.5
                      Moderate                            5.5                   20.5                 44.0                   93.5
                   EPA (1995)*                                                               1                                       -   I
                      Best Estimate                       5.0                   18.7                 33.5                   68.1
                   Table 2. * Year of publication













                                                                     Part I11.3.A -3 -







                                                                                                    DRAFT - July
                                                                                  Part 111.3.A - Sea-Level Rise




                                 RAPID RISE OF
                         0       SEA LEVEL
                    (D
                    _j                                                SLOW RISE
                    CZ   -1      INLAND PENETRATION                                           RAPID RISE
                                 OF ESTUARINE FLOODING
                                                                      SED ENTATION
                         -2                                                                   ATTENUATION
                    0)
                                 NO HABITAT                           AND WETLAND
                                                                                             OF WETLANDS
                    0)
                                 EQUILIBRIUM                          EXPANSION
                         -3
                    0                                                                       *SEDIMENT
                         -4                                                                  REDISTRIBUTION
                    >                                               *TOWARD
                    0-
                    (Z   .5                                           ECOSYSTEM             *TOWARD
                                                                                             ECOS
                                                                      EQUILIBRIUM                 SYSTEM
                    cc
                         -6                                                                  DISEQUILIBRIUM
                    Q)
                         -7
                                                                TRANSITION PERIODS


                         -5500      -4500       -3500       -2500         500       -500    0 500 1000
                                                           YEARS


                Figure 2. Coastal barrier islands and wetland development related to rate of sea-level rise.
                System disequilibrium is associated with high rates of rise (Psuty, 1992).



                APPLICATION OF SEA-LEVEL RISE


                         Storm surge levels vary as a function of the storm's strength. However, there is another
                variable that determines the comparable level to which any storm can raise the water elevation
                and penetrate inland. That variable is the change in relative sea level through time. Sea level is
                rising. Therefore, the base upon which storms have occurred is changing. Thus, recent storms
                are now capable of reaching similar historical flood levels with lower surges. In addition, a rise in
                sea level allows stronger, less frequent events to reach coastal areas that where once safe from
                storm activity, exposing more areas to the erosional and flooding effects of a storm.

                         Nearly all of the management options discussed have focused on the effects of sea-IeVdl
                rise at the ocean shoreline. Accordingly, much of the discussion has also focused on approaches
                to defending the ocean shoreline. However, the effects of sea-level rise will be manifested on the
                shorelines of bays and estuaries in the coastal zone and they will likely be without the protective
                buffer of a beach and dunes. These locations are usually very low-lying initially and are very
                exposed to the effects of flooding. Much of the local infrastructure is near sea level at this time
                and will have increasing episodes of flooding as sea-level continues to rise. Therefore, the bay





                                                           Part 111.3.A -5 -







                                                                                                     DRAFr - July
                                                                                   Part III.3.A - Sea-Level Rise
                 margins will need to be the first locations for the application of state policy development
                 recognizing the effects of sea-level rise due to the high risks associated with sea-level rise.


                 CONCLUSION


                         Relative sea level in New Jersey has risen about 39 cm in the past century and will
                 increase in the next century. The issue of sea level rise is a multifaceted phenomenon involving
                 global and regional efforts. Yet these efforts have not established a single value of sea-level rise.
                 Regardless of the rate that is considered, water levels are rising and the coastal zone is becoming
                 inundated. The population and the development at the shore are at risk. The beaches have
                 shifted and barrier islands have become narrower due to the displacement of the water-land
                 contact. Low-lying bay shorelines are especially vulnerable as sea level rises. These risks will
                 continue to increase in association with an increasing. rate of rise. Thus, it is vital that coastal
                 decision-makers anticipate the effects of sea-level rise on the coastal zone and develop policies
                 that will enhance public safety and reduce the exposure of the coastal zone from direct and
                 indirect effects of sea-level rise.


                         Although beach replenishment or construction of s       eawalls confront a portion of the
                 problems associated with sea-levet rise, neither can eliminate flooding or the high risk of damage
                 from storms operating on elevated water levels. Policies are needed to direct the investment of
                 public funds into projects that will enhance areas of adequate elevation to accommodate sea-level
                 rise for some time period. Conversely, a policy is needed to reduce public expenditure for
                 locations in high hazard areas that will require continuous repairs to both development and
                 infrastructure. Further, there is a need to introduce a measure of flexibility into the designation of
                 land use, building lines, and densities. Zones and boundary lines must be adjusted on some
                 timely basis to reflect the changing exposure and risk brought about by a rising sea level.
























                                                            Part E[I.3.A -6 -






                                                                                                                       DRAFT - July
                                                                                                  Part 111.3.A - Sea-Level Rise
                   carbon dates of organic materials accumulating in estuarine sediments has been reported by Psuty
                   (1986) (Fig. 1). This study shows a general increase in sea level on the average of about 2.1 mm
                   (0.08 in) per year until about 2500 years ago when the rise slowed to an average rate of about 0.8
                   mm (0.03 in) per year. The slower rate of rise was responsible for the last 2.0 in of inundation at
                   the coast. It was during this time that a general stability of the coastal forms and habitats began
                   to develop. However recent data from the local area. indicate that sea-level rise is now occurring
                   at a faster rate.


                           0-                                                     .......... MSL ...........................0
                                           LOCATION
                                                                               FMH
                           5-     @c Union Beack                                       Kr   -
                                                                                                            -2
                         10-          Other; M.L - Daddari.o.
                                   ...,.Other:.NJ.._       e'Mn:
                                                      M.@Y.                                                  4
                         15-                                                                                      M

                         20-                                        KA                                      -6
                                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                                  M
                   lu    25-                                                                                      CD
                                                A                                                            8
                         30-
                                                                                                           -10
                         35-

                         40                                                                                  12


                           8000      7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000                                   0
                                                         AGE (years BP)
                           Figure 1. Trend of Recent Geologic Sea Level. The point on the scatter diagram are radio-carbon ages on
                   materials taken from cores in New Jersey. The shaded line is the interpreted trend in elevation of sea level. The horizontal
                   bars on the points represent the standard deviation in the age determination. Note the rapid rate of rise until 2500 Years
                   BP and the ensuing slower rate of rise. (Psuty, 1986)


                           The rate of sea-level rise at present is higher than any time in the past 7500 years (Fig. 2).
                   It is very likely that the combination of sea-level rise and the paucity of sediment available in the
                   system are causing adjustments in the coastal morphology and coastal habitats. Whereas tb@p
                   barrier island and wetlands were in adjustment with the slow rise of sea level of the past several
                   thousand years, the faster rise is inducing disequilibrium. conditions at the coast and in the
                   estuaries. In the past 50 years, the undeveloped Rainbow Islands in Great Egg Harbor have lost
                   about 5% of their area, one island has completely disappeared (Psuty, et al., 1993). As the still
                   higher rates of sea-level rise develop, they will drive continual new adjustments and f6rce new
                   displacements in the coastal zone. However, it is the rate at which these wetlands are being
                   submerged and it is largely responsible for the loss of wetland area on the Rainbow Islands.




                                                                     Part 111.3.A -4 -






                                                                                                        DRAFT - July
                                                                               Part 111.3.B - crit iss - Storms
                                                                Coastal Storms'

                             Northeasters and other severe weather systems are major contributors in shaping, eroding,
                     and redefining New Jersey's beaches. Since 1980, New Jersey has experienced an increase in
                     storm activity. In an attempt to compare and rate storm events, storm classification systems
                     have evolved, such as the Saffir-Simpson scale for hurricanes and the Dolan-Davis scale for
                     northeasters. Another method developed to classify storms is the use of frequency curves.
                     Frequency curves can be used to predict the occurrence intervals of specific water levels as well
                     as rate storms events. Secondly, various rates of sea-level rise can be incorporated into frequency
                     curves to predict future storm water elevations. When projected into the future, similar events
                     will be capable of reaching areas once safe from storm activity. Therefore, it is crucial that
                     coastal decision-makers recognize the effects of storms and a rising sea level upon the coastal
                     zone and incorporate mitigation strategies which enhance public safety and reduce further
                     exposure.


                     POST-1980 STORMY WEATHER


                             This section is an update of the recent storm activity along the coastal zone of New
                     Jersey and their characteristics. The information was taken from several different sources
                     including the National Weather Service, The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),                    the
                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                     (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), and the local newspapers along the New Jersey coastal
                     region. Water level elevation data were taken from two main source; USACOE and the NOS.
                                                                                         2
                     High tide predictions were obtained from NOAA and NOS.
                             There have been several severe northeaster storms and hurricanes that have touched upon
                     the New Jersey coast since 1980. Eight of these storms were considered "major" nor-theasters,
                     and the damages produced by them were clearly documented. These include the storms of March
                     1984, January 1987, Halloween 1991, January 1992, December 1992, March 1993, March 1994
                     and, the Blizzard of 1996. The information collected from these storms is a good indication of
                     the continual hazards at the New Jersey coast.


                     Significant Northeasters Since 1980

                             Since 1980, the New Jersey coast has been affected by approximately fourteen
                     northeasters. Eight of these storm systems were considered major storms because of seVeral


                         This is a brief version of the information incorporated in the White Paper on coastal
                     storms, included in the appendix to this report.
                     2 The information obtained from these sources may vary due to the differences in data collection and
                     processing of this data. Location of gages, measuring units(such as Mean Low Level Water, National
                     Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD), Feet, and Meters) and time of measurements may also vary.
                     Thus, there may be inconsistency in data for each storm. Adjustments have been accomplished in
                     presenting this information in similar terms and to reconcile differences. However, some small differences
                     remain.



                                                            Part 111.3.B -1






                                                                                              DRAFT - July
                                                                        Part III.3.B - crit iss - Storms
                   variables. They tended to have an unusual long duration, high water levels, extensive damage, or a
                   combination of these factors. In some cases, the media focused on particular northeasters, due to
                   the factors mentioned above and the dates at which these storms occurred. Presented below is a
                   description of each of the eight significant storms which have occurred since 1980. They will be
                   depicted by several factors; their duration along the New Jersey coast, maximum water level
                   elevations, maximum wave elevation, and the damages they produced along the coastline. Water
                   level elevations are presented in reference to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
                   (NGVD). NGVD is a national reference plane, which was established in 1929. This datum
                   represents a constant surface and it is often used as the base level for measuring water levels in
                   the coastal zone. At present, the NGVD plane is .59ft (.16m) below mean sea level. Because it
                   is a constant surface, it does not have to be adjusted to the rise of sea level or subsidence of land.
                   Thus, we are able to compare storms and their water levels with reference to NGVD.

                          The dynamics of the New Jersey coast are always changing and storms play a large role in
                   this never-ending cycle. Since 1980, there have been approximately seventeen coastal storms
                   (Table 1) which have affected the New Jersey coastline in some mariner. Some of these storms
                   produced very high water level elevations above NGVD, such as the March 1984 storm,
                   December 1992, and March 1994 storm. Typically, storms produce a peak storm surge at the
                   height of the storm, with water levels building up, then receding accordingly. This increase in
                   water level elevations can produce some damaging effects. They can erode New Jersey's beaches
                   and dunes, flood low-lying areas, produce structural damages to buildings, boardwalks and other
                   man-made structures, and be hazardous to coastal communities in general. Thus, understanding
                   these storms and the frequency at which they occur can be utilized to assist mitigation efforts to
                   reduce the public exposure to their effects and enhance public safety.


                   RECURRENCE UVMRVALS


                          The occurrence of severe storms brings forth the appellation 'storm of the century', or
                   some similar designation. The severity of storms can be indicated by the measure of associated
                   damage or erosion, or loss of life, or a combination of these factors. In an attempt to establish
                   some comparative measure of storms and apply a scale to these events, storm classification
                   systems have evolved. The Saffir-Simpson scale has been developed for categorizing the severity
                   of hurricanes and the Dolan-Davis scale has been developed to classify northeasters.


                   FREQUENCY CURVES

                          Another method which has been developed to compare storms is the use of frequency
                   curves. Storm magnitudes and duration may vary considerably. Storm water levels may build up
                   over several tidal cycles or pass quickly. However, one common denominator of storms is the
                   elevation of the water. This characteristic determines the magnitude of erosional effect of the
                   waves, penetration of the dunes, potential overwash, and the flooding of barrier islands and
                   bayside communities. When estimating or comparing different storm strengths, flood frequency
                   curves help reduce the characteristics of a storm to a single variable or common denominator,


                                                      Part 111.3.B -2 -






                                                                                                                                   DRAFT - July
                                                                                                     Part 111.3.B - crit iss - Storms
                          water level. Although storm water level is only one of several storm variables, it is perhaps the
                          best single descriptor of the impact of a storm on the shoreline and its attendant characteristics.


                                                    Table 1: Summ                    ry of Severe Storms 1980-1996
                           Storm Date                         Storm Type             Water Level                   Maximum Wa,%d[)uration
                                                                                     Meters/Feet,                  Height (MIFt) Hours
                                                                                     NGVD
                           October 25, 1982                   Northeaster              1. 3 1 m(4.3 ft)              NA                            -32hrs

                           September. 30, 1983                Hurricane                1,25rn(4.Ift)                 NA                            -12hrs

                           March 29, 1984                     Northeaster              2.19m(7.2ft)                  2.4m(7.9ft)                   -36hrs

                           October 13, 1984                   Hurricane                1.43m(4.7ft)                  NA                            -60hrs

                           September 27, 1985                 Hurricane                -2. 1 m(7. I ft)              2.2m(7.2ft)                   -24hrs

                           January 2, 1987                    Northeaster              1.8m(5.9ft)                   -2.4m(8.Oft)                  50hrs

                           August 19, 1991                    Hurricane                1. 12m(3.7ft)                 2.2m(7.2ft)                   -12hrs

                           October 30, 1991                   Northeaster              2.0m(6.6ft)                   -2.6m(8.5ft)                  -1 14hrs

                           January 4, 1992                    Northeaster              1.93m6.3ft)                   -2.4m(8.0ft.)                 -32hrs

                           September 23, 1992                 Northeaster              1.7m(5.6ft)                   -2.6m(8.6ft)                  -36hrs;

                           December it, 1992                  Northeaster              2.32m(7.6ft)                  -3.0m(9.8ft)                  - 140hrs

                           March 13, 1993                     Northeaster              1.68m(5.5ft)                  -1.74m(5.7ft)                 -40hrs

                           March 1994                         Northeaster              2.3m(7.6ft)                   -2.7m(9.Oft)                  -60hrs

                           December 1994                      Northeaster              1.3m(4.3ft)                   -2.4rn(8.0ft)                 -24hrs

                           August 17, 1995                    Hurricane                1.65m(5.4ft)                  -2.74m(9.Oft)                 -96hrs

                           November 14, 1995                  Northeaster              1.52m(5.Oft)                  -2.29m(7.5ft)                 -3 6hrs
                           January 7, 1996              -@-Nort-heaster                1.66m(5.4ft)                    1.6m(5.3ft)                 -48hrs
                                                                           -------- J-


                                     Frequency curves entail the analysis of the elevation of the water that occurred in
                          conjunction with storms. The assumption is that stronger storms are associated with higher
                          storm surges and flooding in the coastal zone. Through time, storm events and their associated
                          water levels have been measured at many coastal locations enables comparisons to be made. This
                          type of comparison organizes the historical numerical data at a site to construct a frequency
                          curve and to calculate the probabilities of storm water levels. Flood frequency curves are often
                          used along the coast to describe flood events, which has application to planning and event
                          categorization.





                                                                           Part 111.3.B -3






                                                                                            DRAFT - July
                                                                      Part 111.3.B - crit iss - Storms
                          A variety of methods exist for determining flood frequency curves. However, each
                  method may result in slightly different values.         Percent chance exeedance and expected
                  probability are the two methods most frequently used in USACOE and Federal Emergency
                  Management Agency (FEMA) literature. Annual percent chance exceedance is the percent
                  chance that exists for exceeding a corresponding water level in a given year. Expected probability
                  attempts to determine the chance that certain water levels will occur. This latter method is used
                  by FEMA to evaluate the I 00-year flood elevations and for V-zone determination.

                          The variety of methods and sources used to depict frequencies of water levels may
                  produce different water levels for the same intervals (Fig. 1).
                          Absolute storm water levels can be related to a common base using elevation of water
                  levels or probabilities derived from sea level frequency curves as well. Figure I incorporates the
                  5-, 10- 50-, and 100- year storm surge water levels and ranks past events according to the NGVD
                  water levels reached. For example, a 5.8 ft. water level has a recurrence interval of I in 5 years or
                  a 20% probability of occurring in any single year.


                  APPLICATION OF SEA-LEVEL RISE


                          Storm surge levels vary as a function of the storm's strength. However, there is another
                  variable that determines the comparable level to which any storm can raise the water elevation
                  and penetrate inland. That variable is the change in relative sea level through time. Sea level is
                  rising. Therefore, the base upon which storms have occurred is changing. Thus, recent storms
                  are now capable of reaching similar historical flood levels with lower surges. In addition, a rise in
                  sea level allows stronger, less frequent events to reach coastal areas that where once safe from
                  storm activity, exposing more areas to the erosional and flooding effects of a storm.

                          When comparing storms, it is possible to describe its surge level to a fixed datum, such as
                  NGVD (Figure 1), or to a changing datum, such as sea level at the time of the storm. However,
                  when comparing storms that are separated by several decades, some of the differences wiU be a
                  product of sea level rise. For example, although Hurricane Gloria and the March 1962 storm
                  were equal in water elevations reached [7.2 ft. (2.19m) above NGVD], Gloria operated on a sea
                  level 0.276 ft. (0.07m) higher than the 1962 storm. Thus, because the March 1962 storm'
                  operated on a lower water base than Hurricane Gloria, the 1962 storm had a stronger storm surge
                  than Hurricane Gloria in order to reach the same water levels.


                  Future Storm Levels"
                  Continuation of Previous Century's Rate

                          The impacts of sea-level rise through time are depicted in Figure 1. Column- A contains
                  the water level elevations of the major storms that have reached New Jersey. Eleven storms are


                  - The predictions of future sea levels are discussed in Sea-Level Rise (Psuty, et.al., 1996). a Coastal
                  Hazard Management Plan White Paper accompanying this report.


                                                     Part III.3.B -4 -






                                                                                            DRAFT - July
                                                                      Part I11.3.B - crit iss - Storms
                   listed and portrayed according to their peak water levels above NGVD. In addition, the elevation
                   of the water level is referenced to the FEMA frequency water levels. For example, the January
                   1987 storm is shown as having a storm peak water level of 5.9 ft and it is about a I in 5 year
                   storm. This storm is labeled Number 2 and this storm and its number are incorporated in each of
                   the other columns in Figure 1.

                          The left column is a compilation of the major storms of the past 52 years, including many
                   of the post- 1980 stonns. In each case, the storm water elevation is the level achieved at the time
                   of the storm relative to NGVD. This procedure does not identify the effects of sea-level rise
                   during the period of record, although it is incorporated in the storm surge value. By way of
                   example, the March 1962 storm had water levels equal to that of Hurricane Gloria in 1985, 7.2 ft.
                   above NGVD. Yet, if those two storms were to occur in 1996, their comparative raised water
                   levels would be different today because of sea-level rise. Their storm surges would be adjusted
                   and raised at the rate of the past sea-level rise rate, 3.84 mm./yr (0.012 ft/yr). Thus, a storm
                   equivalent to the March 1962 storm occurring in 1996 would produce a water level of 7.99
                   ft.(2.43m) above NGVD [compared to 7.2 ft.(2.2m) above 1962 NGVD] with an occurrence
                   interval of I in 35 years. If an event similar to Hurricane Gloria were to occur in 1996, water
                   elevations would reach 7.33 ft.(2.24m) above NGVD [compared to 7.2 ft.(2.2m) above NGVD in
                   1985]. In other words, if the 1962 storm were to occur today, it would surpass the flood levels
                   of Hurricane Gloria, its water levels would be higher than the December 1992 storm, and- its
                   levels would even surpass the 1944 Hurricane.

                          Extending the effect of sea-level rise on future storms, Figure I projects the occurrence of
                   past storm water levels to their equivalents in the year 2050 and illustrates the difference
                   between storm surges of the older verse the more recent events.


                   MANAGEMIENT IMIPLICATIONS


                          Coastal storms will continue to occur and to inundate the New Jersey shoreline. These
                   storms often result in the loss of life, extensive damage to property, and coastal erosion As sea
                   level continues to rise, the effects of storms will be felt farther inland and across more of the
                   coast. Efforts need to be taken to minimize potential losses from less frequent severe storms, as
                   well as frequent low magnitude storms. Several issues must be considered prior to implementing
                   any management strategies:
                   0 Identification of high hazard areas.
                   * Identification, on a reach basis, of the level of protection from coastal storms desired.
                   * Creation of goals and objectives to be achieved in the year 2050, taking into consideration
                      rising water levels.

                          Coastal decision makers must determine, on a regional basis, the level of protection
                   desired to alleviate the effects of the probabilistic occurrence of storm waters to barrier islands
                   and bayside communities. Options to protect reaches against a I in 5 year storm water levels
                   differ from strategies to protect reaches from a I in 50 year storm. Although, protection from a I


                                                     Part 111.3.B -5 -







                                                                                                                                                    DRAFT - July
                                                                                                              Part III.3.B - crit                   iss - Storms




                                                                                                                                        D
                                                                                                                                     NRC Low                          10
                                     3                                                                                  C            Estimate
                                                                                                                   EPA Best          Scenario
                                                                                                      B            Estimate          (.025 f/yr)
                                                                                                                   Scenario                         FEMA 100 year
                                               ..................... ............................................................... ................... .........
                                                                                                                   (.018 f/yr)                      water level
                                                                                                  Historic
                                                                                                     Rate                              ............
                                                                                                  Scenario
                                                                                                                                        ...........
                                                                                                  (.012 f/yr)         ............
                                                                                                                                                                      9
                                                                                                                     ..........

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


                                                                                                                   .... ...   .....
                                                                                                                                        ..........
                                                                                                     ...           ......... 0-*....,
                                                                                                                        .... ......
                                                                                                                                                    FEMA 50 year
                                         ............................................................................................. .. ...........
                                                                                                                              ....... .. .........
                                                                                                                                                    water level

                                   2.5
                                                                                      A              ...                      ....

                                                                              Water Level                                     ........                                8
                                                                              Reached                                                . . ..........
                                                                                                                              ....... . ............
                               Z                                              During Event                              ........
                                                                                                        ........                                    FEMA 30 year
                                                                                                              ..........
                                         ............................................................... ...... .........     . ......... .
                               >                                                                                                                      t                   >
                                                                                                                                                    wa erlevel
                                                                                                                     ...................
                               0                               Hurricane 1944                                                                                             tZ
                                                                                                                                                                          0

                                                               December 1992
                                                                                                  .................                        ........
                                            October 199 1, Hurricane Gloria.                                                                                              0
                                            Hurricane Belle, March 1962
                                                                                                                                                    EIVIA 20 year
                               LQ        ................................................................ ......  .........   ..........
                                                                                                                                                    water level
                                                                                                     ..... ......
                                                               November 1950


                                                                                                     ..........
                                                                   March 1984                        .............
                                                                                        ........     .......
                                     2-                                                                                 ......


                                                                                     ............
                                                                                  ... .........
                                                                                     ............
                                                                                                  ....... . ..                                      FEMA 10 year
                                         ............................................................... ......... .........................................................
                                                                                                                                                    waterlevel


                                                       Hurricane Donna 1960                                                                                           6
                                                                 January 1987                                                                       FEMA 5 year
                                         ............................................................... ...........................................%...................................... water level


                                                                                      ...........


                                                                 January 1996



                                                                                                                                                                  L 5


                           Figure 1.     Projection of Historic Storm water Levels to the Year 2050 Utilizing Three Predicted                                     Sea-Levet7-Rise
                            Scenarios A) Storm surge at time of storm related to NGVD, B) Past Rate, \C) EPA's estimate, D) National
                            Research Counsel estimate













                                                                                  Part 111.3.B -6






                                                                                            DRAFT - July
                                                                      Part 111.3.13 - crit iss - Storms
                  in 5 year storm requires less immediate investment than a I in 50 year storm, providing
                  protection from a I in 5 year storm will require continuous post-disaster clean-up and repairs.
                  Conversely, to provide protection against a I in 50 year storm will prevent flooding from
                  frequent less severe storms; however, it may require expensive structural solutions such as dikes
                  and may not be economically feasible or realistic. However, some level of protection against
                  storms must be afforded. Thus, an intermediate approach such as providing protection from a I
                  in 20 year storm may be the most feasible option. By providing protection from a I in 20 year
                  storm, communities will be protected from the effects of both moderately-severe less frequent
                  storms and well as frequent storms.

                          It must be recognized that increasing sea levels compromise any storm management
                  efforts. As sea-level rise increases the water elevations of frequent low magnitude storms, it will
                  become increasingly important to develop a long-term management strategy.


                  Conclusion


                          Coastal storms are a constant threat to the New Jersey coastline, often resulting in loss of
                  life, property damage, and beach erosion. The interim between 1980 and 1996 is considered a
                  4@stormy" period, producing over seventeen storms. In an attempt to establish some comparative
                  measure of storms and to rate events, storm classification systems have evolved.                  'By
                  incorporating the impact of sea-level rise through time, one can compare the elevations reached at
                  the time of the storm. If these storms are projected into the future, similar events would cause
                  more damage than when they originally occurred. In addition, a rise in sea level allows stronger,
                  less frequent events to reach coastal areas that where once safe from storm activity, exposing
                  more areas to the erosional and flooding effects of a storm.

                          Although the construction of barriers confront some of the hazards associated with
                  coastal storms, they can not eliminate the high risks of storms acting on elevated water levels.
                  Therefore, it is crucial that appropriations led by a State policy that anticipates the effects of a
                  rising sea level on coastal storms and develops policy that will enhance public safety and reduce
                  public exposure to coastal storms. Policies are needed that direct the investment of public funds
                  into projects that will enhance public safety from coastal storms. Conversely, policies are'
                  needed to reduce expenditures in areas prone to overwash, flooding, and hazardous areas which
                  are subject to continuous repairs of infrastructure and structures.













                                                     Part 111.3.13 -7






                                                                                                 DRAFT July
                                                                                   Part III - Critical Issues
                                               SHORELINE EROSION



                         Shoreline erosion is an easy concept to understand because it represents the loss of

                 sediment from the coastal system and the spatial displacement of the water line to some inland
                 position. However the causes of shoreline erosion and the measurement of erosion offer some
                 complications. There is inherent natural variability in the coastal system and the result is

                 shifting of the shoreline in a variety of time spans. In the long term, as sea level rises, the

                 shoreline will shift inland much because of the encroachment of the sea. Within that shift may
                 be variations produced by variations in sediment supply, the variations in storminess, and the
                 general pulsing of sediments through the system. There are so many short-term variations

                 that the trend of shoreline change may take decades or longer to decipher. But with longer

                 term records and information on the beach characteristics, the dune forms, and the offshore

                 profiles, it will be possible to understand the three-dimensional components of shoreline
                 change and incorporate that understanding into effective management. At present, the two
                 most important variables that are driving shoreline change are the quantity of sediments
                 available to the system and the rate of sea-level rise.



                 SEDIMIENT SUPPLY

                         Beaches are traditionally maintained by the natural processes of sediment transport
                 from some external source to accumulate at the water-land contact. Generally, the most

                 important source of beach sand are the rivers that transport sediment eroded from the

                 continent and discharge their loads in the vicinity of the shoreline. A quick glance at the map

                 of New Jersey shows that there are no major rivers discharging at the shoreline (Fig. 1). Most

                 of the rivers in the State enter bays or estuaries which catch and trap the- available sediment

                 and, therefore, a riverine source of sediment is unavailable under present conditions. A second

                 source is the erosion of the continental margin by waves and currents. This is an area of cliffs
                 and bluffs at the waters edge. There are portions of Monmouth County which is composed of
                 eroding bluffs. Although this is a source of sand that can be transported to supply adjacent






                                                                                                                                                     DRAFT




                                                                                                                              SANDY
                                                                                                                              1100K



                                                                                                              4m
                                     A
                                                                                       tt
                                                                     0
                                                                T@
                                                                                                        pr!@ -
                                                                             @N
                                                                                                                   V@@Nfp zed.,
                                                                                               54-.

                                                                                                                             Asbtwy Park
                                                                                            V
                             -M.
                                                                 46@`



                                                                                                  14 az
                                   P& I
                                                                                                      @Z
                                                                                                                         MANASQUAN nviFT
                                                                               7a
                                                                                                                         B2Y IWd
                                                                   4.,
                                       z -
                                                                                       _fj,

                                                       '4.7.
                                                                                                      .,. X,1V
                                                                                                                         sido Park
                                                                                                      VW,..            Sea
                                                   @BUFI    NGTON

                                                                     ?K




                                                                                                               9    DANNEGATINLEr
                                                                                  K1.
                                                                        __Zq.




                              C,



                                                   7,

                                                                                                                                  -N-
                                                                                                       0@h Ha@cn
                                                                                                K,
                                                                                                 BEA CH HA YFJV INUT
                                                                                                 LJTTLE EGG INLEr


                                                ......                                         BRIGANTINE INLLT


                          CUMBERLA Nd. il        , I`                                    ABSECON INLET                   ATLANTIC
                                                                                        Atlantic City

                                                                                                                           OCEAN
                                                                       0
                                                                            GRFA TECG IIA RROR INLET
                                                                         oceari cgty


                                                                   CORSON'S (NIA-r



                            Delaware
                                                              7OWNSEND'SINLET
                               Bav


                                              t1       HAYEFORI) INUT                                      0     miles     10
                            Cape May                                                                       G'   mometers 2'0
                              pmm

                                                                                                      IMCS/Rutgers Ctrtography 1996


                          Figure 1. Map of Coastal New Jersey



                                                                                  2 - shore erosion






                                                                                                DRAFT July
                                                                                   Part III - Critical Issues
                 beaches, the rate of sediment delivery is very slow and the amounts are insufficient to

                 maintain the beaches. The supply has been ftirther diminished by the many structures and

                 walls that have been erected to slow the rate of bluff recession, thus the erosional bluff source

                 of sediment is of minor importance. The remaining source of sand to the New Jersey beaches
                 is from the offshore. It is likely that during the rise of sea level that occurred over the past

                 several thousand years that considerable quantities of sand were submerged as the ocean rose

                 to inundate the sandy coastal plain. Waves can move sand landward along the bottom and

                 cause accretion at the beach. Indeed, the recovery of the beaches following a storm is the

                 process of wave transport of sand from the offshore to the position of the beach. However,
                 the offshore source is finite, and once the available sand has been mobilized and transported,
                 the supply is exhausted. There are no new sands being generated to replace the materials that
                 have been moved. Thus, over some time period, the offshore sand supply has contributed as

                 much as is available. That limit has been reached. There are sand sources that remain in the

                 offshore zone that are too deep or too far offshore to be mobilized by the waves and currents

                 present in the offshore. Thus, these formerly-available offshore sources of sediment have

                 been effectively exhausted in terms of being transferred landward by the natural processes.

                 However, there are deep water sand sources that may be moved by dredging or some other

                 human-induced process.

                         A fundamental characteristic of the New Jersey shoreline is the slow but continuing
                 loss of sediment through time. There are no new natural sources of sediment entering the

                 beach environment to balance the losses caused by the processes of wave and current

                 transport from the beaches into deeper water offshore or downdrift. The losses are slow but

                 through time there is a net decrease of sand in the beach zone, in the barrier islands, and in

                 front of the low bluffs that front the Atlantic coast of New Jersey. The net result of the

                 sediment loss is a slow displacement of the shoreline that is recognized as shore erosion, or the

                 inland shift of the shoreline because some of the sand has been removed and not replaced.

                 This is a natural process and nearly all of the world's shoreline is experiencing a similar

                 condition because of the absence of new sand being contributed to the world's beaches.



                                                              -3-






                                                                                                     DRAFT


                       If the shoreline were in equilibrium and not undergoing erosion, the problems of coastal
               management would be significantly reduced. However, the situation at the coast is one of
               slow sediment loss that is displacing the shoreline inland. Some of the rate of shoreline

               displacement had been reduced in the past by erosion of the sand that had accumulated in the
               form of large dunes on the barrier islands. This dune sand contributed sediment to the slow

               the losses and thus buffered the rate of displacement. However, the dunes have been removed

               in much of coastal New Jersey and that source of sand is not available in most of the coastal

               zone.

