Draft general design memorandum / Atlantic coast of New Jersey, Sandy Hook to Barnegat inlet, Beach erosion control project Section I - Sea Bright to Ocean Township / Main report and environmental impact statement

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

oftFs or ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW JERSEY
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
SECTION I - SEA BRIGHT TO
OCEAN TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
19 oil 001

)Rq lk DRAFT

'',--GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

f
MAIN REPORT WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT

VOLUME I

:@_it
May 1988

DRAFT GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW JERSEY
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT

Section I - Sea Bright to Ocean Township

Main Report
and
Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York District

May, 1988

-S

SYLLABUS

The Federal project, Atlantic Coast of New Jersey from Sandy Hook to
Barnegat Inlet Beach Erosion Control, was authorized by the River and Harbor
Act of July 3, 1958 in accordance with reports printed in House Document No.
332, 85th Congress, Second Session. The reach of the authorized project
extending from Sandy Hook to Ocean Township (Section I) was modified by the
Water Resources Development Act of 17 November 1986 (PL 99-662).

This report is a General Design Memorandum concerning the approximately 12
mile reach of shore extending from Sea Bright to Ocean Township, Section I
of the authorized project. The report presents the evaluation of erosion
control alternatives for providing protection from damage from storm waves
and erosion. Evaluation of the alternatives was accomplished within the
framework of existing Federal laws and criteria. The plan recommended for
construction yields the maximum benefits over cost (NED plan). The plan
provides for the construction of a protective beach along the 11.8 miles of
shore of the considered reach with periodic nourishment of the new beach and
the notching of 15 existing groins. The design beach, which has a 100 foot
wide berm at an elevation of 10 feet above MLW and a berm cap extending to
an elevation of +12 feet above MLW, provides protection to upland property
from erosion that would accompany a storm with a re-occurrence interval of
120 years. However, the recommended works will not protect property from
damage caused by storm surges in the Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers.

Material for construction and periodic nourishment of the project would be
obtained from borrow areas offshore of Sandy Hook and Belmar, New Jersey.
The estimated initial cost of the recommended plan is $192,917,000. The
Federal portion of the initial cost is $158,322,000 and the non-Federal
portion is $34,596,000. The estimated annual cost of interest, amortization
and future nourishment is $21,454,000, with annual benefits of $36,700,000.
The benefit to cost ratio is 1.71.

The local sponsor, the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, agrees to all provisions contained in the Local Cost Sharing
Agreement.

GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW JERSEY
FROM SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT

SECTION I - SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP

PERTINENT DATA

Description

The recommended project provides for a protective and recreational beach
along the reach of shore between Sea Bright and Ocean Township (Section I of
authorized project) and for notching 15 existing groins.

Length of Beach Fill 11.83 miles

Volume of Initial Fill 17,882,000 c.y.

Width of Design Beach Berm 100 feet

Elevation of Design Beach Berm

Beach Berm +10 feet
Berm Cap + 2 feet
Total +12 feet

Beach Slopes of Design Beach

Onshore 1V to 10H
Offshore 1V to 35H

Renourishment

Average Interval 6 years
Quantity 3,470,000 c.y.

Cost

Initial $193,000,000
Annual $ 21,500,000

Average Annual Benefits

Damage Reduction $ 16,700,000
Intensification $ 8,300,000
Land Erosion Reduction $ 2,100,000
Reduced Maintenance (Sandy Hook Park) $ 1,700,000
40 Recreation $ 7,800,000
Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.71

Cost Apportionment (First Cost)

Features:

Federal - Initial Fill, Advance Fill, Groin Notching $158,322,000

Non-Federal Seawall Rehabilitation, Lands, Easements,
Rights-of-Way, Outfall Extensions $ 34,596,000

Climatology

High Low Average

Temperature (0 F) 110 -31 52
Precipitation (in.) 61.7 29.94 44
Relative Humidity 70
Winds
(1). Location - Sandy Hook, NJ
(2) Prevailing - Northwest
(3) Maximum - 79 mph at Long Branch (6/11/53)

Hydraulic

Tides
(1) Semi-Diurnal
(2) Tide range Mean 4.8 ft. (Sea Bright)
Spring 5.3 ft. (Sea Bright)

Waves - WIS Study

(1) Prevailing - East/Southeast
(2) Average - 1.5 ft.
(3) Largest - 22.5 ft.

Surge

(1) Maximum Storm: 10.3 ft. 1960 Sandy Hook

NOTE: All elevations referenced to MLW.

DRAFT GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW JERSEY
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT

SECTION I - SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP

MAIN REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph No. Page No.

1 STUDY AUTHORITY ....................................... 1

5 DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED PROJECT ..................... 2

9 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..................................... 4

11 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ............................. 4

17 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM ................................ 5

25 PRIOR STUDIES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .................. 11

29 EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES ..... 15

31 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................... 15

31 Population ....................................... 15
32 Income ........................................... 15
33 Development... ............................. ......... 15
34 Economy .......................................... 16
36 Recreation ....................................... 16
37 Transportation ................................... 16
38 Existing Structures .............................. 16
43 Climate .......................................... 17
44 Waves ............................................ 17
45 Tides ............................................ 17
46 Storms .... :-*-****-*---- .... ***-- 17
47 Sea Level Rise ................................... 17
48 Shoreline and Volumetric Changes ................. 17
50 Geology and Borrow Sources ....................... 18
54 Existing Environmental Conditions ................ 18
56 Without Project Future Conditions ................ 19

63 NEEDS, OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS ..................... 20

63 CURRENT NEEDS ............................... ..... 20
66 PLANNING OBJECTIVES .............................. 21
67 General ..................................... 21
67 Specific .................................... 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont.)

Paragraph No. Page N).

68 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS ............................. 21
68 Technical Constraints ....................... 21
68 Economic Constraints ........................ 22
68 Environmental Constraints ................... 22
68 Regional and Social ......................... 22
68 Institutional ............................... 22

69 PLAN FORMULATION ...................................... 23

71 INITIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ................ 23
72 No Action ................................... 23
73 Buy-out Plan ................................ 23
74 Revetments .................................. 26
75 Revetments with Beach Restoration ........... 26
76 Breakwaters ................................. 26
77 Breakwaters with Beach Restoration .......... 26
78 Seawalls .................................... 26
79 Seawalls with Beach Restoration ............. 26
80 Perched Beach with Beach Restoration ........ 26
81 Beach Restoration ........................... 27
82 Groins ...................................... 27
83 Groins with Beach Restoration ............... 27 0
85 EVALUATION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES .............. 27
85 Description ................................. 27
89 Quantity Estimates .......................... 28
91 Cost Estimates .............................. 28

92 BENEFITS ....... ........................................ 33

94 STORM REDUCTION BENEFITS ......................... 34
96 Inundation Damage ........................... 34
98 Wave Attack ................................. 35
100 Long Term Erosion ........................... 35
102 Storm Recession ............................. 36
105 Reduced Seawall Maintenance Costs ........... 36
106 Reduced Public Emergency Costs .............. 37
107 Critical Damages ............................ 37
110 REDUCTION IN LOST LAND ........................... 38
ill, REDUCED MAINTENANCE AT SANDY HOOK ................ 39
112 INTENSIFICATION-BENEFITS ......................... 39
114 RECREATION BENEFITS 39
120 General Plan of the Analysis ................ 40
121 Analysis of Data ............................ 41
122 150-Foot Berm Width ......................... 41
123 Summary of Recreation Benefits .............. 41
126 SUMMARY OF BENEFITS .............................. 42
126 Authorized Berm Height ...................... 42

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont.)

Paragraph No. Page No.

131 PLAN SELECTION ........................................ 46

131 COMPARISON OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES .............. 46
133 NED PLAN ......................................... 49
134 Selection of Environmentally Preferred Plan . 49
135 Trade-off Analysis .......................... 49
136 Selection of Final NED Plan ................. 49
137 Future With Project Conditions .............. 49

142 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN .............. 50

142 DESIGN DETAILS ................................... 50
142 Constructable Reaches ....................... 50
143 Design Section .............................. 50
144 Fill Quantity ............................... 51
145 Renourishment Requirement ................... 51
146 Feeder Beach ................................ 51
147 Berm Height Survivability ................... 51
148 Sea Level Rise .............................. 51
149 Construction Template ....................... 52
150 Sequence of Construction .................... 52
152 Outfall Construction ........................ 52
153 Groin Notching .............................. 52
154 Seawall Rehabilitation ...................... 53
155 Risk Analysis ............................... 53
157 ECONOMICS ........................................ 53
157 Benefits .................................... 53
159 Sensitivity .................................. 53
160 Residual Damage ............................. 55

161 PROJECT COSTS ......................................... 55

161 PRICE LEVEL ...................................... 55
163 RENOURISHMENT COSTS .............................. 56
164 LOCAL COSTS ...................................... 56
164 Real Estate 56
165 Outfall Extensions .......................... 57
166 Seawall Rehabilitation ...................... 57
167 COST APPORTIONMENT ............................... 57
168 ANNUAL COSTS ..................................... 57

169 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ................................... 58

172 DEPARTURES FROM PREVIOUS PLANS ........................ 58

172 PLAN IN HOUSE DOCUMENT 332/85/2 .................. 58
173 NEW JERSEY MASTER PLAN ........................... 58

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont.)

Paragraph No. f,@&e N@j.

176 LOCAL COOPERATION ..................................... 60

176 COORDINATION ..................................... 60
179 VIEWS OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR ..................... 60

LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT ........................... 61

180 CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 69

RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 71

REFERENCES ........................................ .... 72

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo No. Page No.

1 Northern section of Sea Bright near confluence of
Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers (looking south).
Note absence of beach along most of seawall and
proximity of Route 36 to ocean (6/8/87) ............... 6

2 Monmouth Beach (looking south). Note absence of
beach along most of seawall and proximity of
Route 36 to ocean (6/8/87) ............................ 7

3 Northern Long Branch (looking south). Note minimal
beach width, numerous groins and new promenade
under construction (bottom of photo), (6/8/87) ......... 8

4 Southern Long Branch, Lake Takanasee and Deal
(looking south). Note minimal beach width and
numerous groins and other structures (6/8/87) .......... 9

5 Southern Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour and
Deal Lake (looking south). Note minimal or
absent beach (6/8/87) ................................. 10

6 Wave overtopping and flooding during abnormally
high tide (January 1, 1987) ........................... 12

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page No.

1 General Study Area Prior Studies ...................... 13

2 Applicability of Initial Storm Damage Protection
Alternatives, Sea Bright to Ocean Township, NJ ........ 24

3 Total Fill and Maintenance Quantities ................. 29

4 Total Rock Quantities ................................. 30

5 Initial Fill Quantities - Selected Plan With 2-Foot
Berm Cap - Entire Project Constructed in Phases ....... 31

6 Final Alternatives - First and Annual Cost Summary .... 32

7 Total First and Annual Costs - Fill Only Plan With
100' Berm Width and Berm Caps ......................... 32

8 Sea Bright to Ocean Township - Stage Damage Summary
1985 Conditions - April 1987 Price Level .............. 38

9 Equivalent Annual Recreation Benefits - 1990-2040
Discounted at 8.875% - July 1985 Price Levels ......... 42

10 Equivalent Annual Recreation Benefits - 1990-2040
Discounted at 8.875% - April 1987 Price Levels ........ 42

11 Sea Bright to Ocean Township - Total Benefits in
Thousands - Summary Table (April 1987 Price Level) .... 43

12 Sea Bright to Ocean Township - Total Benefits in
Thousands - Summary Table (April 1987 Price Level) .... 44

13 Sea Bright to Ocean Township - Total Benefits in
Thousands - Summary Table (April 1987 Price Level) .... 45

14 Sea Bright to Ocean Township Total Benefits
Summary Table - April 1987 Price Level ................ 47

15 Berm Cap Analysis - Net Benefit Summary
April 1987 Price Level ................................ 47

16 Benefit and Cost Comparison - Alternative Plans With
10-Ft. MLW Berm Height - September 1987 Price Level ... 48

17 Benefit and Cost Comparison - Fill Only Plan With Berm
Caps - September 1987 Price Level ..................... 48

is Risk Analysis For Selected Plan ....................... 54

LIST OF TABLES
(cont.)

Table No. Title Page No.

19 Interest Rate Sensitivity - Cost vs. Benefits
Discount Rate 8-5/8% - September 1987 Price Level ..... 55

20 Residual Damage - 100 Foot Berm with 2 Foot Cap ........ 56

21 Apportionment of Costs - Recommended Plan
September 1987 Price Level ............................ 57

21A Annualized First Cost of Recommended Plan @ 8-7/8% .... 57A.

22 Comparison of Physical Features
Sea Bright to Ocean Township, NJ ...................... 59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page No.

1 Project Location ..................................... 3

Figure No. Title Following Text
--.'Page No. 72
2 Authorized Project - Sea Bright to
Ocean Township Reach

3 Location of Existing Coastal Structures

4 Location of 1962 Emergency Fill Project in
Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach

5 Wave Rose

6 Surge Plus Tide Stage Frequency Monmouth Beach, NJ

7 Borrow Area Locations

8 Schematic of Benefit Locations

9 Schematic of Damage Locations

10-11 Economic Reach Boundaries

12 Schematic of Critical Damage Analysis

13 Sandy Hook Critical Zone

LIST OF FIGURES
(cont.)

Figure No. Title Following Text
Page No. 72

14 Maximum Net Benefits - Fill Only Plan
Sea Bright to Ocean Township

15 Maximum Net Benefits - Authorized Groin Plan
Sea Bright to Ocean Township

16 Maximum Net Benefits - Updated Groin Plan
Sea Bright to Ocean Township

17 Annual Net Benefits for Berm Caps Over 10 Ft. MLW Berm

18-1 & Comparison of Alternate Plans
18-2

19-1 Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet - Section 1
thru Sea Bright to Ocean Township - Recommended Plan
19-5

20-1 Existing and Design Profiles for Recommended Plan
thru (100 Ft. Berm With 2 Ft. Cap)
20-14

21 Typical Construction Template

22 Sequence of Construction for Recommended Plan
(Continuous Project Constructed in Phases)

23 Notched Groin Cross-Section

24 Sea Bright to Monmouth Beach Seawall Rehabilitation

25 New Jersey State Master Plan

26 Construction and Expenditure Schedule

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX

A ENGINEERING DESIGN
B COST ESTIMATES
C BORROW AREA EVALUATIONS
D BENEFITS
E DRAINAGE OUTFALL EXTENSIONS
F SEAWALL REHABILITATION
G REAL ESTATE
H PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE

vii

DRAFT GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW JERSEY
FROM SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET

SECTION I - SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

STUDY AUTHORITY

1. The Federal Project, Shore of New Jersey from Sandy Hook to Barnegat
Inlet, Beach Erosion Control, was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of
July 3, 1958, in accordance with reports printed in House Document No. 332,
85th Congress, second session, as modified by the Water Resources
Development Act of 17 November 1986 (PL. 99-662).

2. The original beach erosion report was produced by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in cooperation with the State of New Jersey under the provisions
of Section 2 of the River and Harbor Act approved July 3, 1930 as amended
and supplemented. The report was submitted to Congress by the Secretary of
the Army on 7 March 1956 and printed in House Document No. 361, 84th
Congress, second session. It was included in the next Omnibus Bill, but the
Bill did not receive Presidential approval.

3. Subsequently, there was a further Congressional request to review the
1956 report for the purpose of determining what change, if any, in the
recommended Federal aid would result from application of the provisions of
Public Law 826, 84th Congress, approved 28 July 1956. Section l(c) of
Public Law 826 provided that periodic beach nourishment be considered as
"construction" for the protection of shores when it is the most suitable and
economic remedial measure. Section l(d) provided for Federal assistance to
privately owned shores if there is benefit from public use or from
protection of nearby public property. The Corps conducted the review and
the Chief of Engineers determined that periodic beach nouri-shment for this
project was the most suitable and economical remedial measure for protection
of the restored beach, and that such nourishment was considered eligible for
Federal assistance under provisions of Public Law 826. The result was an
increase in the percentage of Federal participation in the first
construction and periodic nourishment costs. The above review of reports
was submitted as House Document No. 332, 85th Congress, second session and
approved in the River and Harbor Act on 3 July 1958.

4. Subsequently, all shore protection projects were modified for cost
sharing purposes by Public Law 87-874 - River and Harbor and Flood Control
Act of 23 October, 1962, which increased the percentage of Federal
participation. The Water Resources Development Act of 17 November 1986
(Public Law 99-662) further modified the cost sharing for the project by
stating that "the non-Federal share of the cost of construction and
maintenance of the Ocean Township to Sandy Hook reach of the project shall
consist of amounts expended by non-Federal interests for reconstruction of
the seawall at Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach.".

DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED PROJECT

5. The authorized Federal project provides for Federal participation in the
initial cost of beach restoration and subsequent renourishment cost for the
shore from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey (Figure 1). Federal
participation in periodic nourishment cost is authorized initially for a
period of 10 years from end of initial construction. As related to the
reach of shore under consideration herein, Sandy Hook to Ocean Township, the
Federal project provides for placement of sand to widen the beach to a
minimum width of 100 feet at an elevation of 10 feet above mean low water,
the construction of 23 new groins and the extension of 14 existing groins
(Figure 2). The new groins would be spaced 1000 to 1200 feet apart
depending on location of existing structures. Additional project details
are presented in Reference 1. The authorized project also provides for
Federal participation in periodic nourishment costs for a period of 10 years
from the year that the total quantity of fill placed in any of the three
sections has equaled that required to restore the beach to project dimension
in that section.

6. The authorized project also provides for a feeder be.Lch at Ocean
Township and a second one at the north end of Long Branch. The combined
annual feeder beach volume was estimated at 175,000 cubic yards. The
authorized groins were predicted to reduce the project area erosion rate by
60,000 cubic yards annually. This reduced the combined annual feeder beach
volume to 115,000 cubic yards.

7. In the 1958 authorization, Federal participation in the cost of the
project was subject to the conditions that local authorities would:

(a) Obtain approval by the Chief of Engineers, prior to commencement of work
on any section, of detailed plans and specifications for that section,
including the sequence of construction and arrangements for prosecuting the
work in that section:

(b) provide at their own expense all necessary lands, easements, and
rights-of-way:

(1) Maintain the protective and improvement measures (luring their
economic life, including periodic nourishment of the shore at suitable
intervals, as may be required to serve their intended purpose;

(2) Prevent water pollution that would endanger the health of bathers;
and

(3) Maintain, for the duration of the economic life of the project,
continued public ownership of the publicly owned shores and their
administration for public use, and continued availability for public use
of the privately owned shores upon which a portion of the Federal
participation is based.

NEW CONN.

Send
y Hook N
Bay

Sandy Hook

PROJECT
LOCATION
SEA BRIGHT Bornegat
a. Inlet

MONMOUTH x VICINITY MAP
BEACH T 39
7 m 0 Scale in Miles
25 0 25 50
LONG W
BRANCH W
0

ALLENHURST
OCEAN TWP,

A
R- i;A-
SBU Y RK
-3 QCEAN GROVE
0
_V BRADLEY BCH.
-BY-THE-SEA
-AVON
River Inlet
BELMAR 0
0 Cr dc
SPRING LAKE 1z: m z
Lu Wreck *j -C
7 SEA GIRT

*MANASQUAN

POINT PLEASANT
BEACH
-SAY HEAD

MANTOLOKING

Cr
Lu CL

x 0 SCALE IN MILES
0 U) w
2t -t 2
z W Cn
ip _j q
06 ui
LAVALLETTE U)

a
SEASIDE HEIGHTS

SEASIDE PARK

cj
0

LEGEND
..... . 1b ISLAND BCH.
WORK REQUIRED FORCOMPLETION

NOTZ BEACH FILL
JOUtional beach fill from sea Bright
to S"side tack to be placed as meed" FEEDER BEACH
to Provide minimum Width of 100 feet at
elevation of 10 toot above no" low water.

Bornegot Inlet

FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION

8. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (PL 99-662) modified the
1958 authorization such that:

a) The first increment shall consist of a berm of approximately 50 feet at
Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach extending to and including a feeder beach in
the vicinity of Long Branch.

b) The non-Federal share of the cost of construction and maintenance of the
Ocean Township to Sandy Hook reach of the project shall consist of amounts
expended by non-Federal interests for reconstruction of the seawall at Sea
Bright and Monmouth Beach.

c) Before initiation of construction of any increment of the project,
non-Federal interests shall agree to provide public access to the beach for
which such increment of the project is authorized in accordance with all
requirements of State law and regulation.

