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



                            5CIENTIFIC LITERATURE REVIEW



                             THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
                                BARRIER ISLAND BREACHING
                                WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS ON
                    THE SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK








                                        Report Prepared for:

                                         State of New York
                                        Department of State
                     Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization
                                      162 Washington Avenue
                                   Albany, New York 12231-0001





                                        Report Prepared by:

                                      Cashin Associates, P.C.
                                 1200 Veterans Memorial Highway
                                   Hauppauge, New York 11788








                                       SEPTEMBER 1993










                                    SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE REVIEW

                                    THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
                                       BARRIER ISLAND BREACHING
                                       WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS ON
                              THE SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK

                                            SEPTEMBER 1993



                                          Table of Contents



           Section Title                                                           Page No.

           1.       INTRODUCTION                                                       I

              1.1   Authorization                                                      1

              1.2   Project Scope                                                      1

              1.3   Background                                                         1


           2.       METHODOLOGY                                                        3

              2.1   Information  Sources Used                                          3

              2.2   Limitations  of Existing Information                               4

              2.3   Contents of  the Remaining Sections of the Report                  5


           3.       PHYSICAL IMPACTS                                                   6

              3.1   Tidal Flushing                                                     6

              3.2   Salinity                                                           7

              3.3   Water Temperature                                                  8

              3.4   Tidal Range and Storm Surge                                        8

              3.5   Tidal Flow Characteristics of Adjacent Bays and Inlets            10


           4.       IMPACTS ON COASTAL PROCESSES                                      12

              4.1   Storm Waves and Mainland Erosion                                  12

              4.2   Littoral Drift                                                    13









                                      Table of Contents (continued)

            Section Title                                                              Page No.

               4.3   Barrier Island Migration                                             17

               4.4   Breach Stability Considerations                                      18


            5.       BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS                                                   21

               5.1   Shellfish                                                            21

                  A. Impacts Related to   Tidal Flushing                                  21
                  B. Salinity-Related Impacts                                             23
                  C. Water Temperature-Related Impacts                                    26
                  D. Impacts Related to Coastal Processes                                 26

               5.2   Finfish                                                              27

               5.3   Other Animals                                                        28

                  A. Benthic Marine Animals                                               28
                  B. Shore Birds                                                          -29
                  C. Waterfowl                                                            29

               5.4   Wetlands and Seagrasses                                              30


            6.       MISCELLANEOUS IMPACTS                                                32

               6.1   Navigation                                                           32

               6.2   Economic Factors                                                     33



            7.       SUMMARY OF IMPACTS                                                   35

               7.1   Beneficial Impacts                                                   35

               7.2   Adverse Impacts                                                      36

               7.3   Neutral, Variab7e or Inadequately Defined Impacts                    36


            8.       REFERENCES                                                           38


            Appendix A -     List of Persons Contacted during this Investigation

            Appendix B -     List of Libraries and Document Depositories Used during this
                            Investigation















           1. INTRODUCTION


              1.1  Authorization

                   On January 15, 1993 Governor Cuomo established a task force to recommend
                   long-term and short-term approaches to cope with continuing and potential
                   storm damage to the Long Island, Westchester, and New York City coasts.
                   This report was authorized by the State of New York Department of State
                   (project COO0154) to provide information to the task force that will be
                   considered in making their recommendation to the Governor.


               1.2 Project Scope

                   This report summarizes the findings of a review of existing scientific
                   literature concerning the environmental impacts of new inlet breaches to
                   the barrier island, bays and mainland shoreline of barrier island
                   systems.   The specific area of interest is the south shore of Long
                   Island, New York. However, pertinent studies of similar geomorphic areas
                   along the remainder of the U.S. East Coast, the Gulf Coast, and locations
                   outside the U.S. were also considered.


               1.3 Background

                   Long Island's south shore barrier beach has had a history of new inlet
                   formation caused by storms and subsequent closure due to natural
                   sedimentary processes (Taney, 1961; Caldwell, 1972; U.S. Army Corps of
                   Engineers, 1983; Leatherman and Allen, 1985). Based on this history, it
                   appears likely that storms will open new inlets   in the future. In fact,
                   at the time of this report an inlet breach into   Moriches Bay formed by a
                   December 1992 northeast storm was in the process  of undergoing artificial
                   closure by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.        The formation of that
                   particular inlet has been popularly attributed    to the effect of erosion
                   control works (i.e., the Westhampton Beach groin field) on the down-drift
                   segment of the shoreline, which resulted in substantial erosion and loss
                   of barrier width at the precise location of the breach.    Improper coastal
                   engineering also contributed to the 1980 breach just east of Moriches
                   Inlet. In this latter case, the dredging of a bay-side channel directed
                   ebb currents against the back side of the barrier, causing severe erosion
                   and narrowing at the location that was subsequently breached (Kassner and
                   Black, 1982b). Based on these two recent events, it appears that man's
                   efforts to control the natural system on the south shore of Long Island
                   may actually have increased the chances for barrier island breaching in
                   this area.







           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.c.                       Page 1












                   Prior to 1953, when Moriches Inlet was reopened after two years of
                   closure, a period of inlet stability on Long Island's south shore barrier
                   extended back to the opening of Shinnecock Inlet during the 1938
                   hurricane and the opening of Moriches Inlet in 1931. As discussed above,
                   two new inlets formed recently (i.e., in 1980 and 1992), both of which
                   breached the barrier fronting Moriches Bay.       In addition, a breach
                   occurred at Westhampton Beach in early March    1962 due to extreme high
                   water levels caused by an intense northeast storm (U.S. Army Corps of
                   Engineers, 1963).    In all three cases, the breaches were closed by
                   artificial means (with the closure of the most recent breach currently in
                   progress). However, the decisions to seal the  new inlets were made under
                   emergency conditions, with an incomplete knowledge of the environmental
                   impacts and/or benefits associated with barrier breaching. This report
                   is intended to provide the initial scientific information base for
                   decisions regarding the fate of future inlet breaches.







































           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.C.                     Page 2














           2. METHODOLOGY


               2.1 Information Sources Used

                   This investigation entailed a review of the existing scientific
                   literature concerning the environmental       impacts of barrier island
                   breaches.   Information sources that were reviewed ranged from articles
                   published in scientific journals and technical texts, to unpublished
                   manuscripts and miscellaneous other "grey literature".      Experts in the
                   field of inlet research were contacted to identify sources of scientific
                   literature; however, oral comments regarding the subject were not
                   included in this report.

                   The references cited in this study were obtained from a variety of
                   sources.   Many of the documents were drawn from Cashin Associates'
                   technical library, particularly those that are specific to the south
                   shore of Long Island.     The New York State Department of State also
                   provided several important documents.

                   In an effort to identify additional documents that may be pertinent to
                   the issue at hand, Cashin Associates contacted a number of scientists and
                   agency representatives whose work has included inlet studies. The names
                   of additional contacts were obtained from individuals on the initial list
                   of contacts, thereby establishing a network for identifying as many
                   useful sources as possible. However, due the time constraints of this
                   project, it is l.ikely that some knowledgeable persons have been
                   inadvertently overlooked. A number of other persons were identified as
                   potential sources of pertinent information, but could not be reached, or
                   were contacted but were unable to provide assistance due to other
                   priorities. In particular, several university professors indicated that
                   their time through the beginning of September would of necessity be
                   devoted to course work for the new school year. Appendix A contains a
                   list of persons who were contacted during the course of this
                   investigation.

                   In addition, the resources of a number of libraries and document
                   depositories were utilized during this investigation. These are listed
                   in Appendix B.













           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.C.                      Page 3












               2.2 Limitations of Existing Infor7nation

                   Tidal inlets have been an important topic of scientific research since
                   the 1800s. However, most studies have focused on the physical properties
                   of   specific   inlets,   particularly with     respect   to   geomorphology,
                   hydrodynamics,    sedimentary   processes,    inlet   stability   and    other
                   engineering aspects (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976; Weisher and
                   Fields, 1985). It became evident shortly after the commencement of this
                   literature search that     relatively few studies have been undertaken
                   specifically to address the impacts that inlets have on environmental
                   conditions. Furthermore, it appears that studies of this type which have
                   been undertaken are less likely to be reported in scientific journals,
                   and are relegated in large part to the "grey literature" (which includes
                   such documents as masters theses, Ph.D. dissertations, unpublished
                   manuscripts, government agency reports, and reports prepared by private
                   consultants).    In comparison to journal articles, grey literature is
                   generally more difficult to obtain.       Additionally, grey literature is
                   typically not subject to the same level of scientific scrutiny and,
                   therefore, can be more likely to contain suspect methodologies. However,
                   the non-journal documents that are cited in this report are the product
                   of organizations (e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, leading
                   universities, and research institutions) that are acknowledged as having
                   reliable scientific expertise. Any document that presented findings or
                   conclusions that did not appear to be based on valid scientific
                   methodology or that appeared to be conjectural was not included in this
                   report.

                   Although some studies regarding the environmental impacts of barrier
                   breaching and inlet formation have been undertaken on Long Island's south
                   shore, these documents are not plentiful. In accordance with the scope
                   of work outlined by the Department of State, therefore, this literature
                   search included investigations of other areas that are geomorphically
                   similar to Long Island, including various locations along the Eastern
                   Seaboard (particularly Massachusetts, Virginia, and South Carolina), the
                   Gulf Coast (particularly Florida and Texas), and Canada. However, it is
                   important to note that the effects of a barrier breach are very site-
                   specific, and observations that have been made in one geographic area are
                   not necessarily directly applicable to another area, due to differences
                   in tidal regime, freshwater input, long-shore sedimentary transport
                   processes, and other factors. In fact, the environmental consequences of
                   the formation of a new inlet through the Long Island barrier beach could
                   vary dramatically, depending on the exact location of the breach.
                   Therefore, caution should be used in interpreting the information
                   contained in this report in terms of its applicability to a specific
                   future inlet breach that may occur on Long Island's south shore.





            September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.c.                        Page 4












               2.3 Contents of the Remaining Sections of the Report

                   The remainder of this report is a summary of pertinent information that
                   was uncovered during the course     of the investigation.      The physical
                   impacts of inlet breaching (i.e.,   in terms of tidal flushing, salinity,
                   temperature, tidal range and storm surge, and the tidal flow of adjacent
                   bays) are discussed in Section 3. The effects that new inlets have on
                   coastal processes (i.e., in terms of storm wave energy and erosion,
                   littoral drift, and barrier island migration), as well as the effect that
                   breach stability has on the magnitude of the potential impact, are
                   discussed in Section 4.        The impacts to the bay ecosystem, with
                   particular reference to shellfish, finfish, and wetlands, are discussed
                   in Section 5.      Miscellaneous impacts,     including those related to
                   navigation and economic factors, are discussed in Section 6.        Finally,
                   Section 7 presents a synopsis of the identified impacts, segregated into
                   categories on the basis of whether the impact is beneficial, detrimental,
                   neutral or variable.










































            September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.C.                       Page 5















           3. PHYSICAL IMPACTS

              3.1  TidO F7ushing

                   Tidal inlets serve as conduits for the exchange of water between the bay
                   and the ocean.  The creation of a new inlet through the barrier beach
                   will generally increase the rate at which bay water, which receives
                   runoff and associated contaminants from the adjacent uplands, is flushed
                   with clean ocean water.    However, this cause and effect relationship
                   between inlet creation and improved tidal exchange is not always as
                   pronounced as is generally assumed.    For example, in 1972 the Corpus
                   Christi Water Exchange Pass was artificially cut through the Mustang
                   Island barrier to Corpus Christi Bay, Texas. As the name suggests, one
                   of the primary objectives of the Pass was to increase water exchange
                   between the bay and the Gulf. Although the Pass significantly influences
                   bay water in its immediate vicinity, the effect on water exchange in
                   Corpus Christi Bay as a whole appears to have been to be small (Behrens,
                   et.al., 1977).

                   There is ample direct evidence that the opening and closing of Moriches
                   Inlet during this century has affected the rate of tidal flushing and the
                   accumulation of contaminants in Moriches Bay. The closure of the inlet
                   in 1951 caused a significant increase in pollutant levels in Moriches
                   Bay, but did not cause a noteworthy change in pollution conditions in
                   Great South Bay, despite the substantial amount of tidal exchange between
                   the two bays. The eastern part of Bellport Bay, which is situated at the
                   easternmost end of Great South Bay, in closest proximity to Moriches Bay,
                   did exhibit some increase in pollutant levels. The lack of a significant
                   effect on water quality in the main body of Great South Bay may have been
                   the result of complex near-shore hydraulics in Moriches Bay (Redfield,
                   1952), and points out that blanket generalizations of the water quality
                   benefits of new inlets should be applied cautiously.

                   The reopening of Moriches Inlet in 1953 increased the volume of tidal
                   exchange between Moriches Bay and the ocean, and reduced pollution
                   concentrations in the bay; phosphorus levels, in particular, experienced
                   a dramatic decrease.     In addition, the reopened inlet resulted in
                   increased dissolved oxygen and decreased dissolved organic matter in both
                   Moriches Bay and Bellport Bay (Bumpus, et.al., 1954).

