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






























                            AN OVERVIEW AND ASSESS14ENT
                        OF THE COASTAL PROCESSES DATA BASE
                        FOR THE SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND



                              Proceedings of a Workshop
                               Held April 20-21, 1989






                        Convened by:   Jay Tanski *
                                       New York Sea Grant Extension
                                         Program
                                       State University of New York
                                         at Stony Brook

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










        June 1989









                                 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

        We are extremely grateful to the workshop participants; Drs.
        Timothy Kana, Larry McCormick and Gary Zarillo whose considerable
        expertise and cooperation made this effort possible. We are also
        grateful to Dr. Stephen Leatherman for agreeing to reviewing this
        document. We would like to thank Mmes. Laura Antonacci and Carol
        case for their administrative and secretarial support and Chris
        Schubert for his technical assistance in analyzing and summarizing
        the data. Messrs. Dewitt Davies, Mike Volpe and Ron Verbarg of the
        Long Island Regional Planning Board provided invaluable assistance
        in carrying out this project.

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































        This document was prepared for the New York State Department of
        State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization,
 Cn     with Financial Assistance from the Office of Ocean and Coastal
        Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
        Administration, (Grant-In-Aid-Award No. NA-82-AA-D-CZ068) provided
        under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended.




















                                  TABLE 9-F CONTENT




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

              Background  ...............................................  1
              summary of First Workshop  ................................  I
              Workshop Objectives  ......................................  2
              Procedure  ................................................  2

         Geographic Setting  ............................................  3

         South Shore Coastal Data Base  .................................  3

              General Nature of Available Data  .........................  3
              Trends in Shoreline Migration  ............................  6
              Shoreline Changes Due to Storms  .......................... 10
              Volumetric Shoreline Changes/Sediment Budgets   ............ 11
              Dune Morphology and Dynamics  ............................. 15
              Effects of Structures  .................................... 15
              Wave Climate  ............................................. 21
              sea Level Rise  ........................................... 23
              Storm Surges and Tides  ................................... 32
              Shoreline Processes  ...................................... 32
                   Longshore Sediment Transport   ........................ 32
                   Cross-shore Transport  ............................... 35
                   Inlet Processes  ..................................... 35
                   Overwash Processes  .................................. 43
                   Bluff Erosion  ....................................... 43

         critical Management Data Needs  ................................ 45

         References and Bibliography  ................................... 47

         Appendix 1 (Attendees)  ........................................ 57

         Appendix 2 (Interannual Beach Changes)   ........................ 59

         Appendix 3 (Wave Data)  ........................................ 61













                                    INTRODUCTION


        Background

        In response to erosion and flooding problems encountered along the
        south shore of Long Island, the New York State Department of State,
        Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization and the
        Long Island Regional Planning Board are in the process of
        developing a shoreline development management plan that is
        cognizant of coastal erosion conditions for this area. The
        preparation of the plan is to include an examination and analysis
        of the environmental, economic, land use and regulatory factors
        affecting development and erosion control decisions along the coast
        f
         or the purpose of formulating a comprehensive, coordinated
        response to chronic flooding and erosion conditions on the south
        shore.

        In conjunction with this effort, a series of three workshops is
        being held to bring together experts in coastal processes and
        engineering to examine erosion problems encountered along Long
        Island's south shore and possible means available for dealing with
        these problems from a technical perspective. More specifically,
        the individual workshops have been designed to focus on 1)
        identifying the generic physical data and information needed to
        develop a sound coastal erosion management program, 2) identifying
        the technical data presently available for the south shore, and 3)
        if possible, using these data to discriminate among the various
        available erosion control strategies for regional reaches of the
        coast in terms of potential effectiveness and impacts.

        The intent of these workshops is to provide technical information
        that will assist government officials and other interested parties
        in identifying, assessing, and selecting appropriate erosion
        management strategies for a particular area. This report
        summarizes the findings of the second workshop in this series.

        Summary of First Workshop

        Based on the findings of the first workshop (the proceeding of the
        first meeting are summarized in a separate report), the information
        needed to develop a management plan for Long Island's ocean
        shoreline was grouped into eight categories:

              1.  Long-term and short-term trends in shoreline migration

              2.  Magnitude of shoreline changes caused by storms

              3.  Volumetric shoreline changes including longshore transport
                  rates

              4.  Dune morphology and dynamics

              5.  Effects of existing shore protective structures


                                     1












             6. Wave climate

             7. Relative sea level rise


             8. Storm surges.



        The confidence with which this type of information can be applied
        in the development of management programs depends not only on the
        quality of the specific data available but also upon the current
        state of our understanding of coastal processes in general and the
        processes active on the south shore in particular. As a result,
        there is a ninth category of information needed for management -
        knowledge of the coastal or shoreline processes including the
        processes associated with inlets, longshore sediment transport, the
        cross-sbore transport, dune formation, overwash and bluff erosion.
        our understanding of all of these processes and their interaction
        must continue to evolve even as management decisions are being made
        based on the best data available at the time.


        Workshop Objectives

        The specific objectives of this meeting were to:

             1)  identify the basic coastal processes data that is
                 presently available for the south shore of Long Island
                 based on the information needs identified in the first
                 workshop in this series.


             2)  Assess the quality and coverage of the available data in
                 terms of its utility for developing management strategies.


             3)  Identify critical gaps in the coastal processes data
                 base.


        Procedure

        To achieve these objectives, coastal scientists who have worked
        extensively on south shore erosion problems were invited to
        participate in this workshop (See Appendix 1). Prior to the
        meeting, the participants were provided with the proceedings of the
        first workshop which defined the generic technical information
        required to identify, develop and evaluate erosion management
        strategies for coastal areas. At the meeting, the data
        requirements identified in the first workshop were presented and
        discussed by the entire group in terms of the availability,
        coverage and quality of the coastal information in the various
        categories listed above that has been collected along the south
        shore of Long Island.


                                   2










        The results of the groups efforts are reported in the following
        sections.


                                GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

        The study area is a 106-mile stretch of the south shore of Long
        Island extending from East Rockaway Inlet to Montauk Point (Figure
        1). This area can be divided into two physiographic provinces
        (Taney, 1961); a barrier island section extending from East
        Rockaway Inlet to Southampton (73 miles) and a headlands section
        between Southampton and Montauk Point. The barrier system is
        composed of four separate islands (from west to east; Long Beach,
        Jones Beach Island, Fire Island and Westhampton Beach) bounded by
        five stabilized inlets (from west to east; East Rockaway Inlet,
        Jones Inlet, Fire Island Inlet, Moriches Inlet, and Shinnecock
        Inlet). The 33-mile headland section is comprised primarily of
        beaches backed by glacial outwash deposits and in certain locations
        shallow ponds which are remnants of glacial drainage channels.
        Glacial till bluffs 40 to 60 feet high back the beach along the
        easternmost 10-miles of this section.

        A detailed analysis of the land use patterns along the south shore
        is provided in the hurricane mitigation plan developed for the area
        by the Long Island Regional Planning Board (Long Island Regional
        Planning Board (1984). In general, Long Beach is an urban area
        with high density development along much of its coast. Jones Beach
        island is publicly owned and used primarily for recreational
        purposes. Over 10 million people a year visit the beaches here. A
        4-lane parkway built on 40 million cubic yards of fill dredged from
        the back bay in the 1920's runs along the length of the island.
        There are also 4 small residential communities on lands leased from
        the local governments. Three of these communities are located
        landward of the parkway. Fire Island is largely undeveloped with
        20 low-to-moderate density seasonal residential communities.
        Vehicle traffic is severely restricted (there are no paved roads)
        and access is primarily by ferry. Much of the island is owned
        by federal government as part of the Fire Island National Seashore
        and and a portion is managed by the National Parks Service as a
        wilderness area. Westhampton Beach is characterized primarily by
        low density residential development, open space, and recreational
        beaches. Fifteen groins built as part of Federal project between
        1964 and 1970 are situated about 3 miles east of Moriches Inlet.
        The headland coast contains a mixture of low density residential
        development, recreation areas and open space.

                           SOUTH SHORE COASTAL DATA BASE


        General Nature of Available,Data

        Most of the data and information on coastal processes available for
        the south shore of Long Island are largely the result of studies
        done by or for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of their
        hurricane protection, beach erosion, and navigation projects.


                                   3









                                                        CONNECTICUT



                       NEW
                       YORK          .1001,

                                                                                                       MP


                                                                                      EN             410

                                                                                  SH
                                     OtAG    AtAID                   MI    WB
                                                            FI
                                                 FIj
                               RI LID JI JB
                                              axot0t                     A&ANrIC                    4003CF
                                                                             OCEAN





                     74*00!                                                                   7200d



                   FIGURE 1.   Index map. ERI - East   Rockaway Inlet; LB - Long Beach;
                               JI - Jones Inlet; JB    Jones Beach Island; FII = Fire
                               Island Inlet; FI = Fire Island; MI = Moriches Inlet; WB
                               - Westhampton Beach; SI - Shinnecock Inlet; SH -
                               Southampton; EH - Easthampton; MP - Montauk Point.









        several regional studies of the geomorphology and sediments of the
        south shore were performed by the Coastal Engineering Research
        Center (CERC) (Taney, 1961; Taney, 1961a; Williams, 1976). For
        the purposes of their projects, the Corps has divided the study
        area into three separate reaches: Fire Island Inlet to Montauk
        Point; Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet; and Jones Inlet to East
        Rockaway Inlet.

        For the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point reach, several federal
        projects have resulted in a number of general design memoranda
        including; the Fire Island to Montauk Point Hurricane and Beach
        Erosion Protection Project (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977),
        inlet navigation stabilization projects at Shinnecock, Moriches and
        Fire Island Inlets, and groin construction at Westhampton and East
        Hampton. Quantitative data for the littoral zone is skewed to
        those areas where projects have been undertaken. Minety percent of
        the available survey and map data covers only about 20 percent of
        the shoreline along this section. The detailed studies that have
        been done have been restricted to specific areas and limited time
        periods. As a result, there is little comparative data available
        for the entire shoreline over an extended time period.

        Two of the more comprehensive studies in terms of coverage in time
        and space for this stretch of coast were a regional sediment budget
        study (Research Planning Institute, Inc., 1985) and a geomorphic
        analysis of shoreline conditions which included a comparison of
        historic shoreline positions (Leatherman and Allen, 1985). Both
        studies were done as part of a Corps reformulation of the 1977
        hurricane protection plan study.

        For the sediment budget, survey data from 1933, 1940, 1955, a
        partial set in 1967, and 1979 were reviewed and analyzed. The most
        important data in terms of the preparation of the budget were long
        ranges surveyed by the Corps in 1955 at bench marks spaced
        approximately every mile along the shore, and another set of ranges
        surveyed by Strock, Inc. in 1979. Although the Strock ranges did
        not correspond with the earlier Corps bench marks, these two data
        sets were cited as the most useful because they: 1) provided the
        most comprehensive coverage of the entire study area over a
        relatively long time interval; 2) represented controlled survey
        data extending beyond the surf zone; and 3) covered a time period
        when most of the existing major coastal construction projects
        (inlet stabilization, groins, etc.) were in place and, thus, most
        accurately represent current conditions. Comparative analysis of a
        total of 135 profiles from the two years were used in developing
        the sediment budget for the 1955-1979 period.

        The geomorphic analysis study focused on identifying and
        quantifying the rates and modes of barrier island behavior over the
        past 500 years using data derived from several sources, including:
        a review of the literature, 139 vibracores and 80 miles of seismic
        reflection and ground penetrating radar records, historic maps and
        aerial photographs from the past 150 years (for the development of
        metric maps of the past shoreline positions), an aeolian sediment


                                   5








        transport study, and the above-mentioned sediment budget study.
        Data on coastal processes west of Fire Island are less
        comprehensive, not as well documented, and, in many cases, somewhat
        dated in comparison to that available for the eastern section of
        the study area. As mentioned previously, most of the available
        studies relate to the federal dredging project at Fire Island
        Inlet. A physical model of this inlet was developed by the
        Waterways Experiment Station (Bobb and Boland, 1969) and the 1971
        general design memorandum for the inlet was recently reviewed
        (Galvin, 1985). (Under the authorized Corps project material
        dredged from the inlet is supposed to be placed on Jones Beach
        Island (between Fire Island Inlet and Jones Inlet) as part of a
        combined navigation and hurricane protection program.)        The
        erosion protection plan and data on shore conditions for Jones
        Beach Island are contained primarily in a 1964 beach erosion study
        (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1965). Researchers from CERC have
        also synthesized data from monthly subaerial beach profiles taken
        between 1962 and 1974 (Everts, 1973; Morton et al., 1986).
        Quantitative survey data in this area has also been collected in
        conjunction with a recent inlet dredging and sand bypassing project
        but this data has not been compiled or analyzed in a comprehensive
        fashion at this time.

        The only data available from the Corps_far the shoreline between
                                                                    draft
        hurricane and beach erosion protection study dated                  Army
                                                  e Corps is apparently
        Cbtps o Ep_q1neers-r-1-96 i
        upd@_t:'inq___@nd analyzing the available data for this area, the
        results of these efforts, to be issued as a CERC report, were not
        available at the time of this meeting.

        In addition to the Corps-related work there have been a number of
        other studies and reports done on the south shore by various groups
        and individuals. For the most part, these studies focus on
        specific, relatively small sections of the coast shore during
        different time periods. Many of the available studies and reports
        are cited in the bibliography and references section of this
        report, but this listing is not necessarily complete.