The Local Cooperation Agreement for the work proposed herein is presented in
another section of this report, Local Cooperation.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

9. This report presents the results of final formulation and design of
Section I of the authorized project. The principal thrus t of the
investigation and analyses were to develop adequate information to reaffirm
the authorized plan and purpose or to justify a revised plan. The plan
recommended herein, when approved, will be the basis for preparation and
approval of plans and specifications. Consequently the scope of technical
analyses is sufficient for the final design of project features and the
preparation of accurate cost estimates.

10. This report was prepared in accordance with guidance presented in ER
1110-2-1150 "Engineering After Feasibility Studies" Change 1 dated 24 June,
1985. Formulation of alternatives were in accordance with procedures
described in "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines For Water
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies," .10 March 1982.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

11. The authorized project includes approximately 51 miles of the New
Jersey shoreline extending from the southern limit of Sandy Hook in the
north to Barnegat Inlet in the south. The analysis performed for this
investigation covers Section I, the most northerly 12 miles of authorized
project extending from just north of the Route 36 bridge in Sea Bright,
southward to the outlet of Deal Lake (Figure 2).

12. The Sea Bright to Ocean Township study area is located approximately 30
miles southeast of Newark, New Jersey, 40 miles east of Trenton, New Jersey
and 65 miles northeast of Atlantic City, New Jersey. The are4L encompassed
by the study includes the communities of Sea Bright, Monmouth Beach, Long
Branch, Deal, Allenhurst and Loch Arbour (formerly a part of Ocean
Township). The entire study area is within Monmouth County. Immediately to
the north of the project limit is the Sandy Hook unit of the Gateway
National Recreation Area and immediately to the south is the City of Asbury
Park.

13. The northern portion of the study area, Sea Bright and northern
Monmouth Beach, is comprised of a barrier spit complex where the shoreline
is on a narrow strip of unconsolidated sand which forms a peninsula between
the ocean and bay environments. The southern portion of the study area,
including southern Monmouth Beach, Long Branch, Deal and Allenhurst, is
classified as Headlands where the beaches are attached to the mainland.

14. The entire coastal zone within the study area is extensively developed,
primarily for residential and commercial uses. The peninsula area is
fronted by a seawall with elevations ranging from +14 feet to +22 feet MLW
(Mean Low Water) in height which aids in the prevention of erosion, flooding
and wave attack. Traversing the peninsula area is State Road 36 which is
the only major north-south roadway linking the Highlands and Long Branch.

15. Prior to the construction of the Long Branch and Seashore Railroad,
storms had repeatedly breached the barrier spit resulting in the formation
of inlets that effectively joined the Shrewsbury River with the Atlantic
Ocean. When first constructed the railroad was often subject to damage due
to storm induced conditions. This resulted in the first extensive erosion
control measures undertaken for the area (Reference 2). The railroad has
since been abandoned and the tracks removed, however, the seawall remains.
At present the peninsula varies in width from 250 to 1500 feet at an
elevation ranging from 5-10 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD).

16. In the southern half of the study area, the existing bluffs once
extended considerably seaward and have since been eroded back to their
present position as a result of the combined effects of wind and waves. The
bluffs immediately adjoining the ocean range in elevation from 10 to 25 feet
NGVD, with the higher elevations located to the northern portion of the area.

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM

17. Erosion has seriously reduced the width of most beaches . in the study
area with consequent increased exposure of the shore to storm damage.
Throughout the period of record the 12 mile study area has experienced
continuous beach erosion and storm recession r esulting in a majority of the
shorefront property in Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach having no dry beach
(Photos No.1 and 2). With the exception of sand fillets south of groins,
very little beach width remains in the southern section of the study area
(Photos No. 3, 4 and 5).

18. As erosion continues unchecked, property damage has increased along
this heavily developed section of the State shoreline. Public roads and
utilities have become more susceptible to storm damage. Two more recent
storms, one occurring in 1962 and one in 1984, resulted in 25.3 million and
16 million dollars respectively in financial losses to the study area based
on 1987 price levels.

-19. Virtually all of the protective coastal structures, including the
massive seawalls and 103 groins, have deteriorated since their
construction. The structures are becoming less effective and increasingly
susceptible to storm damage as the beach continues to erode. The
recreational beach areas continue to shrink as the State recreational need
increases.

slop

7 .40

VVVr 'Pk

AM,

Photo No. 1

Northern section of Sea Bright near confluence of
Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers (looking south).
Note absence of beach along most of seawall
a

and proximity of Route 36 to ocean (6/8/87).

-JL

raw, iAs

-.00.

00-01

0 iv

Mv
Y rap

Photo No. 2

Monmouth Beach (looking south). Note absence
of beach along most of seawall and proximity
of Route 36 to ocean (6/8/87).
UP

--.mop

A-V
06

-low'
SMV

IF
Wo'

Photo No. 3

Northern Long Branch (looking south). Note
minimal beach width, numerous groins and new
promenade under construction (bottom of photo),
(6/8/87).

A
7!,
I ---- Jkv.
7W

., 71 -01

Photo No. 4

Southern Long Branch, Lake Takanasee and Deal
(looking south). Note minimal beach width and
numerous groins and other structures (6/8/87).

'Ile

AN
It

ear

Photo No. 5

Southern Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour and
Deal Lake (looking south). Note raininal or
absent beach (6/8/87).

20. A comparison of 1953 and 1985 hydrographic survey data indicates a loss
of 10,067,000 cubic yards of sediment between Sea Bright and Ocean Township
above the 30 foot MLW depth contour (Appendix A). Including the sand
fraction of the 1,433,000 cubic yard emergency fill placed after the March
1962 storm, the study area lost material at an average annual rate of
349,000 cubic yards over the 32 year period.

21. The existing annual net sediment transport rate is estimated to be
approximately 155,000 cubic yards toward the north at Ocean Township and
392,000 cubic yards toward the north at Sea Bright. Transport rates have
decreased from the potential rates of 319,000 cubic yards at Ocean Township
and 493,000 cubic yards at Sea Bright. Since the beach itself is the only
source of material, it is inevitable that the beach has and will continue to
erode.

22. State Route 36 is the only major north-south roadway linking Sea Bright
and Monmouth Beach with Long Branch (Photos No. I and 2). Local authorities
report that during periods of high tide in combination with prolonged
periods of a steady northeast wind, the roadway is closed due to flooding
resulting from wave runup overtopping the seawall (Photo No. 6). In
addition, the setup in the Sandy Hook Bay contributes to the flooding
problem by pteventing drainage of the rivers, resulting in flooding from the
back bay areas. The Route is heavily traveled and is reported by the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to be at capacity during the peak
recreational season. It also provides the only means of access and egress
by residents located in the area.

23. The large seawall at Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach has been generally
successful in protecting the area from wave action. However, analyses
conducted to date indicate that the seawall is in an advanced state of
decay. All sections of the wall analyzed suffer from one or more failure
modes with failure from scour more prevalent. If the rate of decay is not
checked, more frequent storm damage at lower storm frequencies can be
expected.

24. Long term erosion has seriously reduced the size of the remaining beach
in the study area. Virtually all coastal structures in the area have
experienced serious deterioration. This has resulted in the development
along the coast becoming increasingly vulnerable to storm erosion, wave
attack and flooding.

PRIOR STUDIES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

25. The reports listed on Table 1 provide information on coastal processes
and prior studies for the considered reach of shore. Prinicipal corrective
measures which have been implemented are discussed in the following
paragraphs. Location of existing coastal structures are summarized in
Figure 3.

26. Forty groins have been constructed in the Sea Bright area, some with
the outer portion angled to the south. Five groins have been constructed in
Monmouth Beach. A total of 45 groins have been constructed in Long Branch.
Ten groins have been constructed in Deal, two in Allenhurst and one in Loch
Arbour.

Photo No. 6

Wave overtopping and flooding during abnormally high tide (January 1, 1987).

TABLE I

GENERAL STUDY AREA

PRIOR STUDIES

Year Agency Publication or Date of
Submission to CongE@s

1922 Report on Erosion and protection of New Jersey Beaches. Recommended criteria N.J. Board of Comm. Published
for protection structures. and Navigation

1924 supplement to the 1922 report which gave further recommendations with respect do. PubLished
to shore protection structures.

1930 Final report bringing up to date the data contained in the 1922 and 1924 do. Published
reports and giving details of completed coastal structures.

1933 Interim Report. Compilation of data gathered in previous experiments, Beach Erosion Board Not Published
studies and investigations for general reference purposes and as a
guide for future studies

1945 Preliminary report on New Jersey Coast with a view to providing protection Corps of Engineers submitted to
against damage resulting from floods due to tide and wind. Unfavorable. Congress on
It was concluded that problems of beach erosion at critical Localities 23 November 1949
might be studies in cooperation with state and local governmental agencies
under existing law providing for such studies.

1947 A Pictorial History of New Jersey Coast. Compilation of photographs taken Beach Erosion Board Not Published
periodically of various shore structures for the purpose ofstudying their
effectiveness.

1950 Test of Nourishment of the Shore by Offshore Deposition of Sand, Beach Erosion Board Technical
Long Branch, NJ. Memorandum 17

1954 Regional Study of Atlantic Coast of New Jersey. Covers the subjects of do.

geomorphology, shore history and Littoral materials and forces.

1958 Authorizing Document and Beach Erosion Control Study, House Document 332 U.S. Congress July 1958

TABLE I
GENERAL STUDY AREA

PRIOR SUDIES
(Continued)

Year Agency Publication or Date of
Subnission, to

1973 Study of the New Jersey Coastal Inlets and Beaches. Report on Area U.S. Army Corps July 1973
Description and Existing Conditions. of Engineers
Philadelphia Dist.

1981 State of New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan State of New Jersey October 1981

1982 Sandy Hook Critical Zone Beach Restoration U.S. Army Corps Constructed
of Engineers 1982-1983

1984 Reanalysis of the FederatLy Authorized Project with emphasis on Sea Bright to U.S. Army Corps June 1984
Ocean Township. Developed an erosion control plan decision matrix for State of Engineers
of New Jersey.
41

27. Between April 1962 and January 1963, an emergency beach restoration
project of approximately 1,443,000 cubic yards of sand was constructed at
Sea Bright and,Monmouth Beach (Figure 4), (Reference 3). The fills provided
a section with a horizontal berm 30 feet wide at +10 feet MLW fronted by a
beach slope of I on 20. Most of the fill placed in the area has been lost
due to fill incompatibility and long term erosion.

28. In 1982-1983 a beach nourishment project was undertaken by the New York
District Corps of Engineers for the National Park Service at Sandy Hook, New
Jersey. A total of approximately 2,385,000 cubic yards of fill was dredged
from the navigation channels and placed at the "critical zone" located at:
the southern end of Sandy Hook (Reference 4).

EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES

29. Existing projects include periodic maintenance dredging of the
Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers and the Sandy Hook Channel leading to the
Naval Ammunition Depot at the Naval Weapons Station Earle, Colts Neck, New
Jersey.

30. In addition, the Navy is currently planning to dredge the Sandy Hook
Channel as part of their expansion plan for the ammunition depot at Earl,,
New Jersey. A potential exists for utilizing the dredged material as fill
along the shoreline at Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach and at the Sandy Hook
critical zone. Based on preliminary analyses performed for the Navy
(Reference 5), approximately 3.9 million cubic yards of. suitable beach fill
at a lower unit cost could be made available resulting in a reduced cost for
the project. At the time of this writing no detailed plans have yet been
developed.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

31. Population. Population in Monmouth County increased by 168,000 persons
between 1960 and 1980. While this presents a 50% increase in 20 years.
Population estimates for 1985 indicate a 5.5% increase since 1980, the fifth
largest percentage increase in the state. The net population increase of
27,700 persons is the third largest in the state, ranking behind the
bordering counties of Ocean and Middlesex.

32. Income. The project area communities are generally more wealthy than
the county average. With the exception of Long Branch the communities had a
per capita income of between 124% and 196% of the county average. In four
of the six communities growth in per capita income between 1969 and 1979
exceeded the county growth rate of 21%.

33. Development. The majority of land in the immediate project area
contains residential development with commercial development concentrated in
the centers of Sea Bright and Long Branch. Recent development in the
project area mirrors the regional trend towards townhouse and condominium
units, particularly in Sea Bright, Monmouth Beach and Long Branch. The
coastal area has also seen a trend towards more year round housing. In
areas fronted by a significant beach, such as North Long Branch, the recent
high rise and townhouse development indicates the desirability of protected
beachfront property.

34. Economy. The economy of Monmouth County has undergone strong growth in
recent years with much of the development concentrated along major
transportation routes. The majority of recent non-residential development
has been for office and research facilities, probably due to the
availability of comparatively inexpensive land with good access to the
Northern New Jersey-New York City markets.

35. Since all sectors of the regional economy have been experiencing
sustained growth (even manufacturing employment increased 6.6% between 1977
and 1985), it appears that the recent increase in per capital income and
housing development will continue into the future.

36. Recreation. The severely eroded condition of project area beaches has
limited their attractiveness as a recreation resource. Even though the
average berm width in the project area has been reduced to only 24 feet,
over 85,000 individuals utilized the public beaches in 1985.

37. Transportation. Monmouth County is accessible to major population
centers through a New York State and southward to beyond Atlantic City.
Route 18 extends westward to New Brunswick in Middlesex County and Route 195
extends westward.to the state capital in Trenton. Direct access from these
major corridors to the ocean front is provided by various state and county
roads including Route 36, Route 520 and Route 71. Communities from Long
Branch southward are also serviced by the shore line of New Jersey Transit
which provides passenger rail access to Newark and New York City.

38. Existing Structures. Shore protection in the early stages of
development of the New Jersey coast was done largely by individuals and
local groups. The result was a wide variety of structures ranging from
haphazard groins and seawalls to well-engineered systems of protective
structures. In 1922, the State of New Jersey began to furnish financial and
technical assistance and has continued to the present time.

39. In August 1985, a site inspection of the existing coastal structures
was conducted. A total of 103 groins were among the located structures.
Other structures inspected included approximately 6.8 miles of
stone/concrete- seawalls, 2 miles of timber/steel bulkheads and 0.6 miles of
rock revetments. The largest continuous structure was a 9,600 foot stone
seawall located in the northern Sea Bright area. Figure 4 presents existing
structures along the project area.

40. Of the 103 groins inspected, only 20% were considered to be in good
condition, with the remainder in fair to poor condition. Twenty-eight
percent of the groins were deemed inadequate in reducing littoral losses.

41. Also located along the project area shoreline are 47 drainage
outfalls. The outfalls vary from 3" to 72" in diameter, with the majority
of the outfalls constructed of steel or concrete. With any increased berm
width,. many of the drainage outfalls must be extended to remain functional.
Appendix E gives a detailed description and evaluation of the drainage
outfall extensions.

42. A review of survey data indicated that the average berm height was
approximately 10.2 feet (MLW) in 1985, with an average berm width in the
study area of 24 feet. The onshore slope averaged 1 vertical to 10
horizontal, and the offshore slope averaged 1 on 38.

43. Climate. The climate in the study area is temperate with warm summers
and moderate winters. The annual temperature averages approximately 53
degrees Fahrenheit. January is the coolest month with a mean temperature of
32* F and July is the warmest month. The average annual precipitation is
about 44 inches with August being the wettest month. Snowfall averages
almost 25 inches annually.

44. Waves. A 20-year wave hindcast, performed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, revealed that average wave
height was approximately 1.5 feet. Sixty-three percent were less than 1.6
feet, 25 percent between 1.6 feet and 3.3 feet and 12 percent were greater
than 3.3 feet. The highest wave predicted by the hindcast, was 22.5 feet
(Reference 6). However, this size wave only occurred once in the 20-yeal
study. Wave data for the area are summarized on Figure 5.

45. Tides. Jides on the New Jersey Coast area are semi-diurnal. The mean
tide level for the Sea Bright area is 2.2 feet above MLW. The mean tidal.
range is 4.8 feet and the spring tidal range reaches 5.3 feet (Reference 6 ).

46. Storms. Hurricanes, which are formed in tropical latitudes, are the
most destructive storms affecting the Atlantic coast. -While many hurricanes
have passed the coast, only 2 of 78 have directly hit the New Jersey coast.
And while only 2 have hit the coast, the effects of the others, such as
winds, waves and excess tides, were still experienced by the coast. A surge.
frequency relation for the area is summarized on Figure 6.

47. Sea Level Rise. Sea level rise has been found to be a significant:
factor contributing to the coastal erosion. Based on NOAA tide gauge
readings between 1932 and 1980 at Sandy Hook, sea level has been increasing;
at an average of approximately 0.015 ft. per year (Reference 7).

48. Shoreline and Volumetric Changes. Historical information of volumetric
changes in the project changes in the project area is limited, but from 1885
to 1933, the annual erosion rate above the -30 foot contour, was estimated.
at 256,000 cubic yards. From 1933 to 1953, the annual erosion rate was
225,000 cubic yards. This reduction was attributed to the addition of'
groins along the coast. The average annual erosion rate between 1953 and.
1985 was 349,000 cubic yards (Appendix A). This was attributed to a.
decreased supply of sand from the beaches south of the study area.

49. A detailed analysis of shoreline changes, utilizing additional surveys
was performed (Reference 6). The analysis indicated that the average rate
of shoreline retreat has been approximately 3 feet per year over the last
century along shorelines not fixed by structures. This rate represents the
recession that can be expected if a beach fill project is constructed.

50. Geology and Borrow Sources. The geology of the study area consists of
basal strata from the late cretaceous ages. Surficial geology consists
mostly of formations from the tertiary ages with some formations from the
quaternary ages present. Appendix B provides a detailed description of the
various geological formations and their respective composition located in
the northern section of the project area.

51. A study was performed to determine whether sediments of suitable grain
size and sufficient volume are present in the location near the proposed
beach nourishment project. Beach samples were taken along USACE profile
lines in the project area. Possible borrow areas were identified through a
seismic survey. Vibracore samples were taken within these areas to obtain
grain size distribution data. From beach profile sand samples, the mean
grain size was found to be 0.29mm (Reference 10). To find suitable borrow
material, it is desirable to locate sediment that is as coarse or coarser
than the beach material. Also, grain size distribution should be similar or
better than grain size distributions from the beach profile samples.

52. Based on this criteria, the study identified 24 cores of suitable grain
sizes. In the areas where suitable borrow material was identified, remote
sensing surveys were performed. The purpose of the surveys was to determine
the presence of artifacts or obstructions which could hinder the dredging
process. Certain areas of the Sea Bright-Sandy Hook area were found to
contain anomalies that would hinder dredging.

53. Finally, from the vibracore and remote sensing-surveys, three suitable
borrow areas were located. These are shown in Figure 7. The largest, the
borrow area off of Sandy Hook-Sea Bright, contained 47 million cubic yards
of material. The two other locations, southeast of Belmar, contained 1.5
million cubic yards of suitable borrow material each. Appendix C gives
detailed results of the sand inventory investigation.

54. Existing Environmental Conditions. The project shoreline has been
highly modified as a result of intensive human development and concomitant
measures to control erosion forces. Upland areas within the project reach
have been almost totally committed to residential and commercial
development. Only a single length of little more than 2,000 feet retains
some semblance of a natural shoreline with dunes backing the ocean berm and
beach. This is the area of Seven Presidents County Park and North End Beach
Club in North Long Branch. Elsewhere, the beach if present, is backed by a
seawall, as in Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach, or variations of riprap
construction and bulkheads, as in the southern half of the project reach.
In many areas north of Long Branch, there is no beach at all in front of the
seawall. In addition, a wide variety of stone and timber groins have been
constructed all along the project reach to forestall sand losses along the
shore.

55. The offshore ocean bottom in the vicinity of proposed borrow areas is
typical of nearshore marine habitats with sandy substrates. The borrow area
off Sandy Hook lies near the mouth of New York Harbor, and is subsequently
affected by the water quality conditions found in that estuary. The two
smaller borrow areas off Belmar and Sea Girt are located in relatively
cleaner waters to the south. Benthic resource studies in the borrow areas
showed a paucity of surf clams, the major commercial species, in the Sandy
Hook borrow area, and low to marginal populations in the two southern
areas. Portions of the three borrow areas are located in areas that have
been identified as having high recreational fishing use for such species as
summer flounder, striped bass, weakfish, and bluefish.