                   The effect of a breach into a bay already served by an inlet would
                   generally be beneficial in terms of tidal flushing and the water quality
                   of the bay.   A modeling study undertaken by Pritchard and DiLorenzo
                   (1985) indicates that the tidal range in Moriches Bay would increase
                   substantially under various scenarios of inlet breaching (see further
                   discussion in Section 3.4).    Those results show that a breach would
                   increase the volume of ocean water introduced into the bay during each




           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.C.                     Page 6












                    flood tide and would increase the volume of bay water flushed to the
                    ocean during each ebb tide. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude
                    that the breach configurations included in the analysis would result in
                    improved average water quality in the bay. The effect that a Moriches
                    Bay breach would have on the adjacent bays was not included in the
                    investigation.

                    An important aspect of the water quality of Long's Island's south shore
                    bay system is coliform bacteria concentration, which is utilized to
                    classify these waters in terms of shellfish harvesting status. Coliform
                    bacteria are introduced into the bays almost entirely through stormwater
                    runoff (LIRPB, 1978). Even though no scientific literature was uncovered
                    during this investigation which specifically addresses the effect that
                    inlets have on coliform concentrations, it is reasonable to conclude that
                    inlet-induced enhancement of tidal flushing in the bay could improve
                    bacterial   water   quality   in   shellfish   growing   areas,   based    on
                    investigations of other contaminants derived from runoff (e.g., those
                    studies discussed above with respect to the opening and closing of
                    Moriches Inlet).


               3.2  SaUnity

                    The salinity in 'the barrier lagoons on Long Island's south shore is
                    controlled primarily by two factors: the rate of freshwater input from
                    streams and groundwater flow, and the rate of tidal exchange with the
                    ocean.  In general, the opening of a new inlet through the barrier beach
                    will increase the salinity of the bay due to the resulting increase in
                    tidal exchange with the saltier waters of the ocean. During the period
                    between 1952 and 1977, variations in the volume of water exchanged
                    between Great South Bay and the ocean was the major influence operating
                    on the annual average salinity in the bay (Hollman and Thatcher, 1979).

                    The magnitude of the change in salinity caused by an inlet breach will
                    depend on numerous factors, but will typically be most pronounced for
                    bays that previously lacked a direct connection to the ocean.             For
                    example, the opening of an inlet into Moriches Bay in March 1931 resulted
                    in a large increase in salinity, which diminished as the inlet tended to
                    close over the next decade (Glancy, 1956). The opening of Moriches Inlet
                    also had a profound impact on salinity in Shinnecock Bay and eastern
                    Great South Bay (including Bellport Bay), which are both hydraulically
                    connected to Moriches Bay.     The reopening of Moriches Inlet in 1953,
                    following a period of closure that commenced in 1951, caused the salinity
                    at the western end of Moriches Bay to more than double within six weeks
                    (Turner 1983).   This mirrors the salinity changes in Bellport Bay that
                    were observed before and after the 1931 opening of Moriches Inlet (Woods
                    Hole Oceanographic Institute, 1951).



            September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.c.                        Page 7












                   Bay salinity will also increase in the event of a breach into an
                   embayment that is already directly connected to the ocean.            The
                   occurrence of a breach to the immediate east of Moriches Inlet in 1980
                   caused salinity in the western portion of Moriches Bay to increase by an
                   estimated 4 to 5 parts per thousand (ppt), thereby creating a more
                   uniform salinity distribution throughout the entire bay (Turner 1983).
                   Furthermore, even the modification of the configuration of an existing
                   inlet which results in enhanced tidal flow will tend to cause increased
                   salinity in the bay. A modeling study of Great South Bay indicated that
                   the dredging of Fire Island Inlet in 1970 increased bay-wide average
                   salinity by almost one ppt, under mean tide conditions and median
                   freshwater inflow (Pritchard and Gomez-Reyes, 1986).


              3.3  Water Temperature

                   Since salinity is the chemical parameter that generally has the greatest
                   effect on marine organisms, studies reviewed during this investigation
                   concerning biological impacts have emphasized the effect that increased
                   tidal mixing has on bay salinity.     Temperature is also an' important
                   physical parameter of the bay water that can be altered by barrier
                   breaching, but has generally been overlooked by these studies.

                   The increased tidal exchange resulting from the formation of a new inlet
                   would cause the temperature of the bay to approach the temperature of the
                   ocean, similar to the effect on salinity that is described in Section
                   3.2. Because the bay is warmer than the ocean during most of the year
                   (except in the coldest parts of the winter, when portions of the bay can
                   freeze), a breach would cause a decrease in the average temperature of
                   the bay (Turner, 1983). Thus, the increased tidal exchange between the
                   bay and ocean caused by an inlet breach would have a moderating effect on
                   seasonal extremes in bay temperature by keeping these waters cooler in
                   the summer and slightly warmer in the winter; however, scientific data
                   were not available to directly confirm this effect.


              3.4  Tidal Range and Storm Surge

                   The tidal range in a back-barrier bay is largely controlled by the
                   efficiency with which the inlet(s) transfer the tidal wave into the bay.
                   In general, the friction that water encounters as it flows through a
                   tidal inlet prevents the bay from filling to the level of the ocean
                   during high tide and prevents the bay from emptying completely at low
                   tide. Therefore, the tidal range in the bay is less than the ocean tidal
                   range. The opening of a new inlet through the barrier island would allow
                   ocean water to more completely fill the bay during the flood tide, and to
                   drain more completely from the bay to the ocean during the ebb tide.



           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.c.                     Page 8












                     For example, during the period that Moriches Inlet was closed between
                     1951 and 1953, the tidal range in Moriches Bay was only ï¿½0.2 foot
                     (Czerniak, 1976). The present tidal range in Moriches Bay (i.e., prior
                     to the formation of the inlet breach in December 1992) has been reported
                     to be ï¿½0.7 feet (Turner, 1983).        The tidal range in Chatham Harbor was
                     increased by approximately one foot as a result of the 1987 breaching of
                     the Nauset Beach barrier on Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Giese, 1988).

                     A hydrodynamic modeling study undertaken by Pritchard and DiLorenzo
                     (1985) assesses the impact to Moriches Bay of various barrier breach
                     configurations, including the 1980 breach, in terms of increased flooding
                     risk for bay-shore properties due to elevated tidal ranges and increased
                     transmittance of coastal storm surges into the bay.                This study is
                     important in that it appears to be the only published simulation of the
                     hydrographic response of Long Island's south shore bay system to inlet
                     breaching. Therefore, some details of the model (e.g., inputs, outputs,
                     gridding, assumptions, etc.) are given here.

                     The Pri tchard-Di Lorenzo (1985) study uti I i zed the two-dimensi onal , f i ni te
                     element "CAFE" model, which was originally developed at the Massachusetts
                     Institute of Technology, and was subsequently adapted to such water
                     bodies as the Moriches-Great South Bay system by the Marine Sciences
                     Research Center (MSRC) of the State University of New York at Stony
                     Brook.    The model simulates both current velocities and sea surface
                     elevations throughout the interior of the bay based on data inputs
                     consisting of bay geometry (configured as a triangular grid network), and
                     sea surface elevations at the ocean side of the inlet.          Geometrical data
                     were obtained from navigation charts, aerial photographs, and bathymetric
                     surveys undertaken in 1981 by MSRC. Tidal elevation and phase data were
                     obtained from National Ocean Survey (NOS) tide gauge records.                 Model
                     simulations of storm surge elevations utilized NOS storm surge data.
                     Frictional coefficients were estimated through a series of model
                     calibration runs, with values assigned to achieve optimal agreement
                     between observed and numerically computed sea levels and currents.

                     The Pritchard-Di Lorenzo study (1985) utilized a "nesting" procedure to
                     reduce the number of grid elements and, thereby, reduce computing costs.
                     This technique, which is commonly used in hydrographic models, involves
                     the computation of average boundary conditions during initial computer
                     runs.    In this case, the initial grid included all of Great South and
                     Moriches Bays, while only Moriches Bay and Moriches Inlet were included
                     in later runs.     The underlying assumption in this nesting procedure is
                     that slight errors in the boundary conditions will not adversely affect
                     simulated results at locations far from the boundary.

                     The results of the Pritchard-DiLorenzo (1985) modeling analysis revealed
                     that the degree to which a storm surge is transmitted to the bay under



            September 1993                      Cashin Associates, P.C.                            Page 9












                   normal conditions (i.e., a single, more or less centrally located inlet)
                   depends upon the duration of the storm surge.   Short period surges, like
                   those associated with hurricanes, are attenuated by the existing inlet
                   and are not completely transmitted to the bay, which causes the surge
                   height to be higher at the inlet than in the further reaches of the bay.
                   Long period surges, like those caused by typical winter storms, pass more
                   completely through the existing inlet, resulting in surge heights
                   throughout the bay that are closer in magnitude to the surge height at
                   the inlet.    Thus, the formation of a new inlet would not have a
                   significant effect on bay-side floodwater heights for long-period storm
                   events (Pritchard and DiLorenzo, 1985).

                   Tanski and Bokuniewicz (1989) concluded, on the basis of the results of
                   the Pritchard-Di Lorenzo (1985) modeling study, that a large breach
                   through the Moriches Bay barrier would increase normal tidal ranges in
                   Moriches Bay by about 60 percent, and that short-period (hurricane)
                   floodwater elevations would increase by 35 to 40 percent. The Pritchard-
                   DiLorenzo (1985) model also indicates that a breach-induced increase in
                   tidal range and floodwater height would not be symmetrically distributed
                   throughout the bay. A breach to the east of Moriches Inlet would cause
                   a slightly greater increase in tidal range and floodwater height in the
                   eastern basin of Moriches Bay than in the western basin. Conversely, a
                   breach to the west of Moriches Inlet would cause tidal range and
                   floodwater height to increase to a greater degree in the western basin.

                   The Pritchard-Di Lorenzo (1985) model shows that a relatively large
                   fraction of the combined tidal wave and storm surge are transmitted to
                   Moriches Bay under existing conditions.     This is because water depth
                   through the inlet is greater during a storm surge, which results in a
                   lesser degree of attenuation of the surge/tidal wave passing into the bay
                   (compared to the shallower water conditions in the inlet during normal
                   tidal cycles).


              3.5  Tidal Flow Characteristics of Adjacent Bays and Inlets

                   The bays on the south shore of Long Island are hydraulically connected by
                   canals and narrows, as is common along most of the barrier island system
                   of the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf Coast. Consequently, events that affect
                   the tidal flow in one bay are likely to affect the tidal characteristics
                   of the adjacent bays and inlets.    For example, the opening of a stable
                   inlet directly into Shinnecock Bay during the 1938 hurricane decreased
                   tidal flow through Moriches Inlet, causing the latter inlet to lose
                   scouring power.   As a result, Moriches Inlet shoaled until it eventually
                   closed in 1951 (Kassner and Black, 1981). The literature also indicates
                   that during the period after Moriches Inlet reopened in 1953, the tidal
                   fl,ow through Shinnecock Inlet decreased (Czerniak, 1976).      A similar



           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.C.                      Page 10












                   inter-relationship between hydraulically connected inlets has been noted
                   for the barrier island chain along the west-central coast of Florida
                   (Davis and Gibeaut, 1990). On the basis of these investigations, it is
                   reasonable to conclude that the rate of shoaling has accelerated in
                   Moriches Inlet (and in Shinnecock Inlet, to a lesser degree) during the
                   time that the 1992 Moriches Bay breach has been open.

                   The stability of Shinnecock Inlet is affected by the tidal flow that
                   passes through Moriches Inlet and, to a lesser extent, through Fire
                   Island Inlet. Some scientists (Kassner and Black, 1983) have concluded
                   that if nature were allowed to take its course, Shinnecock Inlet would
                   probably close because of its tendency to shoal under normal tidal
                   conditions (i.e., without considering the influence of the presently
                   active breach to Moriches Bay).     Any further decrease in tidal flow
                   through Shinnecock Inlet resulting from a breach that captures some of
                   the bay's tidal prism would accelerate that trend.     Thus, the barrier
                   beach/bay system as a whole tends to self-regulate, in the sense that an
                   increase in tidal exchange in one portion of the bay (as would occur in
                   the event of an inlet breach) will cause a compensating decrease in tidal
                   exchange in another portion of the bay.

                   The opening and closing of inlets can also affect the progression of the
                   tidal wave through hydraulically connected bays.       For example, the
                   closing of Moriches Inlet in 1953 caused a delay in the timing of high
                   tide in Moriches Bay because the tidal wave had to travel from Fire
                   Island Inlet (Redfield, 1952). In addition, during periods when Moriches
                   Bay has been closed, the net tidal flow through Narrow Bay is from
                   Moriches Bay to Great South Bay. When Moriches Inlet is open, the net
                   tidal flow reverses (Kassner and Black, 1982b).

                   The presence of inlets in a stretch of barrier beach minimizes the
                   possibility of new inlet formation because the existing inlets allow
                   storm surge waters to drain more quickly to the ocean. Lacking inlets,
                   the surge waters escaping from the bay would have a greater chance of
                   cutting a breach through a narrow section of the barrier (Leatherman,
                   1989).
















           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.c.                     Page 11















           4. IMPACTS ON COASTAL PROCESSES



              4.1  Storm Waves and Mainland Erosion

                   There does not appear to have been any scientific investigations to
                   determine the degree to which an inlet breach on Long Island's south
                   shore would cause increased erosion of the mainland shoreline due to
                   enhanced transmittance of storm waves into the bay.       There have been
                   anecdotal reports that the December 1992 breach of the Westhampton Beach
                   barrier has resulted in higher wave energy at the Remsenburg shoreline
                   across the bay. However, no valid scientific reports on this topic were
                   uncovered during this literature search.