        Trends in Shoreline migration

        Studies of the long-term trends in shoreline position have been
        conducted by Taney (1961) for most of the south shore and by
        Leatherman and Allen (1985) for the area east of Fire Island Inlet.
        Taney compared the position of high water for various time periods
        using several sets of Coast and Geodetic Survey charts and U.S.
     (,Army Corps of Engineers maps and ranges dating from 1834 to 1955,
        Leatherman and Allen developed maps of the mean high tide shoreline
        based on Coast and Geodetic Survey charts and aerial photographs
        and compared the shoreline position for four time periods
        (1834/1838, 1873/1892, 1933, and 1979) to calculate long-term
        annual recession/accretion rates. Because of the technigue       -usaA-in
                                                         st data-available on
        sborAaine__cbanqes. The data from these two studies are plotted


                                     6









       together in Figure 2.

       Additional information on long-term shoreline changes for some
       subsections is also available. Zarillo and Zarillo (1989) have
       compiled information on the area between Southampton and East
       Hampton. Rich (1975) studied the same area using 10 sets of
       aerial photographs taken between 1938 and 1972 to measure changes
       in the vegetation line, the dune base line and the high water line.
       A graphic summary of the results of Rich's study is provided in
       Figure 3.

       A number of problems in interpreting the data available on the
       long-term shoreline position changes were noted. These problems
       include:

            a.    The old maps and charts used for comparison often
                  represent surveys done over many months and it is not
                  always clear whether or not the shoreline mapped
                  represents the shoreline at mean sea level, the high-
                  water shoreline or some other indicator. As a result,
                  these maps must be interpreted as qualitative indicators
                  of shoreline position.

            b.    When aerial photographs are used the position of the
                  color change on the beach representing the demarcation
                  between saturated and unsaturated sand is usually
                  interpreted as the high water shoreline. Since the water
                  level is constantly changing, this point is likely to be
                  between mean sea level and high water. However, because
                  of storm surges and other non-tidal water level
                  variations, the wet sand boundary may actually be below
                  mean sea level or above high water under certain
                  conditions.

             c.   Because of the differences in the exact indicator used
                  for the shoreline position, comparisons between maps and
                  aerial photographs may be unreliable.

              d.  There are unavoidable measurement errors due to the
                  accuracy of maps, their scale, distortion and mismatching
                  overlays of two sequential shorelines. If the process is
                  done carefully, however, these errors can be small.

             e.   There are large unpredictable interannual variations in
                  the shoreline position due to short-term changes in the
                  beach from caused by storms.


        Data on the short-term fluctuations of shoreline positions     have
        been developed for a limited number of locations where subaerial
        beach profiles had been surveyed at least several times per year
        for periods up to 11 years (Jones Beach Island, Ocean Beach (Fire
        Island), Fire Island Pines, and East Hampton). An examination of
        the available profile data indicated that the maximum annual


                                   7








           Figure 2.       Annualized long-term rates of shoreline recession
                           and accretion (+). (A) - data from Taney, 1961; (B)
                           data from Leatherman and Allen, 1985. Boxes indicate
                           average and maximum annual variations in the mean sea
                           level intercept based on surveys at selected locations.                                           Montauk
                                                                                                                                Point



                                                                                                  East Hampton


                                                                                          Southampton



                                                                             Westhampton
                                                                                Beach       \  Shinnecock Inlet


                                                                                Moriches Inlet

                                                     Fire Island


                                  Jones Beach
                        Long Beach
                  East                         Fire Island Inlet
                Rockaway           ones Inlet
                   Inlet

                  20.0                     28.4,, /21.9
                                                                                                    1933-1951/55(A)
             C
             0    15.0--                                                                                1933- 1979 (8)


             U    10.0--
             U
                   5.0                                    (3)


                   0.0--                                                                                        A..


                  -5.0


             C
             0  -10.0--
             V)
             0
                  15.0--
             Q)

                -20.0                   -22.2 -2 .1                                (B)
                  20.0                (A) -                                                    1873/80-1951/55(A)
             C
             0    15.0--                                                                           1873/92-1979 (B)


             U    10.0--
             U

                   5.0                                 2)                                               (4)

                   0.01                                R   iL                                           F9
                                                                               -------- ---        ro-t H'-pto.
                                                                             W @et h..    Southampton
                                                                                   mpto'
                                                                                   ch@
                                                                                           I\Shinnecock Inlet
























             0  -10.0
             V)                                                                           (1) (Everts, 1973).
             0
                                                                                          (2) (Tonski, 1983).
                -15.0
                                                                                          (3) (Bokuniewicz, 1986).
                -20.0                             212                                     (4) (Bokuniewicz et ol., 1989).
                                       -23.6/\_
                                                25.0               8








       Figure 3. Changes in vegetation line, dune base and high water
                       line between 1938 and 1975 for a section of the study
                       area from Rich (1975).


           COMPOSITE           MEAN       RA YES      OF     CHANGE           1919-1975           ets r year)




    TW


                                                                                                                                 Dow  mme



                                                                                                                                 Affah Nor Lim




                 svirms    coo vrr,   vor raits
                   MONUUX       PIJVINSVL 4

                                                                                                   0 C   A

                                                                                      C
                                                                             I.A





                                  ."OWN
                                            ofteAes   Nader  Rece"lon - At co,#114m slodr
                                                        - - --h         --                   -- -- e"
                                                                                         L5                     T









        horizontal variations in the mean sea level intercept for
        individual profiles ranged from 148 feet to 270 feet (with an
        average value over a decade of 183 feet) and the mean annual range
        varied from 100 feet to 169 feet (with an average value over a
        decade of 122 feet) at the different locations.

        The uncertainty associated with the calculated long term annual
        recession/accretion rates due to the interannual variations in
        shoreline position derived from the profile data is also shown in
        Figure 2. The maximum and average range of annual shoreline
        position (as indicated by horizontal changes in the mean sea level
        intercept) divided by the number of years in the associated period
        of record are indicated by the boxes at the four locations. (See
        Appendix 2 for a discussion of the procedure used).

        Several recommendations were made for improving the quality of
        information on long-term shoreline recession/accretion rates.

            1.    Only aerial photographs should be used in the analysis.
                  These should be properly rectified and superimposed on a
                  well-surveyed, large scale (1 inch = 200 feet) map. Such
                  maps are available from the Suffolk County Department of
                  Public Works at Yaphank.

            2.    The period from 1940 (after the 1938 hurricane) to the
                  present is of most interest, since this period includes
                  most of the major structural alterations that have been
                  implemented along the shore and is, thus, most
                  representative of present conditions.

            3.    The comparisons should be redone using the position of
                  the vegetation line or a particular contour related to
                  some part of the dune instead of the high water
                  shoreline. The vegetation line and the dune should
                  respond instantly to severe erosion but should only
                  change slowly during the interval between major storms,
                  reducing the uncertainties associated with the use of the
                  highly variable high water mark as an indicator of
                  shoreline position.

            4.    The uncertainties in shoreline trends associated with the
                  use of the high water mark as an indicator should not be
                  calculated from the extremes in the observed interannual
                  ranges of the position of the water line. Rather, a
                  probability distribution of widths around the average
                  position should be calculated and used as a measure of
                  the uncertainty of the long-term shoreline erosion and
                  accretion rates.

        Shoreline Changes Due to Storms

        Quantitative data on the response of the shoreline to storm events
        are extremely limited due to the paucity of actual measurements on
        the south shore during periods of storm activity. Morton and


                                   10









        others (1986) in a study on Jones Beach Island analyzed beach
        volume changes based on comparisons of sequential, subaerial profiles
        for eight storms occurring between 1968 and 1971. Although the
        shoreline response was variable along this stretch of the coast,
        they found that winter storms consistently reduced the volume of
        sand on the subaerial beaches with losses of sand ranging from 4
        cubic yards per foot of beach to 21 cubic yards per foot. However,
              also rg 9rted that these volume losses were nearly COMP16=7
                     p
                           )ne montn__Or_tH9 storm activity. DeWall-(I-979y-
        reported similar                    .113M15t,011- ac in icating that the
        rapid storm recovery of the subaerial beach is typical of the south
        shore beaches. This phenomena was primal              ibuted to natural
        -onzhoxv--trAns.pof_@t-of-sediment and the relatively low frequen-c-y--o-f
        occurrenc      storm waves in the area-CM-o-rTaff-et  al., 1986-).

        No quantitative information on storm-induced changes of the beach
        below mean sea level are available due to the lack of sequential
        surveys extending offshore.

        A number of recommendations for improving information on shoreline
        changes during storms were suggested. These include:

              1.   The shift in the shoreline position after the 1962 storms
                   could be calculated. (There was a set of aerial
                   photographs taken after this storm and this shoreline was
                   reported by Leatherman and Allen. The comparison should
                   be made between the 1962 storm shoreline and the next
                   closest (in time) shorelines before and after 1962).
                   Again, the vegetation line or a particular contour
                   related to the dune (the six-foot contour is probably
                   indicative of the base of the dune in most areas) should
                   be used instead of the waterline as an indicator of
                   shoreline position change).

             2.    Available beach surveys should be searched for sets
                   before and after storms and a detailed analysis of these
                   data performed.

             3.    Models of coastal flooding including dynamic changes in
                   the beach and the dune could be developed. (The present
                   V-zone maps prepared by FEMA maps are not adequate since
                   they only consider relative elevations and do not take
                   into account beach changes due to erosion or deposition.)

        Volumetric Shoreline Changes/Sediment Budgets

        The best existing long-term information on volumetric shoreline
        changes is that developed in sediment budget study by Research
        Planning Institute for the area east of Fire Island Inlet. The
        data on the net longshore transport, the total net annual volume
        changes; and the net annual volume changes for the portions of the
        shoreline above mean high water, in the-intertidal zone and between
        mean low water and -24 feet MLW for the period 1955-1979 are
        plotted in Figures 4 and 5. The results show, for example, that


                                      11






              Figure 4. Annualized net longshore transport rates and net                                          Montauk
                             shoreline volume changes for period 1955-4979 from                                      Point
                             sediment budget study (Research Planning Institute,
                             Inc., 1985).

                                                                                          East Hampton


                                                                                   Southampton




                                                                       Westhampton
                                                                          Beach      \  ShInnecock Inlet


                                                                          Moriches Inlet

                                                  Fire Island


                                Jones Beach
                       Long Beach
                   East -=f==                Fire Island Inlet
                Rockaway        Jones Inlet
                   Inlet


                   10.0--                                                            NET SHORE VOLUME CHANGE
                                                                                                     (1955-1979)



                   5-0--






                   0.0-






                   -5.0 --






                  -10.0

                   800--                                                             NET LONGSHORE TRANSPORT
                                                                                                    (TO THE WEST)
                   700

                       . IPonuzio. 1968
                   600--

              0                                        RPI. 1985
              0
                   500



                   400



                   300



                   200



                   100



                      0



                                                               12









             Figure 5. Annualized net shoreline volume changes by lens and
                                 total net change (RPI,1985).
                                                                                                                                                           Montouk
                                                                                                                                                              Point



                                                                                                                         East Hampton


                                                                                                               Southampton



                                                                                                Westhcrnp on
                                                                                                   Beach          \  Shinnecock Inlet


                                                                                                    Moriches Inlet

                                                                   Fire Island


                                          Jones Beach
                              Long Beach
                         Eost                              Fire Islond Inlet
                    Rockoway              Jones Inlet
                         Inlet                                                                                  IS ET VOLUME CHANGE BY LENS
                         10.0
                                                                                                                   BASE LINE TO MEAN HIGH WATER


                         5.0



                    Z    0.0  -



                         -5.0



                         -10.0
                         10.0                                                                              MEAN HIGH WATE
                                                                                                                              R TO MEAN LOW WATER


                         5.0



                         0.0
                                                              L------r



                         5.0



                         -10.0
                         10.0                                                                                                              -24.0 FEET
                                                                                                                  MEAN LOW WATER TO




                                                                                                    F1
                         0-0  7.


                         -5'0



                         -10.0
                         10-0 7-                                                                                     NET SHORE VOLUME CHANGE


                         5.0
                                                                                                           t












                         0.0                                                                                    P-1

                         -5.0



                         -10.0
                                                                                    13









         the large increase in-,the.longshore_4rif"t,.@@e-is,la-nd-.Inle-t
         appears to be due to the reworkiEq
                                             _qg_&_he     Fir -9
         tidal'--d-61f@f6" __"e' east of-the.-Anlet., Unfortunately, similar
         info-i:id@itl-o-n--"f-o,-r--c-omparative time periods has not been developed for
         the shoreline west of Fire Island Inlet.

         Although the sediment budget study represents the best available
         data on long term volumetric changes a number of limitations
         associated with this data set were noted.

             1.    Reliable comparative long ranges and bathymetry were
                   generally only available for limited areas and time
                   periods. As a result, only a limited number of usable
                   profiles (a total of 135) were available for a relatively
                   long stretch of coast and in many cases sequential
                   profiles (in time) were not done at exactly the same
                   location requiring the juxtaposition of data from
                   adjacent ranges for comparisons.

             2.    The ranges used only extended to 24 feet MLW. There is
                   no information on changes below this depth.

             3.    The relatively stable geomorphic history of the shoreline
                   over the past 50 years increases the margin of error for
                   comparative profile analysis compared to areas that are
                   experiencing rapid erosion or accretion.

             4.    The study only covered the area east of Fire Island
                   Inlet.

         To improve the long-term information at least two steps should be
         taken.

             1.    The 1955 Corps profile lines and the 1979 Strock profile
                   lines should be reoccupied and the volume comparisons
                   updated to include the 1979-1989 period.

             2.    Better resolution, especially around inlets, is needed.
                   Additional profile lines should be established and
                   surveyed (a recommended spacing of 2000 feet along the
                   shoreline was suggested).

         Information on seasonal and short term volumetric changes is
         generally limited to those few areas described in the previous
         section on trends of shoreline migration where regular beach
         profile monitoring programs have been undertaken for various time
         periods. It is important to note that these studies only involved
         measurements of the subaerial beach. As a result, they do not
         provide information on changes occurring below mean sea level,
         which are of far greater magnitude than the changes taking place on
         the subaerial beach.