56. Without Project Future Conditions. The without project condition was
identified as a continuation of long term erosion with a consequent
reduction in dry land area up to the seaward face of any seawalls,
revetments, bulkheads or major transportation routes. Based on
conversations with state officials it was assumed that non-federal interests
would continue the current pattern of maintenance and repair of such
structures, effectively halting long term shoreline erosion at the seaward
face. The repair of seawalls and other protective structures was assumed to
be adequate to - maintain the current levels of structural stability and the
associated level of protection during relatively non-catastrophic event
periods. As this work is generally performed as emergency patch work rather
than as a capital improvement, historical trends support the assumption that
no substantial increased level of protection results from the maintenance
program.

57. The continued future reduction of protective beach area in front of
protective structures will increase the potential for their devastation in
major storms. In areas without protective structures the continued erosion
of land will expose the existing development to storm damage on an
increasingly more frequent basis and will reduce the size of associated
properties.

58. Although the long term erosion of the shore front will result in larger
areas subject to storm damage, several factors will combine to somewhat
mitigate the future impacts. Since each community in the study area is
currently participating in the National Flood insurance Program (NFIP), most
structures destroyed by future storms will be rebuilt to NFIP regulations
which require elevating the structure to the Base Flood elevation as
indicated on the adopted Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).

59. It is also most probable that decisions on the rebuilding of structures
close to the waterline would tolerate no greater risk of damage from
recession or wave attack than exhibited by current building practices.
Based on a review of local building practices and flood insurance data, the
following post storm rebuilding practices are considered the most probable
future condition:

o Structures located closer to the future waterlines
than current building practices allow will not be
rebuilt.

� Any residential structure which is rebuilt will
have its main floor at a minimum elevation of
+10 feet NGVD and be protected from wave attack and
recession damages up to a 25-year event.

� Due to financial considerations and physical
constraints any non-residential structure which
is rebuilt will be replaced in kind.

60. The impacts of continued erosion in the project area are likely to
extend beyond the northern project boundary. As erosion eliminates more dry
beach from the project area a decreasing amount of sediment will be
transported to the southern sections of Sandy Hook National Seashore
exacerbating this already critical erosion problem.

61. Communities in the project area originally developed as resorts and
much of the economy is still centered around the seasonal use of these
facilities. Throughout the study reach there are more than thirty
establishments renting rooms to summer visitors, 689 housing units were
classified as seasonal based on the 1980 census, and many of the nearly 150
townhouse and-apartment complexes have seasonal rentals. The beach front is
dotted with more than twenty beach clubs, as well as a major amusement
center and planned convention center in Long Branch. All these facilities
are in part tied directly to the value of the area beaches and if a
continual degradation of the beach is permitted, they surely will suffer an
economic loss. Similarly, the secondary economy such as the restaurants,
concession stands, and retail stores throughout the area would realize an
economic hardship through a reduction in the summer trade.

62. Although the continued erosion of the limited available beach area is
likely to result in substantial hardship within the study area, without
project beach visitation within the recreation resource area (defined as
Sandy Hook to Belmar for this study) is predicted to increase 28% by the
year 2040. This will result in increased density and probably overcrowding
at the remaining beaches within the entire resource area.

NEEDS, OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS

CURRENT NEEDS

63. Over the years erosion has seriously reduced the ability of the
shoreline in the project area to provide adequate protection from coastal
storms. Continuation of this historic trend will increase the potential for
economic losses and the threat to human life and safety.

64. The greatest need in the study area is an effective erosion and storm
damage control program that eliminates long term erosion and provides
acceptable levels of protection from the devastating impacts of wave attack
and storm recession.

65. It is also recognized that the regional economy relies heavily on
recreational beach usage and as such a need exists for protecting and
enhancing this valuable resource.

PLANNING OBJECTIVES

66. Planning Objectives were identified based on the problems, needs and
opportunities as well as existing physical and environmental conditions;
present irl the project area.

67. In general, the prime Federal objective is to contribute to the
National Economic Development (NED) account consistent with protecting the
Nation's environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes,
applicable executive orders and other Federal planning requirements.
Accordingly, the following general and specific objectives have been
identified.

General

� Meet the specified needs and concerns of the general public within
the study area;

� Respond to expressed public desires and preferences;

� Be flexible to accommodate changing economic, social, and
environmental patterns and changing technologies;

� Integrate with and be complementary to other related programs in
the study area; and

� Be implementable with respect to financial and institutional
capabilities and public consensus.

Specific

� Reduce the threat of potential future damages due to the effects of
storms, with an emphasis on wave attack and recession.

� Mitigate the effect of or prevent the long term erosion that is now
being experienced.

� Enhance the recreational potential of the area.

PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

68. Planning constraints are technical, environmental, economic, regional,
social and institutional considerations that act as impediments to
successful response to the planning objectives or reduce the theater of
possible solutions.

Technical Constraints

� Plans must represent sound, safe, acceptable engineering solutions.

� Plans must be in compliance with Corps engineering regulations.

� Plans must be realistic and state-of-the-art. They must not rely
on future research and development of key components.

o Plans must provide storm damage protection.

o Plans must provide features to minimize the effect of shoreline
erosion processes.

Economic Constraints

� Plans must be efficient. They must represent optimal use of
resources in an overall sense. Accomplishment of one economic
purpose cannot unreasonably impact another economic system.

� The economic justification of the proposed project must be
determined by comparing the average annual tangible economic
benefits which would be realized over the project life with the
average annual costs. The average annual benefits must equal or
exceed the annual costs.

Environmental Constraints

� Plans cannot unreasonably impact on environmental resources.

� Where a potential impact is established plans must consider
mitigation or replacement and should adopt such measures, if
justified.

Regional and Social

� No favoritism can be shown; all reasonable opportunities for
development within the study scope must be weighed one against the
other and state and local public interests' views must be solicited.

� The needs of other regions must be considered and one area cannot
be favored to the unacceptable detriment of another.

Institutional

� Plans must be consistent with existing federal, state, and local
laws.

� Plans must be locally supported to the extent that local interests
must, in the form of a signed local cooperation agreement,
guarantee for all items of local cooperation including possible
cost sharing.

� Local interests must agree to provide public access to the beach in
accordance with all requirements of state laws and regulations.

� The plan must be fair and find overall support in the region and
state.

PLAN FORMULATION

69. The Water Resources Council's "'.-inciples and Guidelines" require the
systematic preparation and evaluation of alternative ways of addressing
identified problems, needs, and opportunities under the objective of
National Economic Development (NED) consistent with protecting the nation's
environment.

70. With respect to the local planning objectives and the Water Resources
Council's "Principles and Guidelines" objectives, a formulation and
evaluation process was conducted considering all appropriate measures
identified including those proposed by different agencies. Plans were
evaluated through a three step planning process. These steps were: (1)
identification of possible solutions, (2) development of alternatives, (3)
assessment of alternatives.

INITIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

71. Possible solutions considered in the initial step of plan formulation
are listed below:

(1) No action
(2) Buy-out Plan
(3) Revetments
(4) Revetments and beach restoration
(5) Breakwaters
(6) Breakwaters with beach restoration
(7) Seawalls
(8) Seawalls with beach restoration
(9) Perched beach with beach restoration
(10) Beach Restoration
(11) Groins
(12) Groins with beach restoration

The following paragraphs briefly describe the objective and the evaluation.
of each alternative. A summary of the analyses is presented on Table 2.

72. No Action: This plan, simply, means that no measures would be taken to
provide for storm damage protection, erosion control, recreational beaches
or to protect upland property. This plan fails to meet any of the
objectives or needs for the project. While this plan was not considered for
further development, it does provide the basis for which the with project
benefits are measured.

73. Buy-out Plan: Permanent evacuation of existing areas subject to
erosion or inundation involves the acquisition of this land and its
structures either by purchase or by exercising the powers of eminent
domain. Following this action, all development in these areas is either
demolished or relocated. Considering the amount of development, both
commercial and residential, on the project area ocean front, this plan is
both prohibitively expensive and socially unacceptable and was dropped from.
consideration early.

TABLE 2

APPLICABILITY OF
INITIAL STORM DAMAGE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES
SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP, NJ

FIRST ANNUAL
TECHNICAL SOCIAL COST* COST** FUR'[HUR
ALTERNATE PLAN FEASIBILITY IMPACT ($1,000) ($1,000) CONSIDERATION REMARKS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. NO ACTION YES EVENTUAL LOSS OF so so NO NO STORM PROTECTION PROVIDED.
BEACH. PROVIDES NO EROSION PROTECTION.

B. BUY-OUT PLAN YES SOCIABLLY $869,939 $78,321 NO EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, NON-STRUCTURAL
UNACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE.

C. BEACH RESTORATION YES PROVIDE USABLE $153,167 $17,678 YES CONSIDERED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
BEACH AREA AND STORM

PROTECTION.

D. AUTHORIZED YES REDUCED AESTHETICS. $8,316 $791 NO NO STORM PROTECTION PROVIDED.
GROINS INCREASED IMPACT ON FILLETS PROVIDE MINIMAL BEACH AREA.
SANDY HOOK. EROSION RATE REDUCED.

SEVERE DOWNDRIFT EROSION.

E. GROINS WITH BEACH YES REDUCED AESTHETICS. $162,508 $18,272 YES CONSIDERED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
RESTORATION

F. SEAWALLS YES EVENTUAL LOSS OF S46,676 $4,435 NO LACK OF ADEQUATE STORM PROTECTION.
DRY BEACH. SEVERE DOWNDRFIT EROSION.
LACK OF EROSION CONTROL.
NOT SUPPORTED BY THE STATE.
POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD.
LOSS OF RECREATIONAL BEACH.

G. SEAWALLS WITH YES PROVIDES USABLE $193,311 $21,811 NO NOT SUPPORTED BY THE STATE.
BEACH RESTORATION BEACH. POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD.

COSTS EXCEED PLAN C BY
$4.1 MILLION ANNUALLY.

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

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
APPLICABILITY OF

INITIAL STORM DAMAGE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES
SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP, NJ

FIRST ANNUAL
TECHNICAL SOCIAL COST* COST** FURTHUR
ALTERNATE PLAN FEASIBILITY IMPACT ($1,000) ($1,000) CONSIDERATION REMARKS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. REVETMENTS YES EVENTUAL LOSS OF $30,536 $2,902 NO LACK OF EROSION CONTROL.
BEACH. LACK OF ADEQUATE STORM PROTECTION.
SEVERE DOWNDRIFT EROSION.

LOSS OF RECREATIONAL BEACH.

NOT SUPPORTED BY THE STATE.

POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD.

1. REVETMENTS WITH YES PROVIDE USABLE S184,578 $20,982 NO NOT SUPPORTED BY THE STATE.
Ln BEACH RESTORATION BEACH AREA. POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD.

COSTS EXCEED PLAN C BY
$3.3 MILLION ANNUALLY.

J. BREAKWATERS MARGINAL REDUCED AESTHETICS $74,191 $7,051 NO SEVERE DOWNDRIFT EROSION.
LACK OF ADEQUATE STORM PROTECTION.

NOT SUPPORTED BY THE STATE.

POTENTIAL SAFETY AND BOAT HAZARD.

K. BREAKWATERS WITH MARGINAL REDUCED AESTHETICS $2081831 $23,104 NO MARGINAL FEASIBILITY.
BEACH RESTORATION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE STATE.
POTENTIAL SAFETY AND BOAT HAZARD.

THE COSTS EXCEED PLAN C BY
$5.4 MILLION ANNUALLY.

L. PERCH WITH NO COULD POSE HAZARD S162,770 $19,128 NO NOT PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE IN
BEACH RESTORATION TO BATHERS & BOATERS. OCEAN ENVIRONMENT.
NOT SUPPORTED BY THE STATE.

POTENTIAL SAFETY AND BOAT HAZARD.

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

INCLUDES INITIAL FILL AND ROCK COST ONLY
INCLUDES INITIAL FILL AND ROCK AND MAINTENANCE FILL AND ROCK COSTS
0 0 0

74. Revetments: Revetments are a facing of resistant material such as rock
built to protect shorelines from erosion and storm damage. They consist of
an armor layer of rock placed over a dune or berm in the back portion of the
beach. Revetments are designed to only protect the land immediately behind
them. Erosion will continue adjacent and in front of the revetment.
Because of this, the revetment must have a substantial toe foundation to
prevent undermining of the structure. Erosion would accelerate at Sandy
Hook. This plan is not supported by the State. This plan fails to check
erosion of existing beaches and does not significantly increase storm
protection and was not considered for further development.

75. Revetments with Beach Restoration: Beach restoration combined with
revetments will provide added storm protection and will act to protect the
revetment from undermining. The beach restoration will also prevent erosion
and provide recreational beach area. However, this plan was eliminated from
further development due to extremely high costs. Additional rock structures
could become safety hazards. The plan is not supported by the State.

76. Breakwaters: Breakwaters are structures which protect beaches from
wave action by dissipating wave energy before it reaches the beach. A
decrease in wav e energy will reduce sediment transport thus reducing the
erosion rate. The erosion rate at Sandy Hook would increase. The
breakwater does not, however, provide protection from tidal surges or reduce
downdrift beach erosion and therefore this plan was eliminated from further
development.

77. Breakwaters with Beach Restoration: To minimize the effect of
breakwaters on downdrift beaches they should be constructed in conjunction
with beach restoration. This plan would effectively check erosion and also
create a wider recreational beach and provide storm protection. This plan
was eliminated due to constructability constraints and associated high costs
as well as potential safety hazards. A structure as large as the one
required for this project area has never been constructed. It could become
a significant safety and boating hazard. The plan is not supported by the
State.

78. Seawalls: Seawalls provide upland erosion protection and are usually
employed to protect upland structures from erosion damage. Seawalls provide
some storm protection for the backshore areas. Many seawalls cause scour
problems in the beaches fronting them. Seawalls would accelerate erosion at
Sandy Hook. Seawalls' could become a potential safety hazard. This plan is
not supported by the State. The seawall plan fails to check erosion of
existing beaches or provide recreational beach area and therefore was
eliminated from further consideration.

79. Seawalls with Beach Restoration: With this option seawalls would
provide upland storm protection, while beach restoration would check erosion
along the shoreline. Beach restoration would also provide recreational
beach area and provide an extra buffer for storm protection. The structure
could become a safety hazard. This plan is not supported by the State. The
areas not presently protected by seawalls have a high elevation. The cost
of a seawall would not result in a substantial benefit for these areas.
While this plan meets all project needs and objectives, it was not
considered for further development due to its high costs.

80. Perched Beach with Beach Restoration: A perched beach provides a wider
dry beach area for a given fill volume due to an artificial toe support.
This toe support helps reduce offshore losses of sediment. Along with the
beach restoration, storm protection, recreational beach and erosion
reduction are provided. While this plan meets all needs and objectives
of the project, it was eliminated from further development due to technical
feasibility and the inability to regain sand transported seaward of the
perched shoreline.

26A

81. Beach Restoration: Beach restoration involves placement of sand
directly on an eroding shoreline to restore its form and subsequently
maintain an adequate beach width by means of periodic renourishment fill.

82. Groins: Groins, also referred to locally as jetties, are coastal
structures which are normally constructed perpendicular to the shoreline.
They extend from the back beach area into the water and are designed to trap
sand. This trapped sand, called "fillet" acts to some degree to protect
back beach areas. Properly placed groins will reduce or eliminate erosion.
This plan fails to meet all of the objectives since the groin plan fails to
provide adequate storm protection. Additional groins in the project area
could result in an increased impact on Sandy Hook.

83. Groins with Beach Restoration: Groins alone, as described above, would
not widen the existing beach because of a severe deficiency of sand. Beach
restoration would provide a wider dry beach area while still benefiting from
the erosion reduction by the groins. This measure was given further
consideration.

84. Based on a comparison of the storm damage protection alternatives
considered, only beach restoration and beach restoration with groins meet
the planning objectives and were carried forward for more detailed
analyses.. The no action alternative is carried throughout the plan
formulation for consideration and comparison.

EVALUATION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES

85. Description. The two plans carried forward were further evaluated
based on a comparison of berm widths of 50, 100 and 150 feet. A comparison
of two different groin plans was also performed, the authorized groin plan
and an updated groin plan that reflects current coastal engineering methods.

86. The design berm width was added at the +10 foot MLW elevation. The
design profile sloped with an onshore slope of 1 on 10 to Mean Low Water and
continued with an offshore slope of 1 on 35 until it intersected with the
existing profile. A risk analysis was performed in accordance with ER
1110-2-1407 to develop the total annual maintenance requirements. The
analysis demonstrated that 478,000 cubic yards of maintenance fill are
needed annually to meet the risk analysis for a 6-year maintenance interval.

87. The 1958 authorized project required the construction of 23 new groins
and the extension of 14 existing groins. These groins would be spaced 1000
to 1200 depending on the location of the various existing groins. The
authorized groin field was initially designed to reduce erosion by 30%
(Reference 1), but the erosion reduction was decreased to 15% based on the
fact that only half of the project shoreline will be protected by the groin
fillets. Based on 1985 surveys, the authorized groin plan was reduced to 17
new groins and 15 extensions. This decreased amount of new groins was due
to the construction of groins between 1958 and 1985. The beach fill design
for the authorized groins was the same as the fill only plan with the
exception of fillets to the north of each groin.

88. The updated groin plan utilized the same fill design as the authorized
project with the groin spacing and length determined by least cost and
optimum erosion reduction. Based on the analysis, the groins would be
spaced 450 feet apart with a length of 290, 340 and 390 feet for the 50, 100
and 150 feet design berms. A groin toe depth of -4 feet MLW provided an
erosion reduction of 20.5%, reducing the maximum potential littoral drift
rate of 493,000 cubic yards to 392,000 cubic yards. This reduction would
not have an adverse affect on Sandy Hook, since it would equal the current
drift rate. Additional design details are presented in Appendix A.

89. Quantity Estimates. The total initial project fill volume is the sum
of the design, feeder, advance, tolerance and overfill quantities. The
maintenance project fill volume is the sum of the feeder, advance, tolerance
and overfill quantities. Table 3 summarizes the initial and maintenance
fill quantities for the three design berm widths. The fill quantities for
the authorized groin and fill widths of 50, 100 and 150 feet are also
presented in Table 3. The fill for-the updated groin plan including the
reduction in erosion, is given in Table 3 for the 50, 100 and 150 foot fill
widths. Table 4 presents rock quantities for the 50, 100 and 150 foot berm
width with the authorized groins. The rock quantities based on lengths of
290, 340 and- 390 feet are also presented in Table 4 for the 50, 100 and 150
foot berm widths.

90. It became evident during the optimization phase of the analysis that a
berm having an elevation of +10 feet MLW would be subject to frequent
overtopping. Accordingly, storm berm caps of various heights were
analyzed. Berm caps of 0, 2 and 4 feet were added to the 100 ft. wide beach
in order to yield a berm cap that optimizes net economic benefits. Initial
fill quantities for these three berm caps are listed in Table 5.
Maintenance quantities are independent of berm height.

91. Cost Estimates. The first and annual costs of the three final
alternative plans at the three berm widths based on a continuous sequence of
construction of all reaches were calculated and presented in Table 6. These
costs are developed in detail in Appendix B. Included in the total cost is
outfall extension, groin notching, seawall rehabilitation and real estate
costs. The first and annual cost of the berm caps analyzed for the fill
only plan are listed in Table 7.