                   A detailed study (Giese, et.al., 1989a and b; Fessenden and Scott, 1989;
                   Giese, 1988; Wood, 1991) has been undertaken with respect to an inlet
                   breach that occurred in January 1987 on the Nauset Beach barrier,
                   opposite the Town of Chatham, Massachusetts (which is situated at the
                   elbow of Cape Cod). One of the main impacts associated with that event
                   was the significantly increased erosion of the Chatham shoreline segment
                   opposite the breach, due to increased wave energy in the bay.          This
                   erosion problem was particularly acute during late 1987 and early 1988,
                   but subsequently has abated (probably due to shoaling related to the
                   formation of the flood tidal delta - see Section 4.2 for a description of
                   flood tidal delta formation, and refer to the final paragraph in this
                   section for further discussion regarding the effect that water depth has
                   on wave erosion).

                   In all, the breach-induced erosion at Chatham greatly damaged ten
                   shorefront properties, caused one house to fall into the harbor, and
                   forced the removal of several others. A revetment that was placed along
                   the affected shoreline actually resulted in accelerated erosion at some
                   locations.  It is predicted that over the next two to three decades there
                   will be extreme shoreline changes, both erosional and depositional, along
                   the inner shoreline of Chatham Harbor. After an initial period of north-
                   south oscillation over short distances, the locus of maximum erosion will
                   shift inexorably southward as the inlet migrates in that direction
                   (Giese, et.al., 1989a and b).

                   It should be noted that the situation in Chatham differs in a number of
                   important ways from conditions that prevail on the south shore of Long
                   Island. Most importantly, the strength of the waves passing through the
                   Nauset breach were not substantially attenuated in Chatham Harbor due to
                   the position  of the inlet channel, which brought deep waters in close
                   proximity to the mainland shoreline, and due to the short distance
                   (ï¿½3,000 feet) between the inlet and the mainland (Giese, et.al., 1989a
                   and b) .  In  contrast, Long Island's south shore bays are relatively



           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.c.                      Page 12












                   shallow and wide throughout, except in the proximity of the existing
                   inlet channels.    Moriches Bay is approximately three to six feet in
                   average depth and at least a mile wide at the location of the 1992
                   breach.

                   A steeply-sloped shoreline allows ocean swell to arrive without       being
                   slowed or changed until the last possible minute, resulting in        waves
                   (especially during winter storms) that abruptly rise up and           break
                   violently on the shoreline (Bascom, 1964).       It is these short,   steep
                   waves that are primarily responsible for shoreline erosion (U.S. Army
                   Corps of Engineers, 1977).   In contrast, the shallow, gentle slope   which
                   is typical along the south shore of Long Island's mainland tends to
                   reduce wave energy before it reaches the shore (Bascom, 1964). A study
                   conducted along the Virginia coast concluded that the role of bottom
                   friction in the dissipation of wave energy over the shelf was a critical
                   factor in the difference in erosion rates along various segments of the
                   study area (Kimball and Wright, 1989). The offshore zone at the northern
                   end of the study area is characterized by shallower water and lower
                   gradients, which cause the frictional dissipation of waves to be greater
                   there compared to the deeper and more steeply sloped southern end of the
                   study area.   Since the waves at the southern end retain more of their
                   energy as they approach the shore, shoreline recession is generally more
                   rapid in that region.


               4.2 Littoral Drift

                   On average, ocean waves strike the shoreline at an angle rather than
                   head-on. As a result, the incident wave energy has a distinct component
                   that is directed parallel to the shore, which results in the continuous
                   transport of sand along the shoreline in a process that is commonly
                   called littoral (or long-shore) drift. Along Long Island's ocean shore,
                   the long-term net direction of littoral drift is generally from east to
                   west.

                   The available evidence indicates that inlets serve as large sinks of sand
                   in the nearshore system, which deprive down-drift beaches of the sediment
                   supply that was delivered prior to the formation of the inlet (Taney,
                   1961; McCormick, 1973; LIRPB, 1989; Tanski and Bokuniewicz, 1989; Davis
                   and 6ibeaut, 1990).    Sediment in the littoral drift system is carried
                   into the bay by the flood tide, where this material accumulates into the
                   flood tidal delta. Some sediment is moved back through the inlet during
                   the ebb tide and is deposited offshore in the ebb tidal delta.           The
                   growth rate of these deltas is a measure of the amount of sand being
                   trapped from the littoral drift by the inlet (Leatherman, 1982).





           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.c.                      Page 13














                    It was estimated that the flood tidal delta of Moriches Inlet accumulated
                    150,000 cubic yards of sand annually (Suffolk County Planning Department,
                    1982).   Leatherman and Allen (1985) estimate that the total volume of
                    sand present in the ebb and flood tidal deltas of Moriches Inlet is
                    approximately one to two million cubic yards. During the eleven months
                    that the 1980 Moriches breach was open, approximately 750,000 cubic yards
                    of material were accumulated in the breach's flood tidal delta (and an
                    unknown quantity in the ebb tidal delta), all of which was diverted from
                    the long-shore sediment transport system (Research Planning Institute,
                    Inc., 1985). An investigation of the ebb tidal delta of Moriches Inlet
                    indicates that sediment starts to accumulate as soon as the breach occurs
                    (Caldwell, 1972).

                    With the exception of the erosion that has been caused by the Westhampton
                    Beach groin field, the loss of sand supply to down-drift beaches due to
                    the effect of inlets is the most serious erosion problem on the south
                    shore of Long Island (LIRPB, 1989).        Because of the accumulation of
                    littoral sand in an inlet's tidal deltas, this relationship between the
                    existence of an inlet and consequent down-drift shoreline erosion holds
                    true even if the sand-trapping effects of inlet jetties are ignored. For
                    example, during the ï¿½100 years prior to the opening of Shinnecock Inlet,
                    the stretch of barrier between the present-day locations of Shinnecock
                    and Moriches Inlet experienced an average shoreline erosion rate of
                    approximately 1.2 feet/year.    In contrast, the average shoreline erosion
                    rate for this segment of barrier increased to approximately 8.2 feet/year
                    during the period between the opening of Shinnecock Inlet in 1938 and the
                    construction of the jetties in the mid-1950s (Tanski and Bokuniewicz,
                    1989). Black (1987) noted that during the first two years following the
                    breaching of Shinnecock Inlet,         the down-drift shoreline receded
                    approximately 100 feet.      Anders and Reed (1989) noted that average
                    shoreline change along the South Carolina coast is consistently most
                    variable and maximum shoreline change is greatest adjacent to inlets,
                    with the zone of influence extending several kilometers up-drift and
                    down-drift from the inlet.

                    The volume of littoral sediment removed into the tidal deltas of an inlet
                    is a function of the tidal prism that passes through the inlet (Davis and
                    Gibeaut, 1990). Inlets having relatively large tidal prisms (i.e., tide-
                    dominated inlets) tend to have larger tidal deltas due to the greater
                    force and volume of the tidal flow deflecting sand into offshore waters
                    during the ebb tide and into the bay during the flood tide.       Inlets with
                    smaller tidal prisms (i.e., wave-dominated inlets) tend to have smaller
                    deltas, especially on the ocean side of the barrier where waves rework
                    and reintroduce the sand into the littoral drift system.

                    As discussed more fully in Section 4.4, an inlet will eventually close if
                    the littoral sand supply exceeds the inlet's hydraulic capabilities,



            September 1993                    Cashin Associates, P.c.                       Page 14











                   unless artificial measures (e.g., dredging) are taken to maintain the
                   inlet. When an inlet becomes sealed, the sediment that has accumulated
                   in the ebb tidal delta is reworked by waves and re-introduced into the
                   nearshore sediment transport system (Greenwood and Keay, 1979), while the
                   sediments *in the flood tidal delta typically remain in place and serve as
                   the substrate on which back-barrier wetlands and eelgrass beds are formed
                   (see Section 5.4).

                   Importantly,   active   inlet   breaches   can   sometimes   cause    severe
                   deficiencies in littoral drift and induce increased shoreline erosion for
                   distances that may extend for several miles in the down-drift direction
                   (Bruun, 1960). These erosional problems can commence almost immediately
                   after a new inlet forms, which condition was observed during studies
                   conducted following the 1987 breaching of the Nauset Beach barrier on
                   Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Giese, 1988).

                   The extent of erosion that occurs down-drift of a given inlet will be
                   affected to some degree by the status of neighboring inlets.              For
                   example, the rate of growth of the Shinnecock Inlet flood tidal delta
                   decreased during the period immediately following the 1953 reopening of
                   Moriches Inlet. Concurrently, there was a decrease in the erosion rate
                   of beaches situated down-drift from Shinnecock Inlet, which was
                   attributed to a greater volume of material bypassing the inlet due to
                   decreased tidal flow resulting from some of Shinnecock Inlet's pre-1953
                   tidal prism being captured by Moriches Inlet (Czerniak, 1976).

                   The impact that inlets have on down-drift locations can be exhibited in
                   ways other than through increased shoreline erosion.            Studies of
                   historical maps and aerial photographs indicate that Democrat Point, at
                   the western end of Fire Island, migrated almost five miles between the
                   early 1800s and 1941 (when a stone jetty was constructed at that location
                   to stabilize the position of Fire Island Inlet).         During the period
                   between 1931 and 1934 there was no advancement of Democrat Point, which
                   Kassner and Black (1983a) attributed to the opening of Moriches Inlet in
                   1931 at the eastern end of Fire Island, and the removal of littoral sand
                   into the associated tidal deltas (however, the three-year time frame may
                   have been too short for this cause and effect relationship to be
                   manifested). In a similar way, the formation of a new inlet breach would
                   decrease the flow of sand into down-drift inlet channels (Taney, 1961).

                   The magnitude of the impact that a new inlet will have on down-drift
                   locations is dependent on a number of variables, including the rate of
                   littoral transport and the tidal prism that passes through the inlet,
                   which together determine how long the inlet will remain open and how much
                   sediment will be diverted into the inlet's tidal deltas (O'Brien, 1976).
                   If the littoral drift is strong and the tidal prism is relatively small,
                   a large portion of the sand will be bypassed down-drift and the inlet




           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.C.                      Page 15












                    will tend to close quickly, which will cause less cumulative erosion of
                    down-drift beaches. In contrast, breaches tend to remain open for longer
                    periods of time if the volume of drift is small relative to the tidal
                    prism of the new inlet (Bruun, 1960).        This latter set of conditions
                    causes larger volumes of littoral sand to accumulate in the new inlet's
                    tidal deltas and accelerates down-drift erosion, but decreases the
                    shoaling rate in down-drift inlet channels. Inlet breaches through the
                    barrier beach of eastern Moriches Bay (including the breach that is
                    currently being closed) may be more stable and persistent due to a
                    diminished littoral sand supply related to the effect of the Westhampton
                    Beach groin field (Bruun, 1960).

                    New inlets can have subtle, local effects on littoral transport.            For
                    example, one study of the Massachusetts barrier island system found that
                    wave refraction around ebb tidal deltas at inlets can cause transport
                    reversals that affect erosion/accretion rates in the vicinity of these
                    inlets (Fitzgerald, et.al., 1978).      An investigation of North Inlet in
                    South Carolina undertaken by Finley (1978) showed that the ebb tidal
                    delta at that location causes incoming waves to be refracted toward the
                    inlet.   This modification of the normal wave pattern results in a net
                    annual littoral transport toward the inlet from both the north and south
                    (the average regional long-shore transport direction is north to south).
                    Such transport reversals due to the refraction of waves passing over an
                    ebb tidal delta can have a significant effect on erosion rates at down-
                    drift locations by causing sand to be trapped in the ebb delta complex,
                    and thereby preventing the transport of this sand to down-drift beaches
                    (Fitzgerald, 1980). The offshore flow of water in ebb tidal currents can
                    also have some effect on the direction, steepness, and length of incoming
                    waves, which may alter nearshore sediment transport processes (O'Brien,
                    1976).

                    Man's efforts to reduce the shoaling of inlet channels and to arrest the
                    natural, down-drift migration of inlets has tended to further exacerbate
                    erosion at down-drift beaches (Tanski and Bokuniewicz, 1989).           Jetties
                    have been constructed to stabilize the position of all of the permanent
                    inlets through Long Island's barrier beach.       The jetty on the easterly
                    side of each inlet traps sediment that is carried in the littoral stream,
                    thereby diminishing the supply of sand to down-drift beaches.

                    As discussed above, the opening and closing of a given inlet can have
                    profound impacts on the status of down-drift beaches and inlets.             In
                    addition, the formation or closure of an inlet within a system will
                    affect the sedimentation rate at hydraulically interconnected inlets.
                    This effect will be manifested regardless of the relative position of the
                    inlets up-drift or' down-drift, due to the loss of tidal prism to the new
                    inlet or the gain in tidal prism when an active inlet closes (Black,
                    1987).




            September 1993                    Cashin Associates, P.c.                        Page 16












               4.3  Barrier Island Migration

                    Barrier island migration is the long-term, landward shift in the position
                    of barrier islands over the continental shelf in response to sea level
                    rise. In general, inlet formation, overwash, and wind transport are the
                    three main processes which promote barrier island migration.         Of these
                    three processes, sediment transport through inlets is the most important
                    mechanism in landward barrier retreat on Long Island (Leatherman, 1982
                    and 1989). Overwash is of secondary importance, serving mostly to supply
                    sand to the back barrier, often at the expense of bay-side marshes. Wind
                    transport is of minor importance to barrier beach migration on Long
                    Island's south shore (Leatherman, 1989).