         In general, the short-term volumetric changes associated with the
         subaerial beach are fairly constant along the shoreline


                                      14









         (Bokuniewicz and Schubel, 1987). Profiles taken at approximately
         monthly intervals do not reveal a strong seasonal cycle but appear
         to be strongly influenced by storm events. As an example, Figure 6
         illustrates the subaerial beach volume changes measured at a
         typical station in East Hampton over a multi-year period. Average
         changes between successive surveys in the areas where profiles were
         measured were 13 cubic yards per foot. Although the maximum change
         caused by a storm at any particular station may be 5 to 10 times
         the typical change, the average volumetric changes due to storms
         were not exceptionally larger than the average changes measured
         between survey dates (Bokuniewicz and Schubel, 1987).

         Dune Morphology and Dynamics.

         No systematic studies of dune morphology have been done for the
         area even though the data needed to develop this information could,
         for the most part, be obtained from available topographic maps.
         Changes in dune morphology could also be obtained by digitizing
         contours on large-scale topographic maps surveyed in 1955 and
         1979, but the changes are likely to be very small and extremely
         uncertain.

         A study of the aeolian sediment budget for shores east of Fire
         Island Inlet was done by investigators from Rutgers University for
         the National Park Service (McCluskey et al., 1983). The
         volume of sediment transported by aeolian processes for the entire
         area was calculated to be on the order of 250,000 cubic yards per
         year with over 90 percent of this transport occurring seaward of
         the dune crest and in an easterly direction. Based on sand trap
         data, the amount of sand transported across the crest of the dune
         from the seaward direction was estimated to be approximately 0.08
         cubic yards per foot of dune per year. This volume comprised less
         than 1 percent of the bulk of the dune (the investigators
         identified a "prototype" dune having a volume of 37 cubic yards per
         foot). Based on the findings of the aeolian sediment budget, a
         generalized model of the potential effects of different conditions
         of development was formulated (Figure 7).

         Effects of Structures

         The locations of groins and jetties in the study area are plotted
         in Figure 8. There are some 69 groins and jetties in the study
         area. The highest concentration of groins is on Long Beach which
         has a total of 48 of these structures. In general, the most
         important questions relating to the impacts of structures concern
         the amount of sand trapped by the structures, the amount of sand
         currently bypassing, and the degree of down drift erosion caused by
         the structures. Although groins are far more prevalent in the
         urbanized Long Beach section to the west, the only detailed study
         of the effects of groins in the study area was that done by DeWall
         (1979), who used subaerial beach profiles measured between 1964 and
         1973 to examine the impact of the Westhampton groin field (15
         groins constructed between 1965 and 1970). His findings in terms
         of the net volume changes of the adjacent beach are summarized in


                                    15






                                                                       East Hampton Beach

                                                                  cumulative volume change, station                13
                                  60



                                  50

                      Z

                      CO          40



                                  30



                                  20



                                  10



                                     0



                                  10 -


                      Q
                                -20 -



                                 -30

                                            I Jan 79 1 Jan 80 1 Jan 81 1 Jan 82 1 Jan 83 1 Jan 84 1 Jan 851 Jan 861 Jan 871 Jan 881 Jan 89

                                                                                         time




                                        Figure 6. Beach volume changes based on successive subaerial
                                                        profiles at a typical station in East Hampton.








                A
              NATURAL                  CM0
            CONDITIONS



                B                                     SPACH
            SAND FENCE
                               .84



                C              00
               HOUSE    .01 0.14
                            '73    1.08
                        3



                D              Q 0
             HOUSE AND'.01  A08
            SAND FENCE -
                           .41
                       .04


                     <nM QUANTITY IN TRANSIT
                       1w-
                            QUANTITY DEPOSITED
                                (M3/yr)







    Figure 7. Calculated annual net eolian sediment budget for sand
               crossing a 10 meter length of dune crest at Fire Island
               under different conditions of development. From:
               McCluskey et al., 1983.



                                  17







              Figure S. Locations, dates of construction and approximate lengths
                              of groins and jetties in the study area.


                                                                                                                              Montauk
                                                                                                                                Point




                                                                                                  East Hampton


                                                                                          Southampton



                                                                              Westhampton
                                                                                Beach        \ Shinnecock Inlet


                                                                                 Moriches Inlet

                                                      rore Island


                                   Jones Beach

                        Long Beach
                   East                         Fire Island Inlet
               Rockaway            Jones Inlet
                   Inlet


                1000 _ 4250        52M          um                        1470           1363
                                                                                                LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES


                         A         4
                         Pq
                 800--




                   600-




             C 400 -
                                                                                                          to



                   200-




                     0
                         (1930-61)
                   10.0--                                                                   NET SHORE VOLUME CHANCE
                                                                                                              (1955-1979)



                    5.0--






                    0.0-
                                       "eac"





































































                 -10.0-


                                                                    18









        Figure 9. The effect of the groin field are also evident in the
        data on long-term shoreline changes (Figure 2) and the net volume
        changes (Figures 4 and 5). The sediment budget data indicate the
        coastal compartment containing the groins gained an average of
        190,000 cubic yards per year (8 cubic yards/foot/year) between 1955
        and 1979 with a considerable portion of this increase (about 78,000
        cubic yards per year) occurring below MLW. Downdrift of these
        structures there was an average loss of 55,000 cubic yards per year
        (4 cubic yards/foot/year) with most of the loss occurring below
        MLW. The amount of sand actually bypassing these structures is not
        known. Although estimates could probably be derived from a more
        detailed analysis of the data used in the sediment budget and from
        Corps records and surveys, such calculations may not reflect the
        current conditions since the efficiency of sand trapping and the
        rate of bypassing would be expected to change as the structures
        age.

        All of the inlets in the study area have been stabilized with
        jetties. Shinnecock and Moriches Inlets are both stabilized with
        pairs of jetties that were constructed between 1952 and 1954. Fire
        Island, Jones and East Rockaway Inlet are each stabilized with
        single jetties on the east (updrift) side of the respective inlets.
        These jetties were constructed in 1939-1944 at Fire Island; 1953 7
        1959 at Jones Inlet; and 1933-1934 at East Rockaway Inlet (Panuzio,
        1968). Evidence of the impacts of the stabilization of the inlets
        on the down drift shoreline can also be seen in Figure 2, 4, and 5.
        The possible effects of the inlets are discussed in more detail in
        the section on Shoreline Processes.

        Little data on the impacts of shore paral I _-_t-ruCf-i1r_e@_1
                                                      of these structures
        along the shoreline has not been documented. However, the effects
        of structures on the overall sediment budget is probably small in
        the reach east of Jones Inlet given they only cover a relatively
        small stretch of the total coast (estimated to be 3 to 5 miles).

        In the East Hampton area revetments are usually almost entirely
        buried with sand and do not influence the short term beach changes.
        They are exposed and have been effective in preventing inland
        erosion during severe storms. Here and in other places on the
        eastern part of the coast, old bulkheads have occasionally been
        exposed by unusually severe erosion. These structures were
        apparently built several or more decades ago (presumably in
        response to local erosion) subsequently buried with sand and
        forgotten until uncovered by recent storm events.

        As part of the sediment budget study, Research Planning Institute
        examined Federal, state and local records in an effort to identify
        dredge and fill projects undertaken along the shoreline east of
        Fire Island Inlet between 1955 and 1979. Although substantial
        amounts of fill were added to the beach (an estimated 12 million
        cubic yards over the 24 year period), it appears most of the
        material was dredged from the back barrier bays and placed on the
        beach. In many cases, the primary objective of these activities


                                   19













                                                                                       t
        Moriches Inlet                        4 GROINS    I IGROINS       ShInnocock Inle
                                                WITH        BUILT
                                               BEACH     NOV. 1964
                                              FILL BUILT     TO
                                              MAR. 196W
                                              i  TO      OCT. 1266
                                              NOV. 1970



                           76



       MET VOLUMETRIC      60
       CHANGES A13OVE
       MEAN SEA LEVEL
         NOV. 1984
            TO
         DEC. 1973


       yde?/ ft. of Beach)         ES


                          -26


                                                POSITION ALONG SHORE-LINE

                          -60


                INCLUDES BEACH FILL

                                                  Figur
                                                      e 9. Net
                                                           booch
                INFLUENCED sy WINTER DEACH DEPLETION          effecfttom0f: wDewsathlaimPton groin field on the subaerial
                                                                             1979.









                 was probably dredged material disposal rather than beach
                 renourishment. Precise information on the boundaries of the
                 disposal areas was often lacking. Figure 10 indicates the volume
                 added to the different compartments by these projects in terms of
                 cubic yards per foot of a beach per year for the period 1955 to
                 1979.

                 As part of a combined inlet navigation and beach erosion control
                 project, approximately 7 million cubic yards of sand dredged from
                 Fire Island Inlet was placed on a feeder beach located
                 approximately 1 mile west of the inlet on Jones Beach in 5 separat
                 projects between 1959 and 1977 (Galvin, 1985). However, dredging
                 activities were suspended until the potential effects of this
                 activity on erosion on the north side of the inlet could be
                 studied. During this hiatus the downdrift beaches experienced
                 severe erosion. Two emergency dredging projects in 1985 and 1987
                 resulted in a total of about 1.2 million cubic yards of sand beinc
                 placed offshore of Jones Beach in waters 16 feet deep.     In 1988/8s
                 approximately 1 million cubic yards of sand was dredged    from the
                 vicinity of the inlet and placed on downdrift beaches.     The data
                 for this area plotted in Figure 10 represent approximate volumes
                 and locations of the fill projects.

                 Corps' records (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966) show that
                 approximately 550,000 cubic yards of material dredged from the bay
                 was placed on Long Beach between 1959 and 1962. However, recent
                 information on the history of fill projects along this segment has
                 not been compiled or summarized. This data may be contained in a
                 Corps' report being prepared for this area which is scheduled for
                 release in the near future.

                 Detailed monitoring information on dredge and fill operations in
                 the study area is not readily available. Although permit and
                 dredging project records may contain information on various
                 projects that have been undertaken, a substantial effort would be
                 required to determine the quality and completeness of the data. I
                 is often not known for example, if a particular permitted project
                 was ever actually completed. Additional effort would be needed to
                 synthesize, if possible, a meaningful analysis of the performance
                 of the various fill projects.

                 Wave Climate

                 Direct measurements of the wave climate are extremely sparse. In-
                 situ wave gauge data are either short in duration, unreported or
                 non-existent (Morton et al., 1986). one non-directional gauge
                 operated intermittently between 1950 and 1954 at several locations
                 in the area of Jones Beach indicated waves higher than 6 to 10 fee,
                 occurred less than 1% of the time and a maximum wave height of 13..
                 feet (Panuzio, 1968). Another non-directional wave gauge located
                 in 30 feet of water offshore of Southampton operated between 1975
                 and 1976 as part of a CERC program.

                 The only directional, long-term near shore wave measurements


                                             21





         Figure 10. Annualized fill placement and net volume change (1955-
                             1979). Data east of Fire Island Inlet from RPI, 1985.

                                                                                                                       Montauk
                                                                                                                         Point



                                                                                             East Hompton


                                                                                     Southompton



                                                                          Westhomptom
                                                                            Beoch       \Shinneco    ck Inlet


                                                                             Moriches Inlet

                                                   Fire Islond


                                 Jones Beoch
                        Long Beoch
                  East                        Fire Island Inlet
                Rockaway         Jones Inlet
                   Inlet

                  10.0--                                                                 DREDGE FILL PLACEMENT




                                   (opprox.)


               L:


                   0.0
                                 (1955-1988)               (1955-1979)




                  -5.0






                  -10.0

                  10.0--                                                               NET SHORE VOLUME CHANGE
                                                                                                        (1955-1979)



                   5.0--






                   0.0






                  -5.0
                 -10.0 t
                                                                   22








         dvailable for the study area are visual observations collected at
         several points along the shore including Jones Beach, Fire Island,
         Westhampton, and Southampton. Some of these observations were made
         as part of CERC's Beach Evaluation Program in the 1970's.
         Unfortunately, a systematic synthesis and summary of these data has
         not been done for the entire study area. A summary of surf
         observations taken at a station near Jones Inlet is given in Table
         1 (Morton et al., 1986). The probability distribution curves for
         breaker height derived from LEO measurements for stations in
         Southampton and Fire Island are given in Figure 11. Monthly mean
         heights and periods for Southampton and Westhampton observations
         are shown in Figure 12. Since these are visual observations, the
         data reported are subject to large uncertainties.

         Twenty-year hindcasts, of the shallow water wave climate done as
         part of CERC's Wave Information Study are also available for 10
         mile segments along the entire south shore (Jensen, 1983). The
         average and largest significant wave heights from this data set are
         plotted in Figure 13. It should be noted that the hindcast data do
         not take into account waves associated with tropical storms. In
         addition, values of the net longshore transport computed from wave
         energy flux based on the hindcast data gave results incompatible
         with rates computed for the sediment budget study which were based
         on estimates of an accretion updrift of structures (Figure 14).
         These inconsistencies indicate that the hindcasts may be adequate
         for some design needs or 2-dimensional shore models, but their use
         in other applications may be limited. The only way to improve this
         information would be to install at least 2 arrays of directional
         wave sensors in the study area; one in the east and one in the
         west.

         For project design, the Corps of Engineers uses deepwater wave
         statistics from a number of sources. These data include: SSMO
         offshore wave observations, swell height and direction observations
         from a station 260 miles south east of Fire Island Inlet, and 2
         sets deepwater hindcast data calculated for a station offshore of
         the entrance of New York Harbor for the periods 1947 to 1949
         (Nuemann and James, 1957) and 1948 to 1950 (Saville, 1954).
         Graphic summaries of these data are provided in Appendix 3. Based
         on these statistics, a design wave for hurricane conditions with a
         deep water wave height of 17 feet (20 foot breaking wave) and
         period of 13 seconds which has an exceedance probability of 1
         percent (SSMO data) was selected for Westhampton Beach (U.S. Army
         Corps of Engineers, 1980).