TABLE 3
TOTAL FILL AND MAINTENANCE QUANTITIES

50 FOOT BERM 100 FOOT BERM 150 FOOT BERM
FILL VOLUME FILL VOLUME FILL VOLUME
PROJECT (C.Y) (C.Y) (C.Y)

---------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FILL ONLY PLAN (WITHOUT BERM CAP) -
TOTAL PROJECT
REACH 1 (CONTRACT A) 3,957,898 5,068,610 6,381,295
REACH 1 (CONTRACT B) 2,516,653 3,314,687 4,135,766
REACH 2 3,193,716 4,514,413 5,964,106
REACH 3 3,103,183 4,320,727 5,665,788
MAINTENANCE 3,492,534 3,522,214 3,552,374

FOR AUTHORIZED GROIN PLAN (WITHOUT BERM CAP) -
TOTAL PROJECT
REACH 1 (CONTRACT A) 4,151,843 5,108,480 6,334,990
REACH 1 (CONTRACT B) 2,674,927 3,354,441 4,109,586
REACH 2 3,447,176 4,590,093 5,940,885
REACH 3 3,225,395 4,362,012 5,661,283
MAINTENANCE 3,206,999 3,236,679 3,266,839

FOR UPDATED GROIN PLAN (WITHOUT BERM CAP) -
TOTAL PROJECT
REACH 1 (CONTRACT A) 3,966,479 5,024,145 6,340,808
REACH 1 (CONTRACT B) 2,543,293 3,337,878 4,158,957
REACH 2 3,465,178 4,688,122 6,070,979
REACH 3 3,103,207 4,320,752 5,665,813
MAINTENANCE 2,208,839 2,238,520 2,268,679

---------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE 4
TOTAL ROCK QUANTITIES

50' BERM 100' BERM 150' BERM
PROJECT (TONS) (TONS) (TONS)

-------------------------------------------------------
FOR AUTHORIZED GROIN PLAN -
TOTAL PROJECT
REACH 1 (CONTRACT A) 55,110 55,110 55,110
REACH I (CONTRACT B) 70,300 70,300 70,300
REACH 2 11,670 11,670 11,670
REACH 3 20,820 20,820 20,820

FOR UPDATED GROIN PLAN -
TOTAL PROJECT
REACH 1 (CONTRACT A) 83,574 124,581 178,125
REACH 1 (CONTRACT B) 66,010 100,646 141,155
REACH 2 28,026 43,892 62,503
REACH 3 0 0 0

---------------------------- --------------------------

TABLE 5
INITIAL FILL QUANTITIES
SELECTED PLAN WITS - 2 FOOT BERM CAP

ENTIRE PROJECT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES

SUB-TOTAL TOTAL

DESIGN ADVANCE** FEEDER*** SUB-TOTAL PLUS 15% INITIAL

PLAN FILL FILL BEACH TAPER FILL TOLERANCE FILL
DESIGN BERM VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME OVERFILL VOLUME
WIDTH (C.Y.) (C.Y.) (C.Y.) (C.Y.)* (C.Y) (C.Y.) FACTOR (C.Y.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REACH 1A 3,687,585 477,042 258,000 99,700 4,522,327 5,090,420 1.02 5,192,228
REACH 1B 2,618,674 307,180 0 21,500 2,947,354 3,343,380 1.02 3,410,248
REACH 2 3,491,419 355,188 147,000 38,200 4,031,807 4,561,250 1.02 4,652,475
REACH 3 3,128,907 252,780 492,000 55,100 3,928,787 4,406,388 1.01 4,450,452

------------ ------------

TOTAL 12,926,585 17,705,403

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- INCLUDES 110,00 CUBIC YARDS FOR FILL LANDWARD OF THE BASELINE
NOTE: TOLERANCE NOT APPLIED TO ADVANCE FILL OR FEEDER BEACHES

ADVANCE FOR REACH 1A = 477tO42*(6/6)
ADVANCE FOR 1B 368,616*(5/6)
ADVANCE FOR 2 532,782*(4/6)
ADVANCE FOR 3 505,560*(3/6)

TEMP. FEEDER FOR REACH IA 129,000*2 years
TEMP. FEEDER FOR REACH 2 147,000*1 years
TEMP. FEEDER FOR REACH 3 164,000*3 years

TABLE 6
FINAL ALTERNATIVES - FIRST AND ANNUAL COST SUMMARY

BERM
WIDTH FIRST COST*** ANNUAL COST**
PLAN* (FT.) ($) ($)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
FILL ONLY 50 151,220,860 17,668,161

100 188,955,995 21,097,295

150 229,688,582 24,796,772

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTH. GROIN 50 165,041,864 18,664,613

100 198,297,468 21,690,630

150 236,855,582 25,189,577

-------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATED GROIN 50 162,581,862 17,411,806

100 203,448,473 21,146,575

150 249,392,580 25,342,999

--- ----------- ----------
FOR +101 MLW BERM HEIGHT
USING 8.875% INTEREST FOR 50 YR. PROJECT LIFE
INCLUDES OUTFALL, GROIN NOTCHING, SEAWALL,
FILL AND REAL ESTATE COSTS.

TABLE 7

TOTAL FIRST AND ANNUAL COSTS

FILL ONLY PLAN WITH 100' BERM WIDTH AND BERM CAPS

INITIAL GROIN NOTCH. OUTFALL EXT. SEWALL REAL ESTATE TOTAL FIRST ANNUAL

FILL COSTS COSTS COSTS REHAB. COSTS COSTS COSTS COSTS
BERM CAP ($)* (S)* ($)* ($)* ($)* ($) ($)**

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ol 153,166,528 1,193,878 2,400,089 11,644,000 20,551,500 188,955,995 21,097,295

2' 157,127,861 1,193,878 2,400,089 11,644,000 20,551,500 192,917,328 21,453,892

4' 160,304,789 1,193,878 2,400,089 11,644,000 20,551,500 196,094,256 21,739,930

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INCLUDES CONTINGENCIES, E&D, AND S&A (SEE APPENDIX A)
BASED ON 8.8752 INTEREST OVER 50 YR. PROJECT LIFE

BENEFITS

92. Details of the benefit analyses are presented in Appendix D and
summarized in the following paragraphs. The benefits attributable to
project implementation fall into five principal categories:

Storm Reduction
Reduction in Lost Land
Intensification
Recreation
Reduced Maintenance at Sandy Hook

Figures 8 and 9 provide schematic profiles of benefit and damage
locations. In order to avoid double counting the following assumptions
were made:

� Storm reduction benefits apply to existing improvements such as
buildings, roads and utilities only. Future increases in value are
limited to a projected growth in residential content value.

� Benefits- attributable to a reduction in lost land are based on the
current value of the existing land without improvements and result
from project maintenance which will offset the impact of long term
erosion.

� Intensification benefits are based on the net increase in value of
existing land due to reduced risk of storm damage.

� Recreation benefits are based on the net increased value from
existing conditions and do not include the future impacts of
continued erosion as they are accounted for in the reduction of loss
of land.

� Reduced maintenance at Sandy Hook considers the project's impact on
the current deficit in sediment at the Sandy Hook critical erosion
zone.

93. For analysis purposes the 12-mile project was broken into 14 economic
reaches as presented in Figures 10 and 11. Estimates of monetary benefits
were based on April 1987 price levels which were updated to September 1987,
a 50-year project life and an interest rate of 8-7/8 percent and reflect the
economic development of the flood plain as of July 1985. Regional growth in
population and per capita income are assumed to be equal for both the with
and without project conditions with an intensification of the future
development along the shoreline for the with project condition. The base
year for the proposed project is 1990. Reduced Flood Insurance
Administration costs have not been considered since the project will not
provide a total 100-year level of protection from all damage mechanisms,
which is the criteria for determining the need for flood insurance. Even
with the project in place, low lying portions of Route 36 which is the
principal north-south corridor will be subject to flooding from the
Shrewsbury River. Benefits associated with protecting the road system
itself have been considered.

STORM REDUCTION BENEFITS

94. The storm reduction benefits include:

0 Reduction in inundation of structures
0 Reduction of wave attack to structures
0 Reduction of damage associated with long-term impacts of
shoreline erosion and short term storm induced recession
including damage to roads, utilities and structures
0 Reduced maintenance costs for seawalls
0 Reduced public emergency costs.

95. The initial step in developing the storm reduction benefits was to
conduct a windshield survey of the project area and together with a utility
survey develop a data base of all damageable structures within the project
area. Buildings within this project area are subject to damage from
inundation, wave attack, long-term erosion and storm recession. To obtain
the pertinent data, such as depth damage relationships, contents to
structure ratios, etc., over 200 on-site investigations were conducted
during the summer of 1985.

Inundation Damage

96. To evaluate inundation damage, information obtained during the on-site
field investigation was utilized to generate damage functions to apply to
the remainder of the building population. Each damage..function was related
to the structures main floor which in turn was referenced to the National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (1929 MSL at Sandy Hook) during the
windshield survey. Utilizing the common datum, damages per reach were
readily summed per foot of increased flood stage. The stage-damage
relationships were then integrated with stage-frequency data to evaluate
annual inundation damages. Inundation within the project area occurs from
three sources:

� Ocean storm surge
� Seawall overtopping
� Flooding on the Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers

97. To evaluate inundation reduction benefits, storm surge models were run
for both the ocean and river estuaries. Flooding due to overtopping of the
seawall was evaluated utilizing existing flood marks in combination with
overtopping discharge rates for existing conditions. The rates for
overtopping were established using procedures set forth in the Corps of
Engineers Shore Protection Manual. Flooding from overtopping of the seawall
was only considered up to the frequency at which it is anticipated the
seawall will fail. For frequencies above seawall failure, flood stages will
relate directly back to the ocean storm surge. To evaluate with project
conditions, the same overtopping discharge rates were used because the
historic depth data was available and only the frequency to cause the
overtopping discharge rate was altered. For delineation of inundation areas
see Appendix D.

Wave Attack

98. Wave attack damages were evaluated for the fifty-year life of the
project and were investigated as total failure of the building. Due to the
unpredictability of wave damage no attempt was made to consider partial
failure of the structure due to wave attack. Zones or bands of potential
wave attack were isolated based on the transmission of breaking waves
landward and wave runup. For without project conditions, the zones were
delineated for present conditions, base year of project and for successive
10-year increments thereafter for the 50-year project life, taking into
account the impacts of long-term erosion. For the with project conditions,
maintenance will limit long-term erosion so the analysis with time was not
required. For the 500-year 1985 Flood Plain the building population was
stratified into four categories for the analysis:

0 Wood frame structures not on piles or piers
0 Masonry structures not on piles or piers
0 Buildings on piles or piers greater than 4 feet above grade.
0 Buildings on piles or piers less than 4 feet above grade.

99. Within each-category the population was analyzed to develop an average
structure size. Using techniques presented in the "Shore Protection
Manual", as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manual
"Elevating to the Wave Crest Level", each average structure was analyzed
based on the force of a breaking wave to determine the size of wave
necessary to cause failure due to overturning or displacement. Utilizing
the basic assumption that a wave will break when its height reaches 78% of
the water depth, the water depth necessary to transmit the breaking wave was
used to trigger structural failure under the with and without project
conditions. Structural failure due to wave runup was also considered. This
was evaluated by determining the lateral extent of runup for various
frequency events such that the remaining force would. be equivalent to that
of the breaking wave force necessary to cause failure of the wood frame
structures. Wood frame structures were selected as the controlling force
since they represented over 80% of the wave zone population. Damage was
assigned based on the total value of the structure and contents for physical
damage, and considered to be equivalent to 12 feet of inundation depth above
the main floor as derived from the inundation depth damage curves for Lost
Income and Emergency costs. These latter two figures represent the
reasonable upper limits of total loss value. Project benefits associated
with wave attack result primarily from the reduced runup as a result of
beach placement and the increased structural stability of the seawall, which
limits the extent of wave attack. For delineation of areas subject to wave
attack see Appendix D.

100. Long Term Erosion. Long term erosion refers to the wearing away of
land as measured over extended periods of time. Included are the impacts of
sea level rise, deficits in sediment transport and the net impacts of
storms, including post-storm accretion. Benefits were analyzed by advancing
the shoreline landward for the without project conditions over the
fifty-year period. This landward retreat then leaves shorefront structures
ore susceptible to damage in future years. The evaluation of long-term
erosion included three basic assumptions:
m

1) Structures destroyed by long-term erosion would not be rebuilt and
thus will not exist in future years.

2) Long-term erosion would not be allowed to interdict seawalls or
roadways as man would intercede. Project benefits include the
reduced maintenance costs for roadways and seawalls.

.3) Once long-term erosion advanced to the seaward edge of an individual.
structure (not roadway or seawall) it was taken as a total failure.

101. With the project in place, long-term erosion was considered
non-existent because feeder beaches and maintenance associated with the cost:
of the project will prevent future deterioration of the project beaches.

Storm Recession

102. Storm recession is the scour and erosion that occurs during major
storm events and to some extent replenishes itself within a relatively short
period of time after the storm passes. Because it occurs over a short time
span during a single storm event, it has the capacity to extend beyond
seawalls and through roadways as it would not be anticipated that man would
have time to react and halt the landward march during the storm. Recession
damage was considered for all structures within the study area. For
buildings, damage was taken to be zero at the leading edge of the structure
and 100 percent once it passed halfway through the building. Linear
interpolation was used to evaluate the intermediate.values. For utilities:,
such as gas mains, telephone lines, sewer mains, etc., total damage was
taken once the recession distance reached the item. For roadways, damage
started at the leading edge and was calculated on a square foot basis
reaching total value once recession extended to the far edge.

103. Based on storm recession model studies and as presented in the report
titled "Coastal Processes at Sea Bright to Ocean Township, NJ" (CERC, 1987:,
Reference 6) a variability of 2.0 was included in the analysis of without
project conditions. The variability factor adjusted the mean recession
rates obtained from the storm recession model to reflect historic data as
described in Appendix A. It has been shown that recession rates vai-
y
significantly with cusps extending far beyond the average recession provided
by modeling studies. Through pre- and post-storm measurements, it has been
shown that the variability factor of 2.0 will account for about 75% of the
farthest recession points on a natural beach. Therefore in the economic
evaluation, the recession rates were doubled, but since there is an equal
probability that the maximum point does not occur as there is that it will,
only 1/2 the total dollar amount of damage was considered.

104. For the with project conditions, a variability factor of 1.5 was used
because it was determined, due to the more homogenous nature of the project
beaches, recession more closely reflects the averages produced by modeling
studies. Recession frequency relations are shown on Figure 11.
Delineations of recession damage limits are provided in Appendix D.

105. Reduced Seawall Maintenance Costs. Included in the project cost
estimates are the costs necessary to rehabilitate and maintain the seawall.
The expenditures presently being allotted by local governments and the State

to maintain the seawall therefore become a benefit derived by the project.
Data provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for
maintenance costs over the 20-year period from 1963 to 1983 were the
foundation for developing an annual maintenance cost. The values were
adjusted to September 1987 price levels using the Consumer Price Index and
divided by the 20-year period of record to annualize the results. Reduced
seawall maintenance benefits were only considered for reaches 1 through 5
(Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach) since no maintenance data was available for
the existing seawalls in the southern part of the project and it is presumed
no maintenance has taken place.

106. Reduced Public Emergency Costs Public emergency costs are associated
with additional municipal, county and state services' associated with
flooding. These include overtime for police, fire and emergency personnel.
To evaluate the public emergency costs, data was obtained for the March 1984
Northeaster and the September 1985 Hurricane (Gloria). This data was then
utilized to develop a frequency damage relationship utilizing the general
shape of the building, damage -frequency data adjusted to the historical
public emergency costs.

107. Critical Damages. In order to avoid double counting of damages
between inundation damages, wave attack and storm recession, only the
'ecritical damage" was utilized in selection of the NED plan. The "critical
damage" was based on the maximum damage resulting from any one of the three
damage mechanisms for a given storm recurrence interval. For each frequency
evaluated, the damage attributable to each source was identified and
compared with only the maximum value being reported. It should be noted
that on a structure by structure basis, the sources of critical damage can
switch from one to another as storm frequencies change. That is for more
frequent flooding inundation may be the principal cause of damage. At
intermediate return periods, storm recession may begin to impact causing
higher levels of damage than inundation. Prior to complete failure due to
recession, wave attack may occur and destroy the building at a lower
frequency event. For each scenario only the maximum value was utilized in
the economic analysis. Figure 12 presents a schematic of critical damage.

108. As described in the without project future conditions certain
restrictions to the rebuilding of structures have been assumed. In order to
account for these changing future conditions, the critical damage at each
year and frequency was multiplied by the probability that the structure
exists and is subject to damage at that frequency event. The probability of
,existence for each structure was calculated using the maximum probability of
total damage from wave attack or storm recession for each 10-year period
analyzed with straight line interpolation for the intervening years.

109. The 1985 condition stage vs damage relationship developed utilizing
this methodology is presented in Table 8. In order to provide a comparison
to historic storm data all damages related to flooding in the Shrewsbury
River have been adjusted to the corresponding still water ocean stage.
Comparison of the predicted damages to the historic damage indicates
concurrence with the March 1984 storm. Considering the impact of over 20
years of shoreline erosion, intensive development, the regional increase in
real estate value, and seawall degradation to the point where a recurrence

of the 1962 storm would -result in total failure of major sections, the
difference between damages reported in March 1962 and those predicted for is
1985 conditions appear reasonable.

REDUCTION IN LOST LAND

110. Benefits associated with a reduction in lost land were directly
attributable to the halting of long-term erosion under the with -project
scenario. In the without project condition there is a continual reduction
in real property as the shoreline retreats landward. This loss in propert,
represent a real loss in value to the property owner. Using the long-term
erosion rate of three feet per year and the current gross value estimates of
property values as described in Sub-Appendix D-1, the annual cost of lost
land was determined for the 50-year project life. The analysis involved
determining the amount of land lost at 10-year intervals with straight line
interpolation for the years between intervals. As described previously, the
long-term erosion was assumed to be arrested once seawalls or roadways were
encountered. For each of the 50 years, the amount of property lost was
multiplied by the value of the land and a present worth analysis performed
to bring the values back to the 1990 base year. The results were then
summed and amortized over the project life utilizing the Capital Recovery
Factor at an interest rate of 8-7/8%.

TABLE 8

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
STAGE DAMAGE SUMMARY
1985 CONDITIONS - APRIL 1987 PRICE LEVEL

Ocean Still Water Approximate Predicted Reported
Stage Return Period Damage Damage
(NGVD)l Years (Millions) (Millions)

6 ft 3.5 $ 10.8 -

6.4 ft2 5 18.0 16.02
(March 1984)

7.6 ft3 17 70.0 25.33
(March 1962)

8 ft 25 91.4 -

10 ft 100 169.9

12 ft 350 240.8

NOTES:

1. Ocean Still Water Stage not including wave setup or runup.
2. Data from "Post Storm Evaluation March 29, 1984 Northeaster. Stage
is maximum recorded at Long Branch, NJ.
3. Data from "Report on Operation Five High". Stage is maximum
recorded at Sandy Hook, NJ.

REDUCED MAINTENANCE AT SANDY HOOK

ill. Presently, the National Park Services maintain a major public
recreation facility at the Sandy Hook Section of the Gateway National
Recreation Area. As a result of a low sediment supply from beaches south of
the project, the natural south to north littoral drift is unable to feed the
beach at Sandy Hook creating a deficit at what is now known as the "critical
zone". In order to protect against the historic losses of parking
facilities and access roads, the Park services has initiated a beach
restoration program. Based on the sediment budget analysis for existing
conditions conducted in 'Connection with this study, the beach restoration
will have to make up an annual deficit of approximately 101,000 cubic
yards. Utilizing a six-year maintenance cycle the annual maintenance cost
was calculated to be $1,701,000. This could be entirely made up by the
construction of the project utilizing a pure beach fill approach and thus
would be a project benefit. With the incorporation of the authorized groin
into the project, the additional sand trapping capacity of the groins
reduces the south to north transport of sand by approximately 15* reducing
the annual benefit associated with reduced maintenance at Sandy Hook to
$1,490,000. When the plans incorporate the updated groins, their capacity
to trap sand reduces the transport to no appreciable change from existing
conditions and thus no reduced maintenance benefits would be attributable to
the updated groin plan. The critical area at Sandy Hook is shown on
Figure 13.

INTENSIFICATION BENEFITS

112. The plan of improvement will generate intensification benefits as
defined in ER 1105-2-40, Section IV, pages 2.4.2 (b)(2). As detailed in
Sub-Appendix D-1 "Land Appraisal Attachment", the implementation of a
project will increase land values. To calculate the annual benefits
associated with intensification, the increase in land value was amortized at
8-7/8% interest over the life of the project. It is estimated that project
implementation will yield $8,157,000 intensification benefits.