                    The historic record indicates that the inlets along the south shore of
                    Long Island are geologically short-lived.        Only Fire Island Inlet has
                    persisted for more than a century. The other major inlets have lasted an
                    average of about 50 years, and have been sustained by structural measures
                    and maintenance dredging.      Ephemeral inlets generally do not produce
                    significant flood tidal deltas and, therefore, are less important than
                    persistent inlets with respect to barrier migration (Leatherman, 1989).
                    Migrating inlets are a particularly efficient means of landward barrier
                    retreat via the construction of flood tidal deltas, because the flood
                    tidal delta deposits are spread over a greater length of the back-barrier
                    (Leatherman 1979).

                    A study of the rate of barrier island migration on Metompkin Island,
                    Virginia, is consistent with the conclusions stated above (Byrnes,
                    et.al., 1989). That study involved an examination of historical charts
                    and maps, which revealed that southern portion of Metompkin Island
                    retreated at a much faster rate than the northern portion of the island
                    during the period between 1852 and 1988. These findings were attributed
                    to the occurrence of frequent inlet breaches and the attendant
                    enhancement of the landward transport of sediment on the southern portion
                    of the island.

                    The Long Island barrier has maintained a fairly stable position relative
                    to the mainland over a long time period, despite the continued rise in
                    mean sea level that has apparently occurred (Tanski and Bokuniewicz,
                    1989).   As is discussed above, this stability is due to maintenance
                    projects at the major inlets, as well as the application of a general
                    policy over the recent past to promptly close new inlet breaches. These
                    actions have reduced the volume and spatial extent of flood tidal delta
                    deposits, which retards the landward migration of the barrier.          From a
                    management standpoint, however, concerns regarding the disruption of
                    barrier island migration caused by man's activities in the coastal zone
                    must be balanced against the other, more immediate impacts associated
                    with the formation of new inlets (LIRPB, 1989).




            September 1993                    Cashin Associates, P.c.                        Page 17












               4.4  Breach Stabi7ity Considerations

                    Obviously, the magnitude of the impacts associated with the occurrence of
                    a given inlet breach is a function of the length of time that the breach
                    is open. A storm-induced inlet that closes shortly after its formation
                    will affect environmental factors to a lesser degree than a breach that
                    continues to widen after the initial breach.

                    The stability of an inlet is related to the ability of physical forces
                    (especially tidal currents through the inlet, but also winds and waves to
                    some degree) to maintain the channel versus the tendency of the inlet to
                    close due to the supply of sediment from up-drift beaches (O'Brien, 1976;
                    Leatherman, 1982; Davis and Gibeaut, 1990).         The volume of sediment
                    supply generally decreases with increasing distance from the headlands
                    that serve as the primary source of this material. Thus, inlets that are
                    closer to the headlands will, in general, require greater     tidal action to
                    remain open (Lucke, 1934).

                    Taney (1961) estimated that the annual littoral drift         transport rate
                    actually increases by 50 percent between Moriches Inlet        (300,000 cubic
                    yards per year) and Fire Island Inlet (450,000 yd3/yr),      indicating that
                    a significant external source of sand is being introduced into the system
                    between these two locations. Williams and Meisburger (1987) used mineral
                    tracers to show that this additional sediment is being derived from sand
                    deposits on the inner continental shelf.       Those authors also indicate
                    that the volume of littoral drift decreases steadily in a westward
                    direction from Fire Island Inlet, to 420,000 yd     3/yr at Jones Inlet and
                    306,000 yd'/yr at East Rockaway and Rockaway Inlets, which is consistent
                    with the general rule by Lucke (1934) discussed above.

                    The position of an inlet relative to the geometry of the adjoining bay is
                    an important factor affecting the amount of tidal prism that passes
                    through the inlet and, thereby, will influence the stability of the
                    inlet.   For example, hydraulic modeling performed by the University of
                    Florida  (1973) showed that the re-establishment of Navarre Pass on the
                    northern Gulf coast of Florida would not draw a sufficient tidal prism to
                    keep the inlet open unless engineering works were implemented.               In
                    contrast, the same numerical methodology showed that Rollover Pass
                    through the barrier at Galveston, Texas, would draw a sufficient tidal
                    prism to keep the inlet open during normal climatic conditions.             The
                    difference in the stability of these two inlets was attributed to the
                    geometry of the respective bay-inlet, systems.        Navarre Pass cuts the
                    barrier at the approximate center of a long, narrow sound.            Friction
                    retards the movement of the tidal wave in the sound, resulting in a
                    relatively small tidal prism passing through the inlet. Rollover Pass,
                    in contrast, is situated at the end of a wide arm of Galveston Bay, which




            September 1993                    Cashin Associates, P.c.                       Page 18












                     results in a lower degree of friction and a relatively larger tidal prism
                     flowing through the inlet (University of Florida, 1973).

                     The width of the barrier through which an inlet breach is cut is also an
                     important factor determining the stability of the inlet, as indicated by
                     a study of Brown Cedar Cut on the Texas coast (Mason and Sorensen, 1971).
                     The subject inlet opens/closes and migrates in response to natural
                     physical processes, with minimal artificial controls. Between 1930 and
                     1969,  the barrier beach in the vicinity of the cut experienced
                     significant erosion (i.e., total recession of more than 650 feet). The
                     narrowed barrier width resulted in a more stable channel, due to reduced
                     frictional resistance acting on tidal currents flowing through the inlet.
                     The previous, longer inlet lost scouring energy because of greater
                     friction with the channel sides and bottom.

                     In general, new inlets that are cut on the Long Island barrier beach tend
                     to shoal to closure within a relatively short period of time (Taney,
                     1961).   Tidal prism calculations based on tidal velocity measurements
                     made for the 1980 breach into Moriches Bay indicated that the breach did
                     not appear to be adequate to maintain the cross-sectional area of the
                     i nl et/breach system (Sorensen and Schmel tz, 1982; Schmel tz, et. al . 1982) .
                     On this basis, the authors of the referenced studies concluded that the
                     breach was probably unstable toward closure.         It was further concluded
                     that, given the inlet history at this location and in the absence of
                     human intervention, the end result may have been complete closure of the
                     connection between Moriches Bay and the Atlantic Ocean (i.e., both the
                     breach and original inlet may have closed).

                     The 1987 Nauset breach is an example of new inlet that was allowed to
                     evolve naturally, based on the mistaken premise that it would quickly be
                     sealed by coastal processes (Wood, 1991).         The initial breach channel
                     through Nauset Beach was only 18 feet wide and ï¿½one foot in depth. These
                     relatively diminutive dimensions, coupled with the history of breach
                     openings and closings along this section of barrier, led local agencies
                     to believe that the breach would close naturally.           However, atypical
                     hydrographic conditions caused the breach to expand steadily over the
                     next fifteen months to greater than one mile in width (Giese, et.al.,
                     1989a), and increased erosion became a problem on the mainland shoreline
                     segment that had become exposed to ocean waves passing through the new
                     inlet (see Section 4.1).

                     Another example of an inlet breach that was allowed to take its natural
                     course involved the barrier beach at the southwest end of Nantucket
                     Island, Massachusetts.       The problems induced in this case included
                     navigational hazards and the burial of productive clam beds due to
                     shifting sands in the flood tidal delta of a new inlet that was cut in
                     1961. However, this breach was left alone, and in 1976 natural processes




            September 1993                     Cashin Associates, P.C.                         Page 19












                  started to cause shoaling within the inlet channel. The breach gradually
                  filled in over the next nine years, and closed completely in 1985 due to
                  waves and currents caused by the passage of Hurricane Gloria.       Twi ce
                  since 1985 storms have breached the barrier at the same location, but in
                  both cases long-shore transport quickly sealed the new breach (which is
                  normally what happens at this location).      This case is cited as an
                  example of solving a breach-related problem by doing nothing (Tiffney and
                  Benchley, 1987).

                  Even an inlet that is hydraulically stable, whereby normal tidal currents
                  are sufficient to keep the channel open, will tend to migrate in response
                  to littoral processes (Leatherman, 1982).     The net direction of this
                  migration will be the same as the direction of net long-shore drift.
                  Prior to the construction of jetties, the stable inlets on Long Island's
                  south shore historically had migrated substantial distances to the west
                  (Taney, 1961). Thus, it is expected that a persistent inlet breach in
                  the subject barrier system will also migrate westward, either by: (a) the'
                  lengthening of the up-drift barrier and concurrent erosion of the down-
                  drift barrier, which results in an inlet that is oriented perpendicular
                  to the shoreline (e.g., Jones, Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets); or
                  (b) the lengthening of the up-drift barrier without erosion of the down-
                  drift barrier, which results in an inlet that is oriented parallel to the
                  shoreline (e.g., Rockaway, East Rockaway, and Fire Island Inlets).





























          September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.c.                     Page 20















            5. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

               5.1  Shellfish

                    The potential impacts that inlet breaching can have on shellfish are
                    related to the changes that such an event induces in the various physical
                    parameters that have been discussed above.            For example, shellfish
                    populations will respond in a certain way to altered bay salinity caused
                    by a breach.     Breach-related changes in bay water temperature, tidal
                    flushing (and its influence on water quality), and coastal processes may
                    also have some impact on shellfisheries within the affected bay(s).

                    To provide clarity, the following discussion has been organized on the
                    basis of each of the four applicable parameters noted above. However, it
                    is important to note that any given breach will result in a complex
                    combination of physical changes to the bay, and that some of these
                    changes may have opposite effects on shellfish (e.g., compare the impacts
                    discussed below with respect to increased salinity versus increased tidal
                    flushing).    Therefore, the reader is cautioned that focusing on the
                    effect of a single parameter can lead to an erroneous conclusion about
                    the overall impact on shellfish.

                    A. Impacts Related t  ,o Tidal Flushing

                       In an often-cited study of the shellfishery of Shinnecock, Moriches
                       and eastern Great South Bays, Glancy (1956) states that during the
                       years 1946 through 1951, with the flow through Moriches Inlet greatly
                       restricted, "small form" algae populations boomed.             These algae
                       dominated the water column, but did not serve the nutritional needs of
                       the resident clams and oysters. In addition, the algae supported the
                       growth of the worm coral, Hexagonus hydroides, which encrusted the
                       exterior of the living oyster shells.               The result of these
                       circumstances was that oyster populations, which significantly
                       decreased following the opening of Moriches Inlet in 1931 (see Section
                       5.1.8 below), were further impacted during the 1940s.          Between 1951
                       and 1953, when Moriches Inlet was closed, "small form" concentrations
                       were the heaviest ever, and extended throughout Moriches and
                       Shinnecock Bays, and even into Great South Bay as far as Fire Island
                       Inlet.

                       Glancy (1956) attributes the subsequent recovery of the clam fishery
                       in Great South Bay to the timely reopening of Moriches Inlet in
                       September 1953.     Water sampling throughout the three bays showed a
                       marked    increase    in   salinity   and   decrease    in   "small     form"
                       concentrations during the five months following the reopening of the
                       inlet.    The changes in Great South Bay were most dramatic at its





            September 1993                    Cashin Associates, P.c.                         Page 21












                      eastern end, closest to the new inlet.     The newly opened inlet also
                      caused the worm coral infestation to disappear.

                      The response of the shellfisheries in Great South Bay and Moriches Bay
                      to the 1951 closing and 1953 reopening of Moriches Inlet is also
                      documented in a series of reports produced by Woods Hole Oceanographic
                      Institute (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 1951; Redfield, 1952;
                      Bumpus, et.al., 1954; Ryther, et.al., 1957; Ryther, 1958; Guillard,
                      et.al., 1960).    The main objective of these investigations was to
                      identify the ultimate cause of the early 1950s crash in the shellfish
                      populations of these two bays.       However,  the findings also have
                      bearing on the issue of how the formation      (and closure) of inlets
                      affect the biological resources of the bay.

                      The Woods Hole investigations revealed that    the closing of Moriches
                      Inlet in 1951 caused a decrease in the tidal    flushing of Great South
                      and Moriches Bays, resulting in a dramatic increase in the levels of
                      nitrogen and phosphorus (see Section 3.1).        These nutrients were
                      derived from fecal wastes flowing freely into Moriches Bay from
                      numerous duck farms that were situated along the shoreline.

                      Increased tidal flushing generally promotes accelerated clam growth,
                      as measured by shell size (Greene, 1978).          The growth rate of
                      individual specimens in Great South Bay was found to be greatest in
                      the vicinity of Fire Island Inlet, due to an increased supply of
                      oxygen and food at that location compared to stations in the bay's
                      interior. The maximum size attained was also greatest in the areas of
                      highest tidal flows. However, other factors related to proximity to
                      the inlet also have some degree of influence over clam growth. The
                      higher salinity and sandier sediments which characterize portions of
                      the bay in the vicinity of the inlet are both conducive to clam growth
                      (Greene, 1978) - see Sections 5.13 and D for further discussion.