                       Rates of sand loss are also affected by human intervention in the coastal system. Some

               of the structures which have been placed to maintain inlets or to protect development interfere

               with the natural transport processes and in some instances direct some of the sand into deeper
               water where it is less likely to return to nourish the beaches. Other structures affect the

               distribution and rate of alongshore transport to produce accumulations in one location while
               causing greater erosion in an adjacent location. These structures may not diminish the overall

               sediment supply but do cause a redistribution that is beneficial to one area and adverse to

               another.

                       New sand may be added to the beach/dune system by physically transferring sand by

               truck or by pipeline. Sediment dredged from offshore sites more than a mile or so and from
               depths greater than about 50-60 feet are additions to the existing beaches. Likewise sediment
               brought by trucks from the mainland to the beaches is new material that affects the short-term

               sediment budgets. Moving sand by these means is costly and each program to add sand to the

               beaches must be carefully evaluated. Any quantity of sand added to the beaches will

               eventually be removed by the natural processes. Any quantity of sand added to the system

               modifies the sediment budget but does not reverse the causes of sediment removal and the

               longer term losses. Sand management is an issue in the coastal area, both the retention of the

               sand that is being lost and the opportunity to bring new sand into the system.







                                                       4 - shore erosion






                                                                                                DRAFT July
                                                                                   Part III - Critical Issues

                 SEA-LEVEL RISE



                        Essentially, as sea rises the shoreline is displaced inland, except in those areas where

                 sufficient sediment is accumulating to build the shoreline seaward. A shortage of sediment

                 accompanied by sea-level rise compounds the problem and produces a faster rate of

                 displacement. In areas of gentle slopes, such as those in association with barrier islands, the

                 amount of horizontal shift is thought to be on the order of 100 times the amount of vertical

                 rise. However, at coastal bluffs, the horizontal shift is much less. It is likely that the

                 response of the shoreline to sea-level rise has some time lag associated with it. The change

                 will not occur each year, but some major storm that mobilizes large quantities of sediment.

                 The lack of the beach to return to its original position may be the stepwise manifestation of

                 the effect of sea-level rise as well as changes in the sediment budget.



                 CHANGES IN SHORELINE POSITION



                         In addition to sediment supply and sea-level rise, the variety of coastal

                 geomorphological features, the variable exposures, differing persistence in alongshore drift,
                 sediment delivery and the occurrence of beach protection structures all lead to a variation in

                 the rates of shoreline erosion and displacement. There are major differences in the responses

                 on the barrier islands versus the cliffed coast of the Northern Highlands. There are also

                 variations along the barrier islands, and there is an additional difference in response to the

                 effects of groins, jetties, and seawalls at the coast.



                         An analysis of the historical changes of the shoreline reveals considerable variation

                 both spatially and temporally. Many coastal areas show periods of erosion interspersed with

                 periods of accumulation. This variation was amply demonstrated in the comparison of

                 shoreline positions depicted in Nordstrom et al (1978) that apply rates of positive and

                 negative displacement over some time period (Fig. 2). This concept is updated and



                                                              -5-






                                                                                                                                DRAFT



               I = [1836-18861, 1932-1957                       Avalon    [-31,+12'                        n      [+15.31,+151
               J = [1842-1899], 1928-1965
               K   [1885-1937], 1937-1963                                [-51,+7'
               L   [1842-1899], 1899-1955
               M   [1842-18991, 1899-1936                                                                    [+31, +2L
                                                                               0    2

                                                                  Stone    [+11]j+Am
                                                                  Harbor
                                                                            [+.41,-7L
                         Villas
                                                                                                  Corso      [+91,+23L
                                                                             [-A]/+]A'            Inlet
                                                                                 [01,+14'
                                                                   Wildwood
                                          Cape May                            [-21,+5j                         61, -AL
                                          Inlet                               [+101,+8'
                                                1 1'-1                                              Sea
                               Cape       XTI-
                               Ma            [+31,-4'                                               Isle
                           [-IAI, F A], [+161,                               J-301'+91                        [+61,-4L
                           -17' - 7j                         I                                                                   I

               Fig. 2. An example of variations in shoreline displacement rates in feet per year in Cape May County, Covering approximately on century of record
                                                                        @od
                                                  ,/Y-
                                                       -6


                                                                             J-3





               (Nordstrom, et al., 1977). Time span comparisons are largely rates of the 19th century [in brackets] versus those of the 20th century. The latter
               period incorporates the construction of structures at the shoreline and at the inlets.




                                                                   6 - shore erosion






                                                                                                     DRAFT July
                                                                                       Part III - Critical Issues

                  incorporated on the NJDEP CD-ROM (1995) that portrays shoreline positions at differing

                  times and permits the measurements to be made between any combination of shoreline

                  positions relative to the base map shoreline of 1986 (Fig. 3).



                          Complications to the general trend of shoreline displacement are the products of
                  attempts to stop or reverse the history of shoreline erosion. The use of shore parallel

                  structures such as seawalls creates an artificial shoreline position while permitting continued

                  erosion in the subaqueous zone and an oversteepening of the slopes seaward of the seawall.

                  Shore perpendicular structures such as groins and jetties interfere with the alongshore
                  transport of sand in the beach zone and cause offsets in the shoreline. Sand accumulates on
                  the updrift side of the shore perpendicular structures but is withheld from the downdrift
                  portion, causing an accelerated inland displacement. Beach nourishment projects rebuild the
                  beach and temporarily displace the shoreline seaward.



                          All of the above approaches to shoreline protection manipulate the shoreline position

                  and affect the general analysis of trends of shoreline displacement. Therefore, it is necessary

                  to qualify any identification of change or rate of change relative to the natural as well as the
                  cultural processes that have affected the outcome of the shoreline position through time.
                          Despite the temporal variations, nearly all of the New Jersey shoreline was eroding

                  and being displaced inland prior to the advent of massive, areally-limited beach nourishment

                  projects (USACOE, 1971 -, Nordstrom, et al., 1978; USACOE, 1990). The downdrift ends of

                  barrier islands or the tips of barrier spits were exceptions to the trend, but these accumulations

                  were primarily elongations of the islandsispits and downdrift shifts rather than seaward

                  displacements. The bulbous, updrift ends of the barrier islands have been accumulating and

                  losing sand on some lengthy cycle and they show this variation in the historic charts and aerial

                  photos of this century. Further, as the updrift bulbous ends of the barriers release sand, they

                  buffer the shoreline displacements of the downdrift portions of the islands. Thus, there are




                                                                  -7-






                                                                                                                     DRAFr






                                                    Historical Shoreline Positions
                                                               Brigantine Island








                                                                                                             Shore Unes
                                                                                                                    -1836-42
                                                                                                             0
                                                                                                             '/N;@ 1871-75
                                                                                                                     1899
                                                                                                                     1932-36
                                                                                                                     1951-53
                                                                                                                     1971
                                                                                                                     1977
                                                                                                                     1986




                                                                                  W             E


                                                                                         S
                                                                     2                   0                   2 Kilmdem



                     Fig. 3. A comparison of shoreline positions on Brigantine Island, 1836-1842 to 1986. data have been
                     entered into a GIS program and recorded on CD-ROM. The effects of the Absecon Inlet jetty are apparent
                     in the seaward displacement of the southern shoreline, whereas the northern half of the island has an
                     erosional trend as well as elongating into Brigantine Inlet. An old inlet position cutting through the
                     island is shown about 2 miles north of Absecon Inlet. (NJDEP, 1995).













                                                               8 - shore erosion






                                                                                                     DRAFT July
                                                                                       Part III - Critical Issues

                   changes in the position of the shoreline that are responding to long-term and short-term
                  processes of sediment exchange.         Any description of the shore position necessarily
                  incorporates the variety of natural cycles and cultural attempts at stabilization.             Any

                  description of the trend of shoreline displacement, therefore, should be posed within some
                  temporal period and extended beyond that period with caution. Obviously, an analysis of
                  change over longer time periods would tend to smooth the naturally- and culturally-produced
                  variations and identify the general situation.


                  New Jersey Beach Profile Network
                          A new data set has been developed to describe beach change. Beginning in 1985, beach

                  profiles have been surveyed at approximately one mile intervals for most of the new Jersey

                  shoreline. Some of the public holdings (parks and wildlife areas) were added in the 1990s.

                  These profiles provide complementary information to the spatially-contiguous photo

                  comparisons. These profiles include the dune zone, the beach, and the offshore area.

                  Originally, the profiles extended to wading depth but they now extend to about -20 ft NGVD.

                  Although each of these surveys portrays the conditions at a single line, there are now 9 years

                  of record at most of the lines and the broad spatial associations deliver a heretofore unavailable

                  data set about the quantities of sand on the profile. The data derived from the profiles
                  represent the changes in cross-section of the total profile. If an equal amount of sand shifts

                  from dune to the offshore or vice versa, for example, the net change in the profile measurement

                  is zero. Therefore, any net positive or negative change is actually a gain or loss to the total

                  profile cross-section and not just a shift of sand from one position on the profile to another

                  position, within the profile limits. This is especially important because these profiles eft

                  surveyed only once per year (in the fall) and there is the possibility that more spatially-
                  restricted profiles (to shallow wading depth, for example) would miss and misrepresent the

                  cross-shore transfers of sediment associated with storms and post-storm recovery at the

                  beach. These more recent, deeper surveys are not so affected by the balanced exchanges
                  associated with cross-shore transfers that do not leave the general profile area.


                                                                 -9-







                                                                                                      DRAFT




                      The profiles are affected by the localized manipulations of the beach profile such as

               dune building or beach nourishment projects that emplace volumes of sand on the beach on the

               survey lines. These nourishment episodes create a large positive gain on the profile and would

               skew any average condition for the site.



               Sediment Budget

                      Each of the profiles records the configuration of the topography at a site in cross-

               section. A comparison of successive cross-sections provides a measure of two-dimensional

               area change on the profile line between the surveys. Through convention, the cross-section is

               extended along the beach to create a volume measure of the amount of sand that was gained or
               lost on the profile line. Thus, an expression such as a change of 10 cubic yards per foot of

               beach would indicate that the profile cross-sections differed by 270 square feet. Extending

               this information to a stretch of beach between adjacent two profile lines is accomplished by
               calculating the cross-section change for successive surveys on and the two profiles, summing

               them and dividing by two. This calculation will produce the average volume change in cubic

               yards per foot of beach between the two profile lines. The total volume change may be

               derived by multiplying the average value by the length of beach between the adjacent profile

               lines.

                      A portrayal of the net profile changes in cubic yards of sand per foot of alongshore

               beach length (1986-1995) provides information on the scale of the changes and their spatial

               distribution (Fig. 4A & 13). The net change data set averaged for the total survey period is a

               subject of considerable analysis (Table 1). Many of the positive numbers in this portrayal are

               at sites of beach nourishment, such as at Sandy Hook, lines 284-185; Atlantic City, lines 130-

               128; Ocean City, lines 122-225; Avalon, lines 115-216; and Cape May, lines 104-108. Other

               positive effects are caused by structures, such as the areas updrift of the Barnegat Inlet jetty,
               the Absecon Inlet jetty, and the Cape May jetty. There are also downdrift negative effects

               but they have been countered temporarily in most cases by beach nourishment. With the



                                                      10 - shore erosion






                                                                                                                                              DRAFT July
                                                                                                                           Part III - Cfitical Issues


                                                  7C37'30*                      7VIrW                        7V or 31r





                                                                                                                                           R

                                                            0                     10 r"l


                                                            0      6      10 km


                                                                                                                                            R


                                                   Locedon at coundw



                                                                                      MONMOUTH COUNTY                                    R


                                                                                                                         @Ij



                                                             V,

                                                                                                                           ...........




                                                                              OCEAN       COUNTY




                                             Explanation

                                       Gains and losses of beach sand
                                       (in cubic yards per foot per year)

                                                      Greater than    -4

                                    Losses            -2 to -4

                                                      0 to -2


                                                      Greater than 4

                                                      +2 to +4
                                     Gains

                                                      0 to +2

                         3r 37* 3W
                                                      No Data Available                                                       0

                                           Ptafile locatlon

                                       R Am= with best:h nK*mi*nsm
                                           of rim then 10,000 cubic
                                           yarft
                                                                                         Ly                           %
                           MSW"nM Medl to dOM of 12-20 f8d NOVO Of 1321 MIDI*               Ltw Eff
                             Oeodede Vwt" Datum of 1929).
                           Cam doftd by NJOW *Wff beeW an 16" phoW biwo, eciis 1:2000.
                                                                                                                                  S*WV HOG*

































































                        Figure 4A. Average annual change in volume of sediment on profile segments, 1986-1995,
                        Morunount County and Ocean County. Sources: Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et al., 1994;
                        Farrell, et al., 1995.






                                                                                                                                                       DRAFT



                                                   7ce'rw                                70    W                                7V 2@P 3W



                                                                                                  0              5             10 frd


                                                                                                  0        a        10 in


                             3r 27'3V






                                                                                                                                                  Location of
                                                                                                                                                    cound"


                                                                      ATLANTIC COUNTY                                                         ut* to AW








                             W 22'3V








                                                                                                                        n


                                                                                                                               Explanation
                                                  CAPE MAY CO NTY                                                     Gains and losses of beach sand
                                                                                                                       (in cubic yards per foot per year)
                                                                                                                                X Greater than -4
                             Oro?, 30,                                                                            Losses               -2 to -4
                                                                                            R
                                                                                                                                       0 to -2

                                           ...........
                                       ... .. ......
                                                                                                         41                            Greater than +4
                                                                                       Fk
                                                                                                                                       +2 to +4
                                                                                                                  Gains

                                                                                                                                       0 to +2


                                                                                                                                       No Data Available
                                                                           R                                           0    Profile I

                                                                                                                       R    Area with bach molinidwnenit
                                                                                                                            of rrms then 10,000 outWe
                                                                                                                            ywdjL 1986-1995

                                                   --R
                                                                                    mallunifum mau to Mirth of 12-20 fm N(3VD of 1929 IN Pin
                                                                                      Goodede Vertical betum of 1920).
                                                                                    COM dillMod by NJOW nW bwW on 1980 ph= bm, &CV8 1:24M.



                           Figure 4B. Average annual change in volume of sediment on profile segments, 1986-1995,
                          Atlantic County and Ocean County. Sources: Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et al., 1994; Farrell, et al.,
                           1995



                                                                                   12 - shore erosion






                                                                                                                  DRAFT July
                                                                                                  Part III - Critical Issues

                      Table 1. Absolute values of average annual volume changes of profile segments, 1986-1995,
                      ocean front profiles, cubic yards per foot of beach length.
                          Stations     Avg. for Area       Category           Stations I Avg. for AreaT category
                          185-285            21.6             > +4        Manasquan Inlet
                          285-284            15-885           > +4            156-155           -2.0485         -2 to -4
                      Gateway entrance                                        155-154           -1.239          0 to -2
                          184-183            0.46            0 to -2      Metadeconk River
                          183-new            -12.824          > -4            154-153           0.901           0 to +2
                          new- 182           -13.83           > -4            153-152           -0.73           0 to -2
                          182-181            -0-228          0 to -2          152-151           0.572           0 to +2
                          181-180            11.432           > +4            151-150           -0.068          0 to -2
                          180 179            15.492           > +4            150-149           -1.155          0 to -2
                          179-178            16.962           > +4            149-148           -0.925          0 to -2
                      Long Branch City Limits                                 148-147           -0.596          0 to -2
                          178-177            13.487           > +4            147-247           0.566           0 to +2
                          177-176            1.0435          0 to +2          247-246           1.2035          0 to +2
                          176-175            0.6345          0 to +2          246-146           1.2585          0 to +2
                          175-174            0.625           0 to +2      Barnegat Inlet
                          174-173            0.3225          0 to +2          245-145            9.3              > +4
                          1733-172           0.4105          0 to +2          145-144           -10.96            > -4
                          172-171            -0.785          0 to -2          144-143           -10.725           > -4
                          171-170            -0.895          0 to -2          143-142           -2.155          -2 to -4
                          169-168            -1.365          0 to -2          142-241           -5.745            > -4
                          168-267            -2.94           -2 to -4         241-141           -5.51             > -4
                          267-167            -3.68            > -4            141-140           -1.22           0 to -2
                          167-166            -1.865          0 to -2          140-139           -3.76           -2 to -4
                          166-165            -0.925          0 to -2          139-138           -5.125            > -4
                          165-164            -2.52           -2 to -4         138-137           2.567          +2 to +4
                      Shark River Inlet                                       137-136           1.857           0 to +2
                          163-162            :2.288          -2 to -4         136-135           -3.739          -2 to 4
                          162-161            0.547           0 to +2          135-234           -9.9695           > -4
                          161-160            0.715           0 to +2      Little Egg Inlet
                          160-159            0.18            0 to +2          134-133           -9.705            > -4
                          159-158            0.54            0 to +2          133-132           -6.15             > -4
                          158-157            -0.61           0 to -2          132-131           5.375             > +4
                          157-256            4.29             > +4












                                                                          - 13







                                                                                                                   DRAFr


                                          (con't) Table 1.
                                              Stations -FAvg. for Area-F -Category
                                          Abescon Inlet
                                          -130-129               1.4285         0 to +2
                                              129-128            0.3235         0 to +2
                                          -128-127               -3.91          -2 to -4
                                              127-126            -3.305         -2 to -4
                                          Great Egg Ha bor Inlet
                                              225-125            40.03            > +4
                                          -125-124               12.465           > +4
                                          -124-123               18.94            > +4
                                              123-122            5.279            > +4
                                          Corsons Inlet
                                          -121-120               -10.02           > -4
                                          -120-119               -2.455         -2 to -4
                                              119-118            -2.895         -2 to -4
                                              118-117            -2.0315        -2 to -4
                                          Townsends Inlet
                                          -216-116               133.315          > +4
                                              116-115            5.41             > +4
                                          -115-114               1.41           0 to +2
                                          -114-113               -1.59          0 to -2
                                              113-212            15.365           > +4
                                          Hereford Inlet
                                          -111-110               -0.585         0 to -2
                                          -110-109               4.365            > +4
                                              109-208.           21.97            > +4
                                          Cape May Inlet
                                          -108-107               21.775           > +4
                                          -107-106               4.405            > +4
                                              106-105            8.355            > +4
                                              105-104            10.61            > +4
                                          Cape May Po nt
                                          -104-103               -2.695         -2 to -4
                                              103-102            -1.735         0 to -2
                                              102-101            -0.5265        0 to -2
                                              101-100             1.1           0 to +2
                                          Sources: Uptegrove, et al.,   1995; Farrell, et al., 1994; Farrell, et al.,








                                                              14 - shore erosion






                                                                                                       DRAFIF July
                                                                                         Part III - Critical Issues

                   exception of the numbers for Long Beach Island and the locations obviously affected by beach
                      nourishment or structures, the amounts of change are small for this time period. The largest

                          negative changes are in front of the seawall near the entrance to the Sandy Hook Unit of
                    Gateway. This is a continuation of the oversteepening in front of the seawall and it is a short

                       record. Otherwise, the losses are greatest in the overwashed section of northern Brigantine

                          Island. The numbers are small in front of the Northern Highlands (Monmouth County)

                        because there is very little sand there initially, the continental bedrock is more resistant to
                     erosion than loose sand, and the profiles are very short. Conversely, the numbers are high in

                     front of Long Beach Island because there is a large amount of sand on the profile initially and

                                                                                          these profiles are very long.
                           The tabulation of the individual surveys by year provides additional insight into the
                   sediment transport picture (Table 2). There are very few profile lines that have been
                   consistently positive or negative throughout the survey period. Further, there are no reaches
                   which are consistently positive or negative. Although a reach may have a net positive or
                   negative budget, the pattern seems to be one of variation or periodicity within the reach,
                   perhaps indicative of the alongshore. transfers of sediment in pulses or units of sand. Yet
                   another observation in the annual surveys is the large positive values in Long Branch (Lines

                   177-173) during 1995. It is likely that the beach fill from Monmouth Beach is extending
                   southerly to more than compensate for the longer term erosional history of this section of the

                   Northern Headlands.



                   Shoreline Displacement
                               Another view of the shoreline change is presented as the variation in location of t1fe

                     NGVD water line (shoreline) on the profile through time (Figs. 5A & B, Table 3). Although
                       used frequently to plot the displacements of the shoreline, there is considerable short-term

                   variation in the NGVD intercept on the profiles because of transfers of sand on the pr     ofile and

                   because of the alongshore variation in the beach planform (Table 4). The year to year variation
                       is especially instructive in portraying the effects of beach nourishment and the subsequent



                                                                  - 15-










                 Table 2. Annual volume change from previous year on profiles, 1986-1995, ocean front profiles, cubic yards per foot of beach length.
                                                                                                                                                     @ I @@ I @@ I @                                                      rnean
                                     185                                                                                                                  13.8              -10.99             -3.57          -0.76       -0.25
                               1     285                                                                                                                                    new                41.57          42.57       42.5
                                     284                                                                                                                                    new                -1 0.8'?       -10.82      -10.82
                 Gateway Entrance
                                     184          4.16               -1.04          1.01             -6AI              2.47             -0.81             -4.55             8.9                -3.92          -0.19       -0.02
                                     183          5.76               3.39           -3.77            0.33              -1.98            2.43              -2.33             -1.11              5.85           8.57        0.95
                                     287--'                                                                                                                                 new                -26.59         -26.59      -26.59
                                     182          1.34               6.7            -9.47            9:34              -1.8             -6.92             3.25              -16.35             4.38           -9.53       -1
                                     181          9.52               3.54           -9.94            18                -10              5.32              -35.54            -28.43             52.97          5.44        0.60
                               2     180          -3.55              1.3    1  1    -3.08   1 1      5.4     1 1       -8.67            1.25         1    -3.44             -0-94              212.06         200.33      22.26
                                     179          5.91               -4.14  1  1    0.32             7.19              -10              -1-41             -8.1              199.75             -111    1      78.52       8.72
                                     178          14.83              -147   1  1
                Long Branch City imits
                                     177          8.44               4.58           -7.22            10.15             0.58             0.52              -19.07            -17.6              35.59          15.97       1.77
                                     176          28.64              -23.32         3.08             1.64              -15.03           -11.08            -6.94             6.45               19.38          2.82        0.31
                                     175          19.79              -3.05          6.85             -1.85             -4.07            -9.26             -12.04            -7.88              20.11          8.6         0.96
                                     174          6.78               1.26           -13.38           3.45              1.6              7.43              -0.36             -15.77             11.64          2.65        0.29
                                     173          -1.27              -0.96          -1.86            5.36              1.67             -7.21             5.29              -20.52             2166           3.16        0.35
                                     172          2.27               14.9           -24.23     1     -10.12            19.89      1     0.11                                                                  182         0.47
                               3     171          10.63              -8.25          -9.14            0.34        1     -1.3             0.23              -5.32             -5.11              -0.43          -18.35      -2.04
                                     170          -6.6               15.07          -21.51           16.95             -0.87            -13,42            -16.09            17.06              2.49           -6.92       -0.77
                                     169          -6.48              4.92        --10.75             5.86              5.17             9.48              @ -3.9            -10.16             -3.35          .-9.21      -1.02
                                     168          -6.34        1     32.76  1 1     79.56            -25.43            -53.9            -27.81            -22.65            13                 -4.58          -15.39      -1.71
                                     267          -0.53              -8.32          @ 3 w. 4         -4.42             4.27             -14.19            -1.6              -14.73             5.35           -37.57      -4.17
                                     167          17.92              -13.43         -2.3             8.53              7.05    1 1      -36.69            18.31             3.98               4.51           -28.74      -3.19
                                     166          -12                11.65          -12.47           7.78              0.88             1.4                                 18.76              9.31           -4.88       -0.54
                                     165          5.49               0.1            -13.31  1  1     5.54              1.63             0.51                                -4.91              4.68           -11.78      -1.31
                                                                     -1.78          -7.58            7.41              -1.66            -21.42                     -T   19-21                  -17.9          -33.54         H
                                     164          -5.12                                                                                                                                                                   -3.73
                Shark River Inlet
                                     163          -1.24              -5.24          -16.59           -3.44             -5.18            -1.06             -12.72            -20.42             14.99          -50.9       -5.66
                                     162          3.44               11.48          -5.1             0.16              -4.72            4.97              -8.96             7.37               1.12           9.76        1.08
                                     161          -3.6               -1.56          2.19             &28               -3.05            -2.58             -6.87             8.57               -1.29          0.09        0.01
                               4     160          3.44               4.74           -8.23            -2.03             -4.51            8.89              -4.22             8.48               6.22           12.78       1.42
                                     159          2.34               4.14           -8.02            7                 -1.37            -15.67            -26.46            9.69               1875           -9.5        -1.06
                                     158    1     11.7     1         3.62           -3.51            -5                -7.13            5.42      1 1     -35.1             13.14              16.64          -0.22       -0.02
                                     157          11.62@j            -5.08                           8.87              -13.51           0.34              24.37             -46.78             11.39          -10.79      -1.20
                                                                                                                                                                                                    J4
                                                                                                                                                                                                    9
                                     256                     J`I'                                                                                                           new                9.78           9.78        9.78












                (.con't) Table 2.
                   reach          profile         1987             1988           1989            1990               1991-             1992             1993                   1994              1995      net
                ManaSquan Inlet
                                      156         -12.8            15.73          -6.84           31.9               -24.29            14.2 1           -14.77                 6-44              10.7-.--il 20.28  1   2.25
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             5
                             51       155   1     20.52    1 1     -27.92  1 1    -12.9     11    4.54     1 1       0.53    1 1       -17.07  1 1      -50.21  1 1            0.41              24.91     -57.19  1   -6.q3
                Metedeconk R.
                                      154         5.8              0.74           -1.06           16.4               -2.5              -6.92            5.09                   1.24              15.98     34.85       3.87
                                      153         7.15             -13.53         -4.36           4.84               -31.22            30.33            -38.71                 11.86     -15.01            -18.63      -2.07
                                      152         -L21             11.01          -11.76          6.57               -2.16             4.97             -9.56                  -8.93             16.56     5.49        0.61
                                      151         -2.04            0.96           -23.86          16.65              -22.72            12.07            13.98                  7.87              1.9       4.81        0.53
                                      150         -5.44            9.74           0.61       1    -0.61              -13.74            -10.13           -3.07                  -9.91             26.5      -6.05       -0.67
                             6        149         1.4              -6.97          0.47            -12.1              -11.1   1 1       22.87      1     -22.07      1          1.47              1 L29     -14.74  1   -1.64
                                      148         11.63            0.5            -6.66           6.62               -19.8             13.26            9.91                   -12.26            -5.09     -1.89       -0.21
                                      147         -5.2             12.34          -21.53          14.2               -0.6              -1.73            33.71                  -18.87            0.3       12.62       1.40
                                      247-        8.52             -10.32         8.62            3.64               -9.66             12.25            -56.36                 52.89             -12.02    -2.44       -0.27
                                      246         4.38             8.69           -22.47                                               17.44            -37.45                 11.88             36 27     18.74       2.08
                                      146         8.67             -7.59          084             -9.49                                -38.86   1       39-79                                       1      - 1.47      -0. 161
                Barnegat nlet
                                      245                                                                                                                                      new               21.22     21.22       21.22
                                      145         17.2             -2.31          -7.95           -6.65              -3.97             17.37            -63.98                 22.35             4.37      -23.57      -2.62
                                      144         -2.2             -127.43        -6.35           10.81              -8.64             -16.73           -42.14                 21.88             -2.96     -173.76     -19.31
                                      143         -0.5             -9.7           -6.05           7.26               -5.19             -33.37           -10.02                 -2.75             41.01     -19.31      -2.15
                                      142         13.54    1       -3.42          27.83      1    -30.11             11.46             -49.94           -12.74                 13.03             10.95     -19.4       -2.16
                                      241                                    1               1                  1                1                              1 1            new               -9.33     -9.33   1   -9.33
                             7        141         -5.16            1.44           -0.01           -1.94              10.04             -66.24           46.89                  -9.25             9         -15.23      -1.69
                                      140         0.91             -15.99         10.45           -7.37              3.42              14.79            -23.17                 -21.3             31.52     -6.74       -0.75
                                      139         -12.27           15.41          -5.77           2.71               -33.06            9.4              -21.73                 13.3              -28.93    -60.94      -6.77
                                      138         -14.51           5.98           -2.25           -2.47              -7.11             -12.92           11.61                  -14.16            4.47      -31.36      -3.48
                                      13                                          -5.09           -6.88              3.05              -15.             2.75                   -14.98            -2.03     77.53       8.61
                                      136         5.79             -4.04          -9.19           4.52               -21. 7            -12.53           10.67                  -4.89             -12.9     -44.14  1-74.90
                                      135         -0.19            11.03          -0.56           -2.56              -15.66                                                    -14.98            31 38     13.15       1.46
                                      234                                                                                                                                                        6         -21.36      -21.36
                Little Egg Inlet                                                        -         -
                                      134                          11.32          -17.53          5.18                    -4                                                                               -81.06      -9.01
                                                                                                                     11   1                                                                      -29
                                                                                                                                                                               947
                                                                                                                     19   8                                                    -1 226            -5 09
                                                                                                                     -0   @6                                                   -18-87            03
                                                                                                                     -9   6                                                    89                0_,
                                                                                                                                                                    5 2*2
                                                                                                                                                                               11 88
                                                                                                                                                                                                 362
                                                                                                                E66 4                                                          _9.46             7. 9



                                                                                                                             #t9ï¿½253
                                                                                                                                            1           -4.52                  -14.98
                                                                                                                                                        4.52
                                                                                                                                                                               new               -21.3


                                                                                                                                                                               65.45 Ll          16.06
                             8        133         2.98             -28.85         2.91            3.65          1    -9 T;             -36.13           -27.68                 -20.88            20.46     -93.27      -10.36
                                      132         -15.24           10.78          -17.35          16.18                                7.47             -4.94                  1.37              -5.05     -17.11      -
                                      131                                         10
                                                  3- --                                                                                11.89            -4.96                  37.28             12.6      -113.81     12.65-












              (con't) Table 2.



              Absecon Inlet
                                 130        33.08           -15.64    1   -17.58          15.81           -5.84           2.98      1    -19.38         9.71             -4.26         -1.12   1  -0-12
                                 129        18.12           -8.13         7.95            30-89           -23.59          8.25           -8.26          2.02             -0.46         26.79      2.98
                           9     128        -8.74           -0.68         25.59           5.46            -13.75          -5.62          -34.48         -12.92           24.16         -20.98     -2.33
                                 127        -12.12          4.24          -2.98           9.73            -7.76           -29.77         39.35          -20.42           -29.68        -49-41     -5.49
                            1    126    1   7.59            -11.19        -23.87    1     44.33           -29    1        11.28          -24.6   1      -10.14   1       25.56         -10.04     - 1. L2j
              Great Eg Harbor Inlet
                                 225                                                                                                                    new              82.7          82.7       82.70
                                 125        -2.75           -1.96         -12.6           5.04            1.18            128.88         -36.08         -137.56          32.05         -23.8      -2.64
                                 124        -15.24          5.74          -5.81           5.75            -8.8            -44.7          282.3          -4.18            33.35         248.11     27.57
                         10      123        -28.81          4.95          3.2             4.67            1.48            -15.05         132.55         -19.21                         92.79      10.31
                                 122        -7.56           4.66          -21.56          12.68           -9              14.94          A A I                                     - 2.23         0.25-
              Corson's Inlet
                                 121        -14.03          19.53         -47.92          60.9            -29.33          -110.9         -4.27          22.71            -46.03        -150.34    -16.70
                                 120        -20.41          9.21          -17.28          19.19           0.4             -49.24         -19.93         -8.74            56.75         -30.05     -3.34
                         11      119        14.15           1.43          2.15            16-54           -3.33           -17.78         -18.48         -19.43           10.66         -14.09     -1.57
                                 118        0.59            -12.08        -12.76          17.86           7.86            -16.55         -6.87          -15.4            -0.63         -3T98      -4.22
                                 117        16.49           -22.08        0.28            -12.96          -2.29           91             -34.88         -23.58           -10.59        1.39       0.15
              Towmsends Inlet
                                 216                                                                                                                    new              255.52        255.52     255.52
                                 116        -26.66          34.01         6.44            30-47           8.84            75.03          30.96          -70.06           11.18         100.21     11.13
                         12      115        -1.06           -0.53         8.12            0.14            -7.23           -12.69         -16.56         8.33             18.67         -2.81      -0.31
                                 114        -20.88          14.75         10.15           9.94            -2.41           -43.06         27.43          -3.4             26.65         19.17      2.13
                                 113        -38.12          8.36          -12.14          0.8             -6.48           4.63           -2.46          -2.96            0.59          -47.78     -5.31
                                 212                                                                                                                    new              36. 1-11      36.1    1  36.10
              Hereford Inlet
                                 111        -55.64          34.06         1.55            -35.65          52.28           -15.44         21.31          -76.41           -28.84        -102.78    -11.42
                         13      110        -2.88    1 1    46.24  1 1    6.6     1 1     15.1  .1 1      -108.13 1 1     110.31  1 1    1.59    1                       13.09         92.1
                                 109        -21.27          15.19  1 1    -9.12           25.61  1 1      -1.13  1 1      -10     1 1    -35.32  1      -5.6             28.1          -13.54
                                                                                                                                                                                               F-1142












              (con't) Table 2.