113. This increased land value is driven by the storm protection erosion
control accomplishments of the project. A local example of this process is
the area near 7 President's Park in North Long Branch where a minimal
protective beach has been maintained. Development has intensified from
primarily older single and multi-family rental housing towards high quality
townhouses and condominiums.

RECREATION BENEFITS

114. The Contingent Value Method was used to evaluate the potential
recreation benefits that would accrue as a result of project
implementation. The basic premise of the analysis is that there will be an
enhanced recreational experience associated with the project beaches and
that this enhanced experience translates into an increased willingness to
pay (WTP), increased visitation or both.

115. The implementation of a beach erosion control project will add new and
improved beaches throughout the study area. The construction of new beaches
and increasing the width of existing beaches will result in less crowding
and may reduce the travel distance to a desirable beach recreation site, all
of which may be perceived as a more desirable experience.

116. In addition to benefits associated with enhanced usage of the beach,
benefits were also evaluated based on the value associated with beach
existence. Existence values being a one-time fee that a person would be
willing to pay not to use the beach but to assure its perpetuity for future
generations.

117. To quantify the recreational benefits associated with project
implementation three determinations were necessary for each project berm
size evaluated.

1. Value and use of the existing beaches.
2. Value and use of the new and improved (project)
beaches.
3. Beach visitation by users of the project
beaches both initially and in the future.

118. The estimates of the above factors allowed calculation of the benefits
from the provision of improvements to the existing beaches and the
construction of new beaches. These benefits were measured as WTP for the
beach with- and without-the project. Therefore, benefits were estimated as
the difference between the total value of the new and improved beaches and
the value of the existing beaches.

119. The impacts of beach restoration relate to the geographic recreation
"Market" defined by the location of potential user populations. The
recreation market as defined for this analysis extended from Sandy Hook in
the North, to Belmar in the South and included Sea Bright, 7 Presidents
Park, Monmouth Beach and Long Branch within the project area and Sandy Hook,
Asbury Park and Belmar outside the project area.

120. General Plan of the Analysis. The approach to estimating NED benefits
was to use data generated from a contingent valuation survey of current:
beach users. To this end 2917 contingent value surveys were collected
during the period from July to September 1985. The data from the survey was.
integrated with beach visitation data to estimate simulated demand curves
and forecasts of beach usage. The major tasks were:

1. Design the contingent valuation survey and
sampling procedure.
2. Collect and document the data.
3. Analyze the beach attendance data.
4. Estimate WTP and existence value bid functions.
5. Generate simulated demand curves.
6. Estimate use models.
7. Forecast beach usage.
8. Calculate NED benefits.

121. Analysis of Data. Data was collected for proposed 30, 50 and 100-foot
berm widths. Subsequently, the 30-foot berm was dropped from the analysis
because it was determined that respondents could not effectively
differentiate between it and the existing and/or the 50-foot berm. Data
obtained from the contingent value survey was analyzed in conjunction with
demographic data to define explanatory equations to more accurately describe
the bid function (WTP) and visitation functions. The exploratory data was
then integrated with total visitation data obtained from the beach
attendants to estimate the incremental use value for the proposed beaches
under present conditions. State and county population forecasts were then
used to forecast increases in the visitation over the 50-year project life
based on a proportioning of visitation to population growth. Existence
value was evaluated based on present population of beach users within the
market area based on the bid function and number of people visiting the
beach.

122. 150-Foot Berm Width. Subsequent to the Contingent Value Survey, it
was determined for the purpose of optimization that a 150-foot berm had to
be analyzed. Utilizing the theory that within limits the value of the
recreational experience is proportional to the increase in beach area,
recreational use-values were estimated by extrapolating data obtained for
the 50 and 100 foot berm widths. Since the berm area increased 100% going
from the 50 to 100-foot berm and resulted in a 29.3% increase in use value,
a 50% increase in area, going from the 100-foot to the 150-foot berm would
be anticipated to increase the use value of the 100-foot berm by 14.6%.
Data obtained for the existence value showed no- statistically reliable
difference between berm widths and so no adjustment was made.

123. Summary of Recreation Benefits. Annual benefits were forecasted for
the year 1990-2040 using the with- and without-project visitation
forecasts. The procedure for forecasting benefits is to multiply baseline
benefits by the increase in visitation. Forecasts for years in-between
decades were estimated using straight-line interpolation. The forecast of
net benefits are multiplied by the 8.875 percent discount factor to yield
the present value amounts. The sum of the present value benefits has been
converted to an annuity or equivalent annual cash flow.

124. A summary of the equivalent annual benefits at July 1985 Price levels
and at an interest rate of 8.875 percent, are presented in Table 9. These
benefits are presented for the 50, 100 and 150-foot berm widths as well as
by the annualized use and existence value components. Table 10 reflects the
same data adjusted, using the Consumer Price Index to April 1987 price
levels.

125. Annual Recreation Benefits are approximately 6.1 million dollars for
the 50-foot berm, 7.6 million dollars for the 100-foot berm and 8.6 million
dollars for the 150-foot berm in 1987 dollars.

TABLE 9

EQUIVALENT ANNUAL RECREATION BENEFITS
1990 - 2040
DISCOUNTED AT 8.875%
(July 1985 Price Levels)

50 FOOT BER14 100 FOOT BERM 150 FOOT BERM

Annualized Use Value $4,866,000 $6,292,000 $7,214,000
Annualized Existence Value 997,412 997,412 997,412

TOTAL $5,863,412 $7,289,412 $8,211,412

TABLE 10

EQUIVALENT ANNUAL RECREATION BENEFITS
1990 - 2040
DISCOUNTED AT 8.875%
(April 1987 Price Levels)

50 FOOT BERM 100 FOOT BERM 150 FOOT BERM

Annualized Use Value $5,090,000 $6,581,000 $7,546,000
Annualized Existence Value 1,043,293 1,043,293 1,043,293

TOTAL $6,133,293 $7,624,293 $8,589,293

SUMMARY OF BENEFITS

126. Authorized Berm Height. Utilizing the procedures described in the
previous paragraphs the benefits associated with berm widths of 50 feet, 100
feet and 150 feet at 10 feet MLW were evaluated for three plans; fill only,
beach fill with authorized groins and beach fill with updated groins. The
NED benefits associated with each plan at the April 1987 price level are
presented in Tables 11 through 13.

SEABRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
TOTAL BENEFITS IN THOUSANDS
SUMMARY TABLE 11
( APRIL 1987 PRICE LEVEL FILL ONLY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BENEFIT CATAGORY BERM WIDTH 50 FT 100FT 150 FT
BERM HEIGHT 10 FT MLW 10 FT MLW 10 FT MLW
------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
BENEFITS TO BUILDINGS
PHYSICAL $7,003.7 $8,292.5 $8,806.0
EMERGENCY $273.7* $348.8 $369.3
LOST INCOME $71.0 $83.2 S85.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDING TOTAL (NO AFFLUENCE) $7,348.4 $8,724.5 $9,261.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 --------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FOR $382.4 $418.5 S457.1
AFFLUENCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDING TOTAL (W/ AFFLUENCE) $7,730.8 $9,143.0 $9,718.1

REDUCED DAMAGE TO SEAWALLS $4,078.1 $5,337.1 $5,665.9

REDUCED DAMAGE TO ROADS AND $663.1 S765.9 $772.5
INFRASTRUCTURE

PUBLIC EMERGENCY COSTS $6.5 $8.5 $9.1

REDUCED MAINTENANCE COSTS $389.0 $389.0 $389.0
FOR SEAWALL
-TO-T-A-L--S-T-O--R-M-R--E-DU,-C-T-I-O-N--S-EN--E-F-I-TS --------------------------------------- $-1-2--,4-8-5--.l ---------- $-1-5--,2-2-5--.0- --------- $-1-6--,0-9-7- -4-
(NO AFFLUENCE)

TOTAL STORM REDUCTION BENEFITS $12,867.5 $15,643.5 $16,554.5
(W/ AFFLUENCE)

INTENSIFICATION BENEFIT $8,157.0 S8,157.0 S8,157.0

VALUE OF LAND ERODED $2,W8.1 $2,078.1 S2,078.1

REDUCED MAINTENANCE $1,701.3 $1,701.3 $1,701.3
AT SANDY HOOK

RECREATION BENEFITS

------------------------------
EXISTENCE $1,043.3 $1,043.3 $1,043.3
USE $5,090.0 $6,581.0 $7,546.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL RECREATION BENEFITS $6,133.3 $7,624.3 $8,589.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
TOTAL BENEFITS (NO AFFLUENCE) $30,554.9 $34,785.7 $36,623.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL BENEFITS (W1 AFFLUENCE) $30,937.3 $35,204.2 $37,080.3

SEABRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
TOTAL BENEFITS IN THOUSANDS
SUMMARY TABLE 12
( APRIL 1987 PRICE LEVEL BEACH FILL WITH AUTHORIZED GROINS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECONOMIC REACH. BERM WIDTH 50 FT . 10OFT 150 FT
BERM HEIGHT 10 FT MLW 10 FT MLW 10 FT MLW
---------------------- ------------------------------------------ I ------------------------------------------------
BENEFITS TO BUILDINGS
PHYSICAL $7,003.7 S8,M.S S8,806.0
EMERGENCY S273.7' S348.8 S369.3
LOST INCOME S71.0 S83.2 $85.7
-------------------------------------- i ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDING TOTAL (NO AFFLUENCE) $7,348.4 $8,724.5 $9,261.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FOR S382.4 $418.5 $457.1
AFFLUENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDING TOTAL (W/ AFFLUENCE) S7,730.8 $9,143.0 $9,718.1

REDUCED DAMAGE TO SEAWALLS $4,078.1 $5,337.1 $5,665.9

REDUCED DAMAGE TO ROADS AND S663.1 $765.9 $772.5
INFRASTRUCTURE

PUBLIC EMERGENCY COSTS $6.5 $8.5 S9.1

REDUCED MAINTENANCE COSTS S389.0 $389.0 $389.0
FOR SEAWALL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL STORM REDUCTION BENEFITS S12,485.1 $15,225.0 $16,097.4
(NO AFFLUENCE)

TOTAL STORM REDUCTION BENEFITS $12,867.5 $15,643.5 $16,554.5
(W1 AFFLUENCE)

INTENSIFICATION BENEFIT $8,157.0 S8,157.0 S8,157.0

VALUE OF LAND ERODED $2,078.1 $2,078.1 S2,078.1

REDUCED MAINTENANCE S1,489.9 $1,489.9 S1,489.9
AT SANDY HOOK

RECREATION BENEFITS

----------------- ------------
EXISTENCE $1,043.3 $1,043.3 S1,043.3
USE $5,090.0 $6,581.0 57,546.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL RECREATION BENEFITS S6,133.3 S7,624.3 S8,589.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL BENEFITS (NO AFFLUENCE) $30,343.5 $34,574.3 S-36,411.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL BENEFITS (W1 AFFLUENCE) S30,725.9 $34,992.8 S36,868.9

SEABRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
TOTAL BENEFITS IN THOUSANDS
SUMMARY TABLE 13
( APRIL 1987 PRICE LEVEL BEACH FILL WITH UPDATED GROINS
------------------------------------------ - ---------------------------------------------------------------------
BENEFIT CATAGORY BERM WIDTH 50 FT 1DOFT 150 FT
BERM HEIGHT 10 FT MLW 10 FT MLW 10 FT MLW
----------------------------------------------------------------- I -----------------------------------------------
BENEFITS TO BUILDINGS
PHYSICAL $7,003.7 S8,292.5 $8,806.0
EMERGENCY S273.7- $348.8 $369.3
LOST INCOME $71.0 S83.2 $85.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDING TOTAL (NO AFFLUENCE) S7,348.4 S8,724.5 $9,261.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FOR $382.4 S418.5 $457.1
AFFLUENCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDING TOTAL (W/ AFFLUENCE) $7,730.8 $9,143.0 $9,718.1

REDUCED DAMAGE TO SEAWALLS S4,078.1 $5,337.1 $5,665.9

REDUCED DAMAGE TO ROADS AND $663.1 $765.9 S772.5
INFRASTRUCTURE

PUBLIC EMERGENCY COSTS $6.5 sa.5 S9.1

REDUCED MAINTENANCE COSTS $389.0 S389.0 $389.0
FOR SEAWALL -

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL STORM REDUCTION BENEFITS $12,485.1 $15,225.0 $16,097.4
(NO AFFLUENCE)

TOTAL STORM REDUCTION BENEFITS $12,867.5 $15,643.5 $16,554.5
(W/ AFFLUENCE)

INTENSIFICATION BENEFIT S8,157.0 $8,157.0 $8,157.0

VALUE OF LAND ERODED $2,078.1 $2,078.1 $2,078.1

REDUCED MAINTENANCE so.0 $0.0 $0.0
AT SANDY HOOK

RECREATION BENEFITS

------------------------------
EXISTENCE S1,043.3 $1,043.3 $1,043.3
USE S5,090.0 $6,581.0 S7,546.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL RECREATION BENEFITS $6,133.3 $7,624.3 $8,589.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL BE14EFITS (NO AFFLUENCE) $28,853.6 S33,084.4 $34,921.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL BENEFITS (W/ AFFLUENCE) S29,236.0 $33,502.9 $35,379.0

BERM CAP BENEFITS

127. Analysis of Berm Cap Benefits. In order to further maximize storm
protection at the least cost the benefits associated with increasing the
level of protection above the authorized berm height were evaluated. This
additional protection may be provided by constructing a cap on the 100-foot
wide fill only plan which was identified as the alternative providing the
maximum net benefits at the authorized berm height., Berm caps of 0 foot, 2
feet and 4 feet above the authorized height of 10 feet MLW were evaluated.
The calculation of berm cap benefits was based on the reduced probability of
damage occurring.

128. Of the total pool of residual damages, 73.6% are due to flooding in
the Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers and will not be mitigated by any shore
protection project. Towns south of Monmouth Beach incur only $248,000 in
annual residual damages.

129. The impacts of a 2-foot berm cap on the various damage parameters are
as follows:

Storm recession is reduced by a distance of three feet with an
approximate reduction of 25% in damage probability.

Wave attack from runup of the 100-foot berm is reduced by a
distance of 3 feet with varying impacts on damage probability.

130. A summary of benefits for the evaluated berm caps is presented in
Table 14. Table 15 lists the net benefits for each berm cap. The greatest
incremental net benefit occurs for the 2 foot berm cap.

PLAN SELECTION

COMPARISON OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES

131. Table 16 presents annual costs and benefits for the fill only, the
authorized groin plan and the updated groin plans with 50, 100 and 150 ft.
berm widths. To determine the optimum berm width, a plot of annual cost vs.
berm width and annual benefits vs. berm width was constructed (Figures 14,
15 and 16). The optimum berm width was the point where the tangency of the
benefits curve is equal to the slope of the cost plot. This method yields
the largest difference between annual benefits and annual costs. Based on
the optimization curves, the 100 foot berm width with the fill only plan
provides the maximum net benefits.

132. A berm having an elevation of +10 foot MLW would be subject to
frequent overtopping. - Accordingly, storm berm caps of various heights were
analyzed. Berm caps of 0, 2 and 4 feet were added to the 100 ft. wide beach
in order to yield a berm cap that optimizes net economic benefits. The berm
caps provided additional storm protection at a relatively low incremental
cost. Table 17 provides total project first costs for the 0, 2 and 4 foot
berm caps while Table 6 presents total annual costs and benefits. The
alternative providing a protective beach with a 100 foot wide berm at an
elevation of 10 feet and a 2 foot high berm cap yields the maximum net
benefits (Figure 17).

Table 14

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
TOTAL BENEFITS SUMMARY TABLE

April 1987 Price Level
(in Thousands of Dollars)

Fill Only Plan

Benefit Berm Width 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.
Category Max Berm Helaht 10 ft. MLW 12 ft. MLW 14 ft. MLW

Storm Damage Reduction $15,643.5 $16,391.5 $16,543.5

Intensification 8,157.0 8,157.0 8,157.0

Prevention of Land Erosion 2,078.1 2,078.1 2,078.1

Reduced Maintenance a Sar6/ hook 1,701.3 1,701.3 1,701.3

Recreation 7,624.3 7,624.3 7,624.3

TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS $35,204.2 $35,952.2 $36,104.2

Table 15

BERM CAP ANALYSIS
NET BENEFIT SUMMARY

April 1987 Price Level
(In Millions of Dollars)

Fill Only Pla

Berm Width 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.
Max Berm Height 10 ft. MLW 12 ft. MLW 14 ft. MLW

Annual Benefits $35.9 $36.7 $36.8

Annual Costs $21.1 $21.5 $21.7

Net Benefits $14.8 $15.2 $15.1

Benefit Cost Ratio 1.70 1.71 1.70

Table 16

BENEFIT AND COST COMPARISON
ALTERNATIVE PLANS WITH 10-FT MLW BERM HEIGHT
September 1987 Price LeveL

BERM ANNUAL ANNUAL NET INCREMENTAL

EROSION CONTROL PLAN WIDTH BENEFITS COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFIT BCR
(FT.) (x $000,000) (x $000,000) (x $000,000) (x $000,000)

Fill Only Plan 50 31.6 17.1 13.9 0.0 1.79
100 35.9 21.1 14.8 .9 1.70
150 37.8 24.8 13.0 -1.8 1.52

Fill With 50 31.3 18.7 12.6 0.0 1.67
Authorized Groins 100 35.7 21.7 14.0 1.4 1.65
150 37.6 25.2 12.4 -1.6 1.49

Fill With 50 29.8 17.4 12.4 0.0 1.71
Updated Groins 100 34.2 21.1 13.1 0.7 1.62
150 36.1 25.3 10.8 -2.3 1.43

Table 17

BENEFIT AND COST COMPARISON

FILL ONLY PLAN WITH BERM CAPS
September 1987 Price LeveL

CAP ANNUAL ANNUAL NET INCREMENTAL
EROSION CONTROL PLAN ELEV. BENEFITS COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFIT SCR
(FT.) (x $000,000) (x $000,000) (x $000,000) (x $000,000)

Fill Only Plan 0 35.9 21.1 14.8 0.0 1.70

100 Ft. Berm Width 2 36.7 21.5 15.2 0.4 1.71

4 36.8 21.7 15.1 0.1 1.70

NED PLAN

133. The alternative providing a protective beach with a 100 foot wide berm
at an elevation of +10 feet, and a 2-foot high berm cap yields the maximum
net benefits. Accordingly, this alternative is designated as the NED plan.

134. Selection of Environmentally Preferred Plan. The Environmental
Quality (EQ) Plan is the plan which has the highest EQ value while meeting
the planning objectives. Of the structural plans considered, the beach
restoration plan is environmentally preferred because it has the least
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources in the sense that
there will be no additional permanent hard structures placed on the project
shore. The plan with the smallest feasible berm (50 feet) is preferred to
the other berm widths as a result of its reduced impact relative to offshore
dredging and disposal activity. The no action alternative would not entail
the adverse environmental impacts of structural plans, but it would not meet
the project planning objectives. Under no action, the erosion problem at
Sandy Hook would likely continue to intensify, necessitating continued
stopgap measures with their own attendant environmental impacts. In
addition, no action would mean continued deterioration of project area
beaches and no prospect for environmental improvement within the 50-year
design life ok-the project. In view of these considerations, the 50 foot
fill only berm design of the beach restoration alternative is designated the
EQ Plan.

135. Trade-off Analysis. Since the EQ and NED plans differed, a trade-off
was required. Since the EQ plan provided fill 50 feet wide at +10 feet MLW
and the NED plan provided fill 100 feet wide at +10 feet MLW with a 2 foot
berm cap, the NED plan provided greater storm protection. In addition, the
50 ft. fill only plan did not meet criteria for design survivability as
presented in ER 1110-2-1407 "Hydraulic Design for Coastal Shore Protection
Projects." The added storm protection of the NED plan was desired even
though environmental impacts were slightly greater.

136. Selection of Final NED Plan. The NED plan was selected as the final
design plan. This plan provides for a beach fill with a 100 foot wide berm
at an elevation of 10 feet, a 2-foot high berm cap and periodic nourishment.