                      An increased rate of tidal exchange resulting from the creation of a
                      new inlet would not necessarily have a strictly beneficial effect on
                      shellfish populations. Excessive flushing would lead to a high loss
                      of the planktonic shellfish larvae to ocean waters and, consequently,
                      could result in poor setting and a gradual decrease of the stock. The
                      large tidal variations and high flushing rates of South Oyster Bay and
                      Hempstead Bay may partly account for the low abundance of seed clams
                      in those bays because too many larvae are flushed out of the inlet
                      (USEPA, 1981).   A similar situation may also exist in Moriches Bay,
                      which has a relatively low level of clam productivity, despite a high
                      rate of clam growth. Moriches Bay has a large tidal exchange relative
                      to its volume, and the residence time of its waters may be less than
                      the planktonic larval stage of the hard clam, although this has not
                      been precisely determined (COSMA, 1985).      Thus, it is evident that




           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.c.                      Page 22












                      there is an optimal level of flushing with respect to the shellfish
                      ecology of a given embayment, and any increase in tidal exchange
                      beyond that level could have an overall detrimental effect on the
                      shellfishery.

                  B.  Salinity-Related Impacts

                      A basic principle of estuarine ecology is that salinity is a primary
                      factor in limiting upstream penetration of many species.      Shellfish
                      predators tend to be fairly intolerant of lower salinities, and are
                      restricted to the high salinity zones of estuaries.    Many bivalves,
                      such as the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) and the eastern oyster
                      (Crassostrea virginica), are tolerant of lower salinities and thrive
                      in the fairly narrow range of salinities that are too low for survival
                      of any shellfish predators and competitors but not low enough to have
                      serious adverse effects on their own physiology, survival and
                      reproduction.   An increase in salinity within an estuary has the
                      potential of making the environment more,suitable to a range of
                      shellfish predators, which can result in an expansion of the zones in
                      which these predators are present and can lead to greater predation of
                      hard clams and other bivalves (USEPA, 1981 and 1982).

                      Between the early 1800s and 1931, practically no clams were marketed
                      from the eastern Great South Bay. Oysters would reproduce and set in
                      this area, but would grow slowly and generally would not be "fat" due
                      to low salinities.  The western bay was more suitable for growth at
                      that time due to higher salinity, but the oyster seeds were rapidly
                      destroyed by predators (Glancy, 1956; Van Popering and Glancy, 1947).

                      After the creation of Moriches Inlet in 1931, oyster drills (which are
                      restricted to more saline waters) invaded the bays and destroyed the
                      oyster sets year after year.     The remaining oysters were growing
                      vigorously and attaining large size. Clams, which are less affected
                      by drills, set and grew to market size all throughout these areas.
                      Glancy (1956) concluded that if oyster drills could have been
                      controlled economically, it would have been possible to double oyster
                      production in Great South Bay compared to the situation prior to the
                      opening of Moriches Inlet, due to salinity conditions that were
                      favorable for growth. Van Popering and Glancy (1947) concluded that
                      the clam population in Great South Bay experienced an overall benefit
                      from the breach.

                      A series of studies was undertaken by a variety of agencies, including
                      the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1981 and 1982), to assess
                      the impacts to the hard clam fishery in Great South Bay and South
                      Oyster Bay resulting from the sewering of southern Nassau County and
                      the southwestern portion of Suffolk County. Prior to the installation




           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.c.                     Page 23












                      of sanitary sewers, sanitary wastes from homes in the service areas
                      were discharged (via septic systems and cesspools) to the shallow
                      groundwater aquifer, which eventually discharges to the bay. Sewering
                      decreased the bay's freshwater input by diverting a large volume of
                      water to outfalls on the ocean side of the barrier, resulting in
                      increased bay salinity.    Since an inlet breach through the barrier
                      would also be expected to result in a salinity increase in the bay,
                      the findings of the USEPA studies are pertinent to the present
                      investigation.

                      The USEPA (1981 and 1982) studies found that the increased salinity
                      resulting from the sewering projects could cause an overall increase
                      in the populations of certain clam predators that are sensitive to
                      lower salinities. These include the following:

                         ï¿½  channeled whelks (Busycon canaliculatum), which utilize clams
                            below the cherrystone size as its major food source, except
                            where alternate prey are abundant - whelks are one of the only
                            predators that can feed on adult clams, which can be significant
                            because relatively few clams survive to adult size, and the loss
                            of a single adult is comparable to the loss of many young

                         ï¿½  Moon snails (Polinices duplicatus and Lunatia heros), which feed
                            almost exclusively on bivalves, and are the most serious
                            predators of adult hard clams in areas where their temperature
                            and salinity requirements are met

                         0  Calico crabs (Ovalipes ocellatus), which can be voracious
                            predators of hard clam seeds

                         a  Oyster drills (Eupleura caudata and Urosalpinx cinerea), which
                            were found to be the largest single cause of predation of seed
                            clams in the study area, accounting for 27 percent of all empty
                            clams recovered during the survey - oyster drill distribution is
                            highly related to salinity gradients within an estuary

                      The USEPA (1981 and 1982) studies determined that the populations of
                      other hard clam predators would not be significantly augmented by the
                      bay salinity increase resulting from the sewering projects.       These
                      include the following:

                            ï¿½   Mud crabs (Neopanope sayi and Panopeus herbsti), which are
                                already the most abundant predators in the study area

                            ï¿½   Blue crabs (Callinectes    sapidus), which are potentially
                                significant predators of   hard clams, but also have a wide
                                salinity tolerance range



           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.c.                      Page 24












                                Common Rock crabs (Cancer irroratus), which are significant
                                predators of young hard clams under laboratory conditions,
                                but are not abundant in the study area

                                Horseshoe crabs (Limu7us po7yphemus), which are not affected
                                by the salinity range in estuaries

                           ï¿½    Starfish (Asterias forbesi and Asterias vulgaris), which are
                                voracious predators of oyster and bay scallops, and also
                                consume clam spat and slightly exposed adults - starfish are
                                generally not abundant in the study area, and are probably
                                limited to the cooler deeper channels by the high summer
                                temperatures in the bay

                           ï¿½    Hermit crabs (Pagurus 7ongicarpus and Pagurus po77icaris),
                                which laboratory studies have indicated are predators of
                                young hard clams, but tend to occur at low densities even
                                where salinity conditions are favorable and rely mostly on
                                other food sources derived from scavenging

                      Although salinity has its greatest effect on clam abundance indirectly
                      through its effects on predator populations, salinity also affects
                      other aspects of clam ecology. For example, laboratory and hatchery
                      studies have shown that the development of the fertilized egg is the
                      reproductive stage that is most sensitive to salinity.       Salinities
                      outside the optimal range can decrease the number of fertilized hard
                      clam eggs that develop normally into larvae (USEPA, 1981).

                      Adult hard clams can tolerate a wide range of salinities, but grow
                      most rapidly under certain optimal salinity conditions.      As noted
                      above, the poor productivity of the hard clam and oyster fisheries in
                      eastern Great South Bay prior to 1931 was attributable to low bay
                      salinities prior to the opening of Moriches Inlet (USEPA, 1982).

                      A study was conducted of the hard clam population in Moriches Bay
                      during 1980 and 1981 to determine if the 1980 breach had any effect on
                      hard clams (Turner, 1983). This study entailed a comparison of daily
                      growth lines for specimens taken during and after the approximately
                      one-year period when the breach was active. The results indicate that
                      the breach decreased the rate of shell growth in clams in western
                      Moriches Bay, but did not have any significant effect on shell growth
                      in the eastern bay, so that shell growth rates were similar throughout
                      the bay during the active period of the breach. The alteration of the
                      salinity distribution caused by the breach would explain the observed
                      shell growth patterns; the breach led to elevated salinities in the
                      western bay, but did not affect this parameter in the eastern bay
                      (where salinities were nearly oceanic both during and after the



           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.C.                     Page 25












                      closure of the breach). However, other factors, such as temperature
                      and tidal circulation, may have had some influence. It is important
                      to note that the measurements of shell growth made during this
                      investigation may not be reflective of tissue growth or reproductive
                      vitality.

                      Deviation from the optimal salinity range reduces the clam's tolerance
                      for other environmental stresses (such as high temperatures).
                      Conversely, optimal temperature enhances tolerance for salinities
                      outside the optimal range (USEPA, 1982).

                      Mussels prefer saltier waters, and would be prone to overgrow and
                      smother oyster and clams in high salinity conditions (Van Popering and
                      Glancy, 1947).

                   C. Water Temperature-Related Impacts

                      As discussed in Section 5.1.B, temperature and salinity have a
                      synergistic effect on the ecology of hard clams.          Of these two
                      parameters, however, salinity has received much more attention in the
                      scientific   literature.      The   documents   reviewed   during    this
                      investigation indicate that adult   hard clams tolerate a wide range of
                      estuarine conditions (including temperature), to which they are
                      exposed during different seasonal and weather conditions (USEPA,
                      1982). However, despite having a relatively wide tolerance range for
                      temperature, hard clam growth is disrupted outside of the optimal
                      temperature range. Interruptions    in clam growth, as evidenced by the
                      pattern of growth lines on the      shells, occur both during summer
                      periods of high temperature and during winter temperature minima
                      (Greene, 1978; USEPA, 1981). Seasonal moderation of bay temperature,
                      as would generally be expected to result from new inlet breaching,
                      would tend to reduce growth interruptions induced by temperature
                      extremes.


                   D. Impacts Related to Coastal Processes

                      Shellfish may be affected to a minor degree by the alteration in
                      coastal processes resulting from an inlet breach. The increased tidal
                      exchange associated with a new inlet would cause an increase in tidal
                      current velocities, which would result in a overall increase in the
                      coarseness of the benthic sediments in the bay. This would expand the
                      area of sandy bay bottom, which clams prefer (Greene, 1978). However,
                      shifting sands, as are found in the vicinity of inlets, tend to
                      interfere with normal clam activity (USEPA, 1981).






           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.c.                      Page 26














               5.2 Fiff ish

                   Studies concerning the impacts that new inlets have on finfish were found
                   to be sparse.   Some information is available with regard to how inlets
                   affect larval and juvenile fish (as discussed below), but virtually no
                   pertinent scientific studies have been uncovered which address impacts to
                   adult fish. One investigation that was performed in the Galveston Bay
                   system during the mid-1950s showed that the artificial opening of an
                   inlet (Rollover Pass) had a noticeable effect on the adult populations of
                   the dominant fish species, with some species increasing in abundance
                   while other species declined (Reid, 1957). However, no conclusion was
                   made with regard to the new inlet's overall impact on finfish stock.

                   The use of estuarine areas is an important phase in the life history of
                   many marine organisms, including many commercially valuable fish. Some
                   studies   have   postulated   that  fish   recruitment   to   estuaries    is
                   accomplished strictly by passive mechanisms (i.e., transport entirely by
                   currents), but the majority of recent studies suggest that active
                   behavioral  responses to physical factors and other stimuli are also
                   important.   For example, fishes spawning in the same offshore habitat may
                   ultimately  have different larval distributions, indicating that small
                   behavioral  differences among species may alter their susceptibility to
                   passive transport (Boehlert and Mundy, 1988).

                   According to a summary paper by Boehlert and Mundy (1988), some studies
                   suggest that the presence of an offshore salinity gradient is important
                   to the recruitment of certain fish species. In years of high rainfall,
                   the salinity gradient was well defined and recruitment levels were high.
                   In years of low rainfall, recruitment levels were low due to a weakened
                   salinity gradient. Other studies show that gradients of food abundance
                   are a factor in the migration of some species into estuaries. A variety
                   of other variables may also serve to stimulate migration toward estuary
                   mouths.

                   The work described above indicates that some initial knowledge of the
                   relationship between inlets and larval fish movement has been achieved.
                   However, Miller (1988) has concluded that pertinent data are lacking with
                   respect to the physical factors affecting the recruitment of fish to
                   estuaries, because most physical oceanographers work in a scale that is
                   too large to be applicable- to the study of fish recruitment.          Miller
                   (1988) has also concluded that there is a lack of information concerning
                   the behavioral responses of immature fish to these physical factors
                   (e.g., currents, temperature, salinity, density, etc.); consequently,
                   even if the necessary physical description were available concerning the
                   water through which the fish migrate, prediction of the migration process
                   would still not be possible. Thus, although it is clear that inlets are
                   important to certain fish species, the dynamics of fish recruitment to




           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.C.                       Page 27












                   estuaries are so poorly understood at the present time that more specific
                   conclusions cannot be made. Clearly, a useful assessment of the impacts
                   that a new inlet breach on Long Island's south shore would have on
                   finfish recruitment is not currently possible.

                   As noted in Section 5.1.A, "small form" algae populations boomed during
                   the years 1946 through 1951, when the flow through Moriches Inlet was
                   greatly restricted.     These algal blooms diminished visibility in bay
                   waters to the point that fish could not see well enough to capture their
                   food, which led to a decline in fish landings from the bay when these
                   algae were present (Glancy, 1956).

                   The Texas Gulf coast has had a unique history of attempts to enhance
                   local finfisheries by establishing "fish passes" through the barrier.
                   Local fishing interests had long assumed that the creation of these
                   passes automatically increased fish populations in the associated
                   lagoons.    Instead, the passes are best used as conduits to spawning
                   grounds, and no net influx of fish occurs (Hoese, 1958). However, the
                   passes are recognized to improve the environmental conditions in the bays
                   by allowing tidal mixing with the Gulf and, thereby, preventing
                   hypersalinity, excess temperatures, and stagnation during the dry season
                   (Burr, 1945). This benefits the fish populations, but the conditions are
                   not analogous to Long Island's south shore bays, which are fairly well-
                   flushed and receive plentiful input of freshwater throughout the year via
                   runoff and groundwater inflow from the mainland.