              Cape Ma        Inlet
                               108         2.03           5.22         41.58          10.91          69.49          12.37           76.64          -19.57          33.1         231.77    25.7522
                               107        -1.14           -0.02        -1.07          10.91          91.03          -4.92           43.4           -7.84           29.83        160.18    17.7978
                        14     106        -34.67          5.55         -17.62        .14.14          -8.21          -30.46          -32.68         17.11           5.97         -80.87    -8.9856
                               105        -4.89           27.26        19.23          32.74          -26.25         66.76           110.51         -5.93           11.83        231.26    25.6956
                               104        -12.84          -4.69                                                                                    8.68                     1   -40.31    -4.47891
              Cape Ma        Point
                               103                                                                                                                                               -2.72    -0.9067
              Delaware         102                                                                                                                                               -7.68     -2.56
              Bay              101                                                                                                                                               4.52     1.50667
              beaches          100                                                                                                                                               2.08     0.69333

                Sources.- Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et al., 1994; Farrell, et al.,
                                                                                                                                    0.92           0.38            -4.02          272
                                                                                                                                    -7.53          1.34            -1.49          768
                                                                                                                                    4.37           0.84            -0.69    P4 j52
                                                                                                                                    -0.82            1.9             1          2 . 08







                                                                                                                                                  DRAFT



                                                         7V37'3Cr                          7czrw                            7VOTSW


                                                                                                                                                           meat


                                                                                                                                                              R

                                                                                             10 1"


                                                                    0       5      10 km





                                                          Lacftm of coundes



                                                                                                 MONMOUTH COUNTY




                                                                                                                                                -.02   M



                             4worw







                                                                                        OCEAN COUNTY



                                                    Explanation
                            3r Ir 30'
                                               Displacement of shoreline
                                       (in feet from reference marker per year)
                                                     ; X Greater than -9
                                    Negative
                                 Displacement                -3 to -9
                                                             0 to -3


                                                             Greater than +9
                                     Positve                                                                                      ji
                                 Displacement @IN            +3 to +9
                                                     10      0 to +3                                                                               Q@

                             3r3rw
                                                             No data available

                                                PmOle kwAMm

                                            R Aron with beachisowdeftv
                                                of amm thm 10,000 cubic
                                                yards, 1286-1995                                                                        0
                                                                                                                                     % \
                                                                                                        LIM  Eff


                                             by NJOW WA
                              C*#A                        ff bowd an INS PW* bow aceft 1:240M.



                          Figure 5A. Average shoreline displacement, NGVD intercept on profile, in feet, 1986-1995, Monmouth
                          County and Ocean County. Sources: Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et al., 1994; Farrell, et al., 1995.


                                                                               20 - shore erosion






                                                            DRAFT July
                                                    Part III - Critical Issues


                     7eirw            7V  W            74- @2' 30-




                                          0      5     10


                                          0    5  io own


            3V 37'30'






                                                               Location at
                                                                Cowides


                              ATLANTIC COUNTY                   go








            3rzrw







                                                   Ft
                                                     900 04
                                               R       Explanation
                     CAPE MAY COUNTY                  Displacement of shoreline
                                                  (in feet from reference marker per year)
                                                       K Greater than -9
                                                Negative  -3 to -9
                                       R.      Displacement 0 to -3

                                     ft      4k'          Greater than +9
                                                Positve
                                                          3+ to +9
                                               Displacement
                                                          0 to +3


                                                          No data available
                        xx-     R                    Profile location

                                                   R Are" wfth bwh
                                                     of "Wrin  10, cubic
                                                     yards, 1988-199S
                       R


                                    Cont din"'r bY NJOEP 9W boo an 1986 photo bus, scale 1:24000.


           Figure 5B. Average shoreline displacement, NGVD intercept on profile, in feet, 1986-1995,Atiantic
           County and Cape MayCounty. Sources: Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et al., 1994; Farrell, et al., .1995.








                                        -21-






                                                                                                                  DRAFF


                  Table 3. Amual displacement of shoreline segments on profiles, in feet, ocean front profiles.
                     Stations      Avg. for Area           Cate2ory         Stations I Avg. for Area F-Category-
                     285-284             -19.9         Lessthan-9 ManasquanInlet
                 Gateway entrance                                           156-155              0.456           0 to 3
                     184-183             1.11              0 to 3           155-154              2.74            0 to 3
                     183-282             8.45              +3 to +9         154-153              4.185           +3 to +9
                     282-182             7.42              +3 to +9         153-152              -1.42           0 to -3
                     182-181             0.465             0 to 3           152-151              -2.69           0 to -3
                     181-180             17.1        Greater than +9        151-150              -3.945          -3 to -9
                     180-179             41.78       Greater than +9        150-149              -2.83           0 to -3
                     179-178             41.685      Greater than +9        149-148              0.181           0 to 3
                     178-177             16.48       Greater than +9        148-147              -2              0 to -3
                     177-176             1.605             0 to 3           147-247              0.085           0 to 3
                     176-175             4.415             +3 to +9         247-246              3.185           +3 to +9
                     175-174             4.27              +3 to +9         246-146              4.305           +3 to +9
                     174473              -0.85             0 to -3      Barnegat Inlet
                     173-172             -3.68             -3 to -9         245-145              18.45      Greater than +9
                     172-171             -0.36             0 to -3          145-144              -3.885          -3 to -9
                     171-170             4.26              +3 to +9         144-143              -0.26           0 to -3
                     170-169             1.34              0 to 3           143-142              2.75            0 to 3
                     169-168             -1.62             0 to -3          142-241              4.55            +3 to +9
                     168-267             -2.31             0 to -3          241-141              3.7             +3 to +9
                     267-167             -2.88             0 to -3          141-140              -3.35           -3 to -9
                     167-166             -1.87             0 to -3          140-139              -5.565          -3 to -9
                     166-165             -5.21             -3 to -9         139-138              -3.655          -3 to -9
                     165-164             -6.4              -3 to -9         138-137            -1.4255           0 to -3
                 Shark River Inlet                                          137-136              -4.268          -3 to -9
                     163-162             -1.77             0 to -3          136-135              -1.76           0 to -3
                     162-161             0.185             0 to 3           135-234              -13.67     Greater than -9
                     161-160             2.975             0 to 3       Little Egg Inlet
                     160-159             2.365             0 to 3           134-133              -23.41     Greater than -9
                     159-158             -0.251            0 to -3          133-132              -12.53     Greater than -9
                     158-157             -0.196            0 to -3          132-131              8.49            +3 to +9
                     157-256             31.72       Greater than +9









                                                             22 - shore erosion






                                                                                                              DRAFT July
                                                                                               Part III - Critical Issues




                                      (con't) Table 3.
                                          Stations--FAvg. for Area           Category
                                      Abescon Inlet
                                          1.30- 129          3.23            +3 to +9
                                          129-128            -0.33             0 to -3
                                          128-127            -8.79             -3 to -9
                                          127-126            -1.87             0 to -3
                                      Great Egg Ha bor Inlet
                                          225-125            N/A
                                          125-124            20.33        Greater than +9
                                          124-123            13.31        Greater than +9
                                          123-122            -0.662            0 to -3
                                      Corsons Inlet
                                          121-120            -17.8        Greater than -9
                                          120-119            -2.045            0 to -3
                                          119-118            -3.2              -3 to -9
                                          118-117            2.16              0 to 3
                                      Townsends Inlet
                                          216-116            148.92       Greater than +9
                                          116-115            5.522           +3 to +9
                                          115-114            -4.164            -3 to -9
                                          114-113            9.83         Greater than +9
                                          113-212            -7.04             -3 to -9
                                      Hereford Inlet
                                          111-110            -21.01       Greater than -9
                                          110-109            -1.59             0 to -3
                                          109-208            1.615             0 to 3
                                      Cape May Inlet
                                          108-107            25.93        Greater than +9
                                          107-106            -4.145            -3 to -9
                                          106-105            4.95            +3 to +9
                                          105-104            13.905       Greater than +9
                                      Cape May Point
                                          104-103            -5.26             -3 to -9
                                          103-102            -2.34             0 to -3
                                          102-101            -1.26             0 to -3
                                          101-100            6.33            +3 to +9

                                      Sources: Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et al., 1994; Farrell, et al.,





                                                                       -23-











        Table 4. Annual displacement of shoreline, in feet, at each ocean profile location, compared to previous year.


                                    1987          1988          1989          1990           1991           1992          1993          1994          1995           net           mean
                   [
                       2.85                                                                                                                           15.92          15.92         15.92
                     7284                                                                                                                             -55.72         -55.72        -55.72
       Gateway ntrance
                       184          -0.31         0.78          0.49          -2.29          -0.55          2.82          0.94          6.25          7.96           16.09         1.23
                       183           0            -0.84         3.63          -0.57          2.75            2             0            -3.98         3.98           6.97          1.00
                       282                                                                                                                            15.92          15.92         15@92
                       182          -10.16        11.74         -33.13        26.87          -5.12          0.01          -39.8         -23.88        63.68          -9.79         -1.09
                       181          16.04         14.84         -27.24        47.72          -22.43         -3.64         -39           3.98     1    27.86          18.13         2.01
                 2     180          -33.13        -24.72        15.11         22.7           -9.59          0.34          -39           35.82         322.23         289.76        32.20
                       179          19.07         -18.97         1.6          25.82          -12.38         9.19          -7.6          628.84        -183.08        462.49        51.39
                       178          20.44         -16.9         -20.65        50.66          -7.29          -14.89      -41.79          461.68        -143.28        287.98        32.00
       Long Bra ch City Limits
                       177          24.24         -9.84         -13.9         15.99          13.97          -1.8        -47.76          -11.94        39.8           8.76          0.97
                       176          47.95         -59.37        2.84          79.49          -61.14         -5.47       -15.92          31.84           0            20.22         2.25
                       175          53.61         -33.02        40.46         -24.82         6.79           -15.52      -23.88          -3.98         59.7           59.34         6.59
                       174          26.24         17.59         -51.03        21.41          -7.07          14.6        -39.98          31.84         3.98           -17.58        1.95
                       173          -63.24        6.08          -11.58        21.82          -1.52          -8.37         -3.98         -27.86        55.72          -32.93        -3.66
                       172          -38.13        40.62         -60.82        -4.89          31.75          9.21                                                     -22.26        -3.71
                       171          89.9          -44.88        -3.27         0.79           2.24           -1.55       -19.04           0            47.75          71.94         7.99
                 3     170          -4.01         3.88          -3.47         2.64           1.52           1.51           0            39.8          7.96           49.83         5.54
                       169          -25.65        -3.08         -1.45         17.91          3.62           42.68       -67.66           0            7.96           -25.67        -2.85
                       168     1    -0.12         -0.82         1.18          18.97          -18.75         0.01           0            27.86         -31-84         -3.51         -0.39
                       267          11.79         -43.4         15.66         -21.38         7.2            3.83          -3.98         -7.96           0            -38.24        -4.25
                       167          31.04         -35.35        10.08         3.84           5.73           0.8         -29.85           0              0            -13.71        -1.52
                       166          -24.03        21.61         -19.35        7.25           9.56           -7.14       -35.82          35.82         -7.96          -20.06        -2.23
                       165          -7.72         4.6           -66.62        36.7           -5.19          -19.48      -23.88          15.92         -8.13          -73.8         -8.20
                       164          15.86         -19.53        -8.05         -7.22          3.24            2          -23.88          -3.98           0            -41.56        -4.62












        (con't) Table 4

                                   1
                                        -F 1988--'--F-l @8 9          1   1990          1991    1    1992         1993          1994          1995 T       net           mean
                                   987

       Shark River Inlet
                        163        6.82         -17.2        4.21         57.48         -53.06       -0.64          0           -27.96         0           -30.25        -3.36
                        162        8.68         39.52        -55.54       4.78          -12.74       21.63        -23.88        27.86         -11.94       -1.63         -0.18
                        161        -19.3        3.62         8.56         15.72         -19.29       23.65        -23.88         0            15.92         5            0.56
                 4      160        -13.53       8.72         -4.78        -3.79         -4.69        18.98        -31.84        23.88         55.72        48.67         5.41
                        159        -3.17        16.95        -35.94       6.62          7.1          -9.04        -11.67        23.12          0           -6.03         -0.67
                        158        -8.09        25.78        -14.68       13.61         -31.1        12.96        -31.84         0            31.84        -1.52         -0.17
                        157        -1.97        -11.22       7.21         36.73         -33.5        4.71         31.84         -59.7         23.88        -2.02         -0.22
                        256                                                                                                                   63.68        63.68         63.68
       Manasqu n Inlet
                        156        -39.28       39.31        -11.16       54.27         -39-05       14.83        -17.91        27.86         3.64         32.51         3.61
                 5      155        67.1         -45.26       -18.85       3.67          1.27         -4.2         -43.78        -15.92        31.84        -24.13        -2.68
                        154        36.3         -5.94        20.62        12.99         25.65        -23.86         0           -23.99        31.6         73.48         9.16
       Metedeconk R.
                        153        2.83         -12.55       -1.29        2.64          -20.62       30.95        -39.8         35.82         3.98         1.96          0.22
                        152        -20.35       24.72        -2.52        -10.38        11.14        -10.19       -19.9          0             0           -27.48        -3.05
                        151        -2.34        16.4         -57.04       11.11         -17.08       25.83        -15.92         0            17.91        -21.13        -2.35
                        150        -74.49       14.09        10.2         -10.2         16.89        -10.37       -11.94        -27.86        43.78        -49.9         -5.54
                 6      149        7.54         -26.57       -10.03       -28.66        11.63        56.88        -79.6         -11.94        79.6         -1.15         -0.13
                        148        -15.08       3.38         -21.88       15.03         -2.3         1.44         -3.98         15.92         11.94        4.47          0.50
                        147        -39.22       14.31        -35.23       25.38         -3.97        -5.79        3.98          -31.84        31.84        -40.54        -4.50
                        247        5.64         -15.98       26.04        3.28          -33.66       36.87        -27.86        63.68         -15.92       42.09         4.68
                  1     246  1     -10.52       6.2          -22.81     -243.44 1       229.7        11.2         -11.94        -15.92        55.72        -1.81    1    -0.20
                        146        398.36       23.69        5.63         -8.66         18.41        -39.75       19.9          12.24         23.88        453.7         50.41
       Barnegat Inlet
                        245                                                                                                                   39.8         39.8          39.80
                        145        0.55         -1.07        -8.92        12-95         14.98        -44.66       -35.82        3.98          31.84        -26.17        -2.91
                        144        -7.6         0.59         -9.47        11.05         3.72         1.62         -43.78        15.92         -15.92       -43.87        -4.87
                        143        -8.35        -31.95       0.53         12.18         -11.59       8.52         -5.97         8.12          67.66        39.15         4.35
                        142        -21.05       -14.61       38.07        -10-19        58.57        -82.7          0           2.46          39.88        10.43         1.16
                        241                                                                                                                   7.96         7.96          7.96
                 7      141        8.68         -1.69        -22.03       -1.8          18.15        -52.05       33.83         -11.94        23.88        -4.97         -0.55











         (con't) Table 4

       reach        profile        1987          1988         1989          1990          1991         1992          1993          1994          1995          net          mean
                       140         -10.72        -31.18       16.23         -13.08        2.69         16.42         -11.94        -79.6         55.72         -55.46       -6-16
                       139         -39.65        64.77        -53.88        38.49         -67.42       30.55         -11.94        30.13         -35.82        -44.77       -4.97
                       138         -26.57        12.4         17.86         -11.89        -19.98       -11.53        27.35         -11.94        3.184         -21.116      -2.35
                       137         -18.58        29.61        -13.95        -26.23        11.65          -7          11.94         -27.86        35.82         -4.6         -0.51
                       136         -23.65        1.24         -32.48        12.56         -25.62       -19.78        39.8          -1 .          -4.4          -72.23       -8.03
                       135         -17.56        87.59        -35.05        1.91          -49.08       32.81         3.98          -7.96         23.9          40.54        4.50
                       234                                                                                                                       -31.84        -31.84       -31.84
       Little Egg Inlet
                       134                       404.24       -83.41        0.02          24.29        -131.46       15.92         -1-5.92       -15.92        197.76       24.72
                  8    133         -1.62         -99.11       -30.78        -291          295.86       -29.36        -23.88        -7.96         31.84         -156.01      -17.33
                       132         -103.59       40.41        -38.76        -3.46         8.61         39.04         -11.94         0             0            -69.69       -7.74
                       131         85.59         -21.33       68.54         -20.07        41.57        -8.17         -2.786        95.52         -16.3         222.564      24.73
       Absecon Inlet
                       130         59.58         -39.82       -53.23        49.52         -39.64       18.49         1.19          -15.92        15.84         -3.99        -0.44
                       129         22.64         -20.72       4.77          38.52         47.17        -38.06        -19.9         -31.84        59.7          62.28        6.92
                  9    128         -13.45        -31.42       66.25         21.42         -30.08       -9.56         -23.7         -47.76         0            -68.3        -7.59
                       127         -30.77        -3.52        -32.85        71.44         26.17        -88.66        7.96           0            -39.8         -90.03       -10.00
                       126    1    52.28    1    -75.71  1    -57.74   1    107      1    -52.91  1    91.13    1    -7.7     1    -31.84   1    31.84         56.35   1    6.26
       Great Egg Harbor Inlet
                       225                                                                                                                                     N/A          N/A
                       125         -0.01          0           -98.46        34.87         63.59        403.82        -19.9         -175.12       39.8          248.59       27.62
                       124         -48.48        0.09         -63.15        47.68         -17.9        -62.83        222.88        23.08          16           117.37       13.04
                 10    123         -30.03        -6.94          7           -6.89         12.56        -24.57        155.22        -15.92        31.84         122.27       13.59
                   1   122    1    -35.12   1    13.48        -75.5         61.02         -53.67       -12.51          0           -31.84         0            -134.14      -14.90
       Corson's Inlet
                       121         -23.24        19.31        -119.4        140.44        -13.93       -157.5        -11.94        7.96          -143.28       -301.58      -33.51
                       120         1.98          32.37        -61.58        49.16         -16.93       -11.96        -19.9         7.96           0            -18.9        -2.10
                 11    119         6.45          -5.27        45.28         -12.24        -27.17       -13.06        -11.94         0             0            -17.95       -1.99
                       118         -18.91        -6.62       -25.175        54.105        -3.01        -4.32         -3.98         -15.92        -15.92        -39.75       -4.42
                       117    1    30.3     1    -56.31       -20.47 1      -17.19        -7.29        191.32   1    -19.9    1     0            -21.88        78.58        8.73
                                                 A"


















        (con't) Table 4
      ffwmm@.                   1987         1988          1989        1990         1991        1992         1993         1994         1995          net         me=an
      Townsends Inlet
                     216                                                                                                               278.6         278.6       278.60
                     116        196.94       -133          17.33       119.83       -49.79      123.93         0          -47.76       -55.72        171.76      19.08
                12   115        -34.05       -8.71         26.82       20.55        13.21       -42.47       -23.88       -47.76       23.88         -72.41      -8.05
                     114        -23.9        4.69          28.38       13.94        0.13        -37.86       -3.98        -7.96        24.02         -2.54       -0.28
                     113        -140.73      46.15         -12.35 1    -11.8        -10.96      10.96        15.92        -7.96        -63.68  1     -174.45 1   -19,38
                  1  212                                                                                                               47.76         47.76       5.
      Hereford Inlet
                     111        -151.87      79.77         -25.71      -90.09       -69.99      -67.54       51.74        -39.8        -151.24       -463.73     -51.53
                13   110        24.78        94.57         6.76        75.96      -160.76       99.91        -39.8        -63.68       47.76         85.5        9.50
                     109        -154.99      46.1          -29.6       58.42        0.44        -33.88       15.2           0          -15.92        -114.23     -12.69
                     208                                                                                                               15.92         15.92       15.92
      Cape Ma     Inlet
                     108        14.56        -6.5          121.58      -0.96        90.96       33.45        67.66        -47.76       54.6          327.59      36.40
                     107        -12.78       -4.4          3.65        18.7         174.41      3.56         43.78        -19.9        -67.66        139.36      15.48
                14   106        -111.41      17.73         -44.63      36.39        -3.79       -64.58       -59.7        20.1         -4.08         -213.97     -23.77
                     105        -16.21       58.54         33.69       89.07        18.29       139.61       218.9        175A2        -63.68        30309       33.68
                     104 1 -17.01            -7.74         6.5         -20.35       22.35       -24.57         0            0          -11.94
                                                                                                                                                     t5             86
      Cape May Point
            Sources: Uptegrove, et.al., 1995; Farrell, et al., 1994; Farrell, et al., 1995.






                                                                                                     DRAFT


               adjustment. With a lengthy record the smaller variations will become less significant and the
               general trend will emerge. Once again, the episodes of beach nourishment and effects

               ofstructures will influence the measurements and add to the variation. Thus, Monmouth

               Beach (lines 180-178) and most of Ocean City (lines 125-123) show large net seaward
               displacements in the areas of beach fill. Most of the changes of shoreline position over the 9
               years are within the widths of the beach and thus could just be the interannual variation. The
               presence of bulkheads, seawalls, artificial dune lines, and other cultural manipulations tend to
               further limit the inland penetration of the shoreline and partially constrain the displacement of
               the total profile. Despite the problems of applying and interpreting this measure of the
               shoreline position, this data set can be used in combination with other measures of change to

               determine the trend of the shoreline.



               Identification of High Hazard Areas
                      Eventually, it will become necessary to begin to identify the coastal areas which are

               most exposed and at the highest risk. Those areas can be targeted for hazard mitigation
               programs that serve to reduce the financial exposure as well as the physical exposure. There is
               a basis for this areal designation in the data sets detailed above and there are existing
               characterizations that have made qualitative judgements about the vulnerability at the shore.

               The earliest reference to hazardous areas is in the National Shoreline Study, North Atlantic
               Region (USACOE, 1971), which describes and portrays about 82% of the coast as critically
               eroding (Fig 5), the most severe category. The Shore Protection Master Plan (NJDEP, 198 1)

               also portrayed the areas of critical erosion on the basis of development at risk (Fig. 6), and

               determined that about 32% of the shore was in that category. Later, Nordstrom, et al (1986)

               described the areas of critical erosion (Fig. 7) and reduced the percentage to about 20%.

                      In the process of classifying the shore in the erosion categories, the above reports have

               developed some criteria that can be applied to determine high risk areas at the shore. These

               will have value in conducting a more systematic identification of exposed locations. These

               criteria and their applications are:



                                                      28 - shore erosion






                                                                                                                DRAFr July
                                                                                                 Part III - Critical Issues




                                                                                                            Sandy Hook


                                                                    mIDDLESEX



                                                                                                      Z,


                                                                                   MONMOUTH


                                   Pa.














                                               BURLINGTON
                                                                                OCEAN

















                                                                      -,p                Beach Haven


                                                   ATLANTIC







                                                                          Atlantic City




                                                                ocean City



                                            CA PE


                                            PA A V




                                                                                           0



                                            L

                                                Wildwood


                                   Cape May


                              Figure 5. Distribution of critical ly-eroding shoreline (USACOE, 197 1).



                                                                         -29-






                                                                                                                 DRAFT




                                                                                                       Sandyl-look


                                           7'
                                                                N1100LESEX




                                                                                                        [email protected] lkanch
                                                                               MONMOUTH


                               Pa.











                              --z
                                            BURLINGTON                      OCEAN













                                                                                      Beach Haven



                                               ATLANTIC







                                                                        Atlantic City




                                                              Ocean City



                                        CAPE


                                        PA A V









                                            Wildwood



                               Cape May


                           Figure 6. Distribution of critical ly-eroding shoreline (NJDEP, 1981).



                                                               30 - shore erosion






                                                                                                          DRAFT July
                                                                                           Part III   - Critical Issues




                                                                                                     Sandytiook


                                                                MIDOLESEX




                                                                                                      Lng 13,anch
                                                                               MONMOUTH


                                 Pa.








                                             BURLINGTON                     OCEAN













                                                                                     Beach Haven



                                                ATLANTIC






                                                                       Atlantic City




                                                             ocean CAY



                                           A P E


                                         MAY




                                              90
                                                                                       o





                                            Wddv@ood



                                 CaRc May






                                                                                                DRAFT


                            Figure 7. Distribution of critically-eroding shoreline (Nordstrom, et al, 1986).
                     Erosion ratelShoreline mobility: Erosion hazard areas can be delineated by using

              factors such as beach width and height, presence of dunes, sediment budget and density of

              development (NJDEP, 198 1). Property situated in high erosion areas will be exposed to the
              effects of coastal storms at higher intervals; thus these properties will be subject to repetitive

              damage. However, in areas of structures and beach nourishment episodes, other variables will

              be needed to determine shoreline stability/mobility

                     Inlet proximity By their nature, inlets are highly dynamic and therefore, adjacent areas
              are subject to frequent cycles of erosion and accretion (NJDEP, 1985). Barrier island termini

              are often low and exposed on the downstream end of the islands. The updrift ends are
              frequently characterized by severe erosion. Structures are also important in affecting mobility

              at inlets.

                     Island breaches: Areas of former inlet breaching and locations of former inlets can be

              identified through historical records. (NJDEP, 1985) Many of these areas are still vulnerable

              to further breaching during severe storms because they are low and because the sediments are

              not as cohesive as adjacent sediments. During severe storms these locations are more likely to

              erode or to breach. Development located in these areas will have higher instances of flood and

              storm-related damage. Harvey Cedars is a good example of this vulnerability. During the
              1962 storm, the community lost almost 50% of their ratables due to the storm and resulting
              island breaching at the location of an old inlet. (Savadove, 1993)

                     Overwash areas: Previous overwash areas can also be identified through historical

              storm damage records and aerial photographs. (NJDEP, 1985) These areas are susceptible to

              repetitive flooding and therefore, structures situated near these areas are also be prone to

              flood-related damage.



              Application to Management

                     The New Jersey shoreline does not freely evolve at the present time. There are many

              barriers to sediment transport and so many episodes of sediment manipulation that the

              snapshots of the beach at different points in time may be inadequate to fully document the


                                                    32 - shore erosion






                                                                                                 DRAFT July
                                                                                    Part III - Critical Issues

                  conditions characteristic at the shoreline. The shoreline position data sets are most helpful

                  when they are accompanied by a narrative of the human efforts to alter the shoreline. This is

                  especially true when shore-parallel structures or exceptionally-long shore-perpendicular
                  structures have been constructed that have interfered with the transport of sand. In some
                  cases, attempts have been made to repair the effects of the structures, and in other cases the

                  effects have continued.

                         Shoreline management may be described as sand management. There is a net long-term

                  loss of sand in New Jersey, as reported in the 1981 Shore Protection Master Plan (NJDEP)

                  and the Corps' Limited Reconnaissance Report (1990). Some portions of the state's shoreline
                  are undergoing critical erosion, whereas other portions are only eroding at a moderate rate or
                  are stable. Management options will vary in accordance with the history of sediment loss, as
                  well as the presence of structures, and the objectives for continued use of that portion of the
                  shore. However, there are several messages that can be gained from the shoreline data sets.



                  1) Shoreline change and sediment management must be approached on a regional scale.

                  2) Incorporate volume of sediment as a measure of change; use three-dimensional data rather
                  than the two dimensional shoreline position if possible

                  3) Establish an objective that is attainable within the reach (region), with cognizance of the

                  natural variation in shoreline change, especially at inlets.

                  4) Much of the Northern Highlands shoreline has been relatively stable because it is sediment

                  poor and the bluffs are not as easily eroded as the barrier island sediments.
                  5) Structures, especially at inlets, cause updrift and downdrift shoreline displacements.
                  6) The exchange of sediment has many short-term variations, longer-tenn records are needed@-

                  to denote trends.

                  7) Beach nourishment causes short-term positive displacements in local areas.

                  8) Prepare for an inland displacement of the shoreline in the medium- to long-term because of

                  sediment deficits and the effects of sea-level rise. -






                                                               -33-






                                                                                              DRAFT


              9) The identification of high risk areas is a step toward the application of mitigation measures
              to reduce loss and damage. Criteria and level of risk should be assigned to the exposed

              locations.






              References



              Farrell, S. C., B. Sullivan, S. Hafher, and T. Lepp, 1994. New Jersey Beach Profile Network:

                     Analysis of the Shoreline Changes in New Jersey, Coastal Reaches One Through

                     Fifteen, Raritan Bay to Delaware Bay. Coastal Research Center, Richard Stockton

                     College, Pomona, NJ, 144 p.

              Farrell, S. C., B. Sullivan, S. Hafner, T. Lepp, and K. Cadmus 1995. New Jersey Beach

                     Profile Network: Analysis of the Shoreline Changes in New Jersey, Coastal Reaches

                     One Through Fifteen, Raritan Bay to Delaware Bay. Coastal Research Center, Richard

                     Stockton College, Pomona, NJ, 156 p.

              New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 198 1. Shore Protection Master Plan, 3

                     Vols., Trenton, NJ.

              New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1995. CD-ROM title, et al

              Nordstrom, K. F., S. Fisher, M. Burr, E. Frankel, T. Buckalew, and G. Kucma, 1977. Coastal

                     Geomorphology of New Jersey, 2 vols., Rutgers University, Center for Coastal and

                     Environmental Studies, New Brunswick,_

              Uptegrove, J., L. Mullikin, J. Waldner, jr. Sheridan, D. Hall, J. Gilroy, and S. Farrell, 1995.

                     Characterization of Offshore Sediments in Federal Waters as Potential Sources of

                     Beach Replenishment Sand -- Phase 1. New Jersey Geological Survey Open-File

                     Report )FR 95- 1, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ,

                     148 p.

              U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, 1990. Limited Reconnaissance Report, Philadelphia District,





                                                   34 - shore erosion






                                                                                                            DRAFT July
                                                                                              Part III - Critical Issues


                    FIGURES

                    Fig. 1. Coastal New Jersey
                    Fig. 2. An example of variations in shoreline displacement rates in feet per year in Cape May
                            County, covering approximately one century of record (Nordstrom, et al., 1977).
                            Time span comparisons are largely rates of the 19th century versus those of the 20th
                            century. The latter period incorporates the construction of structures at the shoreline

                            and at the inlets.



                    Fig. 3. A comparison of shoreline positions on Brigantine Island,- 1836-42 to 1986. Data have

                            been entered into a GIS program and recorded on CD-ROM. The effects of the

                            Absecon Inlet jetty are apparent in the seaward displacement of the southern

                            shoreline, whereas the northern half of the island has an erosional trend as well as

                            elongating into Brigantine Inlet. An old inlet position cutting through the island is

                            shown about 2 miles north of Absecon Inlet. (NJDEP, 1995).



                    Figure 4A. Average annual changes in volume of sediment on profile segments, 1986-1995,

                            Monmouth County and Ocean County. Sources: Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et

                            al., 1994; Farrell, et al., 1995.



                    Figure 4B. Average annual changes in volume of sediment on profile segments, 1986-1995,

                            Atlantic County and Cape May County. Sources: Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et

                            al., 1994; Farrell, et al., 1995.



                    Figure 5A. Average shoreline displacement, NGVD intercept on profile, in feet, 1986-1995,

                            Monmouth County and Ocean County. Sources: Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et

                            al., 1994; Farrell, et al., 1995.







                                                                      -35-






                                                                                                    DRAFT


               Figure 5B. Average shoreline displacement, NGVD intercept on profile, in feet, 1986-1995,
                       Atlantic County and Cape May County. Sources: Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et

                       al., 1994; Farrell, et al., 1995.