137. Future With Project Conditions. Implementation of the selected plan
will provide adequate advanced fill and maintenance quantities to address
the existing deficit in littoral transport and to stabilize the established
shoreline position. Rehabilitation of the seawalls and the construction of
wider beaches will provide increased protection from storm damage by moving
damage zones offshore. Since this plan incorporates existing coastal
structures and enhances their effectiveness, levels of protection vary
throughout the project area.

138. In general terms, the plan will provide storm benefits by reducing the
impacts of storm recession, wave attack with associated runup and flooding
due to wave runup overtopping the protective seawall. In many areas a
significant portion of the reduction in damages is attributable to the
enhanced ability of the seawall to prevent waves, storm recession or high
ocean stages from impacting the structures behind it. The proposed
improvement would not provide complete protection from storm damage since
many low-lying areas area subject to inundation from high stages in the

Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers. This condition will remain unabated and
will cause over 3 million dollars in annual damage. In addition, some is
storms with return periods greater than 35 years will still result in minor
seawall overtopping.

139. The proposed improvements will eliminate the historic loss of land due
to long term erosion. This will prevent a decrease in usable land area
within the project boundaries along with any decline in real property
values. The additional storm protection and recreational opportunities
provided by this plan will in fact increase the value of existing land
within these communities through intensification of usage and is likely to
provide a beneficial increase in economic activity.

140. The proposed project will provide significant additional recreational
opportunities in close proximity to major population centers. The added
beach area will result in an improved recreation experience as expressed by
a higher willingness to pay and an increase in visitation. The net increase
in beach visitation and value within the entire recreation resource area
provides an annual recreation use benefit of over 6.5 million dollars.

141. The proposed project will increase the amount of sediment crossing the
northern project limit towards Sandy Hook from 392,000 cubic yards yearly to
the full drift rate potential of 493,000 cubic yards. This will
significantly reduce the need for beach maintenance at the Sandy Hook
critical zone. Since the full drift rate potential is currently reached
immediately north of the critical zone, there will be no increase in
deposition or maintenance costs at Sandy Hook Channel.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN

DESIGN DETAILS

142. Constructable Reaches. Due to its length, the project area was
divided into constructable reaches based on engineering and administrative
considerations. Reach 1 includes Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach. Due to the
length and construction quantities required for Reach 1 it will be
sub-divided into two construction contracts; contract A extends from the
southern limit of Monmouth Beach to just north of the Rumson Neck Bridge in
Sea Bright, contract B covers the remaining length of Reach 1 to the
northern limit of Sea Bright. Reach 2 covers the entire length of Long
Branch. Reach 3 extends from the north limit of Deal through the south
limit of Loch Arbour. Constructable reaches are presented in Figures 18-1
and 18-2.

143. Design Section. The selected plan includes a protective beach along
the 12 miles of coast between Sandy Hook and Ocean Township. The
cross-section configuration of the beach provides a 100 foot wide berm at an
elevation of +10 feet MLW with an onshore slope of 1 to 10H and an offshore
slope of 1 to 35H. Placed upon the berm will be a two-foot storm berm cap.
Also, a plus one foot of tolerance will be allowed on top of the design
profile. In locations where the +10 foot MLW berm station was landward or
seaward of the project baseline, the berm width was adjusted accordingly. A
plan view of the recommended plan is presented on Figures 19-1 through

19-5. Recommended design cross-sections are presented in Figures 20-1
through 20-14. These design cross-sections do not include advance, feeder
or overfill volumes.

144. Fill Quantity. The initial fill quantities consist of design fill
volumes, advance fill volumes, feeder beach volumes, taper volumes,
tolerance, and overfill volumes. Table 5 presents the fill quantities for
the selected plan. Feeder beaches were designed for Reaches IA and 2 to
compensate for the lack of the feeder beach in Reach 3 during the first
three years of construction. Advance fill quantities were reduced by 1/6,
2/6 and 3/6 for Reaches 1B, 2 and 3 respectively, due to the length of time
for initial construction. Taper volumes were needed since tapers must be
built at every exposed end of the constructed reaches. Tolerance volumes
equalling 15% of design and taper fill volumes provided for a 1-foot fill
tolerance. overfill volumes compensated for fines that will wash out after
construction is completed. Overfill factors are presented in Table 5 and
Appendix C.

145. Renourishment Requirement. For the maintenance quantities, the risk
analysis that was performed indicated a need of 478,000 cubic yards per year
of maintenance - fi'11 (Appendix A). Taper volumes must also be included at
the north and south project limits every renourishment period. Including
tolerances and overfill, the total six-year renourishment quantity is
3,522,200 cubic yards.

146. Feeder Beach. Due to the nature of the coastal process within the
project area, the maintenance fill must be separated into two separate
types. A feeder beach, which is a large stockpile of sand, must be placed
at the southern end of the project area to compensate for the littoral drift
deficit. In addition, advance fill, which is a continuous strip of fill,
must also be placed along the entire project area to compensate for the
increasing littoral drift within the project area limits. The sediment
budget identified a littoral drift deficit of 164,000 cubic yards at the
south end of the project. For the six-year renourishment cycle, 984,000
cubic yards will be placed along an 8,540 foot long feeder beach located at
the southern end of Reach 3 to offset the sediment deficit (Figure 19-4 and
19-5). The remaining 314,000 cubic yards of maintenance fill will be
distributed evenly along the entire project length to serve as advance fill
to offset the effect of increasing littoral drift deficiencies along the
shoreline. This quantity is also necessary to meet the volumetric
requirements of the risk analysis performed on the maintenance fill based on
ER 1110-2-1407 (par. A75d). The ER requires the 6-year maintenance fill to
be able to withstand the storm recession of a 9-year event.

147. Berm Height Survivability. Wave runup and scour calculations were
performed to evaluate the survivability of the berm height. Overtopping was
acceptable as long as the berm was not frequently overtopped and the berm
height was not scoured below +10 feet MLW. For a storm with a return period
of 10 years, the berm with the two foot cap experienced slight, if any
overtopping. Without the berm cap, the berm would scour to an elevation of
+8.6 feet MLW.

148. Sea Level Rise. Based on the average increase of sea level of 0.015
feet/year, the fill quantities must compensate for recession due to sea
level rise. This can be accomplished in two methods. First, since the sea
level rise will amount to 0.75 feet over the 50-year project life, the berm
height could be increased 0.75 feet. Secondly, extra fill can be added
every six-year renourishment cycle. The second option is more feasible
since it requires less cost and provides the protection as it is needed.
The annual shoreline recession for the design profile is 0.869 feet/year.
Based on 1 foot of recession - 1.3 cubic yards of fill lost, the maintenance
fill requires 414,000 every six years to keep the recession due to sea level
rise in check. Since the advance fill volume is 1,884,000 cubic yards every
six years, the erosion due to sea level rise is compensated for by the
excess advance fill.

51A

149. Construction Template. It is important to recognize that the sediment
along the seaward edge of the construction profile will adjust seaward to
some limiting depth during the project construction and subsequent to
placement of the fill. While the onshore slope is kept the same for the
construction template (1:10) the offshore slope can not be graded to the
design slope (1:35). For this reason, the offshore construction slope is
estimated at (1:20). This construction template will adjust to a more
natural equilibrium profile as sediment is redistributed along the profile.
To balance the required initial fill quantity, the berm width of the
construction template will be greater than the berm width of the design
profile. A typical construction template is shown in Figure 21.

150. Sequence of Construction. Due to the vulnerability of the seawall in
Reach I and Public Law 99-662, the project will be constructed from the
north at Sea Bright to the south at Ocean Township. Since the project
length requires four and one-half years of construction time, the entire
project will be constructed in phases starting with Reach 1A, followed by
Reach 1B, then Reach 2 will be constructed followed by Reach 3. The project
base is set at 1990. Since Reach 1A will be constructed first, a feeder
beach that would last until Reach 2 is constructed must be designed. This
results in two years worth of feeder beach fill for initial construction of
Reach 1A. Reach 1A would also receive 6 years worth of advance fill.
Tapers at both ends of Reach 1A would also be present. Reach 1B would have
no feeder beach fill but would. have 5 years worth of advance fill and a
taper at the north end of Reach 1B. Reach 2 would then be constructed
during the third year of construction. It would contain one year's worth of
feeder beach to protect the project until Reach 3 was constructed in the
following year. Reach 2 would also have three years' worth of advance fill
and a taper at the south end. The final reach, Reach 3, would be
constructed during the fourth year of construction. The final constructed
reach would have 3 years worth of feeder beach along with 3 years of advance
fill. A taper would be constructed at the south end of Reach 3. The three
years' worth of feeder and advance fill would protect the shore from erosion
until 1993, when the first of eight renourishment periods begins. Figure 22
illustrateg the sequence of construction along with year of construction. A
construction schedule is presented on Figure 26.

151. If any of the three constructable reaches were built independent of
the remaining reaches, then a feeder beach would be required to compensate
for the sediment deficit. The feeder beach would need to be placed at the
south end of the reach. This would increase the cost of an individually
constructed reach by about 14% over the cost of the reach constructed as
part of a continuous project.

152. Outfall Construction. Outfall extensions, including timber crib
supports, would be constructed after the fill is placed under the pipe
alignment. Once the outfalls and timber crib are constructed, the fill
would then be placed over the pipe allowing placement of final grades over
the pipe. This method is consistent with current outfall construction
methods along the New Jersey coast.

153. Groin Notching. The fill of the selected plan will bury many of the
existing groins. However, 15 existing groins will still extend seaward
beyond the design shoreline and affect the movement of littoral drift. To

prevent an impact of these groins on the design fill, notches will be
constructed in the structures to allow sediment to pass through the groins
and prevent sediment impoundment (Figure 23).

154. Seawall Rehabilitation. Due to the deteriorated conditions of large:
sections of the seawalls in Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach, the State of New
Jersey has initiated a seawall rehabilitation program. The rehabilitation
plan will increase the structure's chance of survivability against annual.
events prior to construction of the beach fill project. The State's plan
involves rehabilitation in kind with the original section. The plan
includes placement of 5-8 ton rock at the toe of the wall along critical.
areas of seawall deterioration. The design is described in detail in
Appendix F and presented in Figures 24-1 through 24-7.

155. Risk Analysis. Situations of risk are defined as those where the
potential outcomes can be described in terms of the probability
distributions. An example of risk is a situation where an event occurs on
the average once in 50 years. Because it is unknown when the 50 year event
will occur there is a risk involved. In this regard, the with-project level
of protection from significant overtopping provided by the seawall
corresponds to an exceedence frequency of 0.02 percent. There is a 64
percent risk tha@ this event could occur at least once over the 50 year
economic life of the project.

156. The risks of exceeding various project design frequencies in any 10
year, 30 year, 50 year or 100 year time period are presented in Table 18.
Due to the high probability of residual flooding from the Shrewsbury River
the associated risk is greater than 99 percent for any 10 year period.

ECONOMICS

157. Benefits. The recommended plan will provide $36.7 million in annual
benefits (September 1987 Price Level) over a project life of 50 years with
net benefits of $15.2 million annually and a BCR of 1.71.

158. Of the total benefits, $28.9 million are attributable to the project's
damage prevention. accomplishments and $7.8 million are attributable to all
increase in recreation. The damage prevention benefits include $16.7
million in reduced storm damage and emergency costs for physical structures
such as. buildings and roads, $2.1 million for the prevention of land
erosion, $1.7 million in reduced maintenance at the Sandy Hook critical
zone, and $8.3 million in increased land value due to intensified usage.

159. Sensitivity. The analysis of net project benefits is conservative ill
that the 1987 fiscal year discount rate of 8-7/8% results in higher annual
charges than the 1988 discount rate of 8-5/8%. Due to the volume of
calculations required for plan formulation and the need to compare all plans
on an equal basis, the detailed analysis has been presented with the 1987
discount rate. In order to assess uncertainty in the plan selection process
and to ensure the viability of the project the economics of the selected
plan and an equivalent plan including construction of the authorized groins
are presented at a discount rate of 8-5/8% in Table 19. This evaluation
indicates that the selected plan is not impacted by minor variations in
interest rates and that the project has greater net benefits when evaluated
with the current interest rate.

TABLE 18

RISK ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED PLAN

Probability of Event Occurring at Least once
Berm Overtopping Design Seawall Seawall
Time Wave still Profile Overtopping* Failure
Period Runup Water Recession (Wave Runup)

Exceedence 10% 0.9% 0.8% 2.0% 0.2%
Frequency
0 Year Risk)

10 Year Risk 65% 9% 8% 18% 2%

30 Year Risk 96% 24% 22% 35% 6%

50 Year Risk 99% 37% 34% 48% 10%
(Project Life)

100 Year Risk 100% 60% 57% 73% 18%

Overtopping resulting in force at the Landward edge of the seawall, critical damage
0 necessary to destroy a house.

Table 19

INTEREST RATE SENSITIVITY
COSTS VS. BENEFITS
DISCOUNT RATE 8-5/8%

September 1987 Price Level
(In Millions of Dollars)

Authorized Groin Plan
Recommended With 100-Foot Berm
Plan and 2-Foot_q@ja_

Annual Benefits 36.4 36.2

Annual Cost 21.0 21.6

Net Benefits 15.4 14.6

BCR 1.73 1.68

160. Residual Damage. The recommended plan will eliminate damages from
wave attack and storm recession for all but the largest storms and will
reduce the severity of flood damage. Some portions of the project area,
however, will remain vulnerable to flooding and will continue to suffer
significant economic losses. The residual flooding condition is most severe
in the northern reaches of the project which are impacted by high stages in
the Shrewsbury River. Route 36 in Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach will remain
subject to closure with low lying section of the roadway beginning to flood
at a two-year storm. Since a 100-year storm would still cause flood depths
to exceed seven feet in low lying areas it is essential that flood plain
management and evacuation procedures be maintained. Residual annual storm
damage from all causes is presented in Table 20. Of the total $3,603,000 in
damage, flooding in the Shrewsbury River causes $3,214 or 89%. Storm damage
limits for 1985 conditions and for the with project conditions are displayed
in Appendix D.

PROJECT COSTS

PRICE LEVEL

161. All costs presented in this GDM are based on September 1987 price
levels.

INITIAL COSTS

162. The initial cost of the project will be $192,917,300. This includes.
$157,127,900 for fill placement, mobil ization/demobilization costs, 15%
contingency, 3% engineering and design, 4.5% for supervision and
inspection. The initial cost includes $1,193,900 for the notching of
groins, $2,400,100 for the extension of drainage outfalls, $11,644,000 f or
rehabilitation of the seawall in Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach and
$20,551,500 for real estate. Figure 26 presents a schedule of initial costs.

Table 20

RESIDUAL DAMAGE
100 FOOT BERM WITH 2 FOOT CAP
(In Thousands of Dollars)

Economic Residual Damage Residual Damage
Reach April 1987 Price Level September 1987 Price Level

1 358 365

2 1,805 1,841

3 296 302

4 780 796

5 60 61

6A 43 44

6B 2 2

7 4 4

8A 4 4

8B 0 0

9A 3 3

9B 4 4

10 23 24

11 150 153

Total .3,532 3,603

RENOURISHMENT COSTS

163. The renourishment costs are based on a six year renourishment cycle.
The total costs include advance, feeder and taper volumes with a unit cost
of $7.40. Also included is $750,000 mobilization/demobilization costs,
costs for tolerance and overfill volumes and 10% contingency, 1.5%
engineering and design and 1.5% supervision and inspection for each
renourishment cycle. The total cost every six years for the renourishment
project is $29,240,400.

LOCAL COSTS

164* Real Estate. Real estate requirements included fill easements,
temporary and permanent access easements, and borrow area easements., The
borrow area easements will be provided at no cost by the State of New
Jersey. Fill easement costs are $12,463,000 for the entire project area

(see Appendix G). Temporary and permanent easements for construction access
and public storage cost $5,676,200. The total real estate cost was
calculated to be $20,551,000.

165. Outfall Extensions. Outfalls that do not extend past the construction
template will require extensions so they remain functional. Outfall
extension quantities and costs are given in detail in Appendix E. The total
cost of all outfall extensions is $2,400,100.

166. Seawall Rehabilitation. This plan involves placement of 5-8 ton rock
at the seawall toe to act as toe protection until the erosion control
project is constructed. The rehabilitation plan will bring weak points of
the seawall up to a structurally sound condition. Total cost of the seawall
rehabilitation is $11,644,000 (see Appendix F).

COST APPORTIONMENT

167. As provided by Section 854 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986, the non-federal share of the cost of construction and maintenance of
the Ocean Township to Sandy Hook reach of the project for beach erosion
control, Sandy-Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, shall consist of amounts
expended by non-Federal interests for reconstruction of the seawall at Sea
Bright and Monmouth Beach. In addition to the seawall construction costs,
the costs for all lands, easements and rights-of-way, the cost for extending
the necessary outfalls. Other non-federal responsibilities are included in
the Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA). Table 21 presents annual and total
cost apportionment. Table 21A presents annualized first costs for the
recommended plan.

ANNUAL COSTS

168. Annual costs are comprised of the sum of the cost of initial
construction, the present worth of the cost of periodic nourishment and all
local costs amortized over the 50-year period of analyses at an interest
rate of 8 7/8 percent.

TABLE 21
APPORTION14ENT OF COSTS
RECOMMENDED PLAN*
(September 1987 Price Level)

First Cost
Federal $158,321,739
Non-Federal $ 34,595,589

Total $192,917,328

Annual Cost
Federal $ 18,249,251
Non-Federal $ 3,204,641

Total $ 21,453,892

*From Appendix B

TABLE 21A

ANNUALIZED FIRST COST OF
RECOMMENDED PLAN @ 8-7/8%

Initial Fill Groin Seawall, Real Project
and Renourishment Notching Rehabilitation Estate OutfaLLs Monitoring

Federal $14,039,008 $107,485 $107,226

Non-Federat $1,048,309 $1,850,252 $216,080 -

57A

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

169. The total time required for design and constructio n of the project is
estimated to be four and one-half years. Included in the complete work
effort is pre-construction and post-construction monitoring, contract plans
and specifications, bidding and advertising and actual project construction.

170. Pre-construction monitoring would take approximately 14 months and
include benthic and surf clam monitoring in the borrow areas.
Post-construction monitoring will include the periodic surveying of beach
profiles, collection of short cores and sediment samples, biological samples
on the beach and in borrow areas, and aerial photographs to illustrate
shoreline changes. Post-construction monitoring will occur at 3-month
increments during the first 2 years following construction, 6-month
increments during the third year and once at the end of the fourth year.

Task I of the program will involve monitoring the fill placement. The
project will be monitored at selected intervals before and after
construction along 25 profile lines. Sediment samples will be collected
during each profiling survey at three sample locations per profile line.
Volumetric changes and sediment characteristics will be computed after each
survey. Task 2 will include monitoring of the borrow areas. Surface
sediment samples will be taken before and after dredging. Cores will be
taken at each borrow area during the fourth year of monitoring.

Task III of the program will include monitoring of shoreline change. Nine
aerial photography overflights of the project area will be performed. A
report on post-construction shoreline change rates will be prepared. Task
IV will be a biological assessment of the project. Biological surveys of
both beach and borrow areas will be conducted at selected intervals before
and after construction. A report will describe and quantify the changes to,
or the re-establishment of, the biological community in the fill placement
area and borrow areas and a comparison to control sites. A detailed
description of the monitoring program and a schedule is provided in
Appendix A.

171. Contract plans and specifications include pre-construction surveys and
complete approval of project plans and specifications. This work would
require 9 months and commence after approval of the final GDM. The bi 'dding
process would take 2 months. The actual construction would be complete in
52 months. A detailed construction and funding schedule is presented in
Appendix B.

DEPARTURES FROM PREVIOUS PIANS

PLAN IN HOUSE DOCUMENT 332/85/2

172. A comparison of the recommended plan and the project prescribed in HD
332/85/2 is summarized on Table 22. The principal deviations of the
recommended plan from the plan recommended in HD 332/85/2 is the addition of
a berm cap and the provision of 6 years of advanced nourishment in the
initial fill. In addition, the prescribed groin construction and
modifications were not included in the recommended plan. Also, the offshore
and onshore slopes were changed from I on 25 to 1 on 10 for the onshore
slope and from 1 on 25 to 1 on 35 for the offshore slopes. These slopes
represented the average equilibrium slopes. Seawall rehabilitation has also
been provided in the selected plan.