         Sea Level Rise

         Long-term tide gauge records in both New York Harbor and New
         London, Connecticut, indicate an average rise in sea level on the
         order of 0.01 feet per year with a good deal of temporal
         variability (Figure 15). Since these gauges are on bedrock, it is
         likely that the relative rise on Long Island may be somewhat higher
         due to compaction and subsidence. However, the tide gauge at
         Montauk has not been operating long enough to resolve long-term


                                    23










      Table 1. Summary of surf height and wave direction from visual
                observations at Jones Beach, October 1954 to December
                1957. From: Morton et al., 1986.


         Month          Surf Hei2ht in Feet (t) (a)      Wave Direction M (b)
                        F-1. 9   2-3.9  4-5.9   6-9.9    E   E   S   Sw



         January          37       51     12        0    6   48  4   42

         February         29       66       5       0    1   32  10  57

         March            39       48     12        1    2   49  6   43

         April            38       53       a       1    6   44  6   44

         May              43-      53       4       0    3   34  26  37

         June             54       45       1       0    0   42  18  40

         July             44       54       2       0        30  22  48
         August           55       40       5       0    0   44  16  40

         September        37       59       4       0    0   56  11  33

         October          43       45      10       2    1   46  28  25
         November         35       53      11       1    5   37  26  32
         December         42       48       9       1    2   33  25  40



         Total Period     41       51       7       1    2   41  17  40





         (a)  All observed surf heights were less than 10 feet.

         (b) No waves were observed approaching from any of the
              other directions which are not listed.







                                      24












           le-      6.0-                                        SOUTHAMPTON
                                            (706 Observotions, June 70  M&y 73)

                                                                             --                         .00,

                    5.0                                                                FIRE ISLAND
                                                                               (436 Observatims, Jan 73 - Aug 74)


                   4.0-

                                                         OOOP
                                                      1001,
    Ln           E-4
                 6                            -
                 M                           -- .00*0
                 M 3.0 -                   --00000




                   2.0 -





                   1.0





                    0
                     100.0   50.0                  10.0     5:0                   1.0       0.5                  0.1
                                   PROBABILITY OF EX    ING SPECIFIED BMAXER HEIGHT , IN PERCENT
                      @11



                     Figure 11.    Probability distribution curves for breaker height from
                                   visual wave observations at Southampton and Fire
                                   Island. (Data from CERC Beach Evaluation Program.)





















       4-


                                        Hoight Southampton WOW  Period   -6
                                         .0
                                              Aug.1975-July 1976
     4-                                      Southampton (Visual)
                                              July 1970- May 1973
                                             wasthompton (visual)
     X2                                        Jon. 1968-Apr.1973          4








          Jon.  Feb. Mar. Apr.  MOY 'June July Aug. Sept Oct. Now. Die.
                          Mean Wove Height and Period Observations
     Figure 12. Monthly mean wave height and period observations from
                   DeWall (1979).

















                                         26





       Fiqure 13. significant wave heights based on Wave Information
                             Study 20-year shallow-water wave hindcast data (Jensen,
                             1983).


                                                                                                                          Montauk
                                                                                                                            Point



                                                                                               East Hampton


                                                                                       Southampton



                                                                           Westhampton
                                                                              Beach       \ Shinnecock Inlet


                                                                               Moriches Inlet

                                                    Fire Island


                                 Jones Beoch
                         Long Be,ach
                  East                        Fire Island Inlet
               Rockaway          Jones Inlet
                  Inlet

                  0.75--                                                        AVERAGE SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT

                  0.70--


                  0.65--


                  0.60--


                  0.55   -


                  0.50   -


                  0.45   - -


                  0.40


                  0.35


                  0.30--


                  0.25   -


                  4.50
                                                                                LARGEST SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT




                  4.25--













                  3.75






                  3.50-

                                                                   27






        Figure 14.        Comparison of net longshore sediment transport rate
                          estimates calculated from shallow-water wave hindcast                                             Montauk
                          data (CERC WIS Phase III) and estimates based on surveys                                            Point
                          and sand Impoundment at structures (Panuzio, 1968;
                          RPI, 1985).

                                                                                                 Eo3t Hampton


                                                                                         Southampton



                                                                             Westhampton
                                                                               Beach          Shinnecock Wet


                                                                                Moriches Inlet

                                                     Fire Island


                                 jones Beach

                       Long Beach
                  East                         Fire Island Inlet
               Rockaway          Jones Inlet
                  Inlet

                  800--                                                               NET LONGSHORE TRANSPORT

                                                                                           To THE WEST,       TO THE EAST
                          Ponuzio, 1968
                  600

                                                          RPI, 1985
              0
              0   400


              x
                  200
               L:


                      0




                  -200
                                                          From CE:R(-' Hindcast Doto


                 -400 -
                                                          RPI, 1985







































                                                                       28







                                                   YEARLY MEAN SEA LEVEL 1892-1981




                                0.9 -


                                OA  -


                                0.7 -


                                0.6 -


                         z      0.3 -


                                0.4 -


                                0.3 -


                                0.2 -


                                0.1


                                   0


                                -0.1


                                -*_2                              I In In I In I 11111 fill In I In [I M In I
                                    1692 1900      1910   1920    1930    1940    1950   1960    1970     1 sa2

                                                                       YEAR

                          Fiqure is. sea-level rise in the New York area between 1892 and
                                        1982 based on water-level records at Fort Hamilton,
                                        Brooklyn, New York. From: Zarillo and Zarillo, 1989.









         trends in sea level. As a result there are no accurate estimates
         of relative sea level rise available for the area.

         It does not appear that sea level rise plays a significant role in
         controlling erosion on the south shore (McCormick, 1973). As part
         of the sediment budget study (Research Planning Institute, Inc.,
         1985), the Hands (1982) model was applied to estimate the possible
         sediment loss resulting from profile readjustment in response to a
         sea level rise of 0.01 feet per year. The results of this analysis
         in terms of annualized volume losses per foot of shoreline for the
         portion of the profile above and below MLW are plotted in Figure
         16. These changes are for the most part significantly less than
         total net volume changes reported in the study. In addition, there
         is evidence that offshore sources contribute sand to the near shore
         sediment budget (McCormick and Toscano, 1980; RPI, 1985;
         Niedoroda et al., 1985; Williams and Meisburger, 1987)
         indicating that the Bruun Rule (upon which the Hands model is
         based) may not be applicable in this area (Wolff, 1982). --If,-this
         is _tbe case, evgn_tUe--r-e-1-atJ: @e@@l volume losses cau
                             IF'
         ,,,116vel r_1-s_e_--ï¿½1@,&wn in F-tg 6 ma ver       s. In the
         absence .,o.-C-pF6-T-tre-@eadjustment, Morton e al., (1986) estimated
         that in the Jones Beach area the present observed rate of sea level
         rise over a period of ten years would result in a landward
         displacement of the waterline of approximately one foot (0.1 feet
         per year). lbe_-a@@@@nd@icate that the puarcenll:age f the'
         -total erosion occurring along the south shore attributable to -sea
         leve                                   in  rnmnarj_sQff-t-e--athi5r-.,
         _processea__apera44q@@he_-+r_@                     cions-iderem
         ..con-tf'6-x__t of the planning time frame of 30 to 50 years.

         Anumber of studies indicate that global warming caused by the
         "greenhouse effect" could result in an accelerated rate of sea
         level rise in the future. However, the timing and magnitude of
         future sea level rise is highly uncertain.

         A study of the engineering implications of sea level rise done by a
         committee of the National Research Council (NRC, 1987) examined
         three possible scenarios of sea level rise to the year 2100; rises
         of 0.5 m, 1.0 m and 1.5 m. According to most projections, the
         increase in the rate of sea level rise, if it occurs, will not
         occur in a linear fashion. Rather, the change will start slowly
         and increase more rapidly in the distant future. Based on the
         projections used by the NRC panel, accelerated sea level rise could
         increase present water level elevations along the south shore 4 to
         5 cm (0.13 to 0.17 feet) by the year 2000 compared to an increase
         of 2.5 cm (0.08 feet) if the present rate of sea level rise
         continues. By the year 2025 the increase due to atmospheric
         warming could be 13 to 24 cm (0.42 to 0.75 feet) while the expected
         increase if present conditions persist would be about 8 cm (0.25
         feet). For 2050, an accelerated sea level rise could result in
         water elevations 41 to 50 cm (1.3 to 1.8 feet) higher than present
         compared to an increase of 26 cm (0.5 feet) under current
         conditions. While the rate of sea level rise may increase more
         rapidly beyond 2050, these projections, already subject to a great


                                     30







           Figure 16. Estimates of annualized net sediment loss by lens due
                                    to sea level rise and total observed net volume changes
                                    for the period 1955-1979 based on data from RP1, 1985.                                                                              Montouk
                                                                                                                                                                           Point



                                                                                                                                   East Hampton


                                                                                                                         Southampton



                                                                                                       Westhampton
                                                                                                           Beach            11\ Shinnecock Inlet


                                                                                                            Moriches Inlet

                                                                        Fire Island


                                             Jones Beach

                               Long Beach
                        Cost                                    Fire Islond Inlet
                    Rockow0y                 Jones Inlet
                          Inlet
                                                                                                                                    LOSS TO SEA-LEVEL RISE
                           10.0                                                                                          MEAN HIGH WATER TO MEAN LOW WATER



                            3.0




                            0.0









                          -10.0
                           10.0 - -                                                                                              MEAN LOW WATER TO -24.0 FEET



                            5.0




                            0.0

                      10
                          -5.0 t
                          -10.0


                                                                                                                                   NET SHORE VOLUME CHANCE








                           OV -


                      10








                                                                                             31








        deal of uncertainty, become even less reliable with time. Because
        of these uncertainties, a rigorous assessment of the management
        implications of future sea level rise is difficult.

        To account for potential increases in the rate of sea level rise,
        it was suggested the present rate could be doubled or tripled for
        erosion management purposes. However, even this increase would
        probably have a relatively small impact on the observed rate of
                                        u e o s
        storms an           e@ip_ the nea s or sediment tran           ---System
         e           _F5 Ma                   or natura processes. From a
        planning perspective, the submergence of low lying areas around the
        south shore bays due to possible increases in sea level rise is
        probably a more critical problem than the potential for increased
        ocean front erosion.

        Storm Surges and Tides

        Mean tide ranges and still water storm surge elevations for the 10,
        50, and 100 year storms are plotted in Figure 17. For planning
        purposes, models which incorporate wave run up and beach and dune
        dynamics in determining storm surge penetration, such as the SLOSH
        or Tetra Tech models, may be of more value than the still-water
        storm-surge elevations. However, it is not known whether these
        models have been applied to the south shore at this time.

        Shoreline Processes

        An extensive discussion and analysis of the informational needs
        related to all the individual topics identified in the general
        category of shoreline processes was beyond the scope of this
        workshop. However, the major issues and pertinent information
        associated with these topical areas were discussed. The major
        points and suggestions concerning future investigations related to
        the individual topics are briefly summarized in the following
        sections.

        Longshorg Sediment Transpgrt: The most reliable available
        estimates of the net rate of longshore sediment transport are those
        reported in the sediment budget study which were discussed
        previously. Estimates of the gross longshore transport and
        relative volumes moving east and west are also extremely important,
        especially in areas around inlets where local deviations can be
        large or the direction of net drift can reverse due to changes in
        wave conditions.    Although attempts to calculate these values
        based on available wave statistics have been made, the results
        have not agreed with the estimates obtained by using measurements
        of sand impoundment at structures and/or inlet migrations.
        Czerniak (1976) used offshore wave statistics (Nuemann and James,
        1955) to calculate longshore transport rates at Moriches Inlet.
        Based on these calculations (Table 2), he estimated a net transport-
        rate of approximately 72,000 cubic yards per year to the west. This
        is considerably less than the annual net transport rate of 300,000
        cubic yards per year to the west reported in the sediment budget.


                                     32







    -Figues 17. Mean tidal ranges and storm surge water level
                        elevations for 10, 50, and 100-year storms (based on
                        FEMA flood Insurance studies).
                                                                                                                             Montauk
                                                                                                                               Point



                                                                                                East Hampton


                                                                                        Southampton



                                                                           Westhampton
                                                                              Beoch        \  Shinnecock Inlet


                                                                               Moriches Inlet

                                                   Fire Island


                              Jones Beach
                    Long Beach
                East                        Fire Island Inlet
           R
                -kaway        I
              oc              Jones Inlet
                Inlet


                5.00--                                                                                    TIDAL RANGE



                4.00--





                3.00


        ft.


                2.00





                1.00





                0.00

                20.0                                                                         STORM SURGE ELEVATION



                              100-YEAR STILLWATER/kWiMUM WAVE CREST
                15.0





                                  100-YEAR STILLWATER
         ft. 10.0
                                     50-YEDAR TILL;ATER


                5.0                      10-YEAR STILLWATER




                0.0


                                                                   33








                              Table 2. Longshore sediment transport statistics at Moriches Inlet
                                              calculated by Czerniak (1976) based on hindcast wave
                                              statistics from Nuemann and James (1955).