               TABLES



               Table 1. Absolute values of average annual volume changes of profile segments, 1986-1995,
                       ocean front profiles, cubic yards per foot of beach length. Sources: Uptegrove, et al.,

                       1995; Farrell, et al., 1994, Farrell, et al., 1995.



               Table 2. Annual change on profiles, 1986-1995, ocean front profiles, cubic yards per foot of

                       beach length. Sources: Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et al., 1994; Farrell, et al., 1995.



               Table 3. Annual displacement of shoreline on profiles, in feet, ocean front profiles. Sources:

                       Uptegrove, et al., 1995; Farrell, et al., 1995; Farrell, et al., 1995.




























                                                      36 - shore erosion






                                                                                           DRAFT - July
                                                                                 Part III - Critical Issues


                                           COASTAL ECONOMICS'

                      The application of economic theory and economic techniques can aid in the
               understanding and evaluation of shore protection policy and coastal erosion issues. Through a
               presentation of basic economic methodologies appropriate to coastal matters, including Cost-
               Benefit Analysis, and a review of the pertinent literature, information is presented that leads to
               an economic analysis of beach use and shore protection. Although several oft-quoted
               publications are among those reviewed herein, most of the studies to date have internal biases or
               double-counting in their calculations that reduce their merit in assessing the economic value of
               beach use and coastal tourism.


               WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND BEACH VALUE


                      Not surprisingly, many of the studies related to the economics of tourism and beach use
               have been conducted in Florida. Early investigations attempted to assess the economic value of
               recreational beach use (Curtis and Shows, 1982; 1984) on the basis of willingness to pay to
               access the beach. In 1981, Curtis and Shows (1982) report that a survey at Delray Beach
               indicated that residents were willing to pay $1.88/person/day, whereas non-residents (tourists)
               would pay $2.15/person/day. A survey at Jacksonville Beach (Curtis and Shows, 1984)
               indicated that residents were willing to pay $4.44/person/day and the tourists would pay
               $4.88/person/day for beach use.

                      The concept was expanded by Bell and Leeworthin (1985; 1986, 1990) in a study of the
               economic importance and value of beaches in Florida. Using surveys, the studies found the
               residents were willing to pay $1.3 I/person/day (1984$) and the tourists would pay
               $1.45/person/day. In addition the study showed that the economic value of beach use
               amounted to $10.23/person/day for residents and $29.32/person/day for the tourists. This
               value provides an estimate of the value of the beach in economic terms. Furt her, the study
               reported that residents would be at the beach 14.68 days/person annually whereas the
               nonresidents would be there 8.64 days/person.


               VALUE OF BEACH PROTECTION


                      In a study of the economic benefits of beach protection in New Jersey, Silberman and
               Klock (1988) and Silberman, et al (1992) surveyed beach users in the area from Sea Bright to
               Deal for the purpose of assessing the use and nonuse (existence) values attributable to beach
               protection. In 1985$, the survey showed a willingness to pay $3.90/person/day for a nourished
               beach versus $3.60/person/day for a non-nourished beach. Further, the application of existence



                       This portion of the report is a summary of the information included in an accompanying White Paper on
               Coastal Economics



                                                        111.3 - I







                                                                                                    DRAFT - July
                                                                                         Part III - Critical Issues
                  value reported an average one-time contribution of $16.3 1 /person (1985$) for a nourished
                  beach.
                         A range of the estimated average net economic value associated with beach protection
                  was derived from several studies, yielding a low estimate of net economic value of
                  $.35/person/day (1992$) and a high estimate of $.39/person/day. Similarly, there was a range of
                  net economic value from $35/person/day-trip to $.39/person/day-trip (1992$).

                  BEACHES, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


                         Recently, several articles have examined the role of beaches in tourism activity,
                  economic activity, and in economic development (Stronge, 1994, 1995; Houston, 1995a,
                  1995b). The basic theme is that tourism expenditures in beach communities are attributable to
                  the presence of a beach and that beach tourism spending can contribute significantly to local,
                  regional, and national economies. Although there is certainly an impact of tourism in beach
                  communities, there is a question whether 1) spending in beach communities contributes
                  significantly to local economies and/or state/regionaUnational economies, and 2) if all tourism
                  expenditures are directly related to the presence or proximity of a beach.

                         Notwithstanding that the nature of tourism in coastal areas can create impact effects
                  (spending effects over and above residents' spending) and possibly contribute to economic
                  development if the tourism effect is large enough, several shortcomings of the papers reviewed
                  weaken their results. These limitations differ by paper and include the following: 1) in several
                  papers projects economic impacts were based on a misinterpretation of aggregate economic
                  activity measures (i.e., GDP); 2) the estimated participation rate of beach use in one paper was
                  based on a misleading procedure that could have introduced an upward bias in the projected
                  estimates of coastal tourism spending and impacts; 3) another paper used statistics from
                  secondary, unofficial sources -- such statistics can be quite misleading and the potential bias and
                  error inherent in secondary source statistics limits the accuracy and usefulness of any research
                  based on such data; 4) other miscellaneous limitations concern the research design, the survey
                  design, interpretation of expenditure data and impact estimates, derivation of impact estimates,
                  sample size and representativeness of sample data. Because projected expenses of beach use
                  can become easily inflated and unrepresentative, the limitations and results found in the studies
                  reviewed raise a general word of caution for research in this area. Future studies should be
                  rigorous, based on accepted research approaches and designs, and use appropriate statistical
                  data, otherwise results will be of little use and will only cloud the issue of the relative econornip
                  importance of coastal tourism vis a vis investment in shore protection.


                  EXPENDITURES AND IMPACTS OF TOURISM ON THE NJ SHORE


                         The usefulness of the Longwoods study is in the generation of projected direct
                  expenditures discussed above and not in econon-de impacts. Direct expenditures represent the
                  closest activity to aggregate GNP estimates, because they represent the sales of final goods and
                  services sold, and do not contain double-counting. Regarding coastal tourism, the Barrier Island


                                                              111.3 -2-






                                                                                               DRAFT - July
                                                                                     Part III - Critical Issues

                (long-term beach rentals)(LTBR) component of the Longwoods study represents only one
                segment of beach travel and underestimates the importance and magnitude of tourism
                expenditure activity (expenditures other than LTBR) in the coastal region of New Jersey. To
                develop an estimate of all expenditures associated with beach travel, similar estimates for day
                trips and other overnight trips (i.e., hotel/motel/resort, campgrounds-private and public, and
                those that stay with friends/reiatives) for the four-coastal counties are necessary. On the basis
                of the estimated number of trips and the estimated average trip expense, an upper bound for
                expenditures of all beach-related travel was estimated at $2,095.877 million ($1,917.92 million
                without gambling (by long-term renters)) for 1993. The Barrier Island (LTBR) component
                represented 41.74% of the 1993 estimated tourist          beach-related expenditures.     If this
                proportion is representative across other years, the three-year (1992-94) estimated average
                expense for beach trips would account for an estimated $1,887-64 million average/year (45.57%
                of the estimated total) and an estimated $1,726.75 million average/year without gambling in
                1992 dollars. However, the reader is cautioned in reading too much into these estimates; they
                were developed for illustrative purposes. Little confidence can be placed in the estimates; such
                estimates should be developed from a single sample base rather than from two, and should be
                developed as part of an objective of the travel and tourism studies in the form of a range. The
                estimates developed are meant to illustrate the point that projected tourism expenses associated
                with beach trips based on the Barrier Island component are underestimates of such activity,
                whereas the county-level estimates of the four-coastal counties are overestimates of beach-
                related economic activity. The derived estimate, $1,887.64 million average/year over the 1992-
                94 period in 1992 dollars, represents 18% of the four-coastal county three-year average, and
                9.8% of the state three-year average (without gambling expenditures the estimate is $1726.75
                million/year representing 23.8% of the 4-coastal county 3-year average, and 10.5% of the 3-year
                state average). In 1993, the LTBR and other beach expenditures for the four coastal counties
                totaled about $2.0 billion; gambling expenditures at Atlantic City totaled $3.2 billion. Thus,
                beach-related tourism and recreation plus gambling accounted for more than half of the $9.7
                billion of tourism expenditures in the four coastal counties in 1993. These values are estimates
                from the data reported in the Longwoods study and represent the approximate rote of beach
                recreation and tourism in New Jersey. Further effort should be directed to incorporate beach-
                related information in future Longwoods studies.


                SHORE PROTECTION POLICY-ORIENTED STUDIES


                       The Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) performed in the New Jersey Shore Protection
                Master Plan (NJSPMP) is basically static, although some attempt was made to incorporate
                changes that occur over time, namely estimates of future beach use and estimates of future
                property lost or damaged. No attempt was made to incorporate any other dynamic elements
                nor the risk associated with the expected outcome of the projects, where one could introduce
                uncertainty into the derivation of net benefits (benefits less costs). A dynamic analysis would
                compare and contrast the monetary value of a projects' outcome if completely certain versus
                that with the presence of uncertainty. In the case of beach protection, possible risk factors
                could involve such effects as erosion and storm damage that could cause any project from not


                                                           111.3 - 3 -






                                                                                               DRAFF -July
                                                                                     Part III - Critical Issues
                being 100% completed, uncertainty over available funds to ensure 100% completion of any
                project over the planning period, and uncertainty over the estimated number of future beach
                users, and the value of estimated future property structures lost versus protected. Probably the
                most serious fault is the problem of downward bias in both the cost and benefit estimates which
                would tend to introduce either an upward bias or a downward bias in the magnitude of the B/C
                ratio, respectively, distorting the B/C ratio. The net effect is ambiguous, but places concern
                over the validity and accuracy of the CBA in the NJSPMP.

                        Policy findings of the lCF (1989) study were the following: 1) "new" development in
                coastal floodplains was found to be a net cost to governments, "existing" development in many
                cases was worth protecting; 2) the "best" policy response was found to depend on the
                following factors a) the existing level of development, b) costs from damage, and c) magnitude of
                revenues gained; 2.a) in areas that are relatively less-developed, beach nourishment was found to
                be a viable policy; 2.b) in areas with high levels of development, protection via dikes was found
                to be a viable policy where large amounts of property could be damaged and where dike
                building could be coupled with a policy of halting further development; 3) optimal policies
                differed over time; and 4) the use of subsidies, e.g., NFIP, was found to have important
                consequences on development (in the promotion of development).

                        Policy recommendations offered by 1CF (1989) were for two categories, 1) future
                development, and 2) existing development. Concerning future development, lCF recommended
                that: 1) continued large-scale development would be a net cost to governments (costs greater
                than revenues); 2) NFIP should tighten the availability of flood insurance to discourage future
                development (such action would have an effect similar to one where property owners are
                charged the full costs of flood insurance); 3) policies should be implemented whereby property
                owners are charged the full costs of cleanup and repairs; 4) policies should be designed to
                prohibit reconstruction of structures and land should be rezoned following significant storm
                damage (e.g., when 50% or more of a structure is damaged); and 5) governments should establish
                future policies on shore protection and announce these to the public (the idea is that if
                governments pre-commit to a policy of no provision of shore protection in areas facing "new"
                development, this will create disincentives for future development and cause property owners
                to internalize and bear the full costs of damage and cleanup).                               I

                        Regarding existing development, lCF admits that policy choice "is not an easy answer,"
                (1CF 19887:60). Recommended policy options were found to depend on development levels;-in
                areas with high levels of development is was recommended that policies protect existing
                structures, whereas in areas with low levels of development, policies of protection were not
                recommended, but recommendations of property acquisition, rezoning, tightening of insurance,
                and having owners assume the full costs of damage and cleanup and accept losses of capital
                investment in buildings and from losses of the tax base were.


                RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING ECONOMIC ANALYSES




                                                           111.3 -4-






                                                                                              DRAFT - July
                                                                                    Part III - Critical Issues
                       A variety of economic techniques such as CBA, Input-Output models, simulation
               models, risk-retum models, and other relevant economic approaches needs to be explored to
               determine their relative importance and usefulness in policy-oriented studies of shore protection
               and in their assessment of tradeoffs among the policy options to determine whether or not all
               economic techniques provide similar policy recommendations (there is a possibility that
               different policy outcomes could result from different techniques because the techniques
               emphasize the different criteria and information).

                       The building of pertinent databases, which involve the collection and development of
               appropriate data necessary to specific economic approaches will be dependent on the specific
               approach and can be a very lengthy process. Some of these data can be gathered from the
               respective USACOE districts (especially for inventory surveys of physical structures), some
               will involve statistics and data generated from the state government.


                       The ICF (1989) study demonstrates the complexity of the issues involved in public
               policy tradeoffs. However, this is the tip of the iceberg; an analysis should be intertemporal
               rather than static; performing an analysis that is intertemporal and involves many cost and
               benefit components is an extremely tedious and complex task; resources of time and funding
               must match the complexity of the problem;

                       The analysis must incorporate the elements and effects of uncertainty in benefit and
               cost estimates since these depend on the probability of storm occurrence as well as the
               magnitude of the storm; hence cost and benefit items are stochastic in nature and vary according
               to storm severity, time and sea-level rise.


                       The analysis must also incorporate the element of risk associated with project failure
               and outcome.


                       ICF (1989) demonstrates that there are many more elements to consider regarding policy
               tradeoffs (level of development, future vs. existing development, level of erosion, storm events,
               availability of flood insurance, who should bear the burden of flood insurance and that of
               cleanup and repair costs, land rezoning issues, reconstruction policies, and future shore
               protection policy stances); future analysis must be designed to incorporate these numerous and
               varied elements.














                                                          111.3 - 5 -









                                                      MITIGATION



               RATIONALE



                       The main objective of the mitigation is to reduce damage and loss from natural hazards

               and to improve public safety. An important part of the 1996 Coastal Hazard Management Plan

               is to emphasize mitigation as a tool to reduce exposure for people to the risks of living near the

               shoreline. Many emerging trends on a local and national level show that mitigation is developing

               as part of a response to managing existing hazards as well as helping to cope with those which

               will continue to happen in the future. Not only do we have to contend with major hazards -

               storms and hurricanes, but we must also take into account other factors such as sea level rise

               which, although a slower process, increases the extent of storm effects and flood levels, and

               exacerbates.

                       It has been realized that many approaches that were thought to be appropriate in the past

               are not so anymore. Past management had addressed the shoreline as if it were static, whereas

               the system is extremely dynamic, requiring special attention and considerations. These static

               approaches have proved to be futile in some cases and detrimental in others. An alternative

               approach to successfully handle these natural hazard issues is to mitigate their effects in the first

               place, or to at least try to lessen them.

                       As part of the 1996 Coastal Hazard Management Plan, hazard mitigation is only one of

               the many components. However it is one of the most important, and seeks to provide the best

               approach to protect human life and reduce risk for those living near the New Jersey shoreline.
               Natural hazard mitigation will become the means by which coastal planning is handled and

               disasters can be averted.

                       Mitigation is both a philosophy and an approach. It builds on the understanding that it is

               impossible to defend against all of the forces that are causing change at the shore. It derives from

               an emphasis of reducing the risk to people rather than protecting things. However, mitigation









               requires a regional approach to be applied most effectively. It requires an interactive approach
               reaching across the several levels of government and merging the objectives of the several levels.
                      Details about the application of mitigation are presented in the next section on
               'Approaches" There are many strategies that qualify as mitigation, just as there are many
               degrees of exposure and risk at the shore. Indeed, the variety of coastal conditions requires the
               consideration of a multi-faceted program to risk reduction and public safety in New Jersey. .








                                                                                                         DRAFT July
                                                                                          Part III - Approaches

                                     SHORE PROTECTION STRUCTURES


                       A wide range of shore protection approaches have been implemented to adjust to coastal
                erosion processes. Both engineered (including shore parallel and shore perpendicular techniques)
                and non-engineered approaches (including beach augmentation and stabilization techniques) have
                long been utilized by the state to mitigate the natural loss of beach sand from shorefront
                property. Since the turn of the century, beach erosion control methods have concentrated on the
                construction of pennarient structures such as jetties, groins, seawalls, and breakwaters to protect
                the shore recreation industry. Coastal protection structures have been built along 102.66 miles or
                80.8 % of the total New Jersey beach front. Protective structures are located in 41 of the 45
                shorefront communities. The following section provides an inventory of engineered shore
                protection approaches currently utilized along the New Jersey shore. Each approach is
                discussed in greater detail in terms of the (1) short-ten-n/long-term positive and negative impacts
                (2) the associated costs and benefits, and (3) the life expectancy of the method in the white paper
                New Jersey Shoreline Future: A Review ofShore Protection Approaches and Strategies Utilized in
                New Jersey (See Appendix


                SHORE PERPENDICULAR STRUCTURES / INTERCEPTING SHORELINE
                TRANSPORT
                Groins
                       A groin is a stone, concrete, steel or timber structure placed perpendicular to the
                shoreline. It is designed to slow the rate of littoral drift of sand and to capture sand along the
                updrift side causing accretion of sand. Groins are built at varying lengths and with a range of
                profile shapes (e.g., constant top-elevation or sloping top-elevation - low profile groin). There
                are 368 groins within the four New Jersey coastal counties. Most NJ groins were built between
                1942 and 1967.


                Jetties
                       Jetties are constructed at inlets and are used primarily to confine tidal flow and to prevent
                littoral drift from shoaling the channel. Jetties are often constructed in pairs and are designed to
                help stabilize the depth and location of channels. There are 24 jetties within the four coastal
                counties, built between 1908 and 1967.


                Breakwaters
                       Breakwaters are offshore structures constructed of stone and/or concrete armor units
                (CAU). They are designed to protect shore areas from direct wave action and to create littoral
                sand traps. Breakwaters may be attached or detached from the mainland. According to the
                Inventory, there is only I attached breakwater in Ocean City, NJ. This breakwater was built in
                1965.
                       Wavebreakers are closely associated with breakwaters and groins. They are described as
                rows of closely-spaced pilings in the beach connected by tie rods to a timber bulkhead on the
                inshore face (Fig. XX). There are 5 wavebreakers (2 in Long Beach, I in Ventnor, and 2 in
                Strathmere) recorded in the Inventory ofNJ Coastal Structures. The construction date for








                                                                                                        DRAFT July
                                                                                          Part III - Approaches

                wavebreakers in largely unknown, with the exception of the Ventnor construction which was
                built in 1920.


                Artificial Reefs
                       The artificial reef is the only major addition to the suite of shore protection approaches
                currently implemented along the NJ shore. In 1993-94 three artificial reefs were installed along
                the Atlantic shoreline of Avalon, Cape May Point, and Belmar/Spring Lake, New Jersey. The
                reefs, designed by Breakwaters International, in Flemington, NJ, are composed of interlocking
                concrete units and measure approximately 1000 ft. in length. As pictured in Figure X, the
                structure consists of a ribbed seaward face and a more steeply sloping landward face leading to a
                slotted opening that runs along the slightly curved crest of the reef. These units were engineered
                to theoretically reduce the offshore loss of sand during storm events through (1) the reduction of
                the incident wave height, and (2) the creation of a vert'ical current (through the deflection of
                bottom flow upwards through the slotted openings at the crest).
                        Each reef installation varies greatly in its configuration and conditions. Both the Avalon
                and Belmar/Spring Lake projects included nourishment of the landward beach. The Avalon reef
                was constructed immediately adjacent to an inlet (Townshend. Inlet) and was the only structure
                to have an open end. Both the Belmar/Spring Lake and the Cape May Point installations
                involved a complete spanning of groin compartments. In all cases the reefs were connected to the
                groins or jetty with additional stone placed at the junction with the reef structure. All reefs were
                placed with different top elevations (i.e., depth of water at mean low water). The Cape May reef
                was placed in the most shallow water, followed by the Belmar/Spring Lake, and the Avalon reef.
                Geotextile fabric or mattresses were placed beneath each unit to provide scour protection.
                       The Beachsaver Reefs were evaluated through a State-sponsored monitoring project
                conducted by engineers from the Davidson Laboratory at Stevens Institute of Technology in
                Hoboken, NJ. The monitoring effort included beach surveys, offshore bathemetric surveys, wave
                and current measurements, dye release studies, and visual (scuba) inspections of the structures.
                Each of the three reefs varied in success.
                       The Avalon Reef was considered a qualified success in limiting the loss of the renourished
                beach. The northern portion of the project site seemingly insulates the area from the strong tidal
                currents in the Townshends Inlet channel. The reef has not, however, provided the same degree
                of protection in the southern portion of the installation. This area has experienced the same rate
                of erosion as the unprotected area to the south, and has exhibited a local scour zone just landward
                of the southern end of the structure. This loss of sediment is thought to be caused
                by the open end at the southern limit of the installation. Because the area is not sheltered by a
                groin installation, Stevens engineers think the reef causes an enhanced wind/ wave-induced set up
                in the area immediately shoreward of the structure thus causing a loss of sediment.
                       Both the Belmar/Spring Lake and the Cape May installations have experienced accretion
                landward of the reef. Of some concern, however, is the presence of local scour zones
                immediately landward of the reef in enclosed situations. These scour zones do not appear to
                extend any great distance landward. This feature is thought to be caused by the deflection of the
                bottom flow by the reef thereby causing locally intense bottom shear stress and sediment
                removal.



                                                                  2








                                                                                                         DRAFT July
                                                                                          Part III - Approaches

                       The Belmar/Spring Lake installation has experienced a redistribution of sand to the
               offshore bar. The severe berm erosion and bar formation was the result of several major storm
               events associated with a very active hurricane season in 1995.
                       Stevens engineers conclude the artificial Beachsaver reef lose their effectiveness in the
               vicinity of an open end, and should therefore either be employed only in the protection of natural
               or man-made (e.g., groins) cells, or should be re-designed to minimize the end effects. Research
               has indicated there is no evidence of reef impact on adjacent beaches. The reefs do not impede
               nearshore water exchange and become productive bottom habitats.


               SHORE PARALLEL APPROACHES / SAND RETAESING AND STABELIZING
               APPROACHES
               Revetments
                       Revetments are placed on the seaward face of a slope and are designed to stabilize an
               eroding shoreline in areas of light wave action. These structures are often composed of
               interlocking concrete blocks or stones called rip-rap. There are only 5 revetments in NJ built
               between 1952 and 1962.


               Bulkhead
                       Bulkheads are vertical walls constructed of steel or concrete sheet piling, creosote treated
               lumber, aluminum, plastic, or timber. These structures extend from below low water to above
               high tide and usually do not experience direct wave action except during storms or other high
               water events. There are 82 bulkheads along the New Jersey shore, built between 1905-1989.


               Seawall
                       Seawalls are constructed of stone or concrete and are sometimes built with a curved face
               to dissipate wave energy and prevent undermining. They are designed to sustain the full force of
               wave action, and are often used in conjunction with other structures. Seawalls as well as
               bulkheads, are designed to only protect the land immediately behind them. There are 14 seawalls
               built between 1898 (at Sandy Hook) to 1980 (Avalon).


               Sediment Filled Fabric Tubes
                       Elongate fabric tubes have been used as a barrier to coastal processes. They have a
               diameter of 2-8 ft and are usually filled with local sediments in place. The tube envelope is made
               of a soil tight geotextile fabric and is hydraulically filled with a soil-water mixture. The tubes
               have been used at locations of severe erosion in New Jersey in the past as a form of elongate
               sand-bag revetment. More recently, they have been used in New Jersey in two different
               situations. In Atlantic City, they have been placed on the upper beach in front of the boardwalk,
               filled with sand pumped from the beach, and covered with sand to create a dune (Fig. XX). In
               Avalon, they have been placed at the low tide line at the inlet to form a type of low revetment
               (Fig. XX). In both cases the use of filled fabric tubes is to encapsulate some of the local
               sediments and form a barrier to the sediment transporting processes, a type of wall. In areas of
               modest erosion, they will protect the areas to their inland side. In locations of high erosion, they
               will be undermined and shift seaward. Although they are resistant to ripping and tearing, if they


                                                                  3








                                                                                                   DRAFT July
                                                                                     Part III - Approaches

               are torn, the sediment will wash out.


               APPLICATION OF STRUCTURES
                      Shore structures, although abundant throughout the state, are directed toward local
               erosion or stabilization problems. Generally, they attempt to restrict the movement of sediment
               either by slowing its rate of passage through an area, or to keep sediment out of an area. The
               structures do not create any new sediment so that they do not change the balance of sediment
               availability to a region. They do locally redistribute existing sedimen supplies. Most structures
               have downdrift effects because of the local interference of sediment transport. If they are used,
               they should be part of a regional program for sediment and shoreline management. Walls and
               barriers are frequently the last resort in attempting shoreline stabilization.







































                                                               4







                                                                                                 DF.Aft -July
                                                                                        Part III - Approaches
                                                  Beach Nourishment



                      The history of shore protection in New Jersey is a long narrative of attempts to defend a

               shoreline position. Reports produced by the New Jersey Beach Erosion Commission describe
               and illustrate the continuing construction of barriers to reduce wave energy or to retain sand in

               the beach (1930; 1950). More recent publications by the Corps of Engineers chronicle the

               construction of groins, jetties, and bulkheads in New Jersey in a photographic record of the
               placement of these structures (1964; 1990). It is an impressive collection of continuing efforts at
               shoreline stabilization by structural means. The photos from both the State reports and the
               Corps publications illustrate the central problem identified earlier in this document: that is, at the
               present time there is an absence of sediment input to the coastal zone to build beaches and to

               buffer the effects of the incident waves. Therefore, the result is a continual erosion of the beach

               and a stranding of structures in the sea in various states of disrepair and function.

                      As stated in the 1981 SPMP (Vol. 1, Chapt II) and in the beach policies of the New
               Jersey Coastal Management Program of 1980 and revisions, the preferred approach to managing

               shoreline erosion was non-structural, such as beach nourishment, although some structural

               approaches may be conditionally acceptable. The rationale proposed for favoring beach

               nourishment as the non-structural approach at that time was that it was the approach preferred
               at the Federal level, although it was noted that beach nourishment was an expensive approach to
               countering erosion. Further, beach nourishment was viewed as interacting with the natural

               dynamics of the beach and moving away from the static approaches of the past. An important

               consideration introduced was the provision of a recreational beach associated with beach

               nourishment and that consideration merged with the anticipated additional need for a beach

               capacity to meet the demands of a projected recreational requirement (SCORP, 1977). Thus, the

               direction established by the policy at the time attempted to restrict any further construction of

               hard structures because of a long history of localized interference with sediment transport in the

               beach zone. Instead, the policy stressed support of existing beaches on a regional basis and






                                                                                                   DRAft - July
                                                                                          Part III - Approaches
               discouraged any actions that would interfere with the processes of sediment transport and

               accumulation in the existing beach system.

                      A major advantage to the beach nourishment approach to shoreline stabilization is that it
               addresses the basic problem of insufficient sediment availability in the coastal zone. This
               approach replaces the losses and rebuilds the beach to some previous position. In concept, beach

               nourishment should contribute to the maintenance of the beach, the offshore zone, and the

               foredune. The new sediment will be lost in time, but that is the intended scenario. The addition

               of sediment provides some period of time before the beach is eroded to its pre-nourishment
               position. According to the 1981 SPMP, beach nourishment should be planned to address the

               concerns of an entire reach and not an isolated erosional problem. There should be an
               opportunity for the emplaced sediment to move downdrift and buffer other beaches in the reach.
               Further, it is stated that the application of beach nourishment should be not be used to address an

               emergency erosional condition.



               HISTORY OF BEACH NOURISHMENT

                      Beach nourishment projects are usually directed to broaden and heighten the beach

               surface, producing a berm which is 10 ft above mean low water and is 100 ft wide. The offshore

               slope of the berm usually has a ratio of about 1:30 down to the intercept with the pre-existing

               surface. Sometimes, a design dune is incorporated at the inner margin of the berm.

                       Past beach nourishment has seen sand placed on the beach by various means and from
               various sources. Small amounts of sand (thousands of cubic yards) are frequently transported by

               truck and dumped on the beach where severe local erosion may be penetrating inland to endanger

               property or infrastructure (Fig. 1). Larger amounts (hundreds of thousands to millions of cubic.,,,

               yards) are usually pumped to the beach site by pipeline (Fig. 2). The sand is derived from the

               offshore or inlet initially by dredging and then transferred directly or with some intermediate

               handling to the beach. Because of the large volumes involved with purnping, the emplacement
               usually combines building the beach at a selected position with placing sand in an updrift location

               (feeder beach) so that some sediment is being released downdrift to further buffer the effects of



                                                               -2-














                               'A





                                                                                        Floure
                                                                                        Beach NoUrishment in
                    A
                                                                                        small section of'
                                                                                        shoreline. emplaced by
                                                                                        trUck and earth movinu,
                                                                                        equipment.
                                    .... .. .....
                                                                                        Brant Beach







                                                        'MA,












                                                                                        Fi(,ure 2.
                                          !A                                            PUrnpino, ot*sand onto
                                                                   7                    beach via pipeh
                                                                                                I   I   Inc.
                                  '7@                                                   Occan Citv







                                                                                               DRAft - July
                                                                                       Part III - Approaches
               erosion. The feeder beach concept is a sort of stockpiling of sediment to be released over some

               time period to downdrift locations of a reach. It fosters the application of sediment management

               throughout a reach rather than a single location of erosion.

                      Large scale beach nourishment was applied to the New Jersey beaches following the

               March 1962 storm that caused great damage and erosion. In 1962 and 1963, sand was pumped

               onto the beaches in quantities reaching approximately 7,500,000 cubic yards and 4,650,000 cubic

               yards, respectively (USACOE, 1990, augmented by data in the NJDEP files). Each of the

               coastal counties had some sand transferred to the beach tQ rebuild the beaches and dunes. Most

               of the subsequent projects were small, local episodes, except for a few projects in either Atlantic
               City or Ocean City. The costs of the projects were a significant constraint. For most of the
               small shore communities, the high cost of pumping sand was beyond their financial capabilities,
               and even the larger cities necessitated substantial state aid. The 1980s demonstrate an increasing
               amount of sand emplacement on the beaches of New Jersey (Fig. 3), sometimes in response to
               storm erosion (1984, 1993) or as parts of a longer-term program. There were several very large

               beach nourishment projects during this time, including an extensive project at Sandy Hook in
               1983) and 1984, repeated in 1989 (Federally-supported), plus efforts at Ocean City and Atlantic
               City (largely state- supported) (Fig. 4). Beach fill in the 1990s continued to increase with
               ongoing efforts at Ocean City, Cape May City, Monmouth Beach, and Sea Bright. A strong

               catalyst for beach nourishment was the creation of a stable funding source for beach protection
               approved by the State Legislature in 1992. The pool of $15 million annually for the Shore

               Protection Fund to provide most of the non-Federal share (35%) in the post-1992 period is an

               important factor in supporting the new emphasis on pumping sand onto the beaches.



               POLICY AND ENDORSEMENT

                      Support for beach nourishment exists in the 1981 SPMP, but with several important
               qualifications. Initially, the plan suggests that beach nourishment be used to maintain existing

               recreational beaches and further indicates that this approach should not be applied as an
               emergency measure, primarily because it then be contrary to the original intent of strengthening



                                                             -4-














                                                         6000,-@-'




                                                         5000-




                                                         4000




                                                         3000




                                                         2000-




                                                         1000



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      711
                                                              0
                                                                                               C-4         (1)                     V)                      C--          00                     C)          @3Z         C14                                  kr)
                                                                       00                      00          00          00          00          00          OC           00         00          C,                      (7@                     (ON         0%
                                                                                                                                                                        0%                                             CP\                     CP\


                                                                                                                                                                  Year




                                                         Figure 3. Beachfill, by Year, along Coastal New Jersey. Sources: Uptegrove, J., et al, 1995; USACOE, 1990; USACOE, 1995
                                                         NJDEP Files.









             Figure 4. Listing of Beachfill Projects, New Jersey, 1980-1995. Sources: Uptegrove, J., et al, 1995; USACOE, 1990; USACOE, 1995,
             NJDEP Files.