NEW JERSEY MASTER PLAN

173. In 1981 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
completed a Shore Protection Master Plan to assist in efficient management
of erosion and coastal development. In late 1987, the NJDEP indicated to
the Corps that it intends to modify the original 1981 Master Plan by
adopting the Federal plan identified in this report as part of its revised
Shore Protection Master Plan.

58A

TABLE 22

COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL FEATURES AND COSTS

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP, NJ

DRAFT GDM

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP H.D. 85-332 PL 99-662 SELECTED PLAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lst. CONSTRUCTION INCREMENT

(SEA BRIGHT TO

1. BEACH FILL - INITIAL MONMOUTH BEACH ONLY)
BERM WIDTH FT. 100 Approx. 50 100
BERM HEIGHT MLW 10 10 10

BERM CAP - FT. 0 0 2

ONSHORE SLOPE 1:25 1:25 1:10

OFFSHORE SLOPE 1:25 1:25 1:35

LENGTH - FT. 62,657 28,023 62,436
QUANTITY C.Y. 10,114,400 3,413,000 17,705,403

2. COST

FEDERAL 92,980,000 21,200,000 158,321,739
NON-FEDERAL $ 12,300,000 18,800,000 34,595,589
TOTAL - $ 105,280,000 (A) 40,000,000 (B) 192,917,328 (C)

3. RENOURISHMENT

QUANTITY C.Y. 115,000/YR. NIA 3,470,172
FREQUENCY YRS. NIA N/A 6
COST - $ 10,500,000 N/A 29,240,393

4. STRUCTURAL MEASURES

a). INIITAL:

GROINS 23 NEW - 14 EXT. 0 a

LENGTH - FT. 400 0 0

GROIN NOTCHING 0 0 is
SEAWALL,BULKHEADS, etc ... NONE REPAIRS REPAIRS
b). MAINTENANCE:
SEAWALL,BULKHEADS, etc ... NONE REPAIR AS NEEDED REPAIR AS NEEDED
GROINS REPAIR AS NEEDED NONE NONE

5. BORROW SOURCES

LOCATION SEA BRIGHT/BELMAR SEA BRIGHT/BELMAR SEA BRIGHT/BELMAR
QUANTITY AVAILABLE - C.Y. 47,200,000 47,200,000 47,200,000

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A - Does not include LERR costs, outfall modification, or groin notching costs.
B - Does not include LERR costs, outfall modification, or groin notching costs.
C - Includes LERR costs, outfall modification, seawall rehabilitation and groin notching costs.

PLAN IN PUBLIC LAW (PL) 99-662

174. A comparison of the recommended plan identified herein and the plan
presented in Section 854 of Public Law 99-662 is summarized on Table 22.
Due to the vulnerable condition of the seawall at Sea Bright and Monmouth
Beach, Public Law 99-662 modified the original authorized project by
providing that the first construction increment of the Sea Bright to Ocean
Township reach shall consist of a berm approximately 50 feet wide at Sea
Bright and Monmouth Beach with a feeder beach in the vicinity of Long Branch.

175. The principal deviations are a result of the 50 foot plan identified
in PL 99-662 being unable to meet Corps engineering criteria with regard to
design survivability. The plan recommended in this report calls for
construction of the first increment identified in PL 99-662 plus an
additional increment to meet Corps survivability criteria, resulting in a
100 foot wide berm. An additional 2 foot high berm cap, above the
originally authorized height of +10 feet MLW was also incorporated in the
recommended design to provide additional protection from frequent
overtopping.

LOCAL COOPERATION

COORDINATION

176. As part of the public involvement program for the project a steering
committee was organized for the purpose of providing an adequate exchange of
information and to insure local concerns were addressed. The steering
committee was composed of the Mayors of the affected communities, Borough
Engineers, State Legislators, personnel from New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Congressional District Representatives and
personnel from the New York District Corps of Engineers.

177. Extending from the period beginning 1984 to the present, numerous
coordination meetings were held with the non-federal sponsor and other
concerned agencies to insure their input was incorporated into both
preliminary and final designs and plan selection.

178. On April 6, 1987 a notice of intent to file an EIS by the New York
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was published in the Federal Register.

VIEWS OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR

179. The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, by
letter dated December 3, 1987 has indicated that after review of the draft
Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) it is prepared to enter into a formal
agreement for cooperation with the Corps of Engineers for this project. The
The Local Cooperation Agreement reads as follows:

LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
AND
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW JERSEY,
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET
SECTION I, SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP

THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of by and between
the DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (hereinafter referred to as the "Government"),
acting by and through the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), and
the STATE OF NEW JERSEY (hereinafter referred to as "State"), acting by and
through the Department of Environmental Protection

WITNESSETH THAT:

WHEREAS, the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet
Section I, Sea Bright to Ocean Township, was authorized by the River and
Harbor Act of 1958 in accordance with House Document No. 332, 85th Congress,
second session; and,

WHEREAS, the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662,
specifies the cost-sharing requirements applicable to the Project; and

WHEREAS,the State has the authority and capability to furnish the
cooperation hereinafter set forth and is willing to participate in project
cost-sharing and financing in accordance with the terms of this Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this Agreement:

1. The term "project" shall mean the project for Beach Erosion Control
Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey Section I, Sea Bright to Ocean
Township shall consist of construction of a berm 100 ft. wide at an
elevation of +10 ft. MLW with an additional 2 ft. high storm berm cap
extending from Sea Bright to Ocean Township.

2. The term "total project costs" shall mean all costs incurred by the
State for the rehabilitation of the seawall and the Government for the beach
directly related to construction of the project. Such costs shall include,
but not necessarily be limited to, actual construction costs, costs of
applicable engineering costs incurred after October 1, 1985, supervision and
administration costs, costs of project construction contract dispute
settlements or awards, but shall not include any costs for betterments or
operation and maintenance.

3. The term "period of construction" shall mean the time from the
advertisement of the first construction contract to the time of acceptance
of the project by the Contracting Officer.

4. The term "Contracting Officer" shall mean the Commander of the U.S.
Army Engineer District, New York, or his designee.

5. The term "highway" shall mean any highway, thoroughfare, roadway,
street, or other public or private road or way.

6. The term "Subsequent Nourishment" shall mean placement of additional
quantities of fill material as needed in order to maintain the beach to
design specifications subsequent to construction.

ARTICLE II - OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES

a. The Government, subject to the completion and acceptance of
rehabilitation measures for the seawall at Sea Bright to Monmouth Beach by
the State and acceptance of an approved public access plan that meets all
State laws and regulations and using funds appropriated by the Congress,
construct the project applying those procedures usually followed or applied
in a Federal- project, pursuant to Federal laws, regulations, and policies.
The State shall be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on all
contracts, including relevant plans and specifications, prior to the
issuance of invitations for bids. The State shall be afforded the
opportunity to review and comment on all modifications and change orders
prior to the issuance to the contractor of a Notice to Proceed, The
Government will consider the views of the State, but award of the contracts
and performance of the work thereunder shall be exclusively within the
control of the Government.

b. When the Government determines that project, or functional element
thereof, is complete, the Government, subject to the availability of funds,
shall participate in periodic beach nourishment for a period up to 50 years
after which time the Government shall turn the project or element over to
the State, which shall accept the project or element and be solely
responsible for operating, maintaining, replacing, and rehabilitating the
project or element in accordance with Article VIII hereof. In addition the
State after completion of the rehabilitation of the Seawall shall be solely
responsible for operating, maintaining, replacing, and future rehabilitation
of the Seawall.

C. The States's share of the cost of construction and maintenance of
the Ocean Township to Sandy Hook reach of the project for beach erosion
control, Sandy Hook, to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, shall consist of amounts
expended by the State for rehabilitation of the seawall presently estimated
at $18,800,000 at Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach, New Jersey, in addition to
those costs as presented in Article III hereof.

d. Before initiation of construction of any increment of the project
for beach erosion control, Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, the
State shall provide certification in a form acceptable to the Government by
the proper State official that public access to the beach for which such
increment of the project is authorized is in accordance with all
requirements of State law and regulations.

e. As further specified in Article III hereof, the State shall provide
all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and borrow areas and perform all
relocations and alterations of buildings, utilities, highways, railroads,
bridges (other than railroad bridges), sewers, and related and special
facilities determined by the Government to be necessary for construction of
the project.

f. No less than once each year the State shall inform affected
interests of the limitations of the protection afforded by the project.

g. The State shall publicize floodplain information in the area
concerned and shall provide this information to zoning and other regulatory
agencies for their guidance and leadership in preventing unwise future
development in the floodplain and in adopting such regulations as may be
necessary to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility
with protection levels provided by the project.

ARTICLE III - LANDS, FACILITIES, AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE

a. Prior to the advertisement of any construction or renourishment
contract, the State shall furnish at no cost to the Government all lands,
easements, and rights-of-way, including suitable borrow areas, as may be
determined by the Government to be necessary for construction of the
project, and shall furnish to the Government evidence supporting the State's
legal authority to grant rights-of-entry to such lands.

b. Upon notification from the Government, the State shall accomplish or
arrange for accomplishment at no cost to the Government of all alterations
and relocations of buildings, highways, railroads, bridges (other than
railroad bridges), storm drains, utilities, cemeteries, and other
facilities, structures, and improvements determined by the Government to be
necessary for construction of the project.

C. The State shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform
Relocations Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,
Public Law 91-646, approved January 2, 1971, inacquiring lands, easements,
and rights-of-way for construction and subsequent renourishment of the
project, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies,
and procedures in connection with said Act.

ARTICLE IV - CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND MANAGEMENT

a. To provide for consistent and effective communication between the
State and the Government during the term of construction shall assign
representatives to coordinate on scheduling, plans, specifications,
modifications, contract costs, and other matters relating to construction of
the project.

b. The representatives appointed above shall meet as necessary during
the term of project construction and shall make such recommendations as they
deem warranted to the Contracting Officer.

c . The Contracting Officer shall consider the recommendations of the
representatives in all matters relating to the project, but the Contracting
Officer, having ultimate responsibility for construction of the project, has
complete discretion to accept, reject, or modify the recommendations.

ARTICLE V - METHOD OF PAYMENT

a. The State shall provide, prior to construction and subject to the
approval and acceptance of the Government, corrective measures for Seawall
rehabilitation. Total project costs are presently estimated to be
$192,917,000.00. In order to meet its share, the State must perform the
Seawall rehabilitation presently estimated to be $11,644,00.00, provide all
drainage structure and utility modifications presently estimated at
$2,400,000.00 and, in addition, provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way
and relocation at no cost to the government, presently estimated at
$20,551,500.

b. Upon completion of the project, or an agreed-upon separable element
and resolution of all relevant contract claims and appeals, the Government
shall compute the total project costs, or the cost of the separable element
and tender to the State a final accounting of its share of project costs.

ARTICLE VI - DISPUTES

Before any party to this Agreement may bring suit in any court
concerning an issue relating to this Agreement, such party must first seek
in good faith to resolve the issue through negotiation or other forms of
nonbinding alternative dispute resolution mutually acceptable to the parties.

ARTICLE VII - OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILITATION

a. The Government, agrees subject to the availability of funds to
provide periodic beach nourishment for a period of 50 years. The State
shall operate, maintain, replace, and rehabilitate the Seawall, or
functional element thereof, in accordance with regulations or directions
prescribed by the Government.

b. The State hereby gives the Government a right to enter, at
reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon land which it owns or
controls for access to the Project for the purpose of inspection, and, if
necessary, for the purpose of completing, operating, repairing, maintaining,
replacing, or rehabilitating the project. If an inspection shows that the
State for any reason is failing to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement without receiving prior written approval from the Government, the
Government will send a written notice to the State. If the State persists
in such failure for 30 calendar days after receipt of the notice, then the
Government shall have a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a
reasonable manner, upon lands the State owns or controls for access to the
project for the purpose of completing, operating, repairing, maintaining,
replacing, or rehabilitating the project. No completion, operation, repair,
maintenance, replacement, or rehabilitation by the Government shall operate
to relieve the local sponsor of responsibility to meet its obligations as

set forth in this Agreement, or to preclude the Government from pursuing any
other remedy at law or equity to assure faithful performance pursuant to
this Agreement.

ARTICLE VIII - RELEASE OF CLAIMS

The State shall hold and save the Government free from all damages
arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project,
except for damages due to the fault of negligence of the Government or its
contractors.

ARTICLE IX - MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS

The Government and the State shall keep books, records, documents, and
other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to this
Agreement to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total
project costs. The Government and the State shall maintain such books,
records, documents, and other evidence for minimum of three years after
completion of construction of the project and resolution of all claims
arising therefrom, and shall make available at their offices at reasonable
times, such books, records, documents, and other evidence for inspection and
audit by authorized representatives of the parties to this Agreement.

ARTICLE X - FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS

In acting under its rights and obligations hereunder, the State agrees
to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations,
including section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public
Law 88-352) and Department of Defense Directive 5500 11 issued pursuant
thereto and published in Part 300 of Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations,
as well an Army Regulation 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis
of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the
Department of the Army."

ARTICLE XI - RELATIONSHIPS OF PARTIES

The parties to this Agreement act in an independent capacity in the
performance of their respective functions under this Agreement, and neither
party is to be considered the officer, agent, or employee of the other.

ARTICLE XII - COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES

The State warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or
retained to solicit or secure this Agreement upon agreement or understanding
for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona
fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the State for
the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty,
the Government shall have the right to annul this Agreement without
liability, or, in its discretion, to add to the Agreement or consideration,
or otherwise recover, the full amount of such commission, percentage,
brokerage, or contingent fee.

ARTICLE XIII - TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION

a. if at any time the State fails to meet any requirements identified
herein, the Secretary of the Army shall terminate or suspend work on the
project until the State is in compliance, unless the Secretary determined
that continuation of work on the project is in the interest of the United
States.

b. If the Government fails to receive annual appropriations in amounts
sufficient to meet project expenditures for the then-current or upcoming
fiscal year, the Government shall so notify the State. After 60 days either
party may elect without penalty to terminate this agreement or to suspend
activities relating to the project and proceed to a final accounting in
accordance with Article V.

ARTICLE XIV - NOTICES

a. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications required or
permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been duly
given if in writing and delivered personally, given by prepaid telegram, or
mailed by first-class (postage-prepaid), registered, or certified mail, as
follows:

If to the State:
Commissioner
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN 400
Trenton, New Jersey 08621
ATTN: Director Division of Coastal Resources

If to the Government:
Commander
NY District Army Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
ATTN: CENAN - PL

b. A party may change the address to which such communications are to
be directed by giving written notice to the other in the manner provided in
this section.

C. Any notice, requires, demand, or other communication made pursuant
to this Article shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at
such time as it is personally delivered or on the third business day after
it is mailed, as the case may be.

ARTICLE XV - CONFIDENTIALITY
To the extent permitted by law governing each party, the parties agree
to maintain the confidentiality or exchanges information when required to do
so by the proving party.
IN WITNESS WHEREAS, the parties herein have expected this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

BY: BY:
ROBERT W. PAGE, SR. MR. ROBERT P. DEWLING
Acting Assistant Secretary Commissioner
of the Army (Civil Works) New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection

DATE: DATE:

0 UNITED
Aso STArks DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Chief Scientist
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington, D.C. 20230
4rs of

July 11, 1988

MEMORANDUM FOR: Jim Blizzard, Acting Director
office of ocean and Coastal Resource Management
FROM: David Cottingham
Ecology and Environmental Conservation Office

SUBJECT: DEIS 8807-01--Atlantic Coast of New Jersey Sandy
Hook to Barnegat Inlet, Beach Erosion Control
Project Section I - Sea Bright to Ocean
Twonship, New Jersey

I am sending Jim Burgess the above Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for review and possible comment. Its control number is
given above. Please refer to this control number if you comments----
on this. If you have comments, I will need them by August
22, 1988.

Enclosure
cc: N/ORM3-J. Burgess (with document),-2

1921600
W

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY

I, do hereby certify that
I am the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, that the New Jersey
public body with full authority and legal capacity to perform terms of the
Agreement between the United States of America and the State of New Jersey
in connection with the Beach Erosion Control Project Atlantic Coast of New
Jersey Section I Sea Bright to Ocean township, and to pay damages, if
necessary in the event of failure to perform, in accordance with Section 221
of Public Law 91-611, and that the person who has executed the Agreement on
behalf of the State of New Jersey, acting by and through its Department of
Environmental Protection has acted within his statutory authority.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have made and executed this Certificate
the day of 1988.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY
SS:
COUNTY OF

On this day of in the year 19 88, before me, a Notary
Public of New Jersey, personally came to me known and
know to me to be the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and the
same person described in and who executed the within certificate of
Authority, dated and he acknowledged he executed the
same as the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY FOR T14E STATE OF NEW.
JERSEY.

A Notary Public of New Jersey

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW JERSEY: SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
SECTION I - SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP,
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer District, New
York.

Abstract: The project area, Sea Bright to Ocean Township, is an
approximately 12-mile segment of ocean shoreline at the northern end
of New Jersey's Atlantic Coast. The New York District has
investigated public concerns within the project area related to beach
erosion control, storm damage protection, and public recreation. The
preferred alternative (beach restoration) consists of the construction
of a sand berm 10 feet above mean low water (MLW) and a sloping beach
along the entire 12-mile project. Other practical alternatives
considered include groin construction in combination with beach
restoration. The sand, an estimated 18.0 million cubic yards, would
be acquired from ocean borrow areas, one off Sandy Hook, New Jersey
and two small areas off Belmar, New Jersey. There is no viable
alternative sand source that could provide the quantity of material
needed for this project.

The recommended plan proposes beach restoration having a berm 100
feet wide with an additional 2-foot storm berm cap above the
authorized 10-foot berm height. A beach slope of 1 on 10 will grade
from the outer end of the berm to existing mean low water then proceed
at a slope of 1 on 35 to depth of closure. The proposed plan is
designated the NED plan because it provides the greatest net benefits
of all plans considered. A 50-foot berm plan is environmentally
preferred, but its selection would give up considerable economic
benefits for little environmental gain. Because the environmental
impacts of all alternative beach restoration plans are comparable, the
NED plan, 100-foot berm plan, is the selected plan.

If you would like further
information concerning this
SEND YOUR COMMENTS concerning this statement,
TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER please contact:
BY
No. Karen Sullivan
U.S. Army Engineer District,
New York
Environmental Analysis Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278-0090
Commercial Telephone (212) 264-
4662

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject Page
Cover Sheet (Abstract) EIS-i

1. Summary
1.01 Major Conclusions and Findings EIS-1
1.02 Areas of Controversy EIS-1
1.03 Unresolved Issues EIS-1
1.05 Relationship to Environmental Requirements EIS-1

2. Need for and Objectives of Action
2.01 Study Authority EIS-5
2.02 Public Concerns EIS-5
2.03 Problems and Opportunities EIS-5
2.04 Planning objectives EIS-5

3. Alternatives
Introduction EIS-7
No Action (Maintain Base Condition) EIS-7
Plans Eliminated from Further Study EIS-8
3.04 Buy-out EIS-8
3.05 Revetments EIS-8
3.06 Breakwaters EIS-8
3.07 Seawalls EIS-8
3.08 Perched Beach EIS-9
3.09 Beach Restoration EIS-9
3.10 Groins EIS-9
Development of Intermediate Plans EIS-9
Plans Considered in Detail EIS-10
3.12 Beach Restoration EIS-10
3.13 Beach Restoration with Authorized Groins EIS-10
3.16 Beach Restoration with Updated Groins EIS-11
3.18 Constructable Reaches Evaluation EIS-11
3.21 Project Details EIS-12
3.25 Project Costs and Benefits EIS-13
3.26 Comparative Impacts of Alternatives EIS-13
3.28 Selected Plan EIS-14
3.29 Borrow Area Alternatives EIS-14
3.30 Dredge Alternatives EIS-14
3.31 Mitigation Measures EIS-14

4. Affected Environment
Environmental Conditions EIS-16
Significant Resources EIS-19
4.14 Water Quality EIS-19
4.18 Coastal Biological Resources EIS-20
4.22 Borrow Area Biological Resources EIS-21

EIS-ii

Table of Contents
(continued)

Subject Page

4.26 Gateway National Recreation Area EIS-23
Sandy Hook Unit
4.29 Threatened and Endangered Species EIS-24
4.30 Recreation EIS-24
4.31 Cultural Resources EIS-25

5. Environmental Effects
5.01 Water Quality EIS-27
5.03 Coastal Biological Resources EIS-27
5.07 Borrow Area Biological Resources EIS-28
5.10 Gateway National Recreation Area EIS-29
Sandy Hook Unit
5.11 Threatened and Endangered Species EIS-29
5.12 Recreation EIS-30
5.13 Cultural Resources EIS-30
5.15 Cumulative Impacts EIS-31

6. Public Involvement
6.01 Public Involvement Program EIS-34
6.02 Required Coordination EIS-34
6.03 Distribution of Draft EIS EIS-34
6.04 Public Views and Responses EIS-36

Index EIS-37
References EIS-39
Appendix A EIS-Al

EIS-iii

Summary

1.01 Major Conclusions and Findings: The 100-foot berm beach
restoration plan is designated the NED Plan because it satisfies the
planning objectives and provides the greatest net economic benefits of
the plans considered in detail. The least environmentally damaging
plan is the 50-foot berm beach restoration plan because it would
reduce the sand quantities needed for project construction,
minimizing impacts at the offshore borrow sites and the shore
deposition sites. This plan, however, would have considerably lower
net benefits relative to the NED Plan, would not meet Corps criteria
based on risk and uncertainty and would necessitate more frequent
beach nourishment. In view of the overall quantities to be dredged
and deposited, the fact that benthic populations at the project sites
are relatively low, and the expectation that benthic resources will
recover within a short time, the environmental effects of implementing
any given alternative beach restoration plan would be similar. The
least environmentally damaging plan is not considered significantly
different from the NED plan in terms of long-term adverse effects.
For this reason the NED plan has been chosen as the selected plan.