                                                 Westwar-4             Eastward           Ratio            Not                  Gros
                             Peri*4             Transport            Transport            (E/W)            Transport            Tran:port
                             January             -94.506                 58.170            .616              -36.336              152.676
                             February            -34.062                 43.476           1. Z76               9.414               77.537
                             March               -26.299                108.6ZO           4.130               8Z. UO              134.919
                             April               _Z8.98S                 74.981           2.587                45.996             103.966
    LO                       May                 -Z4,658                 31,Z9Z           1. Z69               6,634               55.950
    4-                       June                -47.SSZ                 ZZ,Z48            .46s              -7Z5.30S              69.800
                             July                -11,856                 18.544           1.564                6.688               30.400
                             August              -10,342                 13.9zz           1.346                3.580               Z4.Z65
                             September           -ZS. 840                Z8.193           1.091                2.353               54.033
                             October             -40.646                 13.514            .331              -27.331               54.360
                             November            -97.564                 11.9Z4               IZZ            -8S.640              109.488
                             December.           -90.316                 35.502            .393              -S4.814              lZ5.817
                             Annual-             -532.8Z7               460.386            .864              -7Z.441              993.21Z








      As mentioned previously, net transport rates calculated from the
      twenty-year CERC hindcast data resulted in transport directions
      opposite of those evidenced by impoundment at structures (Figure
      14).

      Although reliable, systematic estimates of the gross and relative
      transport rates and directions along the shore would be extremely
      useful in developing and evaluating proposed coastal projects, such
      measurements would require better wave information.

      Cross-sliore Transpgrt: The sediment budget requires an onshore
      transport of sand to balance. Although previous studies (Vincent
      et al., 1983; Niedoroda et al., 1985; and Williams and Meisburger,
      1987) indicate sediment exchange between the shore face and inner
      continental shelf does occur, the data available on this process
      are not sufficient to quantify the transport.

      Cross shore sediment grain size data are plotted in Figure 18. A
      single offshore bar located about 500-1500 feet offshore with a
      crest 10 to 15 feet below NGVD is present along much of the coast
      between Fire Island Inlet and Montauk Point. Although two short-
      term, site-specific studies of this feature have been undertaken at
      East Hampton (Shipp, 1980) and at Fire Island (Allen and Psuty,
      1987), the scale and variation in bar morphology and the effects of
      bar geometry on the shoreline as a whole have not been documented.

      Pre-and post storm profiles along the coast may be especially
      useful in defining the behavior of the offshore bar and sediment
      transport patterns. (It seems that after Hurricane Gloria in 1985,
      for example, the bar, usually a relatively stable feature, was
      absent along much of the shoreline but the length of time this
      condition persisted is uncertain).

      Inlet Processes: The five inlets in the study area exert a
      dominant influence on the coastal changes occurring along the
      shore. As can be seen in the plots of long term shoreline
      recession/accretion rates (Figure 2) and, to a lesser extent, the
      plots of volume changes (Figures 4 and 5) the most dramatic
      variations are associated with inlets. With the exception of the
      Westhampton groin field, the most severe erosion problems are the
      result of the interruption of sand transport patterns and
      inadequate sand management practices at inlets. As an example, the
      effects of the opening and subsequent stabilization of Shinnecock
      Inlet on the downdrift shoreline are shown in Figure 19.

      Table 3 developed by Panuzio (1968) provides historical information
      related to the south shore inlets. (It should be noted that some
      of the data (i.e., net longshore transport rates) have been updated
      since 1968, see Figure 4).

      The amount of sand bypassing occurring at the inlets is of critical
      importance in determining the effects of these features on
      shoreline erosion. While estimates of the bypassing taking place
      at the various inlets have been made (Table 4), the accuracy of the


                                  35





   Figuie 18. Mean sediment grain size from Tsien (1986).


                                                                                                     Montauk
                                                                                                       Point



                                                                              East Hampton


                                                                        Southampton



                                                             Westhampton
                                                                Beach       ShInnecock Inlet


                                                                Moriches. Inlet

                                          rire Island


                         Jones Beach
                 Long Beoc
             East                     ire Island Inlet
           Rockaway      Jones Inlet
             Inlet

             0.60--                                                         CROSS-SHORE AVERAGE


             0.50-
           171
           E
           E
           @ 0.40

           4.)
           N
           W
           .S 0.30
           0

           c 0.20

           E
             0.10




             0.00

             0.60--                                                            BY SUBENVIRONMENT


             0.50-1
           171

           E
             0.40                BEACH
           4)
           N

             0.30          SURF ZONE


           C 0.20--
           CP

           0                UPPER
                         Jones t' ocn

                          h,

                                     F






























                                                                      A





                            SHOREFACE

             0.10--




             0.00
                                                       36






















                     DATJ6 BZKIRZ 1960 FROMI TAIM aq6i) * Him wATzR sHoumnim
                     DATA Arm 190 IFFAM CZAC Wj= RVALGATZ011 "Wam, MAN
                     SrA L9VZL SHOMMIE



                                                              SHORELINE ADVANCE




                                            - 1040    060     Peso    1900    1920    1940   040
                                          0 -          I       I                      I       I    YEAR
                            AVERAGE RATE    -  L11111111111111111111,@@,Wl T!,
                            Of SHORELINE
                            CHANGE (ft/yr)                                                       415 r1/11W

                                                              SHORELINE RETREAT



                                         -10

                                                               SHINNECOCK INLET OPENS. POW
                                                               SHINNECOCK INUT JETTICS IPUZTL@
                                                               IWIZ - 1934




                      Figure 19. Average rates of shoreline change betwee      n Shinnecock
                                   and Moriches Inlets between 1838 and 1965 (USACE, 1977).











                                               Table 3. Westerly migration of the eastern sides of Long Island
                                                                     inlets. From: Panuzio, 1968.
                                                                             1029-1539         1039-1950         1050-1090            low-19313 1      193U-1      (a) - 1951-1955          1955-19W
                                                                             .Inlet Oken I Inlet Closed            Al               Inlet Closed         6o root
                                                                               Total Kigration West              NO, =rift                                                  110 f=lt
                                               Shin"Cock last                                                        to                                                 jetti..
                                                                             feet       years     feet/yr.      c u ri -c -Y --, R Vy -r-
                                                                               60        13          4.6                   000
                                                                             IE29-1539 1 1839-1931                 9 3 F-T A9T3Tb     1933-1949        1949-1955           1955-19ba
                                                                             Inlet Open-1    Inlet Closed          220 feet           3880 feet          150 feet
                                               Moriches Wet                    Total Migration west              Littoral Drift                      !Letties Built
                                                                             root       years     feet/yr.      C-Ic >.A-.Ty-r
                                                                             -250        24          izz             350,000                           1952-1954
                                                                             :@75-11J34 I      I L434-1U73     -7073-19D9           -1909-1924         19214-1934          1934-1W          1940-19W
        W                                                                    '4353 feet        5625 feet         2175 feet            6T75 feet
        OD                                     Fire Island Inlet               Total Riarstion west              Littoral Drift                        .2030 feet          167o feet
                                                                                                                                                                        -T-
                                                                             feet       ),vars    feet :yr.     Zbic yards/yr.                                             .!@Ollt
                                                                             2mt25      115          ?12             6W.000
                                                                             ,.C35-079         1579-1909           909-1926           192b-1934,       1934-1953           1953-19W
                                                                             .&M fast 1        '1390 feet                   t         1540 feet        25W feet                 -
                                               Jones Inlet                     Total Migration West              WHO DrIr-t-                                             Jetty Built
                                                                             @eet       years     feot/yr.      cubic _v6xds lyr.
                                                                             10720       T4                          k                                                     1953-1959
                                                                             1535                    181h        19039                1926.19316
                                                                                 -1U19 1       lb79-1,         - W=-,                                  1934-1968
                                                                             79?0 feet         5130 feet         1 20 feet             400 feet
                                               Ust Rockaway Inlet              Total Migration west              Littoral     Drift   i!@Buiit
                                                                             feet       years     faetjyr.      cub@ @zfyr.
                                                                             17070       99          172             v4C4,OG9)                   4
                                                                                                                 1902-1920            luk,106
                                                                                   imt I       A 7 (-,LWZ                             I                1934-19W
                                                                             lOC!O fee         5190 feet         2740 feet            245C feet
                                               Rockaway Inlet                  Total Mlarstion **=at             Littoral Drift       jetjx
                                                                             rest       years     feet/yr   .   cubV-@rds7;r.
                                                                             Iq                      -*06      1     L403,000 i     , 1931-1933
                                                                                 Srlftk thr-v4h barrier ;Onlnsula during storm of 12              September 1938.
                                                                             (b) 3reak thr:%gh barrier reninsula during            storm or 31    March 1931.
                                                                                 141nus Indicates easterly migration.










                                       Table 4







                           Estimates of Inlet Bypassing



                           Net LongshoKe               Amount Bypassing
        Inlet           Transport, ly-d-:!/ "r            yd 2/jr



        E. Rockaway          400,000(a)                     150,000(b)
        Jones                550,000(a)                     100,000(b)
        Fire Island          600,000(c)                         ?    (d)
        Moriches             304,500(c)                     250,000(c)
        Shinnecock           300,000(e)                     247,000(e)






        Sources:

        a:  (Panuzio, 1968)
        b:  (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966)
        c:  (Research Planning Institute, Inc., 1985)
        d:  (Galvin, 1985)
        e:  (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987)























                                    39








                resultant figures are questionable due to the data and methods
                used. Although the sediment budget study provides the best
                available information on volumetric changes and has been used as
                basis for some of the estimates given in Table 4, the resolution
                the data used in this study was deemed inadequate for accurately
                quantifying sediment transport and bypassing at inlets.

                For the most part, inlet dredging projects in the area are done i
                response to navigation needs rather than for erosion control
                purposes. There is no program of regular artificial sand bypassi
                and dredging is usually sporadic. At Shinnecock and Moriches
                Inlets most of the dredging work has focused on maintaining
                channels through the flood tidal deltas bayward of the inlet
                channels and much of the resultant dredged material has been plac
                on the emergent portion of the flood delta (Kassner and Black,
                1982). The only dredging in the channel or seaward of the channe
                at Shinnecock Inlet since it was stabilized was the emergency
                removal of 162,000 cubic yards of material in 1984 (U.S. Army Cor
                of Engineers, 1987) and 83,000 cubic yards in 1988. This sand wa
                placed offshore at a depth of 10 feet below MLW downdrift of the
                inlet. No dredging in the channel or seaward of the channel has
                been done at Moriches Inlet since it was stabilized in the 1950's
                The inlet has been legally closed to navigation for a number of
                years due to severe shoaling conditions.

                The recent dredging history of Fire Island Inlet was previously
                described in the section on the effects of structures. some 8
                million cubic yards of material have been dredged from the inlet
                and placed on the downdrift beaches in 6 separate projects
                undertaken between 1954 and 1989. Recent quantitative summaries
                the federal dredging projects at Jones and East Rockaway Inlets
                apparently are not available at this time although this informati@
                could probably be obtained from an analysis of Corps' dredging
                records and surveys.

                The available evidence indicates the inlets serve as large sinks
                sand in the near shore system. The ebb and flood tidal deltas
                associated with Moriches appear to have trapped some 1 to 2 milli(
                cubic yards of sand with most of this material stored in the ebb
                tidal delta (Research Planning Institute, Inc., 1985). Although
                not quantified, similarly large ebb tidal deltas are also
                associated with the other inlets in the area (Leatherman and Allel
                1985).

                As illustrated in Figure 19, the impacts and processes associated
                with the inlets are variable with time. Because of their
                complexity and importance in the coastal sediment system, detailec
                budgets are needed at each of the inlets. The amount of sand
                naturally bypassing the inlets and the volume of the flood and ebt
                deltas and their rates of change should be documented. The data
                available from dredging records, surveys and studies should be
                reviewed and, to the extent possible the results standardized.
                This information should be used to construct models of local inlet
                behavior. For management purposes, "inlet impact zones" should brz


                                           40









                 established where information gained from models of local
                 situations could be incorporated into planning considerations.

                 The development of management policies regarding the potential
                 formation of new inlets is also an area of critical concern. Th,
                 locations of historical inlets along the eastern section as
                 determined by Leatherman and Allen (1985) are shown in Figure 20
                 According to their geomorphic analysis, sediment transport
                 associated with inlet creation is an important process in the
                 migration of the eastern section of the barrier system (between
                 Southampton and a point about 10 miles west of Moriches Inlet)
                 inlet formation and sediment transport processes that drive barr.
                 migration in this section operate intermittently at 50-75 year
                 intervals. The central and western sections of the Fire Island
                 have been axially stable for hundreds of years (Leatherman and
                 Allen, 1985). From a management standpoint, the relative
                 stability of the barrier island over long time periods indicates
                 that concerns regarding disruption of barrier island migration bN
                 inlet processes may be of secondary importance compared to the
                 other more immediate impacts associated with the formation of
                 inlets. New inlets could cause substantial, rapid changes in the
                 coastal environment and have more immediate management implicatic
                 especially in terms of the 30 to 50 year planning horizon
                 considered here.

                 Site-specific information on the potential impacts of new inlets
                 along the south shore is largely limited to one modeling study
                 (Pritchard and DiLorenzo, 1985) which was done in response to a
                 breach that occurred in 1980 just west of Moriches Inlet. This
                 breach reached a width of 2900 feet before it was artificially
                 closed one year after it opened (Schmeltz et al., 1982). The
                 results of the modeling suggested that a large breach would
                 increase normal tidal ranges in Moriches Bay by about 60 percent
                 and short-period (hurricane) storm water level elevations by 35 t
                 40 percent. The modeling study also indicated that the tidal
                 exchange between Moriches Bay and the ocean is not great enough t
                 maintain two inlets indefinitely. The shoaling problems presentl
                 occurring at Moriches and Shinnecock Inlet tend to support this
                 finding. Although reliable estimates of the potential lifetimes
                 and possible closure rates of new inlets are not available at
                 present, the formation of new inlets could adversely affect
                 shoaling rates at the existing inlets due to limited tidal flow.

                 No studies have focused on the possible effects of new inlets on
                 shoreline erosion. However, based on the information available f
                 the existing inlets (i.e., Figure 19, for example), it is
                 reasonable to assume that these features could have significant
                 impacts in terms of accelerated downdrift erosion. During the 11
                 months it was open, some 750,000 cubic yards of material from the
                 longshore sediment system was trapped on the flood tidal delta of
                 the Moriches breach (Research Planning Institute, Inc., 1985).
                 Obviously the loss of such large volumes of material f rom the nea,
                 shore sediment budget could result in significant downdrift
                 shoreline changes.