                   Although no pertinent scientific literature was uncovered during this
                   investigation to document the association of adult fish and inlets,
                   inlets and adjacent areas are generally recognized as having relatively
                   high   fish  abundance    and  provide   for   high   recreational    fishing
                   opportunities.     Reports in local fishing periodicals (e.g., The
                   Fisherman: Long Island, Metropolitan New York Edition) indicate that the
                   new Moriches Bay inlet breach supported new recreational fishing activity
                   during the summer of 1993.


               5.3 Other Anima7s


                   A. Benthic Marine Animals

                      Four benthic surveys conducted between May 1981 and            May 1982,
                      following the closure of the 1980 breach, showed a general     decline in
                      the abundance of "opportunistic" species in Moriches Bay       during the
                      study period (Cerrato, 1986). Numerous studies have shown that this
                      trend is typical of biological        succession in marine ecosystems
                      following a significant environmental disturbance (e.g., dredging,
                      spoil disposal, raking, trawling).       The first stage of    succession



           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.C.                       Page 28











                      involves the rapid repopulation of the disturbed area by certain
                      flopportunistic" species, which have high reproductive and colonization
                      capabilities. As time passes, the opportunist populations decline as
                      these species are outcompeted by other species (termed "equilibrium"
                      species).    The closing of the breach essentially restored the
                      environment to the pre-breach condition, and allowed the equilibrium
                      species to assume dominance of the bay once again.

                   B. Shore Birds

                      Studies of the 1987 inlet breach of Nauset Beach, Massachusetts,
                      provides some interesting information regarding the effects that such
                      an event can have on shore birds (Wood, 1991). The breach separated
                      the southerly portion of the barrier as an island, which was
                      effectively isolated from all access except via watercraft. This
                      newly-formed island became increasingly attractive to least terns
                      (Sterna antillarum) and piping plovers (Charadrius melodus), both of
                      which are Federally-designated endangered species. However, most of
                      the original nesting pairs that were established following the breach
                      were either destroyed by subsequent washovers or fell victim to
                      predation by foxes and skunks that were trapped on the island. This
                      isolated beach also became a popular destination for boaters, which
                      created an additional conflicts with the shore bird colonies.

                      Piping plovers, least terns, and roseate terns (Sterna dougallii) use
                      the unvegetated or sparsely vegetated area between the high tide line
                      and the base of the dunes for nesting habitat (NYS Department of
                      State, 1991).    Since an actively migrating inlet is continually
                      creating new areas of sandy beach on the up-drift barrier (see Section
                      4.4), inlet breaching can provide a benefit to shore birds in terms of
                      the creation of new habitat. However, this potential benefit must be
                      balanced against habitat areas that may have been destroyed by the new
                      inlet cut.

                  C.  Waterfowl

                      Waterfowl may be affected by the breaching of a new inlet in several
                      ways. Salt marshes in the bay serve as important feeding and nesting
                      areas for a number of waterfowl, including herons, egrets,and other
                      wading birds.     Consequently, the beneficial effect that inlet
                      breaching has on the creation and productivity of back-barrier
                      wetlands (see Section 5.4 below) would also tend to be of long-term
                      benefit to these avian species.

                      Relatively short-term impacts to waterfowl can result from the changes
                      induced in the physical characteristics of the bay, although it is not
                      clear whether these changes would be beneficial or detrimental on an



           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.C.                      Page 29












                      overall basis. As is discussed in Section 3.3, a breach would tend to
                      have a moderating effect on seasonal extremes in bay temperature by
                      keeping these waters cooler in the summer and slightly warmer in the
                      winter.   This would benefit certain waterfowl (such as marsh ducks)
                      that overwinter in the bay and which require ice-free, shallow water
                      areas to feed.   Other varieties of waterfowl (such as diving ducks)
                      which can utilize off-shore feeding areas would receive less benefit
                      from the decreased extent of ice accumulation that would be expected
                      to result from inlet-induced winter temperature increases in the bay
                      (NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 1952).         Acting in
                      opposition to this beneficial impact is the effect that increased bay
                      salinity would have on waterfowl.     Embayments that are less saline
                      generally constitute the best habitat for waterfowl. In fact, it was
                      suggested that the sealing of Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets would
                      provide the greatest benefit to waterfowl in terms of habitat value,
                      although it was recognized that such action would not be a realistic
                      option for numerous other reasons, including adverse impacts on bay
                      water quality, shellfisheries, fishing access to the ocean, and other
                      factors (NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 1952).


               5.4 NeVands and Seagrasses

                   The most significant process of new tidal marsh formation behind barrier
                   beaches involves inlet dynamics.       Specifically, flood tidal deltas
                   created by sand carried through inlets serve as the platforms on which
                   new marshes may become established. The majority of salt marsh systems
                   behind barrier beaches on the East Coast originally developed on old
                   flood tidal deltas (Leatherman, 1982).       The marsh islands and back
                   barrier marshes in Shinnecock Bay and eastern Great South Bay are clearly
                   associated with flood tidal deltas of former inlets (Leatherman and
                   Allen, 1985; Leatherman, 1989).

                   As an inlet migrates in response to littoral processes, the flood tidal
                   delta also migrates, creating a string of back-barrier delta deposits.
                   When an inlet closes (as most temporary-storm-created inlets do), or as
                   formerly active deltas become further removed from a migrating inlet,
                   these shoals will evolve into salt marshes or underwater grass beds if
                   their elevation is sufficient (Godfrey, 1976).

                   The relationship between inlet status and vegetative communities
                   discussed above is confirmed in an investigation of pollen samples in
                   cores taken from a series of transects along the barrier beaches to the
                   east of Fire Island Inlet (Clark, 1986). Inlets affected vegetation in
                   the study area by altering the tidal range and salinity of the back-
                   barrier lagoons, and by providing new substrate for marsh establishment
                   when flood tidal deltas were abandoned by inlet channels. Salt marshes




           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.c.                      Page 30












                    fringed the back barrier lagoons only when inlets were open and saline/
                    tidal conditions prevailed (1760 to 1835; and 1931 to present in Moriches
                    Bay).   The loss of tidal variation in water level associated with the
                    closure of  inlets resulted in the rapid colonization of former high salt
                    marsh areas by sedge-dominated wet meadows and shrub thickets. This plant
                    community   reflects   low   salinity   conditions,   often   approaching     a
                    freshwater  state.    The changes in vegetative communities related to
                    changes in  inlet status were noted to be very rapid.

                    Maintaining   stabilized    inlets   interferes   with   long-term    sediment
                    dynamics, and precludes the formation of new marshes both directly and
                    indirectly.    The dredging of flood tidal deltas at existing inlets
                    directly impacts the potential for the creation of new wetlands and
                    expansion of existing wetlands. Actions undertaken to impede the genesis
                    of new inlets or to promptly close breaches indirectly prevents the
                    formation of associated flood tidal deltas, which would serve as new
                    substrate for future wetlands (Leatherman, 1989).

                    A study conducted along the North Carolina shoreline indicates that tidal
                    marsh productivity is affected by inlet processes (Godfrey and Godfrey,
                    1975). Tidal marsh areas near active, migrating inlets will stay in the
                    early stages of vegetative succession. Under these conditions, organic
                    production within the marsh and the rate of its export to the estuary are
                    high.     In  comparison,    long-term   stability,   either   naturally     or
                    artificially created, will result in decreased productivity.

                    Beds of eelgrass (Zostera marina) cover some portions of the subtidal
                    zone in Long Island's south shore bay system, and are known to serve as
                    important habitats for a variety of juvenile and adult finfish and
                    shellfish.   The depth of sunlight penetration was found to be the most
                    important factor governing the distribution and growth of eelgrass in
                    Great South Bay (Greene, et.al., 1978). Eelgrass beds are thin or non-
                    existent in areas of high turbidity, and are also adversely affected by
                    high summer temperatures.     The densest eelgrass beds are found in the
                    western part of Great South Bay, where a high degree of tidal flushing
                    due to proximity to Fire Island and Jones Inlets results in waters that
                    are relatively clear.

                    Shifting sands associated with the flood tidal delta of a new inlet can
                    adversely affect existing sub-tidal vegetation in adjacent areas. This
                    impact was noted following a breach that formed on the Nantucket Island
                    barrier in Massachusetts. The inlet's mobile flood tidal delta stifled
                    eelgrass beds, thereby adversely affecting nursery areas for bay scallops
                    (Tiffney and Benchley, 1987).







           September 1993                     Cashin Associates, P.c.                       Page 31














           6. MISCELLANEOUS IMPACTS

              6.1  Navigation

                   The effect that new inlet breaches have on navigation can be positive or
                   negative. The bay-side shoaling that is associated with the formation of
                   the flood tidal delta of a new inlet can create a hazard to navigation,
                   particularly at low tidal stages or during periods of peak tidal current
                   (Wood, 1991; Fessenden and Scott, 1989; Tiffney and Benchley, 1987).
                   This problem has been the topic of considerable debate over the recent
                   past with respect to the existing inlets on Long Island's south shore,
                   particularly the three easterly inlets.   In the case of very active delta
                   deposits, the position of the channel could change rapidly.          It is
                   reported that the channel through the Nauset breach would sometimes    shift
                   dramatically between consecutive tidal cycles during the period shortly
                   after the breakthrough (Wood, 1991).   Shoals can form at other locations
                   in the bay due to the deposition of material eroded from the mainland
                   shoreline by ocean waves passing through a new inlet, as occurred in
                   Chatham Harbor, Massachusetts, following the January 1987 breach
                   (Fessenden and Scott, 1989).   In that case, the shoaling impaired the use
                   of a marina, which necessitated a significant amount of dredging to
                   maintain operations.

                   The formation of a new inlet can have a beneficial effect on navigation
                   by creating an alternate (and possibly more convenient) route between the
                   bay and ocean.   Moriches Inlet is a prime example of a passage that is
                   heavily utilized by recreational fishermen, who would otherwise have
                   lengthy and perhaps prohibitively long trips to the open ocean if the
                   inlet did not exist. The Nauset breach on Cape Cod reportedly saved an
                   hour and a half per trip for fishermen traveling between Chatham Harbor
                   and the Atlantic.      However, that shortcut also presented hazards,
                   including tricky currents, in addition to the rapidly shifting shoals
                   discussed above (Wood, 1991). This combination of divergent navigational
                   impacts that are often associated with a new inlet (i.e., the appeal of
                   a more convenient route, coupled with a number of potentially significant
                   boating hazards) creates a concern that some boaters, particularly less
                   experienced recreational boaters, could be unknowingly lured into a
                   dangerous situation.

                   A study of Drum Inlet on the North Carolina barrier island chain
                   concluded that the project to artificially re-establish this inlet did
                   not provide the anticipated improvement in the convenience of fishing
                   access between the sound and the Atlantic Ocean, which was one of the
                   originally-stated objectives of the work (Blankinship, 1976). However,
                   the author provided no further elaboration on this point; he may be
                   referring to the need-to perform additional work to improve navigability
                   (i.e., channel straightening and regular maintenance dredging).



           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.C.                      Page 32












                   As discussed in Section 3.4, the tidal range within the adjacent bay
                   would generally increase as a result of an inlet breach, which can lead
                   to a potential increase in flooding during high tidal stages. However,
                   the related drop in the elevation of low water may cause an impact to
                   navigation throughout the bay.     If decreased low tide levels result in
                   channel depths that are less than the design depths, redredging of these
                   channels may become necessary (Douma and Wicker, 1965.).


               6.2 Economic Factors

                   Economic factors should always be fully considered in deciding how to
                   respond to a new inlet breach.       Unfortunately, however, the economic
                   consequences of a breach are even more difficult to assess than the
                   environmental effects. The economic impacts are very site-specific, and
                   would depend on the unique combination of environmental factors that
                   pertain to a given breach, including both positive and detrimental
                   impacts that may partially offset one another. Given this complexity, it
                   is not surprising that there does not appear to be any scientific
                   literature available which addresses the economic impacts of new inlets.

                   The economic expenditures associated with the closure of a breach should
                   be relatively easy to determine on the basis of materials and labor
                   expenses. For example, the closure of the 1980 Moriches Bay breach was
                   estimated to have cost $11 million (Tanski and Bokuniewicz, 1988).
                   However, recent developments concerning the closure of the 1992 breach at
                   Westhampton Beach have added an element of uncertainty to the equation.
                   In that case, local baymen have filed a suit to halt the ongoing work
                   sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to seal the new inlet. The
                   suit is based on the allegation that the closure of the breach will cause
                   a decline in the water quality in Moriches Bay and, thereby, adversely
                   affect shellfish resources that the baymen rely upon for their
                   livelihoods.    If this suit is upheld, cost impact analyses for inlet
                   closure projects would become much more complicated because decision
                   makers would be compelled to consider vaguely defined potential losses of
                   economic benefit in addition to the hard costs of the engineering works.