1.02 Areas of Controversy: There are no known major areas of
controversy regarding the subject study among the public interests.

1.03 Unresolved Issues: There are no known unresolved major
disagreements among the study area interests. It should be noted that
additional baseline biological sampling in the form of pre-
construction monitoring has been programed to help quantify the
potential for adverse impacts to biological productivity in the borrow
areas and disposal sites. This baseline sampling, to be conducted
immediately prior to project construction, will establish water
chemistry conditions and benthic populations in the areas of impact so
that changes wrought by project implementation can be measured by
subsequent monitoring studies. The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) recommended sampling of area
fisheries as well as benthos and water quality. On the assumption
that benthic and water quality sampling will establish project area
fishery habitat conditions, it has been determined that sampling
specifically for fisheries is not necessary for impact assessment.

1.04 Relationship to Environmental Requirements: The choice of a
selected alternative has taken into account legislation relating to
the environment and attempts to balance project cost with
environmental protection. Table 1 shows the environmental laws
applicable to the project area and the status of compliance with these
laws. Table 2 summarizes the selected plan's effects on resources of
principal national recognition.

EIS-1

Takle I

COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROTECTION
STATUTES AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS

ACT COMPLIANCE

Archaeological and Historic
Preservation Act Full

Archaeological Recovery Act Full

Clean Air Act Full

Clean Water Act Full

Coastal Zone Management Act Full

Endangered Species Act Full

Estuary Protection Act Full

Federal Water Project Recreation Act Full

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Full

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Full

Marine Protection Research
and Sanctuaries Act Full

National Environmental Policy Act Full

National Historic Preservation Act Full

River and Harbor Act Full

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act Full

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Full

Public Law 99-592 (Gateway National Recreation
Area Establishment Act) Full

EO 11988, Floodplain Management Full

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands Full

Executive Memorandum on Prime and
Unique Farmlands Not Applicable

EIS-2

Table 2

Effects of Selected Plan on Resources of Principal National Recognition

Type of Resources Principal Sources of National Recognition Measurement of Effects

Air Quality Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. Minor Construction
1857h-7 et seq.) Effects

Areas of Particular Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Significant Effect-
Concern Within the as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) Beach berm will be
Coastal Zone restored along 12-mile
project shoreline;
Littoral drift to
Sandy Hook will be
restored

Endangered and Endangered Species Act of 1973, as No adverse Effect
Threatened Species amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

Fish afid Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Short-term Effect-Loss of
Habitat (16 U.S.C. Sec. 661 et seq.) benthos in 2-sq. mi.
borrow area and in 2.5-
sq. mi. disposal area
Long-term Effect -
Creation of offshore
borrow pits; Restoration
of beach berm and slope;
Maintenance of Sandy Hook
coastal habitats

EIS-3

Table 2
(Continued)

Floodplains Executive order 11988, Floodplain No Effect

Historic and National Historic Preservation Act No adverse Effect
cultural Properties of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. Sec.
470 et seq.)

Prime and Unique CEQ Memorandum of August 1, 1980: Not present in project
Farmland Analysis of Impacts on Prime or area
Unique Agricultural Lands in Implementing
NEPA.

Water Quality Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. Local short-term Effects
1251 et seq.) No Measurable long-term
Effect

Wetlands Executive Order 11990, Protection No Adverse Effect
of Wetlands Clean Water Act of 1977
(42 Y, S, C, 1857h-7, et seq.)

Wild and Scenic Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as Not present in project
Rivers amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) area

EIS-4

2. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION

2.01 Study Authority: The Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Sandy Hook
to
Barnegat Inlet, Beach Erosion Control Study was first authorized by
the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930, as amended and supplemented.
The report was submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Army on
March 7, 1956 and printed in House Document No. 361, 84th Congress,
second session. After a Congressional request to review this report
in light of new provisions, the project was included in House Document
No. 332, 85th Congress, second session and approved in the River and
Harbor Act of July 3, 1958. Subsequently, all shore protection
projects were modified for cost-sharing purposes by Public Law 87-874,
River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 23 October, 1962, which
increased the percentage of Federal participation and insured full
public use. The Water Resources Development Act of November 17, 1986
(Public Law 99-662) further modified the cost-sharing for the project
by again increasing Federal participation.

2.02 Public Concerns: Erosion has seriously reduced the width of most
beaches in the study area with consequent exposure of the shore to
storm damage. Throughout the period of record the 12-mile study area
has experienced continuous beach erosion and storm recession,
resulting in a majority of the shorefront property in Sea Bright and
Monmouth Beach having no dry beach. With the exception of sand
fillets south of groins, very little beach width remains in the
southern section of the study area. Virtually all of the protective
coastal structures, including massive seawalls and 103 groins, have
deteriorated since their construction. The structures are becoming
increasingly susceptible to storm wave damage as the beach continues
to erode. The recreational beach areas continue to shrink as the
State recreational need increases. State Route 36 lies immediately
behind the seawall through Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach and is the
only major roadway linking those communities to other coastal areas.
The needs of the study area, then, include shoreline erosion reduction
and protection from coastal storms. The need for recreational beaches
is also recognized.

2.03 Problems and Opportunities: The problem of beach erosion and
storm damage is described in the paragraph above. The proximity of
the project area to the New York-Now Jersey metropolitan area offers
opportunities for enhancing beach recreation. Locating offshore sand
borrow areas is subject to the constraints of finding suitable sand
material and avoiding potential impacts to cultural and natural
resources.

2.04 Planning objectives: Planning objectives were developed based
on the problems and needs identified and on the physical and
environmental constraints within the project area. In general, the
prime Federal objective is to contribute to the National Economic
Development (NED) account consistent with protecting the Nation's
environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable
executive orders and other Federal planning requirements. The
specific planning objectives are statedas follows:
EIS-5

a. Reduce the threat of potential future damages due to the effects
of storms, with an emphasis on wave attack and recession.

b. Mitigate the effect of or prevent the long-term erosion that is
now being experienced.

C. The proposed project must be economically justified, that is, the
average annual benefits must equal or exceed the annual costs.

d. Preserve and maintain existing environmental resources and
habitats suitable to indigenous fish and wildlife, where possible.

e. Preserve historical, archaeological, and cultural resources within
the project area, if any.

EIS-6

3. ALTERNATIVES

Introduction

3.01 Pre-construction engineering and design efforts were directed
towards addressing the current problems and opportunities in the area
from Sea Bright to ocean Township, and entailed review and evaluation
of the authorized plan presented in the 1954 survey report and
evaluation of any new alternatives, including those suggested by
different interest groups. Possible alternative storm damage
protection measures were evaluated through a three-step planning
process. These steps were (1) identification of possible solutions
(2) development of alternatives (3) assessment of alternatives.

3.02 In order to accomplish the initial alternative evaluation,
possible plans of improvement that met some or all of the objectives
were classified under one of two categories. The first category
consisted of those plans that deviated significantly from the
authorized plan. They included the following:

(1) No action
(2) Buy-out Plan
(3) Revetment
(4) Revetments and beach restoration
(5) Breakwaters
(6) Breakwaters with beach restoration
(7) Seawalls
(8) Seawalls with beach restoration
(9) Perched beach with beach restoration

The second category included those plans that fell within the envelope
of the authorized plan. They were:

(10) Beach restoration
(11) Groins
(12) Groins with beach restoration

The following paragraph briefly describes the objectives and
evaluation of each alternative. A summary is presented in Table 2.

Rg Actio (Maintain A M Condition)

3.03 The no-action alternative means that there would be no
coordinated Federal action to provide for storm damage protection and
erosion control either in the project area or at Sandy Hook,
recreational beach restoration or to protect upland property. The
base condition in the project reach entails continuation of the
existing serious erosion problem and storm damage threat with reliance
on emergency and a temporary evacuation measures, floodplain
regulations as required under Federal, State,, and local authorities,
and flood insurance under Federal programs. Due to limited resources
this alternative may be accompanied by limited State or local efforts
to contain erosion and storm damage. All the communities
within the study area are currently enrolled in the National Flood
Insurance Program.
EIS-7

Plans Eliminated Fr Furthe Study

1.04 Buy-out: Of the 11 action alternatives considered, one, the
buy-out plan, is non-structural. The buy-out plan means permanent
evacuation of existing areas subject to erosion or inundation and
acquisition of this land and its structures either by purchase or by
exercising the powers of eminent domain. Following this action, all
development in these areas is either demolished or relocated. For
this alternative, one must consider that the stretch including Sea
Bright to Ocean Township is one of the most heavily developed seashore
areas in New Jersey, and along the East Coast. The investment in
land, infrastructure, utilities, and other development in the
immediate vicinity of the shoreline (within 500 feet) totals billions
of dollars in value. Evacuation of the shoreline would essentially
spell the demise of the Borough of Sea Bright as well as significant
portions of Monmouth Beach and four other municipalities, directly
displacing thousands of permanent residents. Under these conditions
the buy-out plan is both prohibitively expensive and socially
unacceptable, and it was dropped from consideration. All other plans
under consideration are structural, and are meant to protect shoreline
from beach erosion and storm damage.

3.05 Revetments: Revetments are a facing of energy dissipating
material such as quarry stone built to protect shorelines from erosion
and storm damage. They consist of an armor layer of stone placed over
a dune or berm in the landward portion of the beach. Revetments are
designed to protect only the land immediately behind them. Erosion
will continue adjacent to and in front of the revetment. Because of
the erosion, the revetment must have a substantial toe foundation to
prevent undermining of the structure. This plan fails to check erosion
of existing beaches and provides no recreational opportunity, and was
not considered for further development. Beach restoration combined
with revetments will provide added storm protection and will act to
protect the revetment from undermining. The beach restoration will
also control erosion and provide recreational beach area; however,
this plan was eliminated from further development due to extremely
high costs.

3.06 Breakwaters: Breakwaters are structures which protect beaches
from wave action by dissipating wave energy before it reaches the
beach by forcing waves to break offshore. A decrease in wave energy
will reduce sediment transport and thus reduce the erosion rate. The
breakwater does not, however,, provide protection from tidal surges and
provides only minimal recreational beach; therefore, this plan was
eliminated from further development. To minimize the effect of
breakwaters on downdrift beaches the breakwaters should be constructed
in conjunction with beach restoration. This plan would effectively
check erosion, create a wider recreational beach and provide storm
protection. This plan was eliminated due to constructability
constraints and associated high costs.

3.07 Seawalls: Seawalls provide upland erosion protection and are
usually employed to protect upland structures from erosion damage.
Since seawalls are massive structures, they provide storm protection
for the backshore area. The seawall plan fails to check erosion of
EIS-8

existing beaches or to provide recreational beach area; therefore, it
was eliminated from further consideration. Combined with beach
restoration, seawalls would provide upland storm protecting while
checking erosion along the shoreline. Beach restoration would also
provide upland storm protection and provide an extra buffer for storm
protection. While this plan meets all project needs and objectives,
it was not considered for further development due to its initial high
costs.

3.08 Perched Beach: A perched beach provides a wider dry beach area
for a given fill volume due to an artificial toe support. This toe
support helps reduce offshore losses of sediment. Along with the
beach restoration, storm protection, recreational beach and erosion
reduction are provided. While this plan meets all needs and objec-
tives of the project, it was eliminated from further development due
to technical feasibility considerations, including the inability to
regain sand transported seaward of the perched toe support.

3.09 Beach Restoration: Beach restoration alone would introduce no
new hard structures to the project shoreline. This alternative would
provide upland storm protection, check erosion along the shoreline,
and provide recreational beach area. This plan meets all project
needs and objectives at reasonable cost and is one of the plans
considered in detail. Further discussion of this alternative is found
below.

3.10 Groins: Groins, also referred to locally as jetties, are linear
structures which are constructed perpendicular to the shoreline. They
extend from the back beach area into the water and are designed to
trap sand on the updrift side. This trapped sand, called a "fillet",
acts to some degree to protect back beach areas. Properly placed
groins will reduce or eliminate erosion in the target area, but
increase erosion in adjacent downdrift areas. Construction of a groin
system without the use of the beach fill would not result in any
significant restoration of the shoreline within the project area,
since erosion of beaches and upland property could be expected to
continue. Groins combined with beach restoration would provide a
wider usable beach area, reduce erosion along project beaches, and
mitigate the potential for increased erosion in downdrift beaches.
The groins-with-beach-restoration alternative was considered in detail
as discussed below:

Updated Groins - 35 now groins
- 28 extensions
Authorized - 18 new groins
- 13 extensions

DeveloRment Qf Intermediate Plans

3.11 Based on the comparison of preliminary alternatives, only those
erosion control plans that met the objectives of the authorized plan,
namely, beach restoration and beach restoration with groins, were
carried further into the intermediate-stage evaluation process.

During this stage, the two alternatives-outlined above were further
evaluated using different berm widths of 30, 50, 100, and 150 feet,
EIS-9

all at an elevation of 10 feet above m1w. Two alternative groin plans
were considered, the authorized groin plan and an updated groin plan.
Information developed during this intermediate stage of plan selection
showed that the 30-foot berm plan did not meet the survivability
criteria for coastal shore protection projects set by the Corps
policy; accordingly, the 30-foot berm plan was dropped from further
consideration. Analysis also showed that a berm having an elevation
of 10 feet above mlw would be subject to frequent overtopping. For
this reason storm berm caps of various heights were analyzed as part
of the detailed planning process. Thus, the final evaluation of plans
was limited to those plans providing beach restoration or beach
restoration with groins. Beach widths of 50, 100, and 150 feet at an
elevation of 10 feet above mlw in addition to various berm cap
elevations were evaluated and are discussed in the following sections.

Plans Considerld in Detail

3.12 Beach Restoration: The beach restoration plan (without groins)
considered here is basically the authorized plan updated to 1985
conditions. The design berm elevation is 10 feet above m1w. The
onshore slope is 1 to 10 to the 0 foot mlw contour and the offshore
slope is 1 on j5 to the natural bottom. The design beach slope will
extend approximately 1,000 feet beyond the outer edge of the berm, to
a depth of about 25 feet below m1w. Three options to this alternative
were considered, varying in berm width: 50, 100, and 150 feet. In
places where erosion has caused the shoreline to recede behind the
project baseline, berm widths would be greater in order to insure a
more uniform shorefront. In addition, storm bermcaps of varying
height over the basic 10-foot design berm were considered for an extra
measure of protection against wave overtopping for the selected plan.
Notching of the existing groins was also considered in order to
eliminate interruptions in the littoral process. Sand volumes
required for initial construction of this alternative vary from 13.1
million cubic yards for the 50-foot berm to 22.6 million cubic yards
for the 150-foot berm. Based on risk criteria, nourishment volumes to
be added on a 6-year maintenance schedule amount to 3.7 million cubic
yards for each of the options considered.

3.13 Beach Restoration with Authorized Groins: The first of the two
groin plans in combination with beach restoration is the authorized
plan updated to 1985 conditions. A typical authorized plan groin
profile is shown in Figure 7 in the Main Report. The inshore section,
200 feet in length, has a top elevation of +10 feet MLW. Beyond this,
the top slopes at a grade of 1 on 12 to a minimum top elevation of -1-2
feet MLW, extending to an offshore depth of -2 feet MLW after
placement of beach fill, for a total additional length of about 200
feet. It was proposed that the groins have a crest width of 8 feet
and side slopes of 1 on 1.5. The groins would be constructed on a
bedding layer of stone overlaid on filter cloth. An armor layer of 13
to 10 ton capstone would cover a core of smaller rock.

3.14 The original authorized project included 14 new groins in Sea
Bright, but since two of these groins have been constructed since
project authorization, the updated authorized project allows for
extensions of those groins to achieve the authorized length of 400
feet. One groin, to be constructed in the south end of Sea Bright,
EIS-10

has an authorized length of 450 feet to be consistent with existing
structures in the area. Four new groins were authorized in Monmouth
Beach, two 400 feet long and two 210 feet long. The updated
authorized project makes the length of all of these groins 400 feet.
Long Branch has an authorized 13 groin extensions and two new groins.
Since two groins were constructed in 1959 to within 300 feet of the
authorized length, the two new groins were eliminated in the
authorized dated project. It is proposed to extend one of these
groins at Long Branch to the authorized length of 400 feet in addition
to the remaining 13. Two new groins and one extension are authorized
for Deal and one new groin is authorized for Ocean Township, but since
the combined groin and beach fill alternative includes a feeder beach
at the south end of the project, these groins were eliminated in the
updated authorized proposal.

3.15 The authorized berm width for this alternative is 100 feet, but
widths of 50 and 150 feet were also considered. Sand volumes required
for initial construction of this alternative are comparable to those
for the beach restoration alternative. Periodic nourishment volumes,
however, will be less, about 3.5 million cubic yards every 6 years.
This is due to the sand trapping effect provided by the groins. The
quantity of rock needed for groin construction and extension totals
more than 157,000 tons.

3.16 Beach Restoration with Updated Groin Plan: A second groin plan
was considered because studies showed that the authorized groin
configuration would not afford optimal erosion reduction to the
project shoreline. Low profile groins also will be used for this
plan, but with a somewhat different design. The inshore section would
have a top elevation of +10 feet MLW but will vary in length according
to the berm width selected. Berm widths of 50, 100, and 150 feet were
considered. From the inshore section, the groin would slope at a
grade of 1 on 10 to a height of +5 feet MLW, and continue at that
height to a depth of approximately -4 feet MLW after placement of the
design beach fill. The 5-foot elevation was chosen to provide public
safety to bathers and boaters by being exposed at all normal tide
stages. The groins have crest width of 10 feet and side slopes of 1
on 1.5. The seaward end of the groins would have a 1 on 3 slope.
Total groin lengths would vary from 290 feet for a 50-foot wide berm
to 390 feet for a 150-foot wide berm.

3.17 Groins would be spaced at 450-foot intervals along the project
shoreline from just south of the Long Branch Pier northward to the
northern project limit, a distance of nearly 7 miles. Thirty-five new
groins would be constructed along with 28 groins extensions for a
total complement of 63 groins. A feeder beach placed at the southern
project limit would nourish the beaches south of the groin field as
well as the groin field itself. The initial fill volumes for this
plan will be comparable to those of the other two plans, but periodic
nourishment requirements will be significantly less. The 6-year
nourishment requirement will be 2.4 million cubic yards. Rock
quantities needed for groin construction vary from 177,600 tons for
the 50-foot berm to 381,800 tons for the 100-foot berm.

3.18 Constructable Reaches Evaluation: -Due to the large scale of
this project, construction of any of the final plans will proceed over
EIS-11

a number of years. Although the proposed project