                                            41







         Figure 20. Location of historical inlets based on data from                                                       Montauk
                           Leatherman and Allen (19s5) for area east of Fire                                                 Point
                           island Inlet and Taney (1961) for the area west of Fire
                           island.


                                                                                                East Hampton


                                                                                         Southampton



                                                                            Westhampton    "I
                                                                               Beach        \ Shinnecock Inlet


                                                                                Moriches Inlet

                                                    Fife Island


                                 Jones Beach

                       Long Beach
                 East                         Fire Island Inlet
               Rockaway          Jones Inlet
                  Inlet

                                                                                             HISTORICAL INLET LOCATIONS
                 1985





                 1935



            Of   1885 -





                 1785 -





                 1735
                                    ,s fleoch











































































                                                                   42









        There is a body of knowledge concerning the stability of inlets in
        general, the number that could be supported under different
        conditions, the processes associated with these features, and
        possible rates of closure based on hydrodynamics and historical
        trends, but this information must be reviewed and specifically
        applied to the conditions on Long Island in order to develop
        effective strategies for the management of breaches and new inlets.
        As an initial step, a search for locations where new inlets may
        form could be undertaken. Important parameters may include: 1)
        sites of historical inlets, 2) present dune elevation, 3) barrier
        island width, and 4) bay and shoreface bathymetry. Once potential
        locations are identified, more intensive studies could be applied
        to determine possible site-specific impacts of inlet formation.

        Overwash Process: Based on the sediment budget study, only about
        35,000 cubic yards of sediment per year are moved by overwash
        processes along the shore east of Fire Island Inlet, indicating
        this mechanism is a minor agent in terms of overall sediment
        transport. Annual overwash volumes in terms of cubic yards per
        foot for different sections of the coast are shown in Figure 21 for
        the period 1955-1979. The importance of overwash depends on the
        migration rate of the barrier island. Since Long Island's barriers
        are relatively stable, overwash processes are probably not that
        important especially in terms of management time scales of 30 to 50
        years. Based on the available data, a prudent management plan
        could employ dune building and overwash mitigation strategies as an
        inexpensive means of helping to maintain the longshore transport
        system and enhancing shore stability with minimum adverse impacts.

        Bluf f Erosion: The volume of -material contributed to the longshore
        sediment system by bluff erosion in the eastern headlands sections
        is relatively low. Based on historic shoreline recession rates,
        bluff elevations, and subtidal volume changes; the sediment budget
        study indicated that 133,000 cubic yards sediment per year is
        derived from erosion along the bluffed section of the coast
        (Research Planning Institute, Inc., 1985). However, a number of
        factors indicate that all of this material is not moved to the
        west in the longshore transport system. Because of the varied
        composition of the bluffs only a portion of the material released
        by the erosion of these features is suitable for transport by
        longshore littoral transport processes. The larger fraction of the
        material most likely remains in place while the finer sediments
        would be dispersed offshore. In addition, the inhomogeneities in
        the composition of the bluff also result in an irregular shoreline
        further complicating estimates of longshore transport. The
        geomorphic configuration of the headland and orientation of
        numerous pocket beaches in this area indicate that longshore
        transport of material to the west is probably significantly less
        than the volume derived from erosion processes. Although more
        information on bluff composition and actual bluff recession rates
        (rather than shoreline recession rates) are needed to provide
        accurate estimates, it is thought that actual total contribution of
        the bluffed section of coast is to the longshore transport system



                                   43






                     Figure 21. Annualized volume losses due washovers for the period
                                         1955-1979 from RPI, 1985.


                                                                                                                               Monto(
                                                                                                                                 Poini




                                                                                                      East Hampton


                                                                                               Southampton



                                                                                    Westhampton
                                                                                      Beach      \  Shinnecock Inlet


                                                                                       Moriches Inlet

                                                              Fire Island


                                            Jones Beach
                                   Long Beach
                              East                       Fire Island Inlet
                           Rockaway         Jones Inlet
                              Inlet

                              10.0--                                                                    LOSS TO WASHOVER



                              5.0






                              0.0






                              5.0






                             -10.0

                              10.0--                                                             NET SHORE VOLUME CHANGE




                              5-0--






                              0.0-
                                                 "each


















                                   1
































                              -5.0--






                             -10.0


                                                                           44









         is on the order of 20,000 to 40,000 cubic yards per year, or less
         than 10 percent of the transport estimated for Fire Island inlet.

                           CRITICAL MANAGEMENT DATA NEEDS

         To help managers prioritize data collection, the group was also
         asked to identify and briefly discuss the physical process and
         coastal information needs that are most critical to developing
         effective erosion management programs for Long Island's south
         shore. The following is a brief summary of the suggestions made
         for improving the information required for management and planning
         purposes.

         1)   The 1955 and 1979 profile lines should be reoccupied and
              surveyed and additional lines, especially in the vicinity of
              structures and inlets, should be established. Offshore the
              surveys should extend to the depth of closure (deeper than 30
              feet). This information could be used to update and refine
              the sediment budget and in conjunction with a review of
              available Corps data and surveys develop better inlet sediment
              budgets. It would also provide the bathymetry needed for
              shoreline response models.


         2.)  The probability distribution of short-term shoreline positions
              around the average annual positions should be calculated in
              order to evaluate the confidence limits of the available
              measured rates of historical shoreline changes taken from
              comparisons of maps and photos.

         3)   The elevation of the dune crest and base along the shore
              should be mapped.

         4)   Long-term recession rates based on changes in the vegetation
              line and/or dune position (based on contour movements) should
              be calculated.

         5)   Directional wave gauge arrays should be established at two
              locations along the shore.

         6)   An erosion "vulnerability index" could be devised for the
              south shore. This index should include:

                a) dune crest and base elevations

                b) beach profile volumes seaward of a particular elevation

                   contour or, where appropriate, the toe of the

                   structure to be protected.

                c) elevations of the appropriate storm surge

                d) landward limits of storm wave penetration


                                    45








   I



                e) long-term recession rates.




















































                                    46











                        REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRA.PHY





      Allen, J.R. and N.P. Psuty. 1987. Morphodynamics of a single-barred
          beach with a rip channel, Fire Island, New York. Coastal
          Sediments 187. American Society of Civil Engineers. pp.
          1964-1975.

      Andrews, W.E. 1938. Restoration and protection of Fire Island,
          Suffolk County, Long Island. Report to the Board of Supervisors,
          Suffolk County, New York .

      Bobb, W.H. and R.A. Boland. 1969. Channel improvement, Fire Island
          Inlet, New York, hydraulic model investigation. Technical Report
          H-69-16. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
          Vicksburg, MS. 35 pp. + plates and figures.

      Bokuniewicz, H.J., M. Zimmerman, M. Keyes and B. McCabe. 1980.
          Seasonal beach response at East Hampton, NY. Special Report No.
          38. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New
          York, Stony Brook, NY. 36 pp. + appendices.

      Bokuniewicz, H.J. and J.R. Schubel. 1987. The vicissitudes of Long
          Island beaches. Shore and Beach. Vol. 55, No. 3/4. pp. 71-75.

      Bokuniewicz, H.J. and S. Tangren. 1985. Volume requirements for the
          subaerial beach at East Hampton, New York. Shore and Beach.
          Vol. 53, No. l(January 1985). pp. 16-18.

      Bokuniewicz, H. 1981. Monitoring seasonal beach responses: An
          educational and public service program. Journal of Geological
          Education. Vol. 29. pp. 121-127.

      Bokuniewicz, H.J. 1981. The seasonal beach at East Hampton, New
          York. Shore and Beach. Vol. 49, No. 3. pp. 28-33.

      Bokuniewicz, H.J. 1986. The condition of the beach at Fire Island
          Pines, NY: 1985-1986. Report to the Fire Island National
          Seashore Advisory Board. Marine Sciences Research Center, State
          University of New York, Stony Brook, NY. 23 pp. + appendices.

      Bokuniewicz, H.J. 1987. The condition of the beach at the Fire
          Island Pines, New York: 1986-1987. Report to the Fire Island
          National Seashore Advisory Board. Marine Sciences Research
          Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY. 33 pp. +
          appendices.

      Bokuniewicz, H. 1985. The condition of the beach at the Fire Island
          Pines, NY: 1984-1985. Report to the Fire Island National
          Seashore Advisory Board. Marine Sciences Research Center, State
          University of New York, Stony Brook, NY. 36 pp. + appendices.



                                47








      Butler, H.L. and M.D. Prater. 1983. Fire Island to Montauk Point
          storm surge study. Interim Report.

      Carlisle, D. and W.A. Wallace. 1978. Sand and gravel in the Greater
          New York Metropolitan Area: What kind and how much?.
          NYSSGP-RS-78-13. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, New York.
          67 pp.

      Corson, W.D. and B.A. Tracy. 1985. Atlantic Coast hindcast, phase
          II wave information: Additional extremal estimates. Wave
          Information Study Report No. 15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
          Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 15 pp. +
          appendices.

      Costa, P.F. 1977. On the nature of shoal redistribution of Great
          South Bay. Master's Thesis. State University of New York,
          Binghampton, NY. 52 pp.

      Courtney, K., J. Dehais and W.A. Wallace. 1979. The demand for
          construction minerals in the Greater New York Metropolitan Area.
          NYSG-RS-79-10. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, New York.
          37 pp.

      Czerniak, M.T. 1976. Engineering concepts and environmental
          assessment for the stabilization and bypassing of Moriches Inlet,
          New York. Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers      New
          York District. 102 pp. + appendices.

      Czerniak, M.T. 1977. Inlet interaction and stability theory
          verification. Unpublished Manuscript. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
          Pasadena, CA. 20 pp.

      Dean, R.G. 1981. Shoreline changes and causes, East Hampton Beach,
          New York. Report to East Hampton Beach Preservation Society,
          Inc.. 27 pp..

      Dehais, J. and W.A. Wallace. undated. The economic viability of
          offshore mining of mineral aggregate in the Greater New York
          Metropolitan Area. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, New
          York. 23 pp.

      DeWall, A.E. 1979. Beach changes at Westhampton Beach, New York,
          1962-1973. Miscellaneous Report No. 79-5. U.S. Army Corps of
          Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center. Fort Belvoir,
          VA. 129 pp.

      Everts C. H. 1973. Beach profile changes on western Long Island.
          In D. Coates (Editor). Coastal Geomorphology. Proceedings of
          the Third Annual Geomorphology Symposium, Binghampton, NY. pp.
          279-301.


      Gadd, P.E., J.W. Lavelle and D.J.P. Swift. 1978. Estimates of sand
          transport on the New York Shelf using near-bottom current meter
          observations. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. Vol. 48, No. 1.
          pp. 239-252.


                                 48







      Galvin, C. 1985. Review of general design memorandum for project
          works at Fire Island Inlet. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps
          of Engineers, New York District. 198 pp. + appendices.

      Halpern, N.L. 1980. Revetments at East Hampton. Report to The East
          Hampton Beach Preservation Society. 12 pp.

      Hands, E. 1982. Predicting adjustments in shore and offshore sand
          profiles on the Great Lakes. Coastal Engineering Technical Aid
          No. 81-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering
          Research Centerl Fort Belvoir, VA . 18 pp.

      Harris, D.L. 1963. Characteristics of the hurricane storm surge.
          Technical Paper No. 48. U.S. Dept. of Commerce Weather Bureau,
          Washington D.C.. 15 pp.

      Hollman, R. and M.L. Thatcher. 1979. Flow augmentation needs study
          Great South Bay salinity. Report to Suffolk County, New York.
          94 pp.

      Jensen, R. E. 1983. Atlantic Coast hindcast, shallow-water,
          significant wave information. wave Information Study Report 9.
          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research
          Center, Vicksburg, MS. 19 pp. + appendices.

      Joneja, D.C. 1981. Sedimentary dynamics of Fire Island, New York.
          Master Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 92 pp.

      Kassner, J. and J.A. Black 1982. Efforts to stabilize a coastal
          inlet: A case study of Moriches Inlet, New York. Shore and
          Beach. Vol. 50, No. 2. pp. 21-29.

      Lavelle, J.W., P.E. Gadd, G.C. Han, D.A. Mayer, W.L. Stubblefield,
          D.J.P. Swift, R.L. Charnell, H.R. Brashear, F.N. Case, K.W. Haff
          and C.W. Kunselman. 1976. Preliminary results of coincident
          current meter and sediment transport observations for wintertime
          condition of the Long Island inner shelf. Geophysical Research
          Letters. Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 97-100.

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

      Leatherman, S.P. 1987. Time Frames for barrier island migration.
          Shore and Beach. Vol. 55, Nos. 3/4. pp. 82-86.

      Liu, J.T. 1987. Sediment patterns and bathymetry as a key to
          understanding shoreface dynamics: A case study of the south shore
          of Long Island. Ph.D. Dissertation. Marine Sciences Research
          Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY. 194 pp.

      Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1979. Oil spill response
          actions in Fire Island Inlet County of Suffolk, New York. Long
          Island Regional Planning Board. Hauppauge, NY. 143 pp. +


                                 49








          appendices.

      Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1984. Hurricane Damage
          Mitigation Plan for the South Shore - Nassau and Suffolk
          Counties, N.Y.. Long Island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge,
          NY. 196 pp.

      McCarthy, M.J., A.M. Asce, E.J. Schmeltz, and G.R. Lehan. 1982.
          Construction of a breach closure in a barrier island. Proceeding
          of the 18th Conference on Coastal Engineering. American Society
          of Civil Engineers. pp. 1219-1230.