              Project No.         Location            Dates           Amount of fill                  Site                   cost              Other
                                                                         cubic yards                                                       Information
                 NJDEP           Allenhurst            1985              35-40,000 yd
                   174a         Atlantic City       1/83-6/83            75,000 yd               Mass Ave to               $358,250           trucked
                   575          Atlantic City       9/86-2/87            1,000,000 yd                                     $7,000,000
                   576             Avalon              1987              1,300,000 yd           8th to 30th St.           $2,400,000
                   1219            Avalon          12/87-1988            158,945 yd                                       $2,873,940
                 NJDEP             Avalon              1989              60,000 yd
                                   Avalon              1990              330,000 yd
                 NJDEP             Avalon              1992              350,000 yd
                   567             Avon                1981              136,000 yd                                        $352,240
                 NJDEP         Barnegat Light          1991              75,000 yd          Dredged from Bamegat
                                                                                                      Inlet
                   17.1          Cape May            12/22/81            36,000 yd                                         $93,000
                   583           Cape May              1991              770,000 yd                                       $1,017,501
                   578        Cape May, U.S.           1989              465,000 yd                                       $1,334,059       100% USCG
                                Coast Guard
                 583/584      Cape May City            1991              900,000 yd                                       $3,690,000
                 587/fed      Cape May City        April, 1993           415,000 yd                                       $2,370,000        storm rehab
                   587        Cape May City            1992              500,00 yd
                   fed        Cape May City         Sept, 1993           300,000 yd                                       $2,135,000       1 st nour cycle
                   fed        Cape May City         9/94-2/95            330,000 yd                                       $2,605,000      2nd nour cycle
                 NJDEP        Cape May Point           1992              42,000 yd         Dredged from Cape May
                            I                   I                I                        I          Canal
                   1217       Cape May State         1/85-86             15,000 yd                 sand dune               $272,618
                                    Park                                                         construction





                                                                                  -6-








                    176        Cape May State          6/14/92             200,000 yd                                          $261,905
                                     Park
                    581         Harvey Cedars            1990              27,300 yd                                           $34,957
                    2092        Harvey Cedars            l/l/92            110,000 yd          between 85th and 82nd
                    2092
                    4005        Harvey Cedars          2/10/94             485,000 yd                                         $3,700,000           trucked
                 NJDEP        Long Beach Twp.          6/15/09             175,000 yd          Dredged from Barnegat
                                                                                              Inlet; placed on section I
                    582            Longport              1990              250,000 yd             dreged from Great            $949,000
                                                                                                       Egg Inlet
                 NJDEP        Lower Township             1986              87000 yd           Dredged from Cape May
                                                                                                        Canal


                    fed           Monmouth               1994              800,000 yd                  3.1 miles              $19,600,000
                                    Beach                1995              3,600,000 yd
                    2086       North Wildwood            1989              190,000 yd           dredged Herford Inlet          $875,000
                    566           Ocean City             1980              150,025 yd                                          $647,147
                    1062          Ocean City             1982              1,149,683 yd            Morningside Rd             $4,885,000
                    172           Ocean City         7/82-12/82            1,217,647 yd           Morningside Rd.             $5,285,000
                                                                                                    to I 3th street
                    1235          Ocean City          5/87-1988       Dunes, 190,000 yd                                       $2,847,086
                                                                           fill, 40,000 yd
                    579           Ocean City             1989              250,000 yd                                          $717,236
                    1250          Ocean City             1990              25.6,000 yd                                         1207250
                                                                           Emergency fill
                    585           Ocean City             1991               WON yd                                             $130,840
                    586           Ocean City             1992              2,617,000 yd                                       $10,915,970





                                                                                     -7-








                   fed           Ocean City            1993               2,700,000 yd                                     $14,571,908
                   fed           Ocean City            1993               845,000 yd                                       $2,915,132
                   fed           Ocean City            1994               607,000 yd                                       $3,217,825
                   fed           Ocean City            1995               1,411,000 yd                                     $5,746,992
                   571           Sandy Hook            1983               2,370,000 yd                                     $10,236,161
                   572           Sandy Hook            1984               598,000 yd                                       $3,968,965
                   1228          Sandy Hook            1989               3,200,000 yd                                     $1,350,000
                   1055          Sea Isle City         1981               20,880 yd                                          $54,080
                 NJDEP           Sea Isle City         1992               375,000 yd         between 77th and 82nd
                   577           Sea Isle City         1987               150,000 yd             South of 78th St.          $528,244
                   569           Sea Isle City         1983               45,000 yd                                         $194,294
                   1061          Sea Isle City         1984               800,000 yd                                       $3,652,500
                   1614          Sea Isle City         3/12/92            20,000 yd           between 2nd and I Oth
                   4009          Spring Lake/           1/6/94            70,000 yd            between 19th Ave.            $486,000
                                   Belmar                                                         and Pitney Rd.
                   568           Strathmere            1982               45,000 yd                                          $90,000
                   1080          Stratlunere           1984               450,000 yd                                       $2,986,679
                   574           Strathmere            1984               592,000 yd                                       $3,929,142
                                   (upper)
                   1201       Upper Township           1984               120,000 yd                                       $2,4533,600
                 NJDEP        Upper Township           1992               23,000 yd                Whale Beach
                   1056       Upper Township           Dec-81             36,000 yd                                          $93,240
                   573        Upper Township           1984               1,600,000 yd









                                                                                   -8-







                                                                                                         DRAft -July
                                                                                               Part III - Approaches
                an existing beach. Further, the plan indicates that the use of beach nourishment should be a

                reachwide activity, suggesting that the benefits must be applied to the reach concept and not to
                some smaller locality. This is an important consideration that appears to be neglected in the

                applications of beach nourishment in the past decade, except for part of the design in the Sea

                -Bright to Barnegat Inlet project. Significantly, all of the projects that are currently listed as either

                in the reconnaissance or feasibility phase at this time are applied to entire reaches.

                        Public concern about the appropriateness of protecting the shoreline and the techniques

                used in the process has generated considerable interest and exchange of views. Some see the
                emplacement of sand on the beaches as an expensive attempt to stabilize a very dynamic system.

                A system that has changed greatly in the past and will continue to do so. Others see the beach

                nourishment as necessary to provide stability to the economic development at the shore. A

                further issue is the matter of assigning the cost of the project. At present, approved beach

                nourishment projects are cost-shared with the Federal government paying 65% of the total and

                the non-Federal share being divided among the State, County, and local governments.

                        Because beach nourishment must be repeated at some time interval to replace the lost

                sediment and rebuild the shoreline, all projects are designed to incorporate re-nourishment or

                maintenance over a 50-year period. This is an ongoing cost that is included in the financial
                analysis of the project. Obviously, the commitment for. 50 years of maintenance should be driven
                by state policy that endorses the expenditures for this purpose in a particular reach. The cost of

                maintenance is shared between the Federal Government and the State on a 65% - 35% basis.

                Usually, the funding for maintenance is several times the amount of the initial project cost.

                Generally, re-nourishment occurs on a three-to-five year cycle, with storm rehabilitation an

                additional expense. An example of the scale of the project is gleaned from the Sandy Hook to

                Manasquan Inlet beach nourishment plan which extends for 21 miles and incorporates $190
                million in initial construction costs and $1.452 billion in maintenance for a 50-year period (Fig.
                5). If the project were completed according to the design plan, the state's share of the cost would
                be about $52 million of the initial construction cost and an average of about $10 million per year
                for the duration of the maintenance period, plus episodes of storm rehabilitation.



                                                                   -9-







                                                                                                         DRAft -July
                                                                                                Part III - Approaches
                        Beach nourishment is an expensive approach to defending the shoreline as seen in the

                above commitments of funds for the initial costs of construction and for the maintenance over the

                50-year period (Fig. 5). Portions of Sections I and II of the Sandy Hook to Manasquan Inlet

                project are not funded at present and represent potential reductions in the total costs for those

                portions of the shoreline as well as reductions for the 50-years of maintenance. However, the

                four ongoing beach nourishment projects, if fully-funded, incorporate a non-federal commitment

                of over $14 million annually averaged over the project lifetime, in addition to the cost of the

                initial construction, thereby committing a large share of the $15 million Shore Protection Fund.



                Figure 5. Initial Costs and Maintenance Costs for Authorized and Proposed Projects in New
                Jersey
                                     Initial Cost          Initial Cost non-     M 'aintenance        Maintenance per
                                     Total Project         Fed share            non-Fed share         year., 50 years
                                                                                 50 years             non-Fed
                Sandy Hook to
                Manasquan Inlet
                         Section. I
                     Sea Bright to         $133,000,000           $32,550,000         $297,885,000           $5,957,700
                             Ocean
                       Township*
                         Section II
                  Asbury Park to           $57,000,000            $19,950,000         $210,560,000           $4,211,200
                       Manasquan
                           Inlet*


                Cape May City              $10,526,000             $2,149,000         $10,600,000               $212,000


                Ocean City                 $33,195,000            $10,482,000         $201,518,000           $4,030,360

                Brigantine***                 $8,558,000                              $12,728,800               $254,516

                Long Beach                 $35,794,000                                $60,055,450            $1.201,109
                Island* * *
                *Contract 3, in Section 1, not included in FY 97 Federal budget
                "Contract 2, in Section 11, not included in FY 97 Federal budget
                                    I                    I                     I                                          I

                ***proposed but not budgeted




                                                                  _10-






                                                                                                 DRAft - July
                                                                                         Part III - Approaches

              AN EVALUATION OF BEACH NOURISHMENT

                      Because of the very vocal public debate about use and effectiveness of beach nourishment

              in treating the problems of an eroding shoreline, The U. S. National Research Council, through its

              Marine Board, established a Committee on Beach Nourishment and Protection to review multiple

              aspects of beach nourishment. It sought to:

                    "... conduct a multidisiplinary assessment of the engineering environmental,

                    economic, and public policy aspects of beach nourishment to provide an improved
                    technical basis of judging the use of beach nourishment and protection technology in

                    shoreline stabilization, erosion control, recreational beach creation, dredged material
                    placement, construction of coastal storm barriers, and protection of natural

                    resources." (Seymour, 1995)



                      Among the conclusions of the Committee were that beach nourishment is an appropriate

              technique for erosion protection storm damage reduction. However, it is not a panacea. Projects
              should be designed for specific areas, with a sound foundation in science and engineering. Areas
              of high erosion rates may not be good locations for the application of beach nourishment. Futher,

              beach nourishment is effective in human time scales (decades, not centuries). It should be applied

              in concert with established goals and a method of quantifying measures of success. It is

              important that maintenance be part of the original plan and that sources of sediment for re-

              nourishment be identified at the origination of the project. Beach nourishment is not inexpensive.

              There are no inexpensive.technologies nor approaches to protect the beaches.

                     A brief followup to the NRC report recently appeared that offers a small caveat to the

              endorsement of beach nourishment as an appropriate means for shore protection (Seymour,

              1996). The Chair of the Committee relates that the public policy toward beach nourishment

              shifted as the report was in its final stages. There was a slowing of the availability of Federal

              funding and a modification of the partnership that had hitherto been the basis for an economic
              assessment. This changing policy was reason for concern about aspects of the report. However,
              it was decided that most of the report was a valid review of the application of beach nourishment



                                                             -11 -






                                                                                                       DRAft - July
                                                                                              Part III - Approaches
               and was of value independent of any new partnerships. Further, because states and local
               governments may have to be increasingly responsible for the planning, financing, and execution of
               beach nourishment projects, it was decided that the assessment information became more

               valuable.




               POLICY CHANGES

                       With a general economic belt-tightening and a heightened concern for financial constraints
               on public expenditures and more economic accountability, there are fewer Federal funds availab        le
               to support beach nourishment projects. In FY95 and FY96, all support for beach nourishment
               projects in the US Army Corps of Engineers budget was removed. Some flinds were restored by
               special appropriation, but the message coming from the Executive Office was that general Federal
               support for beach nourishment was disappearing. This is in contrast to the situation of the
               previous years when the federal funding of beach nourishment was mover available and it was
               extremely difficult to generate the non-Federal share of the project costs. Certainly, those states
               which are most affected by the loss of Federal funds in support of beach nourishment will
               attempt to have the funds restored either as a continuing item in the Public Works budget or as

               special appropriations for specific projects.



               CONTINUING ISSUES

                       As identified in the NRC report (Seymour, 1995), the application of beach nourishment

               addresses the symptoms of the problem but does not address the basic conditions responsible for

               the erosion of the coast; sea-level rise and the natural meager supply of sediment present at the

               shore. Indeed, beach nourishment focuses on the ocean front shoreline and defends the location,

               of the line. In the case of barrier islands, as sea level rises the entire island is being submerged and
               the placement of sand on the shoreface does not reduce the rate of inundation and narrowing of
               the island. Nor does it change the decreasing elevations of the islands and the increasing exposure
               to storm damage as the common storms are able to penetrate inland to positions that were once
               protected by virtue of their height above water level. Sea-level rise is a continuing process and it



                                                                 -12-







                                                                                              DRAft -July
                                                                                     Part III - Approaches
              is changing the conditions of exposure and modification due to storms. The cause of sediment

              deficits is another issue that is not directly addressed by beach nourishment. The deficiencies

              continue to persist. Beach nourishment is a temporary respite in the landward displacement of

              the shoreline. Longevity of the life of the fill is largely related to the magnitude of the sediment

              deficit, but it is also related to location, exposure, other protection structures, and to the weather

              events. Importantly, beach nourishment is a program supported by public funds and it is likely

              that the State will be called on to fund a larger proportion of the total costs, if not the entire cost.

              Beach nourishment should be part of a longer-term program than just responding to the post-

              storm needs and it should relate to the regional shore management plan and to the State objectives

              for the coastal zone. The expenditure of state-level public funds should directly relate to the

              strategies employed to meet State objectives for long-term management of the shore.



              REFERENCES


              New Jersey Board of Commerce and Navigation, 1930. Report on the Erosion and Protection of
                     the New Jersey Beaches. Trenton, NJ, 129 p.
              New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 1977. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
                     Recreation Plan (SCORP . Office of Green Acres. 398 p.
              New Jersey Department ot'Environmental. Protection, 1980. New Jersev Coastal Management
                     Program,
              New Jersey State Beach Erosion Commission, 1930. Annual Report on the Protection and
                     Preservation of the New Jersey Beaches and Shorefront. Trenton, NJ, 17 p.
              Seymour, R. J., 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. National Research Council, National
                     Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 334 pp.
              Seymour, R. J., 1996. An introduction to the Marine Board study on beach nourishment and
                     protection, Shore and Beach, 64: 3.
              U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 1964. A Pictorial History of Selected Structures Along the New
                     Jersey Coast, Miscellaneous Paper No. 5-64. Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort.-
                     Belvoir, Virginia, 99 pp.
              U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990. Report of Limited Reconnaissance Study, Philadelphia
                     District, 217 pp. plus appendices.
              U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1995. Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Reconnaissance
                     Study. Philadelphia District,
              Uptegrove, J., Mullikin, L. G., Waldner, J. S., Ashley, G., Sheridan, R. E., Hall, D. W., Gilroy, J.
                     T., and Farrell, S. C., 1995. Characterization of Offshore Sediments in Federal Waters as
                     Potential Sources of Beach Replenishment Sand --Phase 1, New Jersey Geological Survey



                                                           -13-







                                                                                         DRAft - July
                                                                                 Part III - Approaches
                    Open-File Report OFR 95- 1. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
                    Trenton, NJ, 148 p.






































     i
                                                                                                     -. 7@



















                                                         -14-









                   Coastal Dunes


                           Coastal dunes are natural features of the coastal landscape.          They exist in
                   conjunction with the beach and are part of the sand sharing system that actively
                   exchanges sand between the dune, the beach, and the offshore bars. In areas of adequ@te
                   sand supply, the coastal dunes achieve their full form; however, if sand supply is limited,
                   the dunes may be small, narrow features that are frequently overwashed. In areas of very
                   meager sand supply, the dunes will not exist.
                           In developed coastal zones, coastal dunes continue to perform their natural
                   function as sand storage, but also provide an additional role of forming a natural barrier to
                   storm surge and flooding. Thus, dunes are valued by the coastal communities because
                   they offer a natural, esthetic, and protective component of the coastal landscape.
                   Although dunes have been recognized as a fann. of coastal protection since the early
                   1930's, it was not until 1984 that coastal communities and the State took an active role in
                   restoring, repairing, and maintaining the dunes. Through these efforts, the public value of
                   the coastal foredune as a barrier against coastal storm surges and waves has been
                   established and continues to increase.*


                   Attributes of Coastal Dunes
                           Understanding the processes that influence the creation of coastal dunes is an
                   important aspect of their management. Coastal dunes are part of the natural beach
                   system. Dunes in the coastal zone are molded by waves and wind. In a beach profile, the
                   coastal dune forms a ridge of sand that accumulates above the high tide line and inland of
                   the extremely mobile, bare sand beach surface. The active coastal dune, often referred to
                   as the foredune to distinguish it from other and older dune forms, is located immediately
                   inland of the bare sand beach. Other, older dunes may exist inland from the foredune.
                   They are usually referred to as secondary dunes whereas the active foredune is the
                   primary dune. It is the coastal foredune that is the subject of most of the remainder of
                   this discussion. Unless otherwise noted, reference to the dune means the foredune, the
                   primary dune in the beach/dune interactive system.
                           The principal attributes of natural coastal foredunes are that they are sites of
                   sediment accumulation and storage. They exist because more sand is deposited in their
                   locations than is removed. As a result, they become a physical form with height, width,
                   and mass. The foredune is in dynamic interaction with the beach and the processes that
                   move sand in the beach, including waves, currents, and winds. As long as sufficient sand
                   is present, the dunes will exist at the inland margin of the beach. However, if the erosion
                   is too severe, or there is no space for the dune to shift inland as the shoreline erodes, the
                   dunes will not persist.
                           Certain types of vegetation can tolerate the harsh conditions of heat, aridity, high


                    The attributes, management, creation, and maintenance of coastal dunes is further discussed in the white
                   paper Coastal Dunes: Dune Building Processes, A Primerfor Dune Development and Management (see
                   Appendix )









                   salinity, and low nutrient availability found at the shore. These plants are referred to as
                   pioneer plants and comprise the dune grasses and other plants that colonize the seaward
                   face or crest of the foredunes. Coastal dunes exists in the zone where pioneer vegetation
                   traps sand transported inland from the beach primarily by wind action, and forms an
                   accumulation in the shape of a coast parallel sand ridge. As the sand accumulates around
                   the primary vegetation, roots and rhizomes spread from which new plants grow. This
                   dense vegetation anchors the dune below the surface and stabilizes sediment on the
                   surface providing a natural barrier to incoming waves. Without the presence of dune
                   vegetation, dunes become extremely vulnerable to the forces that create them.
                           Although the coastal foredurie accurnulates sand blown across the beach into the
                   pioneer vegetation, it also loses sand when wave action erodes the beach and attacks or
                   scarps the foredune. Scarping by waves is the process by which the sand held in storage
                   in the foredune is returned to the beach for subsequent transfers offshore, alongshore, or
                   to its original location in the dune profile. The dune will obviously lose dimension if the
                   amount of sand removed is greater than the amount replaced. Conversely, the dune will
                   gain in dimension if the amount of sand replaced is greater than was originally removed by
                   the scarping process.
                           Natural coastal foredune devel'opment occurs inland of the frequent storm tide
                   position where it is beyond the part of the beach that is constantly changing with the
                   tides and wave variation. Foredune development also occurs in this zone because it is the
                   area where vegetation can persist. On accreting shorelines, the pioneer vegetation extends
                   seaward from the dune face and eventually establishes a new line of sand accumulation.
                   However, most of New Jersey's beaches are eroding, and the seaward edge of the
                   foredurie is located extremely close to the storm water line and is frequently attacked by

                   waves.
                           The foredune is a ridge, higher than the beach surface, forming a natural barrier to
                   the inland penetration of high water from storm surges. By ftinctioning as a barrier, dunes
                   restrict the effects of storm waves and currents to the beach and the foredune face. While
                   buffering the effects of these forces, sand stored in the dune is released by the mobilizing
                   processes of waves and flowing water. Because the amount of protection is related to the
                   mass of the dunes, higher and wider dunes will provide more buffering than lower and
                   narrower dunes. However, the buffering effect of the coastal dune is obviously
                   diminished when the dune crest is overtopped and eroded. Overwash may sometimes be
                   so severe as to completely remove the dune form and transport much of the sand inland.


                   Rationale
                           In 1930, the New Jersey Board of Commerce and Navigation produced a Report
                   on the Erosion and Protection of the New Jersey Beaches. Whereas the report
                   emphasized the continuation of structural solutions to reduce beach erosion, it noted that
                   coastal dunes should be given more consideration for their protective qualities. It was not
                   until 1972 that the attributes of coastal dunes were recognized by the passage of the
                   Coastal Zone Management Act. Among the basic tenets that formed the foundation of
                   the Act was the desire to protect dunes as a natural protective feature (P.L. 91-583,









                   1972). Under the Act, states could receive federal funding to develop and to implement
                   the Act's objectives. For the first time, there was a national impetus for coastal states to
                   promote dune restoration and maintenance. However it was not until after the March
                   1984 storm, which destroyed much of New Jersey's dunes, that the State utilized these
                   funds to implement the Federal Emergency Dune Restoration Program. With the
                   availability of this federal funding, New Jersey coastal management strategy began to
                   emphasis dunes as a preferred form of coastal protection through technical and financial
                   support to communities for restoring. NJDEP and the New Jersey Office of Emergency
                   Management (NJOEM), have continued to encourage community restoration,
                   improvement, and maintenance of dunes through technical and financial support.
                           As New Jersey's coastal management strategies shift from protection of property
                   to the enhancement of public safety, coastal dune maintenance can easily be incorporated
                   into these efforts. As previously stated, coastal dunes buffer the effects of storm surges
                   and prevent subsequent damage. Therefore, the utilization of coastal dunes is consistent
                   with both federal and state mitigation objectives. If the Federal government continues to
                   decrease monetary support for beach nourishment projects as a type of coastal
                   protection, the buffering abilities of coastal dunes may become the primary means of
                   protection. Further, through dune maintenance programs such as annual beachgrass
                   plantings, many municipalities can bring various community resources together for a
                   common cause, creating a feeling of community "togetherness".

                   Determining Objectives
                           If coastal dunes are employed to protect cornmunities from the effects of coastal
                   storms, communities must determine the level of protection they wish to achieve from
                   anticipated storm water levels prior to constructing the dunes. When determining their
                   objectives, communities must balance the level of protection desired with the amount of
                   space they will need to achieve their goals. The spatial dimensions of a foredune that
                   would protect against a I in 5 year storm water level, for example, differ from the
                   dimensions required to buffer a I in 50 year storm. Although a municipality, may wish to
                   provide protection from water levels of a 1 in 50 year storm, the dune/beach area may
                   only provide adequate space for a foredune that can buffer a 1 in 20 year storm water
                   level. If communities desire to develop dunes that will protect against higher magnitude
                   storms, but do not have the desired space, they should consider rezoning the beach front
                   areas. This zoning would allow communities to develop or expand existing dunes as
                   space becomes available. Unless a community is willing to designate adjacent landward
                   property as part of the dune area, limited space leads to smaller dunes that offer a lower
                   level of protection.
                           Something communities should consider when forming their objectives is the
                   temporal component of dune preservation. Through time, the ability of coastal dunes to
                   buffer storms is compromised by an eroding shoreline and rising sea levels. As the
                   shoreline erodes, unless coastal dunes are able to shift inland in relation to these changes,
                   they will be subject to scarping and to overwash, and may eventually be completely
                   eroded. When determining a dune's level of protection, municipalities may want to









                   incorporate a buffering area that will permit a coastal dunes' position to be translated
                   landward in response to the dynamic nature of the coastline.

                   Building a Coastal Dune
                   Once municipalities have established their objectives and have determined that there is
                   adequate space to achieve these goals, the next step is to implement the construction of
                   dunes. There are several different techniques available to create coastal dunes. Dunes can
                   be built by mechanical manipulation, planting appropriate dune vegetation, erecting sand
                   fences, or a combination of these methods.


                   Mechanical Manipulation: A simple but relatively expensive method of creating a coastal
                   dune is by bulldozing sand into the dimensions of a dune. An advantage to this method is
                   that dunes and their protective qualities are instantly achieved. Sources of sand for
                   creating a dune using this technique include transferring sand from the beach or obtaining
                   sand from an outside source. Although it may be more expensive to transport sand into
                   the system, an advantage to this method is that additional sand will be added to an already
                   depleted system. It should be noted that the sediments comprising mechanically-made
                   dunes are unstable because they are not bound together. Therefore, once the proper
                   dimensions of a dune are established, vegetation and appropriate fencing should be
                   planted and maintained to stabilize the dune.

                   Dune Vegetation: One of the simplest and least expensive methods used to create a dune
                   is to plant 'Cape' American beachgrass, (Ammophila brevil@gulata) or other primary dune
                   vegetation at adequate distances inland from the MHT. Unlike bulldozed dunes, this
                   method takes some time before optimal dune dimensions are achieved. Maintaining
                   dense, healthy dune vegetation is one of the best means to stabilize a dune and to
                   minimize mobilization and erosion. Once established, beachgrass accumulates sand to
                   form a dune and its extensive root system helps to bind the sand in place.

                   Sand Fences: Sand fencing is also an effective method for trapping sand. Whereas sand
                   fencing (or snow fence material) builds dunes much faster than vegetation alone, it is still a
                   fairly slow process and more expensive than vegetation alone. However, sand fencing is
                   much cheaper than mechanical manipulation; costing as little as a $1 a foot. Sand fencing
                   accumulates sand in the same manner as dune vegetation. As wind borne sand travels
                   from the beach to the backbeach area, sand is deposited and accumulates to the tee of the
                   fence line. As the sand accumulates, additional fencing can be placed over the filled areas
                   until the dune reaches a desired level of protection or height. When building a dune just
                   using fencing, planting should begin when the sand elevation approaches the top of the
                   fence. These plants are necessary to hold the sand in place and bind the particles
                   together.

                   Combination of Sand Fence Plus Vegetation: A combination of sand fencing and
                   beachgrass should be more effective at building a dune than either of the two alone. As









                  the fence traps the sand, the beachgrass roots secure the dune, thus trapping more
                  windblown sand then either could alone. As the fences are covered by the sand,
                  additional fencing can be erected to increase the elevation of the dune (Hammer et al,
                  1992).


                  Coastal Dune Restoration and Maintenance
                          The continuation of the coherent foredune requires a rigorous maintenance
                  program. Even the best-vegetated dune will need attention to support a good vegetated
                  cover and to retain the integrity of the sand ridge. Beachgrass needs to be fertilized,
                  planted, pathways need to be maintained, and broken fencing needs to be replaced on a
                  continuing program. Additionally, any blowouts or scarping of the dunes will need to be
                  stabilized.


                  Conclusion:
                          Communities benefit from the preservation and enhancement of coastal dunes,
                  which are an important component of the natural coastal system. Although dunes are
                  valued for their function as a natural barrier, there are many other roles and functions of
                  dunes. By acting as a natural sand storage area for the sand sharing system, coastal dunes
                  actively exchange sand within this system. Additionally, coastal dunes provide a habitat
                  for diverse plant life and offer various esthetic qualities.
                          Standardized procedures that assist in the general maintenance and enhancement of
                  coastal dunes can be developed on a community level. Dune protection ordinances
                  provide a legal mechanism for communities to develop programs that maxiniize the
                  function and effectiveness of dunes. It is important that these ordinances reflect the
                  objectives of the community's dune preservation's efforts.
                          Whereas there is considerable interest in the creation of coastal dunes as part of a
                  community effort, it must be stressed that dunes do not prevent erosion and they do not
                  reverse an erosional trend. They do offer protection from storm surge and they do
                  contribute sand to buffer the rates of shoreline displacement. Thus, dunes act as a barrier
                  to communities and reduce storm-related damage. However, the dunes have a finite
                  capacity to provide protection and buffering. They may be eroded and overwhelmed by
                  waves and winds. They may be topped by very high storm surges. Although
                  communities can extend the protective capabilities and other qualities of dunes through
                  maintenance programs, it is likely that dunes should be considered asa' short-term
                  protective strategy that is within the capabilities of the community to perform and that
                  will have to be repeated at some time interval.







                                                                                                    DRAFT - July
                                                                                              Part III - Approaches

                   NWIGATION - AN APPROACH TO COAsTAL HAzARD MANAGEMENT



               1. Philosophical Basis for Mitigation in the State Coastal Hazard

               Mana_gement Plan

                       The coastal areas in our Nation are under great pressure from population and related

               development because almost one-half of our total population live in these areas (NOAA, 1990).

               These development pressures in turn, have disrupted the coastal systems and are occurring in

               addition to fundamental changes in the functioning and characterization of -our coastal systems
               (NOAA, 1990). Accompanying the increased development pressures in the coastal zone are

               natural processes that are eroding the shorelines and further altering the remaining systems. As

               these cultural and natural processes reconfigure the coastal zone, there is an increased awareness

               and need for appropriate management to safeguard the people and the resources of these dynamic


               areas.

                       In the past, management approaches have addressed the coastal area as if it were static,

               but the New Jersey coastal zone is a highly dynamic system requiring special attention and

               management consideration. There are natural and cultural forces that are placing some of the

               coastal resources at risk and requiring an effective stewardship of the natural and cultural

               resources present in the coastal zone.

                      Through a combination of long-term sea-level rise and sediment loss, intertwined with

               coastal erosion, the shoreline has become an area of increasing exposure to the effects of storms,

               which will only escalate through time. One possible approach to managing these risks with

               emphasis on public safety is by creating safer communities through natural hazard mitigation.
               Hazard mitigation involves recognizing and adapting to natural forces and it is defined as a-
                                                                                                                 ny

               sustained action taken to reduce long-term risk to human life and property (FEMA, 1995). In

               helping to create these safer communities, it is an important part of the Plan to emphasize
               mitigation as a tool to reduce exposure of people to the risks of living near the shoreline   Many

               emerging trends on a local and national level show that mitigation is developing as a part of a





                                                               - I -









               response to managing existing hazards as well as helping to cope with those which will continue

               to happen in the future.

                      Whereas emphasis on pre-storm mitigation is important to the Plan, the need for post-

               storm planning and recovery is especially important. Actions at the community level can be and

               have been successful in mitigating the effects of small storm events. The effects of major stonns,

               however, require preparedness to provide for increased public safety as a product of the post-
               storm recovery process. Areas of high risk from natural hazards should be identified and plans
               developed to reduce exposure in these areas. Preparedness and post-storm recovery programs

               are basic to the Coastal Hazard Management Plan.       -

                      The demand for public safety is an important driving force and a major objective for
               managing the hazards associated with living near the shoreline. Because the coast is largely

               developed, it becomes necessary to create plans and strategies with which to enhance public

               safety and to reduce the amount of damage that can result from natural disasters. Preparedness

               for these natural disasters is key in the protection of the public and a necessary component of

               any hazard mitigation plan.

                      Educating and increasing the awareness of the public to the dangers of living near the

               shoreline is another objective of the plan that will assist with preparedness. The process of

               public involvement in the planning and developing stages will allow for the means by which to
               implement management strategies for reducing risk along the shoreline.
                      Also important for management considerations are the many natural and cultural

               resources along the New Jersey shoreline. The diversity of resources in New Jersey make this
               state unique and alluring. The wide variety of attributes along the coastline include such parks as
               Sandy Hook, and Island Beach State Park; highly developed recreational coastal towns such-,as

               Atlantic City; and structures such as boardwalks, ocean piers, and the Barnegat Bay Lighthouse.

               These and other valued resources along the shoreline warrant preservation or stewardship from

               the citizens and officials of the state of New Jersey. It is this stewardship, this balancing of the

               system, that is important to the natural and cultural future of the New Jersey shoreline.




                                                                2







                                                                                                      DRAFI'- July
                                                                                               Part III - Approaches

                        The continual need to update the information concerning the shoreline is another

                important component of the system. This dynamic environment needs to be monitored regularly
                and the information collected to be shared with those involved in its study. The need for a strong

                data base and the ways and means by which to carry this out are paramount if we are to continue

                to manage hazardous situations. We also need to consider using a regional instead of a piecemeal
                approach to the problems and issues surrounding the shoreline in order to manage them

                effectively. There is a need to foster partnerships among municipalities, counties, etc. in order to
                deal with these issues of shoreline management and public safety in a successful manner across

                the board.



                11. Background

                II.A. New Directions and Obiectives

                        II.A.I. Federal Policies & Directions

                        An important Federal policy that continues to influence our shoreline is the Coastal Zone
                Management Act of 1972. Until the late 1960's, decisions affecting coastal resources were made

                without coordination among federal, state, and local governments.           Increased demand for

                recreational, economical and other uses of the coastal zone led to conflicts among the diverse
                groups involved. In response, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in

                1972, with the objective of which was to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to
                restore and enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.
                        The CZMA created a partnership among federal, state, and local governments to seek

                collective solutions to problems caused by competing coastal pressures. All activities within the

                coastal zone, and those activities outside this area that affect resources inside the coastal zone,

                are now subject to the multiple use management regime established by the CZMA. Among the

                basic tenets which form the foundation of this legislation are several that directly relate to shore

                protection issues:

                            Reduce the risk to life and property from coastal storms and erosion by
                            directing coastal development away from hazardous areas; and











                            Protect the dunes as a natural barrier to coastal storms.