                   The physical work to close a breach may itself have unintended adverse
                   impacts.  For example, the project to close the 1980 Moriches Bay breach
                   involved the use of trucks to carry fill material obtained from an on-
                   shore sand mine.    The intent behind selecting land-based construction
                   (rather than hydraulic pumping from the sea or bay floor, which is the
                   usual method) was reportedly to expedite mobilization by using equipment
                   available locally to the contractor and to reduce possible down time
                   (Sorensen and Schmeltz, 1982). However, the net weight of these trucks
                   exceeded the weight limit of the Beach Lane Bridge over Quantuck Canal
                   (between Moriches and Shinnecock Bays); some of the trucks reportedly



           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.c.                       Page 33












                  exceeded the bridge's limit by 14 tons. Approximately 200 truckloads per
                  day were being transported to the job site at the time of the report
                  (Fetherston, 1980). Overweight trucks can accelerate the deterioration
                  of roads and bridges, increasing maintenance requirements and endangering
                  public safety.

                  If a decision is made to allow a breach to remain open, the need for
                  engineering works and/or maintenance dredging may eventually arise.
                  Black (1987) has noted that, although the inlet stabilization projects on
                  Long Island's barrier beach have generally proven effective, all require
                  periodic maintenance. Such maintenance will entail monetary expenditures
                  which can be substantial, depending on the inlet's hydraulic stability,
                  the rate of littoral sand supply, and other factors.








































           September 1993                 Cashin Associates, P.C.                     Page 34














           7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

              The environmental impacts of tidal inlet breaching are summarized below.
              These have been placed into general categories, based on whether the effect
              is beneficial, detrimental, neutral, variable, or inadequately defined.

              7.1 BeneficW Impacts

                  The following consequences of tidal inlet breaching have a generally
                  beneficial environmental impact:

                     ï¿½   increased tidal flushing, which: improves the water quality of the
                         bay, reduces the accumulation of deleterious substances and
                         decreases the chances for algal blooms; and reduces turbidity and
                         increases the area of bay bottom suitable for the growth of
                         eelgrass

                     ï¿½   increased rate of barrier beach migration, which maintains barrier
                         width and allows the barrier system to adjust its position in
                         response to sea level rise

                     ï¿½   increased salinity in the bay, which allows for an accelerated rate
                         of shellfish growth and improved larval development

                     ï¿½   seasonal moderation of bay temperature, which would tend to reduce
                         growth interruptions induced by temperature extremes (especially in
                         shellfish)

                     ï¿½   potentially increased recruitment of juvenile and larval fish to
                         the bay

                     ï¿½   increased areas for recreational and commercial fishing activity
                         (inlets are generally recognized as important fishing areas)

                     ï¿½   increased rate of formation of new areas of tidal wetlands on the
                         back-barrier

                     ï¿½   increased rate of overall productivity of marshes in the bay












           September 1993                  Cashin Associates, P.c.                     Page 35












               7.2 Adverse Impacts

                    The following consequences of tidal inlet breaching have a generally
                    detrimental environmental impact:

                       ï¿½   increased salinity, which allows certain shellfish         predators to
                           penetrate further into the bay

                       ï¿½   increased tidal exchange between the bay and ocean,        which allows
                           the water level in the bay to rise higher, increasing      the flooding
                           potential along the bay shore, especially during           short period
                           events   (e.g.,    semidiurnal    tidal   fluctuations     and   typical
                           hurricanes); the effect on water levels during long-period storm
                           events such as northeasters is less pronounced

                       ï¿½   potentially increased energy of waves arriving at the mainland
                           shoreline, which would result in an increased rate of erosion

                       ï¿½   interruption of the littoral transport system by the deposition of
                           sand in the tidal deltas of the new inlet, which typically
                           increases the rate of shoreline erosion at down-drift locations
                           (this is exacerbated by the presence of groins up-drift)

                       ï¿½   increased tidal flushing, which may cause the larvae of certain bay
                           organisms (particularly shellfish) to be carried out to the ocean
                           prior to settlement

                       ï¿½   potential burial of portions of the bay floor near the new inlet by
                           shifting sands associated with flood tidal delta deposits, which
                           may destroy clam beds and/or inhibit the growth of eelgrass (which
                           must be balanced against the potential benefits of increased
                           salinity and flushing)


               7.3 Neutral, Variable or Inadequately Defined Impacts

                    The following consequences of tidal inlet breaching have a environmental
                    impact that is neutral, variable, or inadequately defined:

                       ï¿½   decreased average temperature of the bay, with an effect on
                           shellfish resources that has not been adequately studied, but which
                           will vary from species to species

                       ï¿½   alterations in the progression of the tidal wave through the bay
                           system (i.e., the time of high or low tide at a given location),
                           which is usually neither beneficial nor detrimental




            September 1993                    Cashin Associates, P.c.                         Page 36












                      ï¿½  possible refraction of incoming waves due to nearshore tidal
                         currents and bathymetric changes associated with the new inlet's
                         ebb tidal delta, which may cause localized increases in shoreline
                         erosion and deposition rates

                      ï¿½  possible increase or decrease in the rate of shoaling of adjacent
                         inlets, which would tend to occur gradually following the
                         occurrence   of   a  breach;   hydraulically-connected    inlets   may
                         experience increased shoaling due to some tidal prism being lost to
                         the new inlet, while inlets at down-drift locations may experience
                         decreased shoaling due to the accumulation of littoral sand in the
                         new inlet's tidal deltas

                      ï¿½  undetermined impacts on adult finfish populations

                      ï¿½  possible isolation of habitats suitable for protected shorebird
                         species, which is a complex issue that cannot presently be
                         generically classified as beneficial or detrimental, due to scarce
                         data and conflicting existing information

                      ï¿½  possible effects on waterfowl populations, which cannot presently
                         be classified as having an overall beneficial or detrimental
                         effect, due to conflicting information

                      ï¿½  potential encroachment of salt marsh vegetation into areas that had
                         previously been occupied by brackish or freshwater wetland plants,
                         which has not been fully assessed in terms overall environmental
                         benefit or detrimental impact

                      ï¿½  navigational impacts that may be beneficial (e.g., more convenient
                         route to the ocean) or detrimental        (e.g., increased shoaling
                         associated with the new inlet's flood tidal delta, and possible
                         increases in the shoaling of hydraul i call y- connected inlets), or
                         neither or both

                      ï¿½ economic impacts that cannot be summarized on a generic basis
















           September 1993                   Cashin Associates, P.c.                      Page 37














            8. REFERENCES


            Anders, Fred J, and David W. Reed.         1989.   Shoreline Changes along the South
                Carolina Coast. In Barrier Islands: Process and Management, D.K. Stauble,
                Editor. American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 296-310.

            Barwis, John H.       January 1976.       Annotated Bibliography on the Geologic,
                Hydraulic, and Engineering Aspects of Tidal Inlets. General Investigation of
                Tidal Inlets (GITI) Report 4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 126 pp.

            Bascom, Willard. 1964. Waves and Beaches. Doubleday & Company, Garden City,
                New York. 267 pp.

            Behrens, E.W., and R.L. Watson and C. Mason.           January 1977.     Hydraulics and
                Dynamics of New Corpus Christi Pass, Texas: A Case History, 1972-3.           General
                Investigation of Tidal Inlets (GITI) Report 8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
                126 pp.

            Black, John A.    1987.   Barrier Management: The Long Island Experience.         Coastal
                Zone '87, pp. 3209-3220.
            Blankinship, Paul R. November 1976. A Flow Study of Drum Inlet, North Carolina.
                University of North Carolina Sea Grant College Publication UNC-SG-76-13,
                56 pp.

            Boehlert, George W., and Bruce    C. Mundy. 1988. Roles of Behavioral and Physical
                Factors in Larval and Juvenile Fish Recruitment to Estuarine Nursery Areas.
                In "Larval Fish and Shellfish Transport through Inlets". American Fisheries
                Society Symposium 3, pp. 51-67.

            Bruun, Per.    1960.  "Littoral Barriers". Chapter 1 in Tidal Inlets and Littoral
                Dri f t: Stabi I i ty of Coastal Inl ets, Vol . 2.      North-Holland Publishing,
                Amsterdam.

            Bumpus, Dean F., John H. Ryther, Francis A. Richards, and Ralph F. Vaccaro.
                December 1954. Unpublished Manuscript: Report on a Survey of the Hydrography
                of Great South Bay and Moriches Bay Made in July 1954 for the Towns of Islip
                and Brookhaven, New York. WHOI reference No. 54-85. 9 pp.
            Burr, J.G. September 1945. Nature Wins. Texas Game and Fish Magazine, p. 4.
            Byrnes, Mark R., and Kathryn J. Gingerich, Suzette M. Kimball, and George R.
                Thomas. 1989. Temporal and Spatial Variations in Shoreline Migration Rates,
                Metompkin Island, Virginia. Coastal Zone '89, pp. 78-92





            September 1993                     Cashin Associates, P.c.                         Page 38












            Caldwell, Donald M.      1972.   A Sedimentological Study of an Active Part of a
               Modern Tidal Delta, Moriches Inlet, Long Island, New York. Masters Thesis.
               Columbia University, New York. 70 pp.

            Cerrato, Robert M. July 1986. A seasonal study of the benthic fauna in Moriches
               Bay. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Stony
               Brook, Special Report 72. 111 pp.

            Clark, James S.    1986.  Dynamism in the Barrier-Beach Vegetation of Great South
               Beach, New York. Ecological Monographs, 56(2), pp. 97-126.

            Coastal Ocean Science and Management Alternatives (COSMA) Program.              December
               1985. Suffolk County's Hard Clam Industry: An Overview and an Analysis of
               Management Alternatives. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University
               of New York at Stony Brook, Special Report No. 63.

            Czerniak, Martin T. 1976. Inlet Interaction and Stability Theory Verification.
               Unpublished manuscript. Tetra Tech, Inc., Pasadena, California. 20 pp.

            Davis, Jr., Richard A., and James C. Gibeaut.             January 1990.      Historical
               Morphodynamics of Inlets in Florida: Models for Coastal Zone Planning.
               Florida Sea Grant College Technical Paper 55, 81 pp.

            Douma, J.H., and C.F. Wicker. May 1965. Considerations in the Improvement of
               Tidal Waterways. Chapter I in "Evaluation of Present State of Knowledge of
               Factors Affecting Tidal Hydraulics and Related Phenomena", C.F. Wicker,
               Editor. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Committee on Tidal Hydraulics, Report
               No. 3. 26 pp.

            Fessenden, Franklin W., and Susan C. Scott.      1989. The Coastal Breach at Nauset
               Beach, Chatham, Massachusetts: A Case Study. In Barrier Islands: Process and
               Management, D.K. Stauble, Editor. American Society of Civil Engineers. pp.
               138-149.

            Fetherston, Drew.     November 1980.    "Beach Repair Raises Questions".        Newsday,
              . November 30, 1980, p. 7.

            Finley, Robert J.      1978.   Ebb-Tidal Delta Morphology and Sediment Supply in
               Relation to Seasonal Wave Energy Flux, North Inlet, South Carolina. Journal
               of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 227-238.

            Fitzgerald, Duncan M., and Dennis K. Hubbard and Dag Nummedal.        1978. Shoreline
               Changes Associated with Tidal Inlets along the South Carolina Coast. Coastal
               Zone '78, pp..1973-1994.

            Fitzgerald, Duncan M. 1980. Ebb Tidal Delta of Price Inlet, South Carolina:
               Geomorphology,-Physical Processes, and Associated Shoreline Changes. From




            September 1993                    Cashin Associates, P.c.                         Page 39












                "Terrigenous Clastic Depositional Environments", AAPG Field Course, Fourth
                Edition,   Part   II -   Selected    Topics   on   South   Carol in a   Depositional
                Environments. M.O. Hayes and T.W. Kana, Editors. pp. 143-157.

            Giese, Graham S., and David G. Aubrey and James T.                 Liu.    June 1989a.
                Development, Characteristics, and Effects of the New Chatham Harbor Inlet.
                Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Technical Report CRC-89-4. 32 pp.

            Giese, Graham S., and James T. Liu and David G. Aubrey. 1989b. Impacts of Tidal
                Inlet Formation on the Physical Caharacteristics of a Barrier Beach-Estuary
                System.   In Barrier Islands: Process and Management, D.K. Stauble, Editor.
                American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 150-158.

            Giese, Graham S. 1988. Cyclical Behavior of the Tidal Inlet at Nauset Beach,
                Chatham, Massachusetts. Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol.
                29: Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics of Tidal Inlets, D.G. Aubrey and L.
                Weishar, Editors. pp. 269-283.

            Glancy, Joseph B.       March 1956.      Biological benefits of the Moriches and
                Shinnecock    Inlets   with   Particular    Reference    to   Pollution    and    the
                Shellfisheries.      Report to the District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of
                Engineers, New York District. 18 pp.

            Godfrey, Paul J.    1976.   Barrier Beaches of the East Coast. Oceanus 19(5). pp.
                27-40.

            Godfrey, Paul L., and Melinda M. Godfrey. 1975. "Some Estuarine Consequences
                of Barrier Island Stabilization", in Estuarine Research, Volume II: Geology
                and Engineering, L. Eugene Cronin, editor.         Academic Press, New York, New
                York.
            Greene, Gregory T. May 1978. Population, Growth and Mortafity of Hard Clams at
                Selected Locations in Great South Bay, New York. Masters Thesis. Marine
                Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
                199 pp.

            Greene, G.T., and A.C.F. Mirchel, W.J. Behrens, and D.S. Becker. January 1978.
                Surficial Sediments and Seagrasses of Eastern Great South Bay, New York.
                Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
                Special Report 12, 30 pp.