      McCluskey, J.M., K.F. Nordstrom and P.S. Rosen. 1983. An eolian
          sediment budget for the south shore of Long Island, N.Y. Final
          Report for the National Park Service. Center for Coastal and
          Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
          100 pp. + appendices.

      McCormick, C.L. and M.A. Toscano. 1980. Origin of the barrier
          island system of Long Island, New York. Geological Society of
          America Abstract with Program. Northeastern and Southeastern
          Combined Sections Meeting. Vol. 14, Nos. 1 and 2.

      McCormick, L.R., O.H. Pilkey, Jr., W.J. Neal, and O.H. Pilkey. 1984.
          Living with Long Island's South Shore. Duke University Press,
          Durham, NC. 157 pp.

      McCormick,.C.L. 1971. Conceptual model of the beach and barrier
          islands on the South Shore of eastern Long Island. Report to the
          Town of Southampton. 27 pp.

      McCormick, C.L. 1973. Probable cause of shoreline recession and
          advance on the south shore of Long Island. In: D. Coates
          (Editor). Coastal Geomorphology. Proceedings of the Third
          Annual Geomorphology Symposium. State University of New York,
          Binghampton, NY. pp. 61-71.

      McKinney, T.F. and G.M. Friedman. 1970. Continental shelf sediments
          of Long Island, New York. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology.
          Vol. 40, No. 1. pp. 213-248.

      Mehta, A.H. and H.S. Hou. 1974. Hydraulic constants of tidal
          entrances II: stability of Long Island Inlets. Technical Report
          No. 23. Coastal and oceanographic Engineering Laboratory,
          University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida . 88 pp.

      Morton, R.W., W.F. Bohlen and David G. Aubrey. 1986. Beach changes
          at Jones Beach, Long Island, NY 1962-74. Miscellaneous Paper
          CERC-86-1. U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
          Research Center, Washington, D.C.. 96 pp.

      Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. 1977. A Coastal Erosion
          Subplan for Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Hauppauge NY. 110 pp.

      National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 1982. Some


                                 50








          Devastating North Atlantic Hurricanes of the 20th Century. U.S.
          Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.- 13 pp.

      National Research Council. 198,7. Responding to Changes in Sea Level:
          Engineering Implications. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
          148 pp.

      Niedoroda, A.W., D.J.P. Swift, A.G. Figueiredo, Jr. and G.L.
          Freeland. 1985. Barrier island evolution, middle Atlantic
          shelf, U.S.A. part II: Evidence from the shelf floor. In: G.F.
          Oertel and S.P. Leatherman (Editors). marine Geology. Vol. No.
          63. pp. 363-396.

      Niedoroda, A.W., D.J.P. Swift, T.S. Hopkins, and C.M. Ma. 1984.
          Shoreface morphodynamics on wave-dominated coasts. Marine
          Geology. Vol. No. 60. pp. 331-354.

      Nordstrom, K.F. and J.M. McCluskey. 1985. The effects of houses and
          sand fences on the Eolian sediment budget at Fire Island, New
          York. Journal of Coastal Research. Vol. 1, No. 1. pp. 39-46.

      Nuemann, G. and R.W. James. 1957. North Atlantic coast waves
          hindcast by the wave spectrum method. Technical Memorandum No.
          57. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion Board. 23 pp.

      O'Brien, M.P. and R.G. Dean. 1978. Coastal processes and structures
          on the shoreline of the Village of East Hampton, Long Island. A
          Report Commissioned by the East Hampton Beach Preservation
          Society. 20 pp.

      O'Brien, M.P. 1979. Supplementary notes of coastal processes on the
          shoreline of the village of East Hampton, Long Island.
          Unpublished Manuscript. 8 pp.

      ocean Seismic Survey, Inc. 1983. Development of borrow areas, south
          shore of Long Island, New York. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of
          Engineers. New York District. (3 vols.).

      Offshore Inc. 1975. Offshore borrow investigation and evaluation
          and side scan survey, reach 2, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk
          Point. Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New York
          District. 20 pp. + tables and plates.

      Panuzio, F.L. 1968. The Atlantic Coast of Long Island. Proceedings
          of the 11th Conference on Coastal Engineering    American Society
          of Civil Engineering. pp. 1222-1241.

      PRC Harris. 1983. Beach erosion control and hurricane protection,
          Fire Island to Montauk Point, task 3 - dune and beach design.
          Interim Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New York
          District.

      PRC Harris. 1984. Beach erosion control and hurricane protection,
          Fire Island to Montauk Point, task 4, removal of groins. Final
          Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New York District.


                                 51









      PRC Harris. 1985. Beach erosion control and hurricane protection,
          Fire Island to Montauk Point, task 5 - gate design. Final Report
          to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New York District.
      PRC Harris. 1986. Beach erosion control and hurricane protection,
          Fire Island to Montauk Point, task 6 - inlet bypassing. Final
          Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New York District.

      Pritchard, D.W. and J. DiLorenzo. 1985. Assessement of the effects
          of inlet geometry on currents in Moriches Inlet and on tidal
          ranges and storm surge elevations in Moriches Bay. Final Report
          to the County of Suffolk Department of Health Services. Marine
          Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Stony
          Brook, NY. 92 pp.

      Pritchard, D.W. and E. Gomez-Reyes. 1986. A study of the effects of
          inlet dimensions on salinity distribution in Great South Bay.
          Special Report No. 70. Marine Sciences Research Center, State
          University of New York, Stony Brook, NY. 64 pp.

      Pritchard, D.W. 1983. Salinity measurements in Moriches Bay.
          Special Report No. 53. Marine Sciences Research Center, State
          University of New York, Stony Brook, NY    7 pp. + appendix.

      Psuty, N.P. and J.R. Allen. 1986. Analysis of dune crestline
          changes, Fire Island, New York, U.S.A.. In: Gardiner, V. (ed.).
          International Geomorphology 1986 Part I. John Wiley and Sons.
          pp. 1169-1183.

      Psuty, N.P., J.R. Allen and R. Starcher. 1988. Spatial analysis of
          dune crest mobility, Fire Island National Seashore, New York.
          In: N.P. Psuty (Editor) . Dune/Beach Interaction. Journal of
          Coastal Research Special Issue No. 3. pp 115-120.

      Rampino, M.R. 1979. Quaternary history of south-central Long
          Island, New York. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University, New
          York, NY.

      Research Planning Institute, Inc. 1983. Sediment budget analysis,
          Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Long Island, New York
          reformulation study . Report to the U.S. Army Corps of
          Engineers. New York District. 85 pp. + appendices.

      Research Planning Institute, Inc. 1981. Sediment budget, phase 1 -
          Moriches Inlet, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point reformulation
          study. Interim Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New York
          District. 82 pp. + appendices.

      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. 85 pp. + appendices.

      Rich, C.A. 1975. Effects of storms and construction activities on
          beach accretion and recession rates from Moriches Inlet to



                                 52








          Amagansett, Long Island, New York. Master's Thesis. Department
          of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Queens College, City
          University of New York, New York. 95 pp.

      Ruzyla, K. 1973. Effects of erosion on barrier-island morphology,
          Fire Island, New York. In: D. Coates (Editor). Coastal
          Geomorphology. Proceedings of the Third Annual Geomorphology
          Symposium. State University of New York, Binghampton, NY. pp.
          219-237.


      Sanders, J.E. and N. Kumar. 1975. Evidence of shoreface retreat and
          in-place "Drowning" during Holocene submergence of barriers,
          shelf off Fire Island, New York. Geological Society of America
          Bulletin. Vol. 86. pp. 65-76.

      Saville, T. 1954. North Atlantic coast wave statistics hindcast by
          Bretschneider--revised Sverdrup--Munk method. Technical
          Memorandum No. 55. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion
          Board. IS pp.

      Schlee, J. 1975. Sand and gravel. MESA New York Bight Atlas
          Monograph 21. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, New York.
          26 pp.

      Schmeltz, E.J., R.M. Sorensen, M.J. McCarthy and G. Nersesian. 1982.
          Beach/inlet interaction at Moriches Inlet. Proceedings,
          Eighteenth Conference on Coastal Engineering. American Society
          of Civil Engineers. pp. 1062-1077.

      Schubel, J.R., G.A. Zarillo and H.J. Bokuniewicz. 1983. Erosion of
          Long Island's south shore: A preliminary identification and
          assessment of alternative responses to the problem. Special
          Report No. 50. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University
          of New York, Stony Brook, NY. 23 pp.

      Shipp, R.C. 1980. Morphology and sedimentology of a single-barred
          nearshore system, eastern Long Island, New York. Master's
          Thesis. University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. 169 pp.

      Swift, D.P.J. and G.L. Freeland. 1978. Current lineations and sand
          waves on the inner shelf, Middle Atlantic Bight of North America.
          Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. Vol. 48, No. 4. pp.
          1257-1266.

      Swift, D.P.J., A.W. Niederoda, C.E. Vincent and T.S. Hopkins. 1985.
          Barrier island evolution, Middle Atlantic Shelf, U.S.A. Part I:
          Shoreface dynamics . In: G.F. Oertel and S.P. Leatherman
          (Editors). Barrier Islands. Marine Geology. Vol. 63. pp.
          331-361.

      Swift, D.P.J., G.L. Freeland and R.A. Young. undated. Time and
          space distribution of megaripples and associated bedforms, Middle
          Atlantic Bight, North American Atlantic Shelf. Unpublished
          Manuscript.



                                 53







     Taney, N.E. 1961. Geomorphology of the South Shore of Long Island,
          New York. Beach Erosion Control Board Technical Memorandum No.
          128. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C.        50 pp. +
          appendices.
     Taney, N.E. 1961a. Littoral materials of the south shore of Long
          Island, New York. Technical Memorandum No. 129. U.S. Army Corps
          of Engineers Beach Erosion Board.

     Tanski, J. and H. J. Bokuniewicz. 1988. Westhampton Beach:
          options for the future. Special Report No. 102. New York Sea
          Grant Institute, Stony Brook, NY . 28 pp.

     Tanski, J.J. 1982. Fire Island beach observation program, interim
          report. Unpublished Manuscript. Marine Sciences Research
          Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY . 25 pp.

     Tanski, J.J   1983. Monthly beach changes at Ocean Beach, Fire
          Island, New York, as measured by students of Bay Shore High
          School. Unpublished Manuscript. Marine Sciences Research
          Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY. 70 pp.

     Terry, O.W., H.F. Udell and J.D. Zarudsky. 1974. Tidal marsh
          restoration at Hempstead, Long Island. Shore and Beach. Vol.
          42, No. 4. pp. 36-39.

     Tsien, H.S. 1986. Differential transport of sand on the south shore
          of Long Island. Master's Thesis. Marine sciences Research
          Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY. 119 pp.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. General design memorandum
          Shinnecock Inlet, Long Island, New York. Reformulation Study and
          Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
          New York District. 47 pp. + appendices.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1969. Supplement No. 1 to general
          design memorandum no. 1: Moriches to Shinnecock reach. Fire
          Island Inlet to Montauk Point Long Island, New York Beach Erosion
          and Hurricane Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York
          District. 52 pp. + appendices.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1963.      General design memorandum no.
          1, Moriches to Shinnecock reach.    Fire Island Inlet to Montauk
          Point Long Island, New York Beach   Erosion and Hurricane Project.
          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New   York District. 52 pp. +
          appendices.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987.      General design memorandum
          Shinnecock Inlet project, Long Island, New York       Final
          Reformulation Study and Environmental Impact Statement. New York
          District. 57 pp. + appendices.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1980. Supplement no. 2 to general
          design memorandum no. 1: Moriches to Shinnecock reach. Fire
          Island Inlet to Montauk Point Long Island, New York, Beach
          Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project. U.S. Army


                                  54







          Corps of Engineers. New York District. 23 pp. + appendices.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Draft environmental assessment,
          Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet combined navigation and beach
          nourishment project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York
          District. 13 pp. + appendices.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. Fire Island Inlet to Jones
          Inlet, New York, beach erosion control and navigation project.
          Environmental Statement. New York District Army Corps of
          Engineers. 21 pp.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1966. Beach erosion and interim
          hurricane study, Atlantic Coast of Long Island, New York, Jones
          Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
          York District. 58 pp. + tables and appendices.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1965. Report on beach erosion control
          cooperative study Atlantic Coast of Long Island, New York, Fire
          Island Inlet and the shore westerly to Jones Inlet. House
          Document No. 115. Eighty-ninth Congress, Washington D.C.. 41
          pp-

     Vincent, C.E., R.A. Young and D.J.P. Swift. 1983. Sediment
          transport on the Long Island shoreface, North American Atlantic
          Shelf: role of waves and currents in shoreface maintenance.
          Continental Shelf Research. Vol. 2, Nos 2/3. pp. 163-181.

     Visco, C. 1977. The geomorphic effects of off-road vehicles on the
          beach, Fire Island, New York. Master's Thesis. State Unversity
          of New York, Binghampton, NY. 67 pp..

     Welby, C.W., O.H. Pilkey, Jr., and J.L. Machemehl. 1981. Beach and
          shoreline trends, Incorporated Village of East Hampton. Report
          to the Village of East Hampton. 183 pp. + appendices.

     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
          187. American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 1517-1532.

     Williams, A.T. and P. Morgan. 1988. Quartz grain S.E.M. textural
          variations of the beach/dune interface, Long Island, U.S.A.. In:
          Psuty, N.P. (Editor) . Dune/Beach Interaction. Journal of
          Coastal Research Special Issue No. 3. pp. 37-45.

     Williams, S.J. 1976. Geomorphology, shallow subbottom structure,
          and sediments of the Atlantic inner continental shelf off Long
          Island, New York. Technical Paper No. 76-2. U.S. Army Corps. of
          Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort-Belvoir, VA..
          123 pp..

     Wolff, M.P. 1982. Evidence for onshore sand transfer along the
          south shore of Long Island, New York and its implication against
          the "Bruun Rule.". Northeastern Geology. Vol. 4, No. 1. pp.