                        More than 95% of the nation's shoreline is managed under the CZMA through a network
                 of 30 states, including New Jersey. To entice coastal states to join this voluntary program, the
                 federal government provided them with two incentives: financial assistance to develop and
                 implement state coastal management plans, and federal consistency authority, a tool which

                 enables states to address the adverse effects of federal activities on coastal resources.

                        Since the establishment of the 1981 Shore Protection Master Plan, much has occurred

                 within the Federal government with regards to hazard mitigation, especially concerning floods and
                 flood-related disasters. An important program that continues to this day is the National Flood

                 Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP was established by the National Flood Insurance Act of

                 1968 and was defined even further by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The Act

                 allowed for the availability of flood insurance within communities willing to adopt floodplain

                 management programs to mitigate future flood losses. The identification of all floodplain areas

                 within the United States and the establishment of flood risk zones within these areas was also

                 required in the Act. Coastal communities also qualified to participate in the program because it

                 was identified that they face unique flood hazards from storm surges and wave action from large

                 open bodies of water. Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
                 for flood-prone communities are vital documents that foster the goals of the NFIP. These studies
                 provide the technical information to communities that enables them to adopt floodplain

                 management measures required for NFIP participation (FEMA, 1995).
                        In 1995, Congress mandated that there be a 30-day waiting period before coverage under a

                 new contract for flood insurance or any modification to coverage under an existing flood insurauce

                 contract becomes effective, with two exceptions. The express intent of Congress in mandating a
                 30-day waiting period was to prevent the purchase of flood insurance at times of imminent flood

                 loss (FEMA, 1995). One exception to the required waiting period involves the initial purchase of

                 flood insurance in connection with the making, increasing, extension, or renewal of a loan. The
                 second involves the initial purchase of flood insurance within one year of a map revision.



                                                                 4







                                                                                                       DRAFT - July
                                                                                                Part III - Approaches

                        Another important development for the NFIP was passage of the Upton-Jones
                Amendment to the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1987. Under the Act, for the first

                time, Congress authorized payments from the National Flood Insurance Fund (funded by NFIP

                premiums) for certain costs of demolishing or relocating insured structures imminently threatened
                with collapse from erosion (Platt, et al., 1992). The intent of Upton-Jones was to encourage

                voluntary action by owners to remove their threatened structures. Prior to Upton-Jones, the
                NFIP only paid claims on insured buildings that had sustained physical damage as a result of
                flooding or flood-related erosion. The amendment allowed for payment of a claim prior to actual

                damage for the purpose of relocating or demolishing the structure (NRC, 1990).

                        Upton-Jones was intended to encourage the removal of erosion-prone structures prior to
                their collapse to avoid higher NFIP costs and to reduce public safety hazards. The intantions of

                Upton-Jones were good with regards towards mitigation, but the implementation of Upton-Jones
                        12
                    ivk@
                ware successful because eligibility was too narrowly defined and few claims were ever filed.
                Few property owners took advantage of the benefits, and when they did, they opted for

                demolition over relocation (Platt et al., 1992). Upton-Jones was eliminated from the NFIP in

                September of 1995 in the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, Title V of the Reigle

                Community Development and Regulatory Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-325).

                        In its place, a National Flood Mitigation Fund was created that allows for funds to be

                used for mitigation activities such as relocation and acquisition of repetitive loss structures (P.L.

                103-325, 1994). Money for this fund is to come from surcharges placed on existing flood

                insurance policies. Selection of projects for support from the fund will be based on those that

                reduce payments from the Flood Insurance Fund. VA-iile this fund is still in the authorization

                stage, it does represent a future mitigation opportunity.

                        An important mitigation development occurred when the Disaster Relief and Emergency

                Assistance Act of 1974 was renamed by the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance

                Amendments: Great Lakes Planning Assistance Act of November 23, 1988. These amendments

                changed the name to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of
                1988 (P.L. 93-288 as amended by P.L. 100-707), and added requirements for disaster



                                                                 -5-









                preparedness plans and programs. Under the Stafford Act, the President must declare a disaster
                emergency prior to the authorization of any federal assistance. The Act provides up to 75% of

                the cost of hazard mitigation measures that the President has determined to be cost-effective and

                substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering in any area affected by
                a major disaster (P.L. 93-288, as amended, 1988). The Stafford Act also created the Hazard
                Mitigation Program which provides matching Federal funds for state and local mitigation

                projects. These grant funds are also tied to disaster declarations.
                        Along with new opportunities for mitigation activities, there is a new direction as
                proposed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In 1995, FEMA announced
                its new and emerging National Mitigation Strategy, "Partnerships for Building Safer
                Communities," that raises hazard risk reduction to the level of a national priority and places

                mitigation as the cornerstone for creating these communities (FEMA, 1995). The Strategy is

                intended to generate a fundamental change in the general public's perception about hazard risk

                and mitigation of that risk and to demonstrate that mitigation is often the most cost-effective and
                envirom-nentally-sound approach to reducing losses. It is this national lead that New Jersey can

                follow in establishing its own strategy for creating safer communities and in mitigating the effects

                of natural disasters that pose a threat to some of the resources at the shore.



                        11.A.2. State Policies & Directions

                        II.A.2.a. Coastal Development, Redevelopment, and Plannin

                        Coastal storms often result in extensive damage to property and infrastructure. After

                such a disaster, reconstruction and repairs have typically been completed in such a manner as to

                restore damaged property to its pre-disaster condition without consideration for the natural

                hazards present. Although this type of restoration does return a community to some form of
                normalcy rather quickly, the replication of pre-disaster conditions often results in a cycle of

                repetitive damage and reconstruction (FEMA, 1990). Continued coastal development in this
                manner will undoubtedly result in future property damage and the increased need for costly shore

                protection measures.



                                                                  6







                                                                                                    DRAFT - July
                                                                                             Part III - Approaches

                        In an effort to break this cycle, communities and state governments have begun to adopt
                storm hazard mitigation strategies. In 1984, the New Jersey State Office of Emergency
                Management (NJOEM) produced a plan that incorporated mitigation strategies. The State
                Hazard Mitigation Plan was updated in 1993 as a result of a presidential disaster declaration for

                the January 1992 Coastal Storm (DR-936-NJ). The most recent revision of the Plan was
                completed in May of 1994. In the current revision, the Plan provides an outline for a system of
                risk reduction in New Jersey and serves to aid State and local emergency management officials in

                developing a hazard management program. In addition to New Jersey's individual state efforts,
                FEMA is in the process of developing hazard mitigation plans that can be adopted on state,

                county, and municipality level.

                        Typically, storm hazard mitigation plans are developed - for post-disaster situations;

                however, post-storm mitigation plans are essentially a pre-disaster plan for the next disaster.

                Post-disaster relief and planning can be accomplished through strategies such as identifying

                hazardous areas, educating people about hazard mitigation, and changing land-use management,

                construction practices, and shore protection techniques. Improving land-use management can be

                accomplished through steps such as acquiring land in hazardous areas (i.e. the Coastal Blue Acres
                program), transferring development rights, re-zoning (i.e. setback limits and dune protection

                ordinances), relocating public roads and other public necessities away from hazardous locations,
                and exchanging land in high hazard areas for safer property locations.         By requiring new
                construction and damaged property to meet stringent flood hazard area standards, severe damage

                to property can be reduced.

                        Building and reconstruction moratoriums can also be imposed in identified hazardous
                areas. Redefining shore protection measures entails establishing and maintaining non-structural
                coastal protection devices such as coastal dunes and beach nourishment projects in appropriate

                locations. Hazardous areas need to be identified through a systematic program and continuously
                monitored for changes in vulnerability. Finally, educational programs can be developed to

                educate people about natural coastal hazards and ways in which hazard mitigation can strive to

                reduce associated coastal threats




                                                                -7-












                        II.A.2.b. Need for Regional (Partnership) Approach

                        The coastal managers of New Jersey are challenged by the population demands placed on
                shoreline use. High population density and its accompanying infrastructure is continually
                juxtaposed against the functioning of the natural processes that determine stability and change
                along our shoreline. One of the traditional approaches for managing shoreline systems in
                developed settings has been to deal with it on a piecemeal basis. This approach does not take

                into account the downstream or cascading effects of a management action in one part of the

                shoreline system on other parts of the coast. For example, installation of a groin in one

                municipality may trap sand that is naturally transported to a neighboring municipality.

                        As demand for use of the shoreline continues to grow, there is a concomitant need for

                better information and creative management strategies to support continued resource use and

                stewardship. If present and future coastal managers are going to successfully balance these

                stresses on the shoreline in a manner that fosters access, mitigates coastal hazards, and preserves
                the ecological integrity of the shoreline system, New Jersey's integrated coastal management

                approach must be addressed on a regional basis. Specifically, coastal managers must look at the

                overall current wave actions, sand transportation, existence of shore protection structures, and

                erosion rates that effect the entire shoreline. Partnerships that transcend community boundaries

                are desirable and necessary to achieve this aim. Therefore, coastal management must be

                integrated at least at the reach levels. In addition, programs should be identified that function at

                the regional level and committees should be supported to "fit" into the larger program objectives.



                        II.A.2.c. Creating an Informed Public & Public Involvement

                        The process of developing an informed public goes beyond simply providing information

                to the coastal conu-nunities. An informed public results from the development of communication

                goals and the establishment of a communication plan or process. Establishment of a mechanism

                for community involvement and participation is critical to instituting a successful partnership.
                        All viewpoints and opinions from the community must be acknowledged and validated.



                                                                 8







                                                                                                     DRAFT - July
                                                                                              Part III - Approaches

                Decisions on how to encourage and incorporate the input from the community is an important
                component of a successful public participation process. Citizen meetings, questionnaires, and

                information hotlines are a few examples of what can be done to involve the public.

                       It is important for resource managers to clearly define the community role in the project

                as well as to mutually agree with the community itself on the level of their input into the project.

                Involving communities from the onset is the best way to deal with both the technical aspects of

                the project and the community concerns.
                       Involving an informed public in the implementation of a management strategy requires*
                creating a productive dialogue between resource managers and the community. The development

                of an effective communication strategy includes producing communication goals, defining the

                audience, deciding how the communication goals will be implemented, and how the resource

                mangers will respond to the community.



                111. National Mitigation Strategy

                       The reorganization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)                       on

                November 28, 1993 brought about the creation of the Mitigation Directorate. Mitigation, which

                involves reducing the impact of natural hazards, became one of the key elements in FEMA's

                reinvented organizational structure (FEMA, 1994). Director James Lee Witt raised FEMA's

                mitigation efforts from a low-level office to one of its four main branches. FEMA has recently

                announced its National Mitigation Strategy "Partnerships for Building Safer Communities,"

                which raises hazard risk reduction to the level of a national priority and makes mitigation the

                cornerstone for creating these communities. (FEMA, 1995). Development of this strategy is a

                major redirection of national policy for high-risk, natural hazard areas. Also of major importance

                is the most recent (February, 1996) appointment of FEMA to the Presidential cabinet giving

                FEMA and its endeavors higher priority than it had previously. FEMA's present new focus is
                removing people from hazards, providing support for public safety, reducing the@ costs of

                recovery following damage from natural hazards, and reducing payouts from the National Flood

                Insurance Program by 50% by the year 2010.



                                                                -9-









                       The Strategy is intended to generate a fLmdamental change in the general public's
                perception about hazard risk and mitigation of that risk and to demonstrate that mitigation is
                often the most cost-effective and environmentally sound approach to reducing losses. The long-

                term goal of the Strategy is to increase public awareness of natural hazard risk and, within 15
                years, to reduce the risk of loss of life, injuries, economic costs, and disruption of families and
                communities caused by natural hazards. There are five objectives that FEMA has developed to

                meet this National Mitigation Goal:

                ï¿½   Conduct studies to identify hazards and assess the risks associated with those hazards for
                    communities throughout the nation;


                ï¿½   Encourage applied research that will develop the latest technology in response to natural
                    hazards risks and promote the transfer of that technology to users - State and local
                    government, the private sector, and individual citizens;

                ï¿½   Create a broad-based public awareness and understanding of natural hazard risks that lead to
                    public support for actions to mitigate those risks;


                ï¿½   Provide incentives and encourage mitigation activities and redirect resources from both the
                    public and private sectors to support all elements of the Strategy; and


                ï¿½   Provide national leadership in the achievement of the National Mitigation Goal, provide
                    coordination among Federal agencies to promote hazard mitigation throughout all Federal
                    programs and policies, and provide coordination with other levels of government and the
                    private sector (FEMA, 1995).


                IV. The Development and Application of Mitigation in New Jersey

                        IV.A. New Jersey's State Hazard Mitigation Plan

                        Since the 1981 Shore Master Plan was produced, federal and state governments have been

                shifting away from post-disaster assistance and moving towards the use of mitigation measures

                to alleviate or to avert damages prior to a disaster. Although, the federal government has been

                discussing the use of mitigation to reduce risks from disasters for a number of years, little had

                been done to implement a mitigation strategy on a national level until 1995. Thus, prior to this

                time, implementation of a successful mitigation strategy was the primary responsibility of state




                                                                 10







                                                                                                   DRAFT - July
                                                                                            Part III - Approaches

               governments. In 1985, the NJDEP, in cooperation with NJOEM and other State emergency
               management agencies, developed a hazard reduction mitigation plan for the state, called the NJ

               State Hazard Mitigation Plan: Section 406 (HMP).         As a result of a presidential disaster

               declaration in 1992, the HMP (DR-936-NJ) was updated, and subsequently revised again in 1994

               (DR-973-NJ).

                      The HMP strives to reduce or to eliminate loss of life and property from natural disasters

               by providing an outline for a system of mitigation measures for the State. The HMP also serves
               as an aid to local and State emergency officials by developing a hazard mitigation plan and

               establishing the framework for coordination between FEMA and the State Interagency Hazard

               Mitigation Team (SHMT) (NJDEP, 1995). Although the HMP recommends mitigation activities

               for both coastal and riverine areas, only those measures appropriate to the coastal area are

               discussed herein.



                      W.A.I. Histor_y of the New Jersey Hazard Mitigation Plan

                      IV.A. La. 1985 New Jersey Hazard Mitigation Plan: Section 406

                      From March 28 to 29, 1984, an intense northeaster tracked slowly along the New Jersey

               shore. The storm surge caused flooding, damage to shore protection structures, and severe beach

               and dune erosion (NJDEP, 1985). A second nor'easter followed this storm from April 4 to 5,

               1984 which produced extensive riverine flooding along the Passaic River and its major tributaries

               (NJDEP, 1985). On April 12, President Reagan declared the four coastal counties disaster areas

               (FEMA-701-DR).       Following the presidentially-declared disaster, New Jersey applied for

               disaster relief funds available under Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

               Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288 as amended, 1988). Under the Act, the federal

               government may contribute up to 75% of the cost of hazard mitigation measures that are

               determined to be cost-effective and substantially reduce the future risk of damage, hardship, loss,

               or suffering (P.L. 93-288 as amended, 1988). In order to receive disaster relief funding, New

               Jersey had to evaluate and mitigate against natural hazards, which lead to the production of the

               HMP.









                      The 1985 New Jersey Hazard Mitigation Plan: Section 406 is a comprehensive document

               that describes damages from the riverine flooding and coastal storm of 1984. It also summarizes

               existing state mitigation measures and proposes mitigation measures to reduce future risks. The

               mitigation team recommended 23 short- and long-term mitigation activities to assist the affected

               coastal regions recover from the disaster. These "work elements" consisted of mitigation actions

               for specific sites, as well as actions for the entire coastal area.

                      Short-term recornmended measures include: revisions to the computations of storm surges

               at the Atlantic City Steel Pier, technical assistance to communities to implement the HMP

               recommendations, structural fortification, a grant to study Long Beach Island's evacuation and

               warning systems, and the endorsement of changes to Building Officials and Code Administrators

               (BOCA). Long-tenn mitigation measures include: dune enhancement and restoration projects, the
               continuation of shoreline profiling, implementation of acquisition/relocation projects, and the

               restriction of development seaward of Ocean Avenue in Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach until

               sand is provided.
                      On September 27, 1985, while the NJDEP and NJOEM were preparing the HMP,

               Hurricane Gloria passed along the New Jersey coast. Although the sustained damages were less

               than those received by the 1984 stonns, additional long- and short-term mitigation measures were

               developed as a result of a declared disaster (FEMA-749-DR). Highlights of the short term

               recommended measures include: amendments to CAFRA such as prohibiting development in V-
               zones, instituting a 50-foot setback from shore parallel structures, and supporting changes to

               BOCA for wind speed. Long term mitigation measures include: the continuation of NJDEP

               regulatory jurisdiction of the coastal area, the continuation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's

               (USACOE) NJ Hurricane Evacuation Study, the establishment of dunes seaward of boardwaW

               in Monmouth County, and a proposed acquisition project for Whale Beach, Cape May County.



                      W.A. I.b. Coastal-Storm 1992 (FEMA-936-DR-NJ) Interagency Hazard Mitigation

                      Team Report





                                                               12







                                                                                                   DRAFT - July
                                                                                            Part III - Approaches

                      Between 1985 and 1992, the State handled approximately 18 storm-related flooding

               emergencies (NJDEP, 1993). Each of these events were managed by local, County, or State
               ftuiding and NJOEM's mitigation efforts. On March 3, 1992, all four coastal counties were

               declared major disaster areas by the President due to the January 4, 1994 storm that devastated
               the coast. The storm produced coastal flooding and the further erosion of beaches that were

               already weakened by a similar storm in October of 1991 (NJDEP, 1993). Although the HMP

               had been updated as necessary during 1985-1992, the HMP was revised to included mitigation

               measures developed as a result of the 1992 storm in order for the State to qualify for disaster

               assistance funding.

                      The SHMT made formal mitigation recommendations in the 1993 Coastal-Ston-n 1992

               (FEMA-936-DR-NJ) interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Report. These recommendations

               were placed into either mitigation, public awareness/alert warning, coastal issues, hazard

               identification, or social services categories. Each recommendation, when implemented, would
               serve to prevent or reduce losses in the event of a similar coastal disaster (NJDEP, 1993). The
               first recommendation of the HMP was the permanent creation of a State Interagency Hazard

               Mitigation Team (SHMT). During the production of the 1985 HMP, a temporary State

               Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team (SHMT) had been created to assist NJDEP and NJOEM
               identify an interagency approach to hazard mitigation that supported the goals and objectives of

               mitigation (NJDEP, 1993). Following the 1993 HMP, the SHMT was formally established by

               Executive Order. The NJOEM was established as the lead agency to establish and coordinate a

               State interagency hazard mitigation team. Support agencies include NJDEP, the Department of
               Transportation, Department of Community Affairs, Office of Statewide Planning, USACOE, and
               other agencies involved with the State's mitigation efforts.

                      The Public Awareness section of the SHMT recommended the installation of remote

               sensors in the bay areas to forecast flooding, and a training program be established for local

               media, public officials, and educators on emergency preparedness and public warnings. Coastal

               Issues mitigation measures include: technical guidance for communities to implement FEMA's
               beach policy, and the development of the Shore Protection Fund. Some recommended mitigation



                                                             -1-3-









              measures for hazard identification include: communities, which rely on coastal dunes for

              protection, adopt FEMA's definition of "Coastal High Hazard Areas" and "primary frontal

              dunes" in their flood prevention ordinances to provide immediate protection of the entire dune;

              all coastal flood insurance rate maps be revised to include the assumption that all dunes would be

              lost during a 100-year storm, and a schedule for conducting wave height analyses for
              municipalities be created. Lastly, the SHMT recommended that State, County, and local
              emergency management and human service officials develop an emergency social services
              capability to produce a social services resource network.



                      IV.A. I.c. State of New Jersey Office of Emergency Management DR-973-NJ

                      Hazard Mitigation Plan

                      In December 1992, New Jersey experienced its second Presidential Disaster Declaration

              since 1985. Between December 11-17, 1992, a severe nor'easter storm caused widespread

              coastal damage from flooding and high velocity winds. The State of New Jersey Office of

              Emergency Management Hazard Mitigation Plan. the State's current HMP, is a revision of DR-

              936-NJ State Hazard Mitigation Plan that reflects new hazard mitigation needs, and re-prioritizes

              existing mitigation recommendations. The SHMT coastal area recommendations for 973-DR-NJ

              consists of six categories:

              ï¿½   Beach and Dune Areas:
                      Recommendations included a re-emphasis for the continuation of dune restoration and
                  maintenance; a priority list of shore protection projects be created; the replacement of
                  bulkheads not in compliance with the Federal Flood Insurance criteria for shore protection
                  devices; the revision of ordinances prior to emergency work in communities with repetitively
                  damaged beaches; an acquisition program be developed for post-disaster assistance-, and an
                  update of beach/dune topographic mapping.


              ï¿½ Flood Warnings:
                      The SHMT recommended that both offshore data collection and the installation of
                  backbay flooding remote sensors continue.


              ï¿½ Regulations:




                                                              14







                                                                                                   DRAFT - July
                                                                                            Part IH - Approaches

                      The SHMT recommended the passage of regulations for pen-nits for the installation
                  and/or repair of retaining walls. They also recommended that NJOEM develop procedures
                  and policies to regulate the collection and disposal of debris and implement a disaster debris
                  management plan.


              ï¿½   Specific coastal areas:
                      The SHMT recommended that the South Cape May Meadows area be studied to assess
                  the erosion problem and develop some alternatives to emergency dune management. A
                  comprehensive plan utilizing floodproofing, relocation. zoning, and setback measures for the
                  north end of Atlantic City was also recommended in the Plan.


              ï¿½   Flood Insurance:
                      The SHMT recommended that ordinances be adopted requiring landlords of rental
                  properties within high hazard areas to provide flood insurance information for their tenants.


              ï¿½   Planning:
                      The SHMT reinforced the continuation of the SHMT, and recommended that HUD and
                  DCA advise municipalities of the availability of Community Block Grant and Small City
                  Block Grant Programs for emergency response and risk reduction funding.


                      IV.A.2. Accomplishments of the State Hazard Mitigation Plan

                      Following the creation of the HMP,. the NJOEM has been involved in the State's coastal

              hazard mitigation efforts. In Section VI of the most recent HMP (1994), NJOEM lists the

              accomplishments, to date, of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.            Specific implemented hazard

              mitigation measures include:

                      1) Technical assistance from NJDEP has been provided to implement the HMP's
                         recommendations;


                      2) The Shore Protection Fund was implemented;

                      3) In 1986, the Division of Water Resources, Bureau of Flood Plain Management
                         completed a study of Long Beach Island;

                      4) NJDEP was granted an increase in regulatory jurisdiction in the coastal area through the
                         revision of CAFRA;


                      5) Development was permanently restricted seaward of Ocean Avenue in Sea Bright and
                         Monmouth Beach;




                                                               1-5-









                      6) NJDEP continues long-term monitoring of beaches and dunes;

                      7) NJDEP continues to pursue the proposed park plan for Whale Beach, Sea Isle City;
                      8) In 1984, the Assessment of Dune and Shorefront Protection Ordinances was
                         published;

                      9) NJDEP received a $2 million grant for dune restoration for the 1984 storm dairnages;

                      10) Shore Protection Rules were revised to require adherence to coastal program
                         regulations as a condition of State shore protection expenditures to municipalities;

                      11) NJDEP completed storm vulnerability studies and site specific storm hazard
                         mitigation studies for the barrier islands in 1985;

                      12) All jurisdictions in the State are in compliance with the National Flood Insurance
                         Program due to aggressive efforts by the state flood plain management officials;

                      13) In 1992, the New Jersey Hurricane Evacuation Study, 1992 was produced and is
                         being used to increase the State's level of preparedness levels;

                      14) The State initiated the investigation of several mitigation measures including studying
                         the use of submerged concrete breakwaters as means to stabilize ocean-front beaches;

                      15) NJDEP supported further recommendations to BOCA.


                      IV.A.3. Recommendations to Improve the State's Hazard Mitigation

                      Efforts

                      Since the inception of the HMP, the SHMT has recommended and implemented many

              mitigation measures in the coastal area. Whereas the HMP has had a measure of success, there is

              still a need to redefine and to improve the State's mitigation measures and incorporate new

              strategies into the HMP to continue to reduce the public's exposure to coastal hazards. There

              are several mitigation measures that can be executed through the HMP to further prevent storm

              damage:

              ï¿½ Promote the continuation of dune enhancement and maintenance programs;


              ï¿½ Identify high hazard areas in the coastal area and periodically update the list to reflect any
                  changes;



                                                               16







                                                                                                    DRAFr - July
                                                                                              Part 111 - Approaches

               ï¿½ Continue public awareness and education programs;


               ï¿½   Once FEMA's national guidelines have been established, assist local municipalities to
                   develop their mitigation plans;


               ï¿½   Prohibit development in high hazard zones;


               ï¿½   Promote the acquisition of structures in identified high hazard areas;


               ï¿½   Incorporate evolving wind-load reduction into the State's building codes;

               ï¿½   Provide technical assistance and incentives to communities to participate in mitigation efforts;

               ï¿½   Shore protection efforts should be made contingent on local efforts to implement mitigation
                   strategies;


               ï¿½   Utilize FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds to implement mitigation activities;


               ï¿½   Continue to develop mitigation strategies on a regional approach instead of on a piece-meal
                   basis.


               V. Integrating NJ's Hazard Mitigation Efforts With FEMA's National

               Mitigation Strategy

                      V.A. Consistency of Direction and Philosophy of State and Federal

                      Efforts in Mitigation

                      The 1981 Shore Protection Master Plan addresses mitigation in a section titled, "Disaster

               Mitigation and Recovery," under the Federal Programs and Policies portion of the Policy Review.

               The Plan states there are Federal disaster relief programs designed to provide assistance to states,
               local governments, individuals, and owners of selected non-profit facilities to alleviate sufferkig
               and damage which result from natural disasters (SMP, 198 1). It also notes that these programs
               assist in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas including those located in
               hazardous areas on barrier islands. The programs the SMP refers to are specifically those of the

               United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and the Federal Disaster Assistance





                                                                1-7-









               Administration's (FDAA), now known as the Federal Emergency Management Agency
               (FEMA), administering of the Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974.
                      It was advised in the 1981 Plan that Federal disaster mitigation and recovery programs be
               redirected to ensure that the programs do not invite past mistakes by encouraging or subsidizing
               reconstruction or restoration of storm damaged structures in high hazard areas (SMP, 198 1).

               They listed several options for both moderate-level and high-level protection. One of the options
               concerning moderate-level protection was strengthening the role of the U.S. Army Corps of
               Engineers in coastal protection by emphasizing the natural protective capabilities of beaches and

               dunes and the need to preserve them. Also, it should be recommended that the U.S. Army Corps
               of Engineers shift from increasingly expensive structural control of erosion and flooding to
               cooperative land management (SMP, 1981). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has indeed

               shifted from structural control measures of erosion to softer approaches such as beach

               replenishment and nourishment projects, but their newer measures are not less expensive. Much
               controversy surrounds the beach nourishment projects because they exhibit high costs. Another

               moderate-level recommendation was that FEMA and the Small Business Administration (SBA)

               should consider developing regulations that would base receipt of pre-disaster planning and post-
               disaster loans or grants on established state disaster recovery plans that would: 1) incorporate the

               state's disaster legislation and require its full implementation, 2) that it provide for a recognition
               that barrier islands are especially vulnerable to disaster; and 3) that the regulations should also be
               adequate to protect human life by discouraging development of high hazard areas; and 4) require

               state preparation of "contingency redevelopment plans" to encourage reconstruction away from

               barrier islands (SMP, 198 1).

                      With regards to high-level protection options, the Plan recommended some options that

               would establish mechanisms for identifying and delineating areas and types of facilities in coastal

               high hazard areas which, when severely damaged by storms, would not be eligible for Federal

               assistance to reconstruct or restore in the same location (SMP, 198 1). There would be available

               relocation assistance; however, to aid individuals and businesses move from the high hazard areas.





                                                                 18






                                                                                                         DRAFr - July
                                                                                                  Part III - Approaches

                        One of these options was that the Federal Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L.

                93-234) be amended to restrict disaster assistance from being used for reconstruction in high

                hazard areas and instead used for providing relocation assistance for businesses and residents

                who voluntarily elect to move to safer areas.

                        Another option in the 1981 SMP was that the      Disaster Relief Act of 1974 be amended to

                require disaster preparedness plans and programs, and that post-disaster recovery assistance
                would be contingent upon the inclusion of such plans and programs. The Act should also

                authorize the establishment of Recovery Planning Councils prior to a major disaster to assist in

                developing and gaining approval of pre-disaster contingency plans for barrier islands (SMP,

                1981).

                        There are provisions in the Disaster Act, renamed the Stafford Act in 1988, for revising

                and broadening the scope of existing relief programs; encouraging the development of

                comprehensive disaster preparedness and assistance programs by the States and by local

                governments; encouraging hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses from disasters; and

                providing Federal assistance programs for both public and private losses resulting from disasters

                (P.L. 93-288, as amended 1988).

                        Since the 1981 Shore Master Plan was developed, there has been much discussion

                regarding mitigation on a federal level as a means of alleviating or averting disasters, but little with

                regards to successful implementation of such means. Thus, the issue of implementing successful

                mitigation strategies becomes an important task for the State.

                        The New Jersey Office of Emergency Management (NJOEM) has had a plan that

                incorporates mitigation strategies in existence since 1984. The NJ State Hazard Mitigation Plan

                was updated in 1993 as a result of a presidential disaster declaration for the January 1992 Coast;4

                Storm (DR-936-NJ). The most recent revision of the Plan was completed in May of 1994.

                        In the current revision, the Plan provides an outline for a system of risk reduction in New

                Jersey and serves to aid State and local emergency management officials in developing a hazard

                management program. The Plan also lays the groundwork for the coordination between FEMA

                and the State Hazard Mitigation Team (SHMT) which would coordinate review of hazard









               mitigation plans and facilitate specific projects (Hazard Mitigation Plan, 1994). The SHMT is

               overseen by the NJOEM, which is responsible for hazard mitigation efforts.

                      The Plan also suggests that a positive relationship between government and the private

               sector be developed as a means of persuading the public of the viability of hazard mitigation

               (Hazard Mitigation Plan, 1994). In addition, the use and activities of various nonprofit groups to

               influence the public could serve as valuable resources. Overall, the NJ State Hazard Mitigation

               Plan does provide for the means by which to carry out mitigation activities, but it is limited Uil

               available ftmds from both State and Federal levels. Therefore, the need for methods of getting

               these funds from the State and Federal government becomes an important task for NJOEM.



               V1. Formulating the State Hazard Mitigation Plan in Terms of the National

               Mitigation Strategy

                      It is important to identify programs or processes in New Jersey hazard mitigation that are

               demonstrative of the five national objectives associated with the National Mitigation Strategy. It
               is important to establish state objectives in natural hazard management and to take the national

               lead and develop existing programs even ftirther and create new programs that will work towards
               the mitigation goal. Emphasis will be placed on development of procedures to translate the

               National Strategy into useful strategies for state and local government, the private sector, and the

               public. Even greater emphasis should be placed on the provision of public safety and the
               mitigation strategies best suited for supporting that objective.

                      It is important for the state Coastal Hazard Management Plan to identify some of the

               high hazard risk areas associated with the New Jersey shoreline and to educate the public of their

               existence. The need to know of these areas and the dangers that they possess is vital to thg

               safety of the public and to the success of this new plan. The new plan needs to bring about a

               ch ange in the public's attitude toward the shoreline by stressing the issue of safety, to provide

               incentives to vacate hazardous areas, and to also provide disincentives for staying in these

               hazardous shoreline areas.






                                                               20






                                                                                                      DRAFI'- July
                                                                                               Part III - Approaches

                       New Jersey is in the position to utilize existing HMP mitigation strategies to easily

               incorporate the State's mitigation efforts into FEMA's new initiatives. NJ's 1994 HMP

               recommendations could be embodied in FEMA's five initiatives in the following manner:



               ï¿½ Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
                       -A coordinated governmental program of dune creation, restoration, maintenance and
                       expansion for emergency recovery and long-term protection should be developed.
                       -NJDEP should develop beach/dune topographic mapping that reflects post-storm
                       conditions and submit these maps to FEMA for use in Flood Insurance Administration
                       reviews.
                       -The National Weather Service should explore alternate methods for obtaining further
                       offshore data in the voids left by removing the Large Navigational Buoys (LNB).
                       -Remote sensors in the backbay areas should be installed to monitor bay side inundation.