            Guillard, R.R.L., and R.F. Vaccaro, N. Corwin, and S.A.M. Conover. March 1960.
                Unpublished Manuscript: Report on a Survey of the Chemistry, Biology and
                Hydrography of Great South Bay and Moriches Bay Conducted During July and
                September 1959 for the Townships of Islip and Brookhaven, Long Island, New
                York. WHOI reference No. 60-15. 5 pp.





            September 1993                     Cashin Associates, P.C.                         Page 40











            Hayes, Miles 0., and Edward H. Owens, Dennis K. Hubbard, and Ralph W. Abele.
                1973.  Chapter 1 in Coastal Geomorphology, proceedings of the Third Annual
                Geomorphology Symposia Series held in Binghamton, New York, September 28-30,
                1972. Donald R. Coates, Editor. pp. 11-41.

            Hoese, D. June 1958. The Case of the Pass. Texas Game and Fish Magazine.
                pp. 16-18.

            Hollman, Rudolph, and M. Llewellyn Thatcher. June 1979. Flow Augmentation Needs
                Study: Great South Bay Salinity. 94 pp.

            Kassner, Jeffrey, and John A. Black. October 1983(a). Fire Island Inlet, New
                York: Management of a Complex Inlet. Shore and Beach, pp. 3-8.

            Kassner, Jeffrey, and John A. Black. April 1983(b). Inlets and Barrier Beach
                Dynamics: A Case Study of Shinnecock Inlet, New York. Shore and Beach, pp.
                22-26.

            Kassner, Jeffrey, and John A. Black. April 1982. Efforts to Stabilize a Coastal
                Inl et: A Case Study of Moriches Inl et, - New York. Shore and Beach, pp. 21-29.

            Kassner, Jeffrey, and John A. Black.       December 1981. The History and Status of
                Moriches Inlet. Town of Brookhaven, Department of Planning, Environment and
                Development, Technical Report 81-01. 21 pp.

            Kimball, Suzette M., and L.D. Wright.        1989.   Sediment Transport Processes at
                Sandbridge, Virginia. In Barrier Islands: Process and Management, D.K.
                Stauble, Editor. American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 106-121.

            Leatherman, Stephen P.      1989.   Role of Inlets in Geomorphic Evolution on the
                South Shore Barriers. Environmental Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 109-115.

            Leatherman, S.P., and J.R. Allen.        1985.   Geomorphic Analysis of Fire Island
                Inlet to Montauk Point, Long Island, New York. Final Report to the U.S. Army
                Corps of  Engineers, New York District.

            Leatherman,  Stephen P. 1982. Barrier Island Handbook, Second Edition. 109 pp.

            Leatherman,  Stephen P. February 1979. Migration of Assateague Island, Maryland,
                by Inlet  and Overwash Processes. Geology, v. 7, pp. 104-107.

            Long Island  Regional Planning Board. December 1989. Proposed Long Island South
                Shore Hazard Management Program.        Report prepared for the New York State
                Department   of   State,    Division   of   Coastal   Resources    and    Waterfront
                Revitalization.







            September 1993                     Cashin Associates, P.c.                         Page 41












            Long Island Regional Planning Board. July 1978. The Long Island Comprehensive
               Waste Treatment Management Plan.

            Lucke, John B. April 1934. A Study of Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey. Shore and
               Beach, Vol. II, No. 2., pp-. 34-46.

            Mason, Curtis, and Robert M. Sorensen. August 1971. Properties and Stability
               of a Texas Barrier Beach Inlet.        Texas A&M University Sea Grant Program.
               Publication Number TAMU-SG-71-217, 166 pp.

            McCormick, C. Larry. 1973. Probable Causes of Shoreline Recession and Advance
               on the South Shore of Eastern Long Island.                 Chapter 3 in Coastal
               Geomorphology, proceedings of the Third Annual Geomorphology Symposia Series
               held in Binghamton, New York, September 28-30, 1972.             Donald R. Coates,
               Editor. pp. 61-72.

            Miller, John R.    1988.  Physical Processes and Mechanisms of Coastal Migrations
               of Immature Marine Fishes. In "Larval Fish and Shellfish Transport through
               Inlets". American Fisheries Society Symposium 3, pp. 68-76.

            New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and
               Game.    September 1952.       Long Island Waterfowl Investigation.           Pitman-
               Robertson Project 52-R, 96 pp.

            New York State Department of State and the Nature Conservancy. April 1991. Long
               Island's Beach-Nesting Shorebird Habitat: Protection and Management of a
               Vulnerable Resource, Draft Report. 216 pp.

            O'Brien, Morrough P.     February 1976.    Notes on Tidal Inlets on Sandy Beaches.
               General Investigation of Tidal Inlets (GITI) Report 5. U.S. Army Corps of
               Engineers. 26 pp.

            Pritchard, D.W., and Eugenio Gomez-Reyes. June 1986. A Study of the Effect of
               Inlet Dimensions on Salinity Distribution in Great South Bay. Final Report
               to the County of Suffolk Department of Planning.         Marine Sciences Research
               Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Special Report 70.
               64 pp.

            Pritchard, D.W., and Joseph DiLorenzo. October 1985. Assessment of the Effects
               of Inlet Geometry on Currents in Moriches Inlet and on Tidal Range and Storm
               Surge in Moriches Bay. Final Report to the County of Suffolk Department of
               Health Services. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New
               York at Stony Brook. 92 pp.

            Redfield, Alfred C. April 1952. Report to the Towns of Brookhaven and Islip,
               New York, on the Hydrography of Great South Bay and Moriches Bay.                WHOI
               reference No. 52-26. 79 pp.



            September 1993                    Cashin Associates, P.c.                         Page 42












            Reid, George K. 1957. Biologic and Hydrographic Adjustment i.n a Disturbed Gulf
               Coast Estuary. Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 198-212.

            Research Planning Institute, Inc. 1985. Sediment Budget Analysis Summary, Fire
               Island Inlet to Montauk Point Reformulation Study. Final Report to the U.S.
               Army Corps of Engineers, New York District.

            Ryther, John H., and   Ralph F. Vaccaro, Edward M. Hulbert, Charles S. Yentsch, and
               R.R.L. Guillard. December 1958. Unpublished Manuscript: Report on a Survey
               of the Chemistry, Biology and Hydrography of Great South Bay and Moriches Bay
               Conducted during    June and September 1958 for the Townships of Islip and
               Brookhaven, Long    Island, New York. WHOI reference No. 58-57. 18 pp.

            Ryther, John H., and   Ralph F. Vaccaro, Charles S. Yentsch, and Edward M. Hulbert.
               October 1957. Report on a Survey of the Chemistry and Hydrography of Great
               South Bay and Moriches Bay Made in June 1957 for the Town of Islip, New York.
               WHOI reference No. 57-59. 9 pp.

            Schmeltz, E.J., and R.M. Sorensen., M.J. McCarthy, and G. Nersesian.             1982.
               Breach/Inlet Interaction at Moriches Inlet. Proceedings of the 18th Coastal
               Engineering Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, November 14-19, 1982. pp.
               1062-1077.

            Sorensen, Robert M., and Edward J. Schmeltz.          October 1982.    Closure of the
               Breach at Moriches Inlet. Shore and Beach, pp. 33-40.

            Suffolk County Planning Department. November 1982. A Development Plan for the
               Moriches Area. 144 pp. + appendices.

            Taney, Norman E.     September 1961.     Geomorphology of the South Shore of Long
               Island. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board.
               Technical Memorandum No. 128.

            Tanski, Jay, and Henry Bokuniewicz.         1988.    Westhampton Beach: Options for
               the Future.     Proceedings of a Workshop held March 30-31, 1988.          New York
               State Sea Grant Special Report 102. 28 pp.

            Tanski, Jay, and Henry Bokuniewicz. June 1989. An Overview and Assessment of
               the Coastal    Processes Data Base for the South Shore of Long Island.
               Proceedings of a workshop held April 20-21, 1989. 65 pp.

            Tiffney, W.N., Jr., and Robert Benchley 111.         1987.   Nantucket's Broad Creek
               Opening. Coastal Zone '87, pp. 3255-3265.

            Turner, Elizabeth J.       August 1983.     Effects of a Storm-Induced Breach on
               Mercenaria mercenaria in Moriches Bay.         Masters Thesis.     Marine Sciences
               Research Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook. 77 pp.




            September 1993                    Cashin Associates, P.c.                         Page 43












            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. April 1983. General Design Memorandum Moriches
                Inlet Project, Long Island, New York: Reformulation Study and Environmental
                Impact Statement. New York District.

            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Shore Protection Manual, Third Edition.
                Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virgnia.

            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. February 1963. Report on Storm of 6-8 March 1962.
                New York District. 240 pp.

            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.         November 1982.     Draft Report: Impact
                Assessment on Shellfish Resources of Great South Bay, South Oyster Bay, and
                Hempstead Bay, New York. Region II, New York, New York.

            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1981. Estuarine Impact Assessment
                (Shellfish   Resources)    for   the   Nassau-Suffolk    Streamflow Augmentation
                Alternatives. Region II, New York, New York.

            University of Florida, Coastal and         Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory.
                February 1973. Coastal Engineering Study of Proposed Navarre Pass. 132 pp.

            Van Popering, Marinus J., and Joseph B. Glancy.           May 1947.     History of the
                Shellfish Industry in Great South      Bay, New York.     Unpublished manuscript.
                11 pp.

            Weisher, Lee L., and M. Leslie Fields. September 1985. Annotated Bibliography
                of Sediment Transport Occurring over Ebb-Tidal Deltas. Prepared for the U.S.
                Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., Misc. Paper CERC-85-11, 124 pp.

            Williams, S.J., and E.P. Meisburger.       1987.  Sand Sources for the Transgressive
                Barrier Coast of Long Island, New York: Evidence for Landward Transport of
                Shelf Sediments. Coastal Sediments '87, pp. 1517-1532.

            Wood, Timothy J.     October 1991.     Breakthrough, the Story of Chatham's North
                Beach.    Cape Cod Chronicle-Hyora Publications, Chatham, Massachusetts.
                72 pp.

            Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.       January 1951.     Report on a Survey of the
                Hydrography of Great South Bay Made during the Summer of 1950 for the Town of
                Islip, New York. WHOI reference No. 50-48. 30 pp.











            September 1993                     Cashin Associates, P.c.                         Page 44











                                               APPENDIX A

                          LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION





            Name                         Affiliation


            David Adams                  North Carolina State University Forestry Department
            Jim Allen                    National Parks Service, Science Division, Boston
            David Aubrey                 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
            Simon Baker                  Eastern Carolina University
            Steve Benton                 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
                                         and Natural Resources
            Bill Birkmeier               Coastal Engineering Research Center, North Carolina
            John Black                   Suffolk County Community College
            Malcolm Bowman               Marine Sciences Research Center, State University
                                         of New York at Stony Brook
            Mark Byrnes                  Louisiana State University
            Fred Camfield                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
                                         Research Center, Vicksburg
            Jack Clark                   Massachusetts State Coastal Zone Management Program
            B.J. Copeland                North Carolina State Sea Grant
            Robert Dalrymple             University of Delaware
            DeWitt Davies                Suffolk County Department of Planning
            Robert Dean                  University of Florida
            Robert Dolan                 University of Virginia
            John Fisher                  North Carolina State University
            Duncan Fitzgerald            Boston University
            Jeff Gebert                  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia
            Graham Giese                 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
            Bill Hettler                 National Marine Fisheries Service
            Dick Hoese                   University of Southwestern Louisiana
            Scott Holt                   Marine Science Institute, Port Aransas, Texas
            Tom Jarret                   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Willmington
            Jeff Kassner                 Town of Brookhaven, New York
            Stephen Leatherman           University of Maryland
            Sandy McFarland              Town of Orleans, Massachusetts
            John Miller                  North Carolina State University
            Andrew Morang                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
                                         Research Center, Vicksburg
            Robert Morton                University of Texas










                                         APPENDIX A (continued)


                          LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION






             Name                        Affiliation



             Gil Nersesian               U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York
             Orrin Pilkey                Duke University
             Carl Rafk                   Barnstable    County,   Massachusetts,    Cooperative
                                         Extension
             Spencer Rogers              North Carolina State Sea Grant
             Margaret Swanson            Town of Chatham, Massachusetts
             Jay Tanski                  New York State Sea Grant
             George Ward                 University of Texas
             Timothy Wood                Cape Cod Chronicle, Chatham, Massachusetts
             Mike Wutkowski              U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Willmington
             John Zarudsky               Town of Hempstead, New York














                                         APPENDIX     B


                        LIST 05 LIBRARIES AND DOCUMENT DEPOSITORIES
                               USED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION




     Marine  Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook

      State University of New York At Stony Brook, main library system

      Suffolk County Community College, Selden, New York

      Coastal Engineering Archives, University of Floride, Gainsville, Florida

      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Reference
      Unit, Vicksburg, Mississippi

      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Reports Distribution
      tenter, Vicksburg, Mississippi

      National Sea Grant Depository,
                                         University of Rhode Island, Bay Campus at
       arragansett

        Florida Sea Grant Publications, University of Florida at Gainsville

          neering Societies Library at the United Engineering Center, New York, New





                                                                                                                      NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                      3 6668 14111870 5