                                 55










          10-16.


      Woodward-Clyde Consultants. undated. Rockaway Beach erosion control
          project, dredge material research program, offshore borrow area.
          Report Prepared for U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers. New York
          District Army Corps of Engineers. 20 pp. + appendices.

      Zarillo, G.A., E. Gomez-Reyes, M.J. Park and D.W. Pritchard.
          undated. Prediction of hydrodynamics and salinity in the Fire
          Island Inlet-Great South Bay System. Report to the U.S. Army
          Corps of Engineers. New York District. 31 pp. + plates.

      Zarillo, G.A. and K.A. Zarillo. 1989. Assessment of long-term
          shoreline recession rates on eastern Long Island. In: Tanner,
          W.F. (Editor). Coastal Sediment Mobility. Eighth Symposium on
          Coastal Sedimentology. Florida State University, Tallahassee,
          FL.

      Zimmerman, M.S. and H.J. Bokuniewicz. 1979. Multi-year beach
          response at East Hampton, New York. unpublished manuscript. 27
          PP.

      Zimmerman, M.S. and H.J. Bokuniewicz. 1987. Regimen of the beach at
          Long Beach, New York. Unpublished Manuscript. Marine Sciences
          Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY
          34 pp.

      Zimmerman, M.S. and H.J. Bokuniewicz. 1987. Multi-year beach
          response along the south shore of Long Island. Shore and Beach.
          Vol. 53, No. 1. pp. 3-8.

      Zimmerman, M.S. and H.J. Bokuniewicz. 1986. Long-term beach
          response at Ocean Beach, Fire Island, New York, October 1981
          through January 1986. Special Report No. 76. Marine Sciences
          Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY.
          43 pp.


      Zimmerman, M.S. 1983. Coastal facets as indicators of shoreline
          response to rising sea level . Master's Thesis. Marine Sciences
          Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY.
          91 pp.
















                                 56











                                    APPENDIX I



                                      Attendees




        Conveners:           Henry Bokuniewicz
                             Marine Sciences Research Center
                             State University of New York
                             Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000

                             Jay Tanski
                             New York Sea Grant Extension Program
                             143 Dutchess Hall
                             State University of New York
                             Stony Brook, NY 11790-5001



        Participants:        Timothy Kana
                             Coastal Science & Engineering, Inc.
                             1316 Main St., P.O. Box 8056
                             Columbia, SC 29202

                             Larry McCormick
                             Natural Sciences Division
                             Long Island University
                             Southampton, NY 11968

                             Gary Zarillo
                             Department of Oceanography
                             Florida Institute of Technology
                             Melbourne, FL 32901-6980



        Observers:           DeWitt Davis
                             Long Island Regional Planning Board
                             12th floor
                             H. Lee Dennison Building
                             Veterans Memorial Highway
                             Hauppauge, NY 11788


                             Mike Volpe
                             Long Island Regional Planning Board
                             12th floor
                             H. Lee Dennison Building
                             Veterans Memorial Highway
                             Hauppauge, NY 11788





                                    57












                            George Stafford
                            NYS Department of State
                            Division of Coastal Resources and
                              Waterfront Revitalization
                            162 Washington Avenue
                            Albany, NY 12231

                            Charles McCaffery
                            NYS Department of State
                            Division of Coastal Resources and
                              Waterfront Revitalization
                            162 Washington Avenue
                            Albany, NY 12231

                            Randy Lanza
                            NYS Department of State
                            Division of Coastal Resources and
                              Waterfront Revitalization
                            162 Washington Avenue
                            Albany, NY 12231

       Rapportour:          Chris Schubert
                            Marine Sciences Research Center
                            State University of New York
                            Stony Brook, NY 117904-5000





























                                    58











                                  APPENDIX 2





                            Interannual Beach Changes




        The range of beach changes in terms of horizontal variations in the
        mean sea-level intercept were calculated at several locations along
        the shoreline where profiling studies have been done. At each
        location profiles were available at between 5 and 20 stations
        surveyed at least several times per year for up to 11 years. At
        each location, the range of changes in observed shoreline position
        over every year were determined for each station and both the
        average value of all the stations for the year and the maximum
        value observed at any station for that year were found. Both the
        average and the maximum for each year were then averaged over the
        number of years of available record to obtain the mean interannual
        range, R, and the maximum interannual range.

        To calculate the average long-term recession rate in an interval of
        duration, P the annual average shoreline position at the beginning
        of the period, S1 is subtracted from the average annual shoreline
        position at the end of the period S2 and the difference divided by
        P:

                       Recession rate = (S2- Sl)/P

        The observed shoreline on any particular map or aerial photograph
        is unlikely to be at the annual average position but rather to
        depart from it by some distance, E, so,

                                 S1 = S1 + El


        and


                                 S2 = S2 + E2

        on the average the maximum departure would be + R/2 and the maximum
        difference between.the unmeasured, mean shoreline over the period
        would be


                            [(S2 + R/2)   (SI - R/2)]/P

                                 or [(S2   Sl) + R]/P

        Likewise, the minimum difference would be when each shoreline is at
        the opposite end of the interannual range





                                   59









                           ((S2 - R/2) - (S1 + R/2))/P

                                or [(S2 - SI) - R]/P

       So the maximum uncertainty in the recession rate calculated from
       observed shorelines (rather than from the annual mean shoreline) is

                                     ï¿½ R/P

       For the available data sets this corresponds to a rate of about +2
       feet/year to +3.5 feet/year for the period between 1933 and 1979.
       The uncertainty is larger if we use the average maximum range
       rather than the average range.

       It must be noted, however, that the chances of the error being as
       large as +R/P is very small; it may be smaller perhaps 99 percent
       of the time. As a result, a better  estimate of the uncertainty
       would be to recalculate E values at some reasonable level of
       probability of occurrence, perhaps the E that is realized more than
       80 percent of the time.




































                                  60











                                   APPENDIX 3





                        Miscellaneous Offshore Wave Data

























































                                   61

















                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 .................... .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 t  .............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ............ ...         *
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .:   ..............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ..........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     . ............                :.....
                                                                                                                                          .....                                                                 .....       .................                                        .....................
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           :::::::                                   ................
                                                                                                                                                                       ..... ..... ....                                                                      .... .......
                                                                                                                                              .........................                        .........                                                     ............
                                                                                                                                          .............                ........................... ...............                                           :                  .                                           .......
                                                                                                       .. ...............                                ...           ...............         *.......         * '.*.,.*.,...* , :*.t-.-.*,:'. :,., *                       -,   "    .............               I........    :..
                                                                                                                                *.,.,...*.,.,.*.,.,.*.,.,. ---*        *.* --.- : : ... .. :   ......................................................                                                                       ..........
                                                                                                                                          .......................                                                                                            ... .
                                                                                                                  ........ ....           ................                                     .........        @ ::,.:: .* * * :-. , * *.*.' ** '.*.,.-.    .....     ....                               *.,.*..'.*.-.-.-.-. .*.'.*.*.*.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                ....        :.................                                             . .....        . .....              .....
                                                                                                                                                                       ......................                                                                                                                      .....    *
                                                                                                                            .............
                                                                                                                          . ... ........                                                                        ......      ;..........
                                                                                                                                                       ..............                                           ..... ..........                                 ......
                                                                                                                                                                       ......      ....        ..........                   .......
                                                                                                                                                                                 ......................
                                                                                                          ......... .......                                                      .......       ........                                   .......
                                                                                                                                                  *  ...........       :., ::. ;:*.*, .. :: * :,.:, , :                                                      . ......
                                                                                                   ............           .................               .............          *.................

                                                                                   . ........... ......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            C..::: t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   OP@
                                                                                           ........... ...                *......         ...........
                                                                               ............. ..                   :
                                                                            ... .......... .                              .......         ,.........
                                                                                                                          ,........ ........           I..
                                                                                             ..........                                   ........... ....
                                                                                                                          ............


                                                                              ...................
                                                                                    ................
                                                                         ..... .... ..........
                                                                                               ..........                                                                                                                                                                    CERC Southampton
                                                                                             ...........
                                                                         ... .........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Wave Cage

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

                                                                            ..........
                                                                          ...........                                                                                                          Moriches Imet




                                                                           . ... ..........
                                                                             . ........ .                                                                              SSMO Area 006
                                                                                                                                          @SMB, PNJ Wave Hindcast Station

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





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           0                       20                  40

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Statute                      Miles


                                                                                                                  Available Wave Climate Statistics























                                                                                                                                                                                               62


















                                                                                     LEGEND


                                                                                                LOW SWCLLS    1-4 FC9T I

                                                                                                SA20SUM SWCLLS (11-12 FITT)

                                                      2                                         his" SW9LL9 (OVIIR it FEET







                                                 30% CAL11*


                                                                                     THE LENGTH OF SAM 09MOrES THE PERCENT OF
                                                                                     rime rmAr SWCLLS OF EACH $129 "AVC SEEN
                                                                                     f4OVIX6 FROM OR NEAR T119 GIVEN OIMCCTIOM.
                                                                                     THC FIGURE IN Tile! CCRTCM OF Tilt DIA4M^w
                                                                                     INDICAT99 TM1 PERCENT OF CAL10111. Tha OIA-
                                                      4                              0111AW APPLI92 TO THAT AWCA OF THE ATLANTIC
                                                      0                              OCEAN C211179090 ADOUT 240 AffLES SOUrIsCAST
                                                                                     OF FIRE ISLAND IXL9T. VIC CHARY is SASCD 014
                                                                                     042910VATIONS ST THE U.S. NAVY "TOROGRAPPIC
                                                                                     OFFICE FOR T"C Title TcAlk PERIOD losit-19411.




                                                                                                             %
                                                DIAGM or oBsM= SW= KZ1(ZT AND DnMCTION TRM WHICR
                                                OBSERVED. 1932-1942, 260       XMZS SOUTHEAST OF FM ISLAND WXT






















                                                          HINDCAST
                                                        WAVE DATA

                                                     ENTRANCE TO NEW YORK HARBOR
                                                     (LAT.40*15'N LONG 73*45'W)







                                                                                     LEGEND

                                 30%
                                                                                              14 AND OVER It TO 14
                                 t5%                                                          10 TO It
                                                                                     bf        0TO 10
                                 20%                                                 k!        6 TO a
                                                                                     z         4TO 6


                                  10%                                                          1TO 4
                                                                                     bi
                                                                                     x
                                   5%                                                1&1
                                 0                                                             0.5 TO I

                                          NE


                           CALM ON   HEIGHT
                           LESS THAN O.SFY.
                                 41.0%



                                     s












                                            HINDCAST WAVE ROSE MR DEEPWATER OFFSHORE OF NEW YORX
                                            HARBOR (Saville, Jr., 1954)







                                                           64














                                                                .JQENE


                                        Hoc I ft                   E
                                        46.41

                                                       ESE

                                  3%


                             6%
                                                   SSE            SE    KEY-
                        9%

                                                                         12+ ft
                             SSW
                                                                         8-12 ft


                                                                         4-8 ft

                                           S

                                                                          1-4 ft


                           (Includes 100% of the Waves in the PNI Statistics)


                          Annual DeepWater Wave, Height-Direction Rose Given by the PNJ
                          t.6d'@@'Pro4dtiri (Data fTom Neumann and hines, 195S).






                                                65

























                                             IM


                                 6S
                           A


                     I A                                                   9


                                      LSI
                              st                WO WAVE ROSI                                        ENI


                                                                                .411ft
                                                                                          EU

                                                                         3%


                                                                      of


                                                                  9%
                                                                      SSW
                                                               12%


                                   NW                                                          NJ WAVE XOU


                                                                   wt








                                                    193$%





                                                                 $9



                                                          ts          KEY
                                                                       12* a
                                                                       &13 ft
                                                          12%

                                                                       44 a



                           33MO WA:Vt PON

                             Comparison of Annual Deep Water Wave HelAt                   Direction Rows,
                             SMB, PNI and SSMO Wave Statistics














                           24                                                                                   it
                                                                                                                    Ho. Onshommected
                           22-                                                                                     Wawa Only
                           20
                      %.0             AMMAL PN) 111NDCAST WAVE STATISTICS                                     0
                           IS-                       Curves 1.2.3                      Ho, All Offshwe Waves
                           16-

                           14 -
                                                                                                              WOO
                      >    12 -
                                                                                                  . .....       113o@ Onshat-Directed
                           to-
                                                                         00P                                    Waves Coffected to Gap Depth

    ON
                           6-                                                                     November 1974     CP.RCWAVP.GAGE
                                                                                                  Demmber 1974
                                                                                                                    STATISTICS
                           4                                                                      January 1975      SOUTHAMPrOK KY.
                           2                                    Aa                                February 1973
                           0                                    1                                 1   1       1 1 1 AI I I I I I         I I IL
                            100                        to                         1.0                         0.1                       0.01

                                                    PROBABRItY OF EXCEMM SPECIFIED WAVE I MjGI IT (poem I)


                                    Compadson of Cumulative Wave Ifelght Statigtica. PNI 111ndcut and CERC Southampton Wave Came.




























































                                                     'US Department of Commerce
                                               NOAA Constal                Cc---tca- L--':.n-zry
                                                      2234, SoutTa
                                                       Charleston, 2,,*,C























        1.0



        0.9


   oj   0.8 -


        0.7                  ALL PERIODS
   w
   w
   x    0.6 -
   w


   W
   0    05 -


   t    0.4-


        0.3
   to
   0

        0-a-,



        0.1



        0.0
           0         5          10        15         20        25
                    DEEPWATER WAVE 14EIGHTo'Hoi(ft.)








                        EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY OF WAVE
                        HEIGHTS,FOR ALL PERIODS. (SSMO)

                                        68





                k,

                                                                                                                                        ,.0. COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY
                                                                                                                                         3 6668 14111491 0 -