               ï¿½ Applied Research and Technology Transfer
                       -NJDEP should develop a prioritized list of coastal municipalities that require revised
                       wave height analyses based on FEMA's current sand dune evaluation mapping criteria or
                       flood insurance map revisions.
                       - An analysis of appropriate long-term and short-term strategies for enhancing public
                       safety should be conducted.
                       - Coastal dune development assistance should be provided and standards developed for
                       protection levels available with specific dune dimensions.
                       -FEMA should revise the emergency work eligibility criteria for beaches with repetitive
                       damage to include local adoption of beach and dune system management . ordinances in
                       conformity with the Aug. 20, 1990 edition of the NJ Rules on Coastal Zone Management.
                       -FEMA should require that the State have an acquisition plan as a condition for future
                       disaster assistance after coastal storms.
                       -A study should be conducted on the South Cape May Meadows area to assess the
                       erosion problem and examine alternatives to continued emergency dune management.
                       -Atlantic City should develop a comprehensive plan utilizing floodproofing, relocation,
                       zoning and setback measures in the north end of Atlantic City
                       -State regulations requiring permits for installation and/or repair of retaining walls should
                       be implemented for waterfront bulkheads and related construction.
                         Setback regulations should be developed that are directed toward the establishment of
                       variable width buffers and setbacks that can shift in high rate erosion zones.
                       -NJOEM should develop standardized policies and procedures to regulate the collection
                       and disposal of debris and to implement a disaster debris management plan.

                   Public Awareness, Training, and Education




                                                               -2-1-









                     - When remote sensors are installed in the backbays, NWS should use these to accurately
                     forecast and warn communities of emergency situations.
                     -Municipalities should be encouraged to develop ordinances that require landlords or
                     rental properties within high hazard areas to provide flood hazard information at the time
                     of the rental.


                 Incentives and Resources
                     -Dune creation programs should be established that create procedures and ftiriding of
                     emergency recovery and long-term and short-term protection.
                     -Once a stable funding source is in place, the State should establish a policy for the
                     expenditure of these public funds. Objectives should be detennined and funds expended
                     in pursuit of those objectives. All projects should be in support of the Coastal Hazard
                     Management Plan.
                     -Legislation should be introduced to modify Public Assistance Cost-sharing (406) to 40%
                     federal and 60% non-federal and make the difference available under section 404 for
                     property acquisition.
                     -Municipalities should be advised by HUD and DCA of the availability of Community
                     Block Grant and Small City Block Grant Programs for emergency response and risk
                     reduction funding.

                 Leadership and Coordination
                     - Policies should be created that establish long-tenn objectives for management of the
                     coastal zone.
                     - Strategies that work towards achieving the short-term and the long term objectives
                     should be developed.
                     - The State should assist communities in achieving the steps required to be consistent
                     with the objectives.
                     -Communities should be assisted by the State to complete tasks/recommendations of the
                     HMP.
                     -The SHMT should act as a coordinator between community and FEMA and State NFIP.
                     -NJDEP should develop standards in accordance with NJ Rules on Coastal Zone
                     Management which would apply to all development within the coastal zone as defined by
                     CAFRA.
                     -A Hazard Mitigation Executive Order should be developed that establishes a permanent

              state hazard mitigation team.



              V11. MITIGATION AND SHORELINE MANAGEM[ENT OPTIONS

                     Through experience, it has been realized that many shore stabilization approaches that

              were once thought to be appropriate, are not so anymore. Past management practices attempted



                                                             22







                                                                                                     DRAFr - July
                                                                                              Part II[ - Approaches

               to maintain a static shoreline position, when in reality the coastal system is very dynamic,
               requiring special attention and consideration. These static approaches have proven to be futile in
               some cases and detrimental in others. An emerging approach is to manage the coastline in a

               manner that is more compatible with the natural system. That approach is mitigation.
                      As part of the 1996 Coastal Hazard Management Plan, hazard mitigation is one of several
               components. However it is one of the most important, and seeks to provide the best approach
               to minimize potential loss of life and damage. Natural hazard mitigation will become the
               concepts by which coastal planning is developed and the effects of major coastal hazards can be

               lessened. Mitigation offers flexible strategies that strive to work in conjunction with a dynamic

               coastal zone rather against it.

                      There are several different management approaches to hazard rr@tigation that can be

               incorporated into New Jersey coastal management efforts, they include: 1) structural approaches;

               2) non-structural approaches; and 3) land use management. An important component of most of
               these approaches is their ability to lessen or alleviate the effects of coastal natural hazards. Each

               option attempts to mitigate against the effects of hazards before they occur. Application of

               specific approaches should be conditioned by the characteristics of the site, by the regional
               setting, and by the appropriateness within the objectives for the site and region.



               VII.A. Background

                      Numerous reports (National Research Council, 1995; Platt et al. 1992) have pointed out

               that the stabilization of eroding shorelines has shifted from "hard" engineered approaches to

               those of "soft" management strategies. Federal policies had been found to be more reactive to

               natural disasters than proactive to temper the conditions that foster and acerbate the magnitude.

               of natural disasters. Federal policy had also only addressed short-term erosion, that resulting

               from storms, and paid little attention to long-term erosion resulting from things such as relative

               sea-level rise

                      States like North Carolina, have moved decisively regarding eroding shorelines by

               adopting a retreat strategy in the form of minimum setback requirements for shoreline



                                                               -2-3-









              construction (Platt et al., 1992). Conversely, New Jersey is found to be limited in the extent of

              state intervention in coastal development as a result of inadequate standards for rebuilding after a

              disaster. There are few successful examples of the application of setbacks to accommodate
              inland shift of the shore zone and the concept of retreat is still very much socially unacceptable.
              Because of the enormous value of shorefront property, it is suggested that arguments to prevent
              coastal development or to convert developed areas to natural environments hold little weight
              (Nordstrom, 1995) and not many want to listen. Although there do exist some encouraging signs

              in some states such as North Carolina, retreat as a general strategy in response to coastal erosion

              has not yet been widely applied.
                     There needs to be much in the way of education and public awareness of the dangers of
              living near the shoreline if the concept of retreat is to be considered seriously by the people of
              the New Jersey shoreline. Identification and knowledge of the high hazard areas can help to
              foster the education and public awareness objective for the risks associated with the shoreline and

              the need for some mitigation strategies can then be seriously considered.

                     In 1988, the National Research Council (NRC) established the Committee on Coastal

              Erosion Zone Management in response to a request from FEMA and the FIA. The committee
              was asked to provide advice on appropriate erosion management strategies, supporting data

              needs, and the methodologies with which to administer these strategies through the NFIP. In

              1990, the NRC published Managing Coastal Erosion, the result of a study which emphasized
              how the coastal population has increased and the increasing pressures that have resulted from it.

              The report also discussed the very complex physical process of coastal erosion, involving many

              natural and human induced factors, and it is these factors that are putting stress on the coastal

              zone. A followup publication on the use of beach nourishment, Beach Nourishment and

              Protection (1995), addressed the positives and negatives of the technique.

                     The goal of the NRC was to create a balance in approaches to erosion and provide
              opportunity for science and engineering to be used effectively in the planning and management
              processes (NRC, 1990, 1995). The books describe the causes, effects, and distribution of coastal
              erosion; management and approaches; the NFIP; various state programs; project design and



                                                             24







                                                                                                   DRAFT - July
                                                                                            Part III - Approaches

              life; environmental issues; and a discussion of future shoreline changes and recommendations for
              continued review and monitoring. Studies like these serve as aides in identifying the hazardous

              nature of being along the shoreline and provide a perspective on some mitigation strategies

              designed to reduce exposure to natural hazards.



              VILB. Shoreline Miti2ation Olptions

                      VILBA Structural Aimroach

                      A former emphasis on structures to confront shore erosion attempted to address the

              symptoms of sediment losses at the shoreline by erecting barriers to the penetration of storms

              and high waves. These hard structures were developed over decades and their remains are seen in

              many portions of the coast, in the water. There are structures. erected parallel to the coast which

              involve sand retention and stabilization features such as revetments, bulkheads, and seawalls.

              There are also structures erected perpendicular to the coast to intercept shoreline transport, such

              as groins and jetties.
                      Whereas coastal structures are an effective means of preventing inland penetration of

              storm waters, they do not work in conjunction with the natural system. Instead, they form a

              barrier and anything seaward of these structures are sacrificed. Thus, the beaches and coastal

              dunes, which symbolize and attract people to the coastal area are eventually destroyed.


              VILB.2. Non-Structural Apilroach

                      VII.B.2.a. Dune Maintenance and Nourishment



                      Dune maintenance and nourishment, and in cases where dunes do not exist, the artificial

              creation of dunes are a quasi-natural form of mitigation. Dunes serve as a protective buffer that

              exchanges sand with the beach to reduce rates of shoreline displacement, and act as a barrier to

              storm surges and high water levels. Therefore, coastal dunes have proven to be an acceptable

              means by which to hold off some of a storm's negative impacts. Dunes, artificial or natural, can




                                                             -2-5-









                be stabilized and enhanced through vegetation which is affordable and can be long-lasting. Dunes

                should be built or maintained to achieve certain dimensions on the beach profile.                      These

                dimensions relate to a pre-determined level of protection against storm surge and erosion. Wfile
                they are not the panacea for shoreline protection and provide limited buffering, dunes are
                certainly worth the effort as a mitigation option. Many New Jersey communities have already
                established dunes and have dune ordinances in place, while others are striving towards that goal.



                        VII.B.2.b. Beach Replenishment and Nourishment

                        Another non-structural approach is that of beach replenishment and nourishment. Beach
                nourishment involves replacing sand on an eroded beach, which requires transporting sand from
                an outside source, and plac    ing it in the sediment starved area. This process is time consuming
                and expensive. Beyond these factors, there are several other factors that need to be taken into

                consideration when undertaking a beach nourishment project, such as the rate of loss of beach in

                the region; the availability of beach material to be used; methods used for the process; and the
                suitability of the beach material. It is important that the beach fill material closely resemble that

                of the original beach. Further, beach nourishment is a short-term approach that does not prevent
                erosion, it only prolongs shoreline displacement. Thus, this approach requires continuing

                financial commitment, which can become an expensive proposition.                      Importantly, beach

                nourishment should be practiced regionally, and consistent with the objectives for the region.



                VILBA Land Use Manap-ement

                        VII.B.3.a. Zoning

                        Zoning is the primary means for local governments to regulate land use (e.g. residentiat,

                industrial, or commercial) as well as their integrity (bulk, height, setbacks) (Beatley, et al, 1994).

                Although, many coastal communities in New Jersey have adopted mitigation ordinances to

                protect their dunes and to regulate development, there are several other mitigation strategies that

                can be incorporated into their ordinances to further enhance public safety. Some of the mitigation




                                                                     26






                                                                                                   DRAFT - July
                                                                                            Part III - Approaches

               measures that could be embodied into zoning ordinances are the designation of high hazard zones,

               and the establishment of maximum density development.

                      If coastal communities were to clearly define and establish a high hazard zone, ordinances

               could be adopted to prohibit or to restrict development in these areas thereby reducing the
               public's exposure to hazards. High hazard zones should include, but not be limited to, areas of

               dune fields, frequent washover, rapid erosion, or island breaching. These zones should also

               include areas which, under normal conditions, would have dunes even if no dunes are present at

               the time (NJDEP, 1984). By delineating these high hazard areas, communities will also be able to
               create buffer areas and promote dune/beach interaction. Ideally, high hazard zones should be
               periodically re-delineated to account for the dynamic nature of the coastline and move inland as

               the coastline changes.

                      Once these high hazard areas have been delineated, certain structures may become non-

               conforrning uses in order to achieve mitigation objectives. Under the Municipal Land Use Law

               (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1), non-confon-ning uses can only be restored or repaired after a disaster if the

               damages are not substantial (NJDEP, 1984). Although communities may otherwise define

               "substantial damage", this is generally taken to be less than 50% loss (NJDEP, 1984). Therefore,
               non-conforming structures damaged by more than 50% should not be permitted to rebuild unless

               they comply with existing mitigation ordinances.

                      Another mitigation land-use strategy municipalities can use to reduce hazard risks is to
               impose maximum density development. By lowering the development density of a community,

               the amount of population and property exposed to coastal storm events will greatly be reduced;

               thereby averting potential damage and loss of life. Restricting density development will also

               ensure that during times of emergencies, the population will not exceed the caring capacity of the

               community (e.g. road capacities, water supply, medical assistance, sewerage, and land area).

                      In the 1984, Coastal Storm Hazard Mitigation Handbook, NJDEP recommends

               ordinances should be passed that prohibit construction of high-rises or multi-family structures in

               high hazard areas (NJDEP, 1984). By preventing the construction of these types of structures in
               high hazard areas, the amount of population exposed to coastal storms can be substantially



                                                             -2-7-









               reduced. An additional benefit to this type of zoning is that single-family dwellings will also be
               easier to relocate than larger structures as the shoreline erodes (NJDEP, 1984).

                       The application of zoning is the primary means for municipalities to regulate land-use
               development and should be used to enforce hazard mitigation strategies. By designating high
               hazard coastal areas, communities may limit the type of development (single-family verse multi-
               family dwellings), and the density of the area. Ordinances can also be used to create buffer areas
               and preserve beach/dune systems. Zoning is an effective means of reducing both human and

               structural exposure to coastal hazards.



                       VII.B.3.b. Construction Setbacks

                       Setback lines, an extension of zoning, is an extremely effective mitigation strategy. Either

               established by State or local regulations, setback lines prohibit any development other than water
               dependent uses or shore protection measures seaward of the line. In high hazard coastal areas,

               setback lines can also be used to create a buffer zone from the impacts of coastal storms. These

               buffer zones minimize the impacts of development on beach and dune systems, reduce people's
               exposure to the effects of coastal storms, and provide an area for natural dune migration.
                       Setback lines may be established on the basis of a combination of factors such as erosion

               rates, wave run-ups, V-zone boundaries, presence of dunes, vegetation line, shore protection

               structures, distance from shorelines, or elevation (NJDEP, 1984). One of the strictest setback

               lines is employed by North Carolina. For small-scale development in beachfront areas, all new

               development must be setback a distance of 30 times the average annual erosion rate for that

               particular stretch of coastline, measured from the first stable vegetation line (Platt, et al, 1992).

               Development must also be landward of the crest of the "primary dune", and the toe of the

               "frontal dune" (Platt, et al, 1992). Conversely, New Jersey, employs a "fixed" line to determine

               the State's coastal high hazard setback line. The NJ Administrative Code (NJAQ 7:7E-3.18(d)
               (1995) requires permanent structures must be setback from oceanfront shore protection
               structures, typically including bulkheads, revetments, and seawalls at a minimum of 25 feet. This




                                                                28






                                                                                                    DRAFT'- July
                                                                                             Part III - Approaches

               setback line is an important mitigation effort in preventing potential structural     damage from

               storm wave run-up and penetration.

                      Although the setback line reduces potential damage to buildings behind these shore

               protection structures, New Jersey has not adopted setback lines to protect the continuation of

               coastal dunes. Rather, most coastal communities rely on dune ordinances to establish a static

               dune protection area. In the 1984 assessment of dune ordinances, NJDEP found most dune

               ordinances only describe a fixed and static defined line, such as a building line or dune area that

               does not account for future beach erosion or dune migration landward past this fixed line. A

               consequence of this fixed line is that the ordinances do not prevent construction in natural dune

               areas which are landward of the building line (1984).

                      There exists the opportunity to create dune protection zones and setback lines in the

               State's emerging mitigation strategy. These zones should include a description of the dune's

               location and should be marked on a map with appropriate definitions provided. Landward of this

               zone, a setback line should be established that would provide adequate space for an extension of

               the natural beach/dune process. These setback lines will allow dunes to extend landward

               naturally as wind and overwash accumulates sand in this area.

                      In order for setback lines to be effective, the location of the line must be able to move as

               conditions change; therefore the boundaries of the zone must be periodically reviewed and

               adjusted to account for the natural shoreline changes over time. Ordinances should be revised to

               include language that provides for review and re-designation of dune zones and setback lines

               every 2 -10 years. These changes should be cited on topographic maps as well.

                      In summary, setback lines are an effective method of addressing coastal hazard reduction.

               By requiring development to locate certain distances landward from coastal dunes, a buffer aigg
               for mitigation is created. This area protects dunes as well as reduces the public's direct exposure

               to the effects of coastal storms. In order for dune protection zones or buffer areas to be most

               effective, dunes dynamics need to be accommodated. Thus, setback lines can not be a static fixed

               line. Language must be incorporated into ordinances that requires setback lines and dune areas be

               reviewed and re-delineated as the coastline changes.




                                                              -2-9-












                      VILB.3.e. Elevation of Structures

                      Elevating structures above estimated stonn water levels is another mitigation land use
              option. This option involves the elevation of structures above an established base flood
              elevation. By elevating structures in areas prone to flooding, this strategy will reduce the amount
              of structural damage associated with storm surge and flooding.
                      The elevation of structures is a damage reduction requirement for all communities
              participating in the NFIP.       The NFIP, administered by FEMA, requires participating
              communities to adopt regulations that will protect any new construction from inundation by a
              100-year flood. Base Flood Elevations (BFE's) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) have
              been developed by FEMA to assist communities depict the 100-year coastal flood plain and the
              elevations of the 100-year flood. The 100-year coastal floodplain is divided into the velocity

              zone (V-Zone) and A-Zone.

                      The V-Zone (velocity zone) is the portion of the 100-year floodplain that would be

              inundated by tidal surges with velocity wave action, and is the inland extent of a 3 foot breaking

              wave, where the still water depth during the 100-year flood decreases to less than 4 feet.

              Additionally, the FIRMs for coastal communities take into account BFE's that incorporate wave
              heights or wave run up associated with the 100-year flood. Although erosion is taken into

              consideration when determining V-Zones, It is often difficult to project erosion into the future

              because the erosion rate is non-linear, and it is also related to episodes of human manipulation of

              the sediment budget. The A-Zone is defiried as the portion of the 100-year floodplain not

              subject to wave action; however, residual forward momentum of the breaking waves is present in

              this zone (FEMA, 1986).                                                                          _:_7

                      Whereas these zones are adjacent to each other, construction requirements in the V-Zone

              and A-Zone differ from each other. In coastal V-Zones, any new construction and substantial

              improvements (greater than 50%) to existing buildings or structures must be elevated on anchored
              pilings or columns so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural members of the lowest

              floor (excluding the pilings and columns) is at or above the BFE (FEMA, 1986). A registered



                                                              30






                                                                                                             DRAFT - July
                                                                                                      Part III - Approaches

                professional engineer or architect must certify that the structure is securely fastened to anchored

                pilings or columns to withstand velocity waters and hurricane wave wash forces. In addition, it
                is required that no fill be used for structural support of new or substantially improved structures

                in V-Zones, and that sand dunes not be altered so as to increase the potential for flood damage.

                In coastal A-Zones, new construction or substantial improvements must be elevated so that the

                                                           lowest floor (including basements) is at or above the BFE.
                    "A"ZONE                                However, the use of fill raised foundations or piles and
                                             LOWEST
                                             HABITABLE
                                           YFLOOR          columns may be used to attain this elevation (FEMA,
                                             A OVE BIFE
                                                           1986). Figure J demonstrates the different construction

                                                           requirements associated with V- and A-zones.



                                                                   VII.B.3.d. B@ilding Codes

                                                                   Building codes provide a mechanism for the

                                                           construction of structures that can better withstand

                                                           hurricane force winds, waves, and surges; thereby reducing

                                                           the amount of structural damage from a coastal disaster.
                   'T" ZONE         74 -
                                                           By specifying the standards for the design, material, and

                            LOWEST                         construction practices for all new construction and
                        STRUCTURAL
                            MEMBER
                         ABOVE EIFE                        substantial improvements, model codes assure these

                                                           buildings will withstand storm waters and winds.

                                                                   Building codes can be mandated on either national,

                                                           state, or local levels, and can vary substantially in their

                                                           stringency. Whereas some standards have been produce4

                                                           on a national level, most model building codes are
                 Figure 1. Comparison of construction      developed on a regional basis to reflect the different
                 requirements in ' A-Zone' and 'V-Zone'    building environments and are incorporated at the state and
                 Source: FEMA (1986).
                                                           local levels (FEMA -209, 1991). Due to these different

                environmental factors, four major model code organizations have been created: Building Officials



                                                                   -3-1 -









                and Code Administrators (BOCA), the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI),

                the International Council of Building Officials (ICBO), and the Council of American Building

                Officials (CABO) take the form of either performance standards or construction specifications.

                New Jersey and most of eastern and midwestern States have adopted BOCA's model codes,

                which for the most part, are performance standards (NJDEP, 1984).



                       VII.B.3.d. I New Jersev and BOCA

                       In New Jersey, BOCA's National Building Code has been adopted as the Uniform

                Construction Code (N.J.S.A. 52:27D-1 et seq.) and must be used by all municipalities (NJDEP,

                1984). Under this legislation, municipalities are required to use the BOCA codes as their only

                construction standards and are not currently permitted to supplement them with more stringent

                standards. The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs administers and enforces these

                codes at the local level. Since the passage of the 1981 Shore Master Plan, the Uniform

                Construction Code has continued to be updated to reflect BOCA's new recommendations to

                fiirther reduce property damage from water-related damages.

                       In 1984, floodproofing codes were adopted for the first time nationally and have

                subsequently been revised (NJDEP, 1984). In the 1993 BOCA codes, Sectio         n 3107.0 refers to

                flood-resistant construction. The code applies to all buildings and structures under construction

                in areas prone to flooding and to all buildings undergoing alterations and repairs greater than 50%

                of the cost of the building (BOCA, 1993). Flood prone areas are determined using the I 00-year

                flood elevation from Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). This elevation is used as the base

                flood level. Any building or structure located within the flood prone area must have the lowest

                floor elevated at or above the base flood elevation. Structures located in the V-zone must alap

                have all structural members supporting the lowest floor located at or above the base flood

                elevation as well. The code also requires the structural systems of all buildings and structures in

                the flood prone areas be designed and anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or permanent lateral

                movement due to structural loads and stresses from flooding (BOCA, 1993).





                                                                32







                                                                                                   DRAFT - July
                                                                                            Part III - Approaches

                      VU.B.3.d.2 FENIA

                      One aspect of FEMA's mitigation efforts to reduce the public's risk from hazards is to

               promote the adoption of State and local loss reduction standards for all new construction, as well
               as for renovations and substantial improvements on older structures (FEMA-209, 1991). In their

               1991 brochure Reducing Losses of Life and Property through Model Codes (FEMA-209, 1991),

               FEMA emphasized the adoption of model codes as a primary tool for reducing the Nation's
               exposure to risks from natural and man-made hazards. FEMA has striven to incorporate
               floodproofing standards into the model building codes by working closely with the four national
               building code organizations. Due to FEMA's efforts, most of the organizations, including

               BOCA, have adopted a majority of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) building

               regulations (FEMA-209, 1991).
                       In order for communities to participate in FEMA's NFIP, communities must meet

               FEMA's minimum floodplain management standards. To aid communities meet these standards,

               FEMA has produced manuals and guidelines for the design and construction of buildings in areas

               subject to coastal storms and flooding. In 1986, FEMA distributed the Coastal Construction

               Manual, the second edition of these guidelines (FEMA-55, 1986). The manual is meant to assist

               builders, designers, communities, and home owners to comply with the performance standards of

               the National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA stresses that the manual is not intended to

               encourage construction in hazardous areas, but it is meant rather to ensure that construction in

               these areas are designed and erected in such a manner as to minimize potential wind and flood

               damage (FEMA-55, 1986). The Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA-55, 1986) developed and
               expanded guidelines on some of the following information: construction materials, foundations,
               fastenings, anchorings, bracing, shapes of houses, and wind and water loads. The second editiou

               (1986) made several changes including design guidance for breakaway wall enclosures,

               maintenance recommendations, and revisions of design procedures to reflect the American

               Society of Civil Engineers standards and other design information. Overall, the manual continued

               FEMA's direction to elevate, floodproof, and securely stabilize structures in high hazard coastal

               areas to avoid potential damage.



                                                             -3-3-












                      VII.B.3.d.3 Wind-load Reduction Standards


                      After a succession of severe coastal storms in the 1990s, emphasis is being placed on

               developing structures that will withstand hurricane force winds as well as flooding. Although

               wind standards had been adopted, Hurricane Andrew proved homes that were constructed to

               survive 120 mph winds speeds were not strong enough. One reason for this severe damage was
               the inadequate enforcement of existing codes (FEMA-261, 1995). A solution to this problem is
               the enforcement of prescriptive codes rather than the present performance codes (FEMA-209,

               199 1). While performance codes determine how a bw* Iding should perform, a prescriptive code
               indicates the design and construction of a building, such as the size and material of the structure.

               Prescriptive codes are beginning to be incorporated into the model building codes which provide

               specific building designs against wind damage.



                      VII.B.3.d.4. Leadership at the State Level

                      Whereas building codes are a proven method for reducing coastal community risks from

               coastal hazards, they need to be amended on a national and state level. For the most part, New

               Jersey coastal construction has withstood storm waves and winds fairly well due to the adoption

               of model codes. However, most of these structures have not been tested by hurricane force

               winds or water. Hurricane Andrew proved the adoption of performance standards was not

               enough, and that there is a need for better code enforcement on a national level. If New Jersey is

               to avoid a similar disaster as Florida, prescriptive codes should be incorporated into the Uniform

               Construction Code. Because coastal communities are unable to mandate new building codes,
               either BOCA or the state must develop prescriptive codes to enforce building compliance a6a

               enforcement. Alternatively, new legislation could be introduced which enables communities to

               supplement BOCA's codes with more stringent floodproofing controls. Lastly, as the insurance

               industry continues to develop wind-reduction incentive programs, grading systems, and other

               programs, New Jersey should support their efforts.




                                                               34







                                                                                                    DRAFI'- July
                                                                                              Part III - Approaches



                       VII.B.3.e Relocation

                       Relocation of existing structures from eroding and/or flood prone shorelines is another

               mitigation option the State and coastal communities can incorporate into their efforts. By
               relocating structures away from high-hazard areas, the potential for loss of life and structural
               damage is reduced. Relocation of smaller structures such as one- and two-story residential

               buildings is a more economically feasible and easier than the relocation of larger structures.

                       There are however, a number of institutional and economic impediments associated with

               relocation. If space is not available on the same lot for the structure to be moved, an alternative

               site must be acquired and prepared (NRC, 1990). Further, the problems continue if the

               alternative site lacks the view and/or direct access that are often the reasons for shoreline

               property ownership in the first place. If relocation is to become a realistic mitigation option,
               there need to be much in the way of education and public awareness of the dangers of living near

               the shoreline. The identification of high hazard areas can assist to foster the education and public

               awareness objective for the risks associated with the shoreline.



                       VILB.31 Acquisition

                       By acquiring high hazard lands, coastal communities and the state can reduce the loss of

               life, injuries to people, and damages to property caused by coastal storms. Acquisition of

               hazardous areas can also reduce the subsequent potential storm-related losses and vulnerability to

               coastal communities by creating the opportunity for natural coastal protection areas (buffer

               zones) and the development of coastal dunes. Beyond protecting the public's safety through an

               enhanced buffer zone, there are other associated benefits to coastal land acquisition such as an

               increase in public access, recreational opportunities, and conservation areas.

                       Acquisition of coastal land has several drawbacks, primarily the high cost of acquiring

               developed property and the loss of tax ratable to a community. However, if the acquired

               property were to provide public access for recreational opportunities, the loss of property tax
               revenue may be partially offset by an increase in revenue derived from beach fees and other



                                                               -3-5-









               resulting tax revenues (NJDEP, 1984). By acquiring high hazard property and reducing related
               storm damage, land acquisition programs could potentially save communities expenditures for
               post-storm clean-up and repairs.
                       High hazard coastal areas can be acquired either through voluntary means or
               condemnation for a fee simple or less-than-fee simple purchase. Acquisition of fee simple
               property is the most desirable type of acquisition because the ownership and property rights are
               transferred completely (Clayton, 1987). Less-than-fee simple purchases can also be a useful
               acquisition strategy. Examples of less-than-fee simple acquisitions include easements, leases,
               transfer of development rights, and donations. Whereas less-than-fee simple acquisitions cost
               less than fee simple purchases, they do not provide total ownership and control of the acquired

               land.

                       Land acquisition programs can either be implemented as pre- or post-storm programs.
               Pre-storm acquisitions are preferable to post-storm because the exposure of people to coastal
               hazards is minimized prior to any disaster (NJDEP, 1984). However, many property owners in
               high hazard areas are reluctant to move willingly until their property has been substantially

               damaged by a storm; thus if the community condemns the property, the cost of pre-storm
               acquisitions can become quite expensive. In the 1981 Shore Master Plan, post-storin acquisitions
               were preferred to pre-storm under the rationale that expected damages to structures during a

               disaster could reduce the cost of post-storm buyouts (NJDEP, 198 1). However this approach
               to post-storm acquisition has changed. In recent years, as an incentive to property owners, states
               with successful post-disaster acquisition programs have offered to purchase the property at the
               fair market value as it existed immediately prior to a disaster (McCain, 1996). New Jersey's own

               coastal Blue Acres program will also be using this concept to determine fair market value fig

               post-storm acquisition.



                       VU.B.31 I Coastal Blue Acres Program

                       In 1995, New Jersey established coastal Blue Acres, a $15 million bond program to assist
               coastal communities acquire, from willing sellers, coastal lands most susceptible to storm damage


                                                               36







                                                                                                     DRAFT - July
                                                                                              Part III - Approaches

                and erosion. With the establishment of Blue Acres, acquisition of high hazard property has
                become a more viable mitigation strategy for New Jersey. Beyond serving as buffer areas within

                the coastal communities, all Blue Acres parcels will be utilized as conservation and/or recreational

                sites as well. Administered by the NJDEP's Green Acres Office, Coastal Blue Acres is divided

                into two specific types of purchases: pre- and post-storm acquisitions. Post-storm acquisition
                involves the purchase of properties damaged by a storm and pre-storm acquisitions involve the
                planned acquisition of open, undeveloped, or largely-undeveloped parcels.
                       Under the post-storm program, $9 rnillion will be available for coastal communities to
                purchase lands in the coastal area that have been damaged for up to a 50 percent grant/50 percent
                loan basis (P.L. 1995, c.204). In order for storm-damaged property to qualify for the coastal
                Blue Acres program, the value of the improvements on the property must be reduced by at least
                50% due to damages caused by a storm or storm-related flooding (P.L. 1995, c. 204). In an

                effort to expedite post-storm buyouts and provide emergency relief, post-storm purchases only
                need the approval of the Legislature's Joint Budget Oversight Committee. Not only will a quick
                response provide the community with a unique opportunity to relocate citizens away from

                hazardous areas, it may also help victims stabilize their lives as quickly as possible (Patton,

                1993).

                       The remaining $6 million is available to coastal communities for up to a 75% grant/25%

                loan to assist them to acquire la nds in the coastal area that may be prone to incurring damage
                caused by storms or storm-related flooding, or that may buffer or protect other lands from such

                damage, or that support recreation and/or conservation, among other criteria (P.L. 1995, c.204).

                Because this type of purchase is planned rather than on an emergency basis, pre-storm
                acquisition projects must first be approved by the State Legislature.                             lax,
                       It is imperative that Blue Acres limited funds be used to purchase property that only

                promotes the expansion of public safety and natural coastal protection. Before any Blue Acres
                parcels are acquired, the Green Acres staff must determine an acquisition strategy for the Blue

                Acres program to ensure that the parcels purchased promote the Act's objectives. By creating
                and applying an acquisition plan, the Blue Acres program can red   uce the continuous community



                                                               -3-7-









                and state investments to repair and reconstruct structures in known highly exposed and
                vulnerable areas, as well as promote further coastal protection. In order to achieve a reduction of
                the public's exposure and associated long-term risks from coastal hazards, these highly hazardous
                coastal areas need to be characterized and identified. Once these areas have been designated, an
                advisory committee could assist the Green Acres staff identify potential specific parcels or areas.


                               VII.B.3.g Funding Sources in Support of Acquisition

                       As the coastal zone of New Jersey continues to be developed, property values will
                probably also continue to increase making acquisition an expensive option. Therefore, the
                amount of funding available for acquisition is a critical aspect of the program's success. Several
                Federal, State, and private sources of ftiriding exist which can be potential sources of additional
                funding. Utilization of these sources will increase the amount of money available under the Blue
                Acres program. The following section presents various sources of funding for New Jersey

                coastal acquisition:

                       VTI.B.3.g. 1. Green Acres Program:

                       New Jersey's successful Green Acres program provides funding for up to 50% of the
                total cost of an acquisition project (P.L. 1995, c.204). Whereas coastal Blue Acres pertains to
                just the coastal area, the Green Acres program grants funds for acquisition projects across the

                state, including coastal areas. Therefore, Green Acres is another potential funding source for
                coastal acquisition of hazardous areas. Under the program, land with unique natural features,

                water frontage or water resources, and/or other characteristics can be acquired for conservation

                and recreational purposes (P.L. 1995, c.204). Unlike the coastal Blue Acres program which only

                allocates funds to local governments, non-profit and private groups can qualify for matching
                funds up to 50% of the cost of the project under the Green Acres program (P.L. 1995, c.204).

                       VII.B.3.g.2. Non-profit Sector:

                       Because many nonprofit groups can qualify for matching Green Acres funds under the

                Green Acres program, several nonprofit groups 'in New Jersey have actively participated in
                acquisition projects. Besides grants from the Green Acres program, these groups also receive



                                                                38







                                                                                                    DRAFT - July
                                                                                              Part III - Approaches

                funding through personal and private land and monetary donations. Whereas most nonprofit
                groups acquire undeveloped lands to preserve and protect the biodiversity of unique habitats,
                some acquisitions are used to promote the expansion of public recreational areas as well. The

                Trust for Public Land, the Nature Conservancy, the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, and

                the New Jersey Audubon Society are a few examples of non-profit groups which have
                participated in land acquisition projects before and could be potential funding sources for the

                non-state share of coastal land acquisition projects.

                       VU.B.3.g.3. Private Sector:

                       Private corporate or personal donations could also be potential contributors to the non-
                state's share of a project's costs. Large companies or businesses benefiting from the shore area

                and related tourism could make tax-deductible contributions towards the coastal Blue Acres

                program. Private personal donations of land or money could also be a large source of funding for
                the non-state share of the Blue Acres program as well (NJDEP, 1984). For any property being
                acquired, encouragement for some donation as part of non-state funding.

                       VILB.3.g.4 NJ Shore Protection Fund:

                       P.L. 1992, c.148 created the "Shore Protection Fund7' to finance shore protection
                projects. The Shore Protection Fund receives $15 million annually from New Jersey's realty-

                transfer tax which is allocated towards shore protection projects. This fund could also be a

                potential funding source for coastal acquisition projects as a type of shore protection.

                       VILB.3.g.5 FENIA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program:

                       Under Section 406 of the 1993 Stafford Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
                may contribute up to 50% of the cost of funding for approved hazard mitigation measures. After

                a declared disaster, the State and local governments can apply through the Office of Ernergeney
                Management for funding for acquisition and relocation projects that result in the protection of

                public or private property (P.L. 100-707, 1993). Many states affected by the 1993 Mid-West
                flooding have used these funds to successfully relocate people and buildings, and acquire

                substantially-damaged property (FEMA, 1995). These Hazard Mitigation Grant funds can be a





                                                               _39-









                valuable source of funding for communities acquiring parcels through the Blue Acres post-

                disaster grant/loan program,

                        VILB.3.gg.6 HUD-Community Development Block Grants:

                        Each year, states and small cities (under 50,000 in population) may apply for
                Community Development Block Grants (Non-Entitlement) to assist them promote sound

                community development. Under the program, the grants may be used towards such projects as
                acquisition of real property, as long as no less than 70% of the funds are used for activities that
                benefit low- or moderate-income persons (HUD, 1996). The Department of Housing and Urban
                Development also offers loans to communities to findrice property acquisition under Section 108

                of the Community Development Block Grants. These loans are granted for projects that either
                principally benefit low- or moderate-income people, or assist community development needs
                that present a serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of the community, i.e. a

                coastal storm disaster (HUD, 1996). Either of these Community Development Block Grants

                could be a source of funding for the community's share of an acquisition project.

                        V11.13.3.g.7 Small Business Administration Disaster Loan:

                        Small Business Administration (SBA) Disaster Loans, granted after declared disasters, are

                administered by FEMA. The SBA offers low interest loans to repair or replace damaged

                property and personal belongings not covered by state, or local programs, or private insurance
                (FEMA, 1994). Under the SBA loan, homeowners are eligible for loans up to $200,000 for repair

                or replacement of real estate and it may be increased by up to 20% for mitigating devices for

                damaged real property. Businesses may receive up to 100% of the uninsured, SBA-verified

                disaster losses and that also be increased by up to 20% for mitigation devices for damaged real
                property. SBA loans could be used in conjunction with other disaster benefits an owner has

                received to lower the overall cost of post-disaster acquisition projects.

                        VILB.3.0 National Flood Mitigation Fund:

                        Replacing the National Flood Insurance Program's Upton-Jones Amendment, the

                National Flood Mitigation Fund was created in 1994. The fund will be used for mitigation
                activities such as relocation and acquisition of repetitive loss structures (P.L. 103-325, 1994).


                                                                40







                                                                                                    DRAFT - July
                                                                                             Part 111 - Approaches

               Funding for this program will come from surcharges on flood insurance policies. (Lesser, 1996
               Personal Communication). The National Flood Mitigation Fund can also be a source of coastal

               land acquisition funding.

                       VU.B.3.g.9 Individual and Family Grant Program:

                       Homeowners who do not qualify for a SBA loan           or do not have other financial or

               insurance resources can apply for an Individual and Family Grant Program. Individual Grant
               Program loans are another supplementary recovery loan available to assist individuals or families
               recover from a disaster. Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance

               Act (P.L. 93-288), an individual or family may receive a grant for up to $10,000 for disaster

               assistance; 75% of which the Federal government will fund. The remaining 25% of the cost is
               paid to the family or individual from funds made available by the State (FEMA-229(4), 1995).
               Similarly to SBA loans, Individual Grant Program loans could also be used in conjunction with

               other disaster benefits an owner receives to lower the overall cost of post-disaster acquisition

               projects.
                       In summary, acquisition of property in high hazard areas is a mitigation method for local

               and State governments to reduce the public's exposure to coastal hazards. With the inception of

               the State's Blue Acres program, acquisition of coastal property in high hazard areas has become a
               viable mitigation strategy for the State. Because only $15 million is available under Blue Acres,
               the number of acquisition projects are limited. Therefore, the State and coastal municipalities
               need to take advantage of existing complementary acquisition funding sources to expand the

               utilization of this mitigation strategy. Further, acquisition should be part of local or regional

               mitigation program to reduce loss or exposure.



               VILBA Other Mititzation Options

                       VII.B.4.a Insurance

                       Owners of property being financed that is situated in identified high hazardous areas must

               obtain flood insurance. Because almost the entire coastal. zone of New Jersey is considered a high
               hazard area, insurance premiums along the New Jersey shore have increased over the past few









               years saturating the market (Defendorf, 1996 Personal Communication). The rates for flood
               insurance premiums are mandated by the Federal government and when they increase, they do so

               across the board Thus, every property owner located in a state affected by flood insurance sees

               an increase. Special areas or particular zones, such as the coastal zone, are not targeted for a
               higher premium associated with higher risk.

                      VII.B.4.a. I Wind-load Reduction Incentives

                      An emerging trend in the realm of the insurance industry is the companies who are

               targeting coastal areas as sites of unacceptable losses with regards to homeowners insurance.

               Whereas FEMA has provided technical guidance on the NFIP wind requirements, it is the private

               insurance industry which has taken an aggressive approach on reducing wind-load related losses.

               Following Hurricane Andrew, which caused $16 million in private insurance losses, the insurance

               industry was unable to receive reinsurance and was forced to find ways to cut its losses (Moore,

               1996). In an attempt to avoid a similar disaster, the insurance industry has taken an aggressive

               approach on reducing wind-load related losses. The insurance industry has begun to implement

               building standard changes to include incentives for reducing wind-associated damages (FEMA-

               261, 1995). Prior to Hurricane Andrew, the insurance industry created Wind-Rite, a credit/debit

               system which allows for a more precise and accurate rating system (FEMA-261, 1995).

               Depending on what is being done to reduce wind hazards, premiums and/or deductibles will go up

               or down under the program (FEMA-261, 1995). Also prior to Hurricane Andrew, the insurance

               industry began implementing a program to improve construction practices by developing a code

               grading system for rating enforcement, the training of personnel, and the operations of building

               code development (FEMA-261. 1995).





                                                             42







                                                                                                     DRAFT - July
                                                                                               Part III - Approaches

                        The insurance industry has also begun promoting research for building wind resistant

                homes in the hope that it will create consumer demand for stronger, safer homes (Moore, 1996).

                In North Carolina, a pilot project named Blue Sky is in the process of developing houses that

                resist hurricane force winds as a result of this new direction (Ross, 1995). The aim of Blue Sky

                and other programs is to reduce property loss, create a safer community, and offset insurance

                costs and other tax benefits to homeowners.


                        VII.B.4.a.2 Mitigation Incentives


                        As part of their Mitigation efforts, FEMA has initiated the community rating system
                (CRS). The CRS seeks to reward communities with a rebate for additional activities they

                undertake, beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP, in which they practice good
                floodplain management and try to minimize flood damages. Participation in the CRS is voluntary
                and it is the responsibility of local governments to submit the documentation that shows
                implementation of the different creditable activities (Beatley, et al., 1994).      The insurance
                premiums are reduced for those property owners within these communities and, in turn, they
                receive a rebate on their insurance premiums.

                        There are four categories under the CRS programi with eighteen Mitigation activities, that

                the CRS will credit. The four categories are: public information; mapping and     regulation; flood
                damage reduction; and flood preparedness. A certain number of points are assigned for these

                activities depending on the extent to which the community has successfully achieved the CRS

                objectives (Table 1). The points accumulated from each individual measure are tallied together to

                determine the community's total points, whereby the premium reduction is calculated. Premium

                reductions range from 5% to 45% for property within SFHAs (Table II). There is a maximum

                5% reduction allowed for property that is outside of SFHAs because premiums are already low
                in these areas and because means by which credits are given are based on the zones assigned to

                the I 00-year flood level (Beatley, et al, 1994).





                                                                 4-3-









                      Although the CRS rating system was designed with good intentions, it is basically
               impossible to achieve the highest rating. Presently, in order for a community to receive a high
               CRS rating, they would basically have to remove everyone from the floodplain. As a result,
               communities that are credited with initiating many mitigation activities, such as Ocean City, are

               only a Class 8 Community (Defendorf, Personal Communication).












































                                                              44







                                                                                                       DRAFr - July
                                                                                                Part HI - Approaches

                           Table 1. Eighteen Mitigation Activities in the CRS Program

                ACTIVITY                                    MAXD4UM              AVERAGE            APPLICANTS

                                                              POINTS               POINTS


                300 Public Information

                 3 10 Elevation Certificates                      137                 73                   100

                 320 Map Determinations                           140                 140                  92

                 330 Outreach Projects                            175                 59                   53

                 340 Hazard Disclosure                            81                  39                   40

                 350 Flood Protection Library                     25                  20                   77

                 360 Flood Protection Assistance                  66                  51                   45

                400 Mapping and Regulatory

                 410 Additional Flood Data                        360                 60                   20

                 420 Open Space Preservation                      450                 115                  42

                 430 Higher Regulatory Standards                  785                 101                  59

                 440 Flood Data Maintenance                       120                 41                   41

                 450 Stormwater Management                        380                 121                  37

                500 Flood Damage Reduction

                 510  Repetitive Loss Projects                    441                 41                   11

                 520  Acquisition and Relocation                 1,600                97                   13

                 530  Retrofitting                               1,400                23                   3

                 540  Drainage System Maintenance                 330                 226                  82

                600   Flood Preparedness

                 610  Flood Warning Program                       200                 173                  5

                 620 Safety                                       900                 0                    0

                 630 Dam Safety                                   120                 64                   45
               F
                ACTM'n




                300 Pu    bl


                           v.
                 310 Ele
















































                                                                                           Source: Beatley, eta[. (1994)





                                                                 -4-5-






                                           Eighteen CRS Mitigation Factors

                  COMMUNITY TOTAL                      CLASS             SFHA CREDIT             NON-SFHA

                          POINTS                                                 (%)            CREDIT

                            4,500                           1                    45                    5

                         4,000 - 4,499                      2                    40                    5

                         3,500 - 3,999                      3                    35                    5

                         3,000 - 3,499                      4                    30                    5

                         2,500 - 2,999                      5                    25                    5

                         2,000 - 2,499                      6                    20                    5

                         1,500 - 1,999                      7                    15                    5

                         1,000 - 1,499                      8                    10                    5

                          500-999                           9                    5                     5

                           0-499                            to                   0                     0

                                                                                       Source: Beatley, et al. (1994)



                      VILBAb Post-Storm Recovery Plans

                      Post-storm recovery plans should be developed to serve as an aide in reducing future
              losses in high hazard areas. These plans can provide guidelines for a more idealized distribution

              of land-uses, avoiding development in problem areas and utilizing the environmental, economic,

              and cultural resources of the area. In most of the coastal zone, the post-storm period is the only
              opportunity to alter existing land-uses and to move toward a long-term objective. The post-

              storm recovery period would be an appropriate time to apply incentives toward reducing
              vulnerability and increasing public access (Psuty, 1993). Although the concept is to develop
              post-storm plans, these plans, in turn, evolve into mitigation approaches for the next storm affd

              future conditions.

                      The development of post-storm plans should incorporate the interests of the several

              levels of government. Objectives may largely coincide among these levels but there may be

              differences as well. Some of the communities mav have moved forward in the creation of storm

              hazard mitigation plans and post-storm recovery plans. Others may have only general concepts


                                                              46







                                                                                                      DRAFr - July
                                                                                               Part III - Approaches

                and very little strategy developed in the pursuit of the long-term objectives. However, there will
                be a need to blend the local plans into a regional plan which is in concert with the long-term
                objectives of coastal management for the state. Leadership will be required at the higher levels to
                enunciate the long-term objectives and to establish the direction for coastal management. Local
                authorities must be informed about the regional goals and how they are components of the larger

                system. Throughout the process, there should be assistance in the form of information about the
                long-term objectives, about coastal dynamics, about the application of mitigation strategies, about
                the opportunities for financial support in the pre-storm period and in the recovery period. An
                important product of the recovery plan would be the identification of measures which
                communities may use to conform to the long-term objectives and to quality for federal and/or

                state funds. This information can serve as a tool for state and local decision-makers when faced

                with incorporating mitigation strategies into the post-storm recovery and subsequent hazard

                reduction plans.


                V111. Future of Mitigation in Shoreline Management
                       As a result of FEMA's new direction and other institutional and economic policies,

                subsidies that once existed for coastal development and rebuilding will no longer be readily

                available. With this absence comes the need to utilize coastal planning to redirect and to
                redevelop the coastal zone. Instead of the previous focus, which has always been on "defending
                the line," the new focus will be directed towards "coastal hazard management." More emphasis
                will be placed on public safety issues and protecting the public and managing public funds rather

                than on protecting property. Furthermore, the goal will be to integrate coastal natural haza d

                mitigation at the several jurisdictional levels with the availability of public funds. That is, as ft

                redevelopment or recovery plans are in phase with the regional and state long-term objectives,
                there will be more opportunity to qualify for public funds in support of local programs.

                Conversely, those local activities that do not contribute toward the long-term objectives to
                enhance public safety and to reduce damage will not qualify for public funds beyond the

                community level. In theory, the coastal hazard mitigation plans should originate at the local level;



                                                                -4-7-









                they are blended at the county level to achieve a regional approach; and they are integrated into a
                statewide Coastal Hazard Mitigation Plan for funding and implementation. State leadership is a
                key ingredient in establishing the long-term objectives and in securing the public funds to drive

                the regional mitigation programs.












































                                                              48










                                                                                                       DRAFTJuly
                                                                                        Part W-Recommendations
                                                    RECOMMENDATIONS


                ORGANIZATION - State Coordination


                       New Jerseyans are challenged by the population demands placed on shoreline use. High
                population density continually jeopardizes the natural processes governing stability and change
                along our shoreline. One of the traditional approaches for managing shoreline systems in
                developed settings is to implement strategies on a municipality by municipality basis. This is
                certainly true in New Jersey where home rule has fostered a piecemeal approach to shoreline
                management. That is, New Jersey's plan is comprised of a multitude of statutes. Although these
                statutes seek to achieve the same end--informed management of the coastal zone--no overarching
                administrative framework exists to ensure that the coastal zone is managed on a consistent basis
                in a fair and reasonable manner.


                       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.
                How can we assist coastal managers and train students to manage this natural resource in a
                manner that fosters access, mitigates the risk associated with coastal hazards, and preserves the
                ecological integrity of shoreline systems? An integrated, coordinated, management approach has
                been used by other coastal states to address shoreline processes which occur at regional scales
                (e.g., currents, sand transport) and are more effectively managed at these scales. Partnerships
                that transcend juridical boundaries are desirable and necessary to achieve this aim.

                       The adoption of a comprehensive planning approach--such as that used in North
                Carolina--arguably would provide the necessary oversight as well as a mechanism for consistent
                (integrated) coastal policy thereby ensuring safe and effective coastal management. The review of
                this approach suggests that a regional or holistic approach to coastal management is the most
                effective and reasonable method by which to manage our coast. Accordingly, as discussed
                previously, a regional approach provides the best means through which an integrated system of
                coastal haza d mitigation can be implemented.

                       An adn-dnistrative framework should be developed under a simple, yet effective
                comprehensive planning statute. A single state entity should be charged with the sole
                responsibility of managing the New Jersey coast. Consolidation of coastal hazard management
                efforts within state government is supported by a recent review of the state's coastal
                management program conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
                Presently, coastal management efforts are divided among several divisions at NJDEP (Office of
                Environmental Planning, Bureau of Coastal Engineering, and the coastal permit group housed in
                the Office of Land Use Regulation) and the Office of Emergency Management and Preparedness
                of the N.J. State Police. This somewhat diverse organization on coastal management in New

                                                            -PartIV-1










                                                                                                        DRAFTJuly
                                                                                          Part W-Recommendations
               Jersey needs to be reorganized to manage and service a new regional approach that functions in
               close cooperation with county and local planning entities. Reorganization should include the
               establishment of well-defined objectives that are coordinated through a single office.
               Establishment of one state entity for this responsibility could reside at what is now known as the
               Office of Environmental Planning. This office currently manages federal flMds allocated for
               coastal zone management and possesses a great deal of expertise on coastal issues. In addition to
               shifting regulatory and mitigation responsibilities to this office, a liaison must be established with
               the State Planning Office to ensure that coastal management policy is incorporated into the N.J.
               Development and Redevelopment planning effort. Consolidation will simplify and enhance
               coordination of state management efforts.

                       This state "division" should establish the existing citizen advisory committees as a means
               to receive local input on coastal issues relevant to their respective regions. The state coastal
               "division" would interact with the citizen advisory committees to integrate local and regional
               coastal policy goals with coastal hazard management strategies. That is, the state would
               acknowledge that although coastal policy is formulated at the state level (based on input from
               each region), each region has its own authority to address its particular coastal issues at a local
               level within the statutory framework. In other words, the program must ensure that there is a
               partnership between state and local governments regarding development of coastal management
               policies, and there are opportunities to blend the objectives of the several authorities and there
               will opportunities to the contrary. However, when the accomplishment of the goals is in
               agreement at the several levels, that is the opportunity to use public funds in support of the
               regional program. Individual local programs will be supported only at the local level.

                       The "division" should also manage a coastal lands acquisition program (such as the
               recently enacted Blue Acres program) which sets guidelines for land acquisition and establishes a
               44priority" list for land acquisition. This is particularly important since many opportunities for
               acquisition occur after a storm event. Finally, the "division" should establish and maintain a
               public information/outreach program pertaining to coastal issues. Specific elements of such a
               program are presented in the Education Section of Part 2.

                       Within this general framework, coastal hazard mitigation measures could be implemented
               effectively on both state and local levels. The "division" could implement a comprehensive
               coastal planning requirement, particularly with regard to the dune/beach systems and coastal
               erosion on both a state and local level. Also, a statewide coastal land acquisition program would
               ensure that high hazard erosion areas, which are in mitigation programs at the local and regional
               level, are placed on a state "priority" list. Further, as in Delaware, a program could be
               implemented which provides incentives (such as density bonuses and credits) which encourage
               coastal landowners and developers to refrain from building in high hazard areas. Simply put, a
               single state entity would seek to ensure that coastal development and the preservation of coastal

                                                             -PartIV-2










                                                                                                       DRAFTJuly
                                                                                         Part IV-Recommendations
                areas are conducted in the public interest on the basis of a strong public participation process.

                      . For this approach to be effective, there must be a clearly defined role in the decision-
                making process for citizens and government to solve problems together. Responsibilities should
                include citizen oversight and monitoring, meetings called jointly by government and citizen
                groups, and funding to hire technical consultants and/or to implement projects.

                Policy

                Long-term shoreline management objectives need to be developed by the State to provide
                leadership in directing the management of the shore.
                ï¿½   Long-term mitigation strategies are needed that support the State's coastal management
                    objectives into the year 2050 . What should the coast look like in 2050? Will there be dunes,
                    a beach, the same land-use, the same densities, or same infrastructure?
                ï¿½   When determining the objectives, the State should incorporate sea-level rise and a modified
                    coastal zone in planning for the future. Mitigation objectives and strategies should be
                    developed on anticipated water levels, erosion, and the degree of protection sought from
                    coastal storms.
                ï¿½   The objectives and strategies should to be created in a manner that recognizes that the coastal
                    system is dynamic in nature and the means to interact with a changing system should also be
                    dynamic.
                ï¿½   These objectives should incorporate back bay systems and other low-lying shoreline areas
                    into regional mitigation efforts aimed at storms, flooding, and sea-level rise.

                Once the State's objectives are developed, coastal management strategies need to be
                created to achieve these objectives.
                ï¿½   In keeping with Federal and State mitigation strategies, these strategies should incorporate
                    goals that enhance public safety and reduce the public'.s exposure to coastal hazards.
                ï¿½   There is a need to continuously review and assess these strategies and actions taken to ensure
                    that they are fulfilling the State's long-term objectives as the coastal zone changes.
                ï¿½   The State should incorporate the various mitigaticin approaches and techniques as described
                    in the New Jersey Hazard Mitigation Plan. As this plan is periodicaRy updated, the State
                    should continue to incorporate their recommendations into the State's long-term management
                    strategies.
                ï¿½   The State should assist communities in meeting the mitigation goals of the NJHMP and the

                  A shoreline future should be projected for planning and
                management purposes. 2050 is selected because of its similarity
                to the USACOE 50-year maitenance agreement. Further, all of the
                recommendations are approproiate considerations when reviewing the
                50-year time frame.
                                                            -PartIV-3









                                                                                                        DRAFTJuly
                                                                                         Part IV-Recommendations
                    FENIA National Mitigation Strategey. Not only will this reduce the public's risks, but these
                    efforts may increase community CRS ratings.


               The State should apply strategies on a regional basis not at the local jurisdictional level.
               ï¿½    Regional planning efforts should be conducted in a manner that recognizes the natural
                    processes operating in a reach, and that promote informed land-use decisions in the coastal
                    zone that are based on hazard mitigation strategies.
               ï¿½    The State management plan should be created so that it incorportes local input to address the
                    effects of regional coastal processes.
               ï¿½    Regional planning should be used to establish appropriate land uses, land-use densities, and
                    long term strategies.
               ï¿½    State and Federal funding should be linked to the consistency of local programs with state and
                    regional objectives. Those programs that agree with the State's objectives of reduction of risk
                    and improvement of public safety should be given funding priority.
               ï¿½    If local communities develop programs that are not consistent with the State's objectives,
                    then the community should carry these out at their own expense.
               ï¿½    Public ftiriding for projects that support development in high hazard areas should be
                    eliminated.


               High hazard coastal areas need to be identified. These areas need to become a focus of
               State and community mitigation efforts.
               *    The characteristics of high hazard areas should be identified and applied to the coastal region.
                    Identification of high hazard areas can assist to foster the education and public awareness
                    objective of the risks at the shoreline.
               0    These areas'should be prioritized according to the degree of risk to the public, and should be
                    periodically updated or revised, particularly following storm events.
               *    Of especial importance are the low-lying areas that are flooded from minor storm occurrences,
                    including the bay side communities.
               0    Coastal Blue Acres funding should be used to purchase property in identified high haza d
                    areas. If a potential Blue Acres parcel complements the objectives of the State's mitigation
                    strategies, then the State's portion of the purchase should be increased.
               0    The proportionality of Blue Acres funding for purchases in high hazard areas should be a
                    50/50 cost share ratio if the purchase meets the local mitigation objectives. However, the
                    ratio of State share should increase to 100% where regional/State mitigation objectives are also
                    achieved.


               Approaches


               The State and coastal communities should continue to utilize coastal dunes as a natural


                                                            -PartIV-w4









                                                                                                    DRAFTJuly
                                                                                       Part IV-Recommendations
               barrier to coastal storms and associated risks.
               ï¿½   A coordinated governmental program of dune creation, restoration, maintenance, and
                   expansion for emergency recovery and long-term protection should be developed.
               ï¿½   Communities need to determine their dune preservation objectives. Once established,
                   municipalities should adopt and enforce effective dune protection ordinances and maintenance
                   programs to promote dune creation and enhancement.
               ï¿½   The boundaries of dune areas should be scientifically defined and flexible, which acknowledge
                   the migration of dunes by natural forces. These boundaries need to be periodically reviewed,
                   particularly after a storm event.
               ï¿½   Where possible, communities should establish a formal dune buffer area inland of the built
                   dune to permit the inland extension of the dune processes.
               ï¿½   The other attributes of coastal dunes, such as their sand storage abilities, should be
                   incorporated into municipal dune preservation efforts.

               Develop a Coastal Hazard Management Plan that provides a blueprint to guide long-term
               management of the shoreline and that targets high hazard areas for post-disaster land
               use change. Planning efforts should focus on mitigation of the risk to public safety and
               not on the defense of property. This plan can provide guidelines for a more idealized
               distribution of land-uses, to avoid development in high hazard areas and utilize the
               environmental, economic, and cultural resources of the area. These plans should:
               0   Enact building moratoria as an element of post-disaster plans until an accurate assessment of
                   damages has been completed in the context of long-term mitigation objectives and alternatives.
               0   Incorporate post-disaster land-use changes in identified high hazard areas such as prohibiting
                   development, acquiring damaged property, and relocating people in these areas.
               *   Develop community based emergency evacuation plans. The plans should include an
                   analysis of existing evacuation routes, alternative routes or the construction of new routes,
                   population density, and availability of support facilities.
               *   Construction of new infrastructure should be relocated away from erosion and flood prone
                   areas. Funding for disaster repairs should be used to relocate infrastructure, such as roads and
                   sanitary sewer lines away from-hazardous areas.
               0   Enact zoning ordinances to limit the type of development in high hazard areas, to create
                   buffer areas, and to preserve duneibeach systems.
               *   Identify property in high hazard areas for post-storm acquisition with coastal Blue Acres
                   funding. The State and coastal municipalities should to take advantage of existing
                   complementary acquisition funding sources to expand the use of this mitigation strategy.
               0   Develop prescriptive codes to enforce building compliance or introduce enabling legislation to
                   supplement BOCA codes with more stringent flood proofing controls.

               Establish setback lines that create a buffer area between coastal dunes and development.

                                                           -PartIV-5









                                                                                                DRAFTJuly
                                                                                   Part IV-Recommendations
               This area protects dunes and reduces the public's direct exposure to the effects of coastal
               storms.
                  Setback lines can not be a static fixed line if dune duffer areas are to be effective. Language
                  should be incorporated into ordinances that require setback lines and buffer zones, and should
                  be revised periodically, particularly after a storm event.

               Structural solutions can be conditionally employed as a barrier to the effects of coastal
               storms, but they may cause loss of beach and dunes. They should be used in conjunction
               with regional approaches to shoreline management.

               Beach nourishment can be used to reconstruct the protective and recreational features of
               beaches; however it is an expensive short-term strategy that should be part of a regional
               shoreline management program. Beach nourishment projects should not be conducted in
               high erosion rate areas.

               Mitigation approaches should be developed specifically for low-lying areas, such as the
               back bay systems, which are affected by even minor stormwater elevations.

               Out Reach/Education


               Foster informed planning and community response to coastal hazards through awareness
               and education.
               0  Maintain the Citizen Advisory Committees as a vehicle to raise awareness of shore
                  protection issues, to solicit local input on the development of regional strategies to mitigation,
                  to implement the State's mitigation objectives, and to facilitate dissemination of information.
               0  Maintain and continue to update the CHMP bibliography, homepage, and background
                  documents on coastal hazard issues.
                  Establish and coordinate volunteer mitigation and monitoring efforts.
               ï¿½  Provide local resource managers with easy access to information on management strategies
                  that mitigate the effects of severe storms and coastal erosion.
               ï¿½  Foster awareness of coastal hazards through the formal and informal education communities.
               0  Develop programs to raise public awareness on their vulnerability to coastal hazard, the 1@_k
                  potential costs associated with these hazards, and the means to mitigate these hazards.

               Scientific and Technical Assistance

               Any and all public expenditure of funds in the coastal zone should be monitored t   hrough
               an evaluation program.
                  This will assure that the technical methods used are credible, replicable, cost-effective, and

                                                        -PartIV-6









                                                                                                 DRAFTJuly
                                                                                   Part IV-Recommendations
                  grounded in scientific research.
               ï¿½  The continuation and results of applied research on coastal system dynamics and associated
                  natural hazards should be transferred to coastal decision makers. This information will
                  expand their knowledge and enable them to make sound decisions and anticipate the outcomes
                  of future decisions.
               ï¿½  An evaluation of projects supported by public funds will also justify the continuation of
                  successful programs.

               The State should encourage the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data on
               shoreline change and coastal processes.
               ï¿½  Regular monitoring will enable the maintenance of a consistent, uniform data base for future
                  decision making.
               ï¿½  The monitoring of the shoreline through dune/beach profiling should continue to assess the
                  natural dynamics of the coastal zone.
               ï¿½  The current effort to investigate dune response to varying magnitude storms should be
                  periodically updated to reflect any changes.
               ï¿½  The installation of self recording instruments to gather data on waves and currents is also
                  essential to sound decision making.
               ï¿½  There is a need to investigate and understand coastal processes better, as well as the effects of
                  sea-level rise on these processes. Areas that should be investigated include sediment
                  dynamics, dune and beach dynamics.
               ï¿½  Studies should be developed on the dynamics of estuaries and wetland loss.

               Programs should to be established which collect appropriate data to measure the
               economic importance of the coastal economy on a local, regional, and State basis.
               ï¿½  Future economic studies should be based on accepted research approaches and designs, and
                  use appropriate statistical data, otherwise results will be of little use and will only cloud the
                  issue of the relative economic importance of coastal tourism vis a vis investment in shore
                  protection.
               ï¿½  Economic techniques, such as Cost-Benefit Analysis, need to be explored to determine their
                  relative importance and usefulness in policy-oriented studies of shore protection.
               0  A pertinent database should be established and maintained to manage the appropriate data
                  necessary for specific economic approaches. This will allow for a more accurate economic
                  assessment of management approaches and improve regional management strategies.
               ï¿½  Studies should be conducted on a seasonal basis that would isolate and identify economic
                  activity dependent on the coastal zone and/or on specific beach nourishment projects. Such
                  studies may require data on economic activity and tourism expenditures that are location
                  specific, in terms of the relative proximity to the shoreline, and to beach nourishment
                  projects.

                                                        -PartIV-7










                                                                                                  DRAFTJuly
                                                                                     Part IV-Recommendations
                  Analysis should incorporate the elements and effects of uncertainty in benefit and cost
                  estimates, as well as the element of risk associated with project failure and outcome. Future
                  economic analyses could also incorporate other elements regarded as policy tradeoffs, such as
                  level of development, level of erosion, and storm occurrences.




















































                                                         -PartIV-8







                                                                        NO" COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                        3 6668 14111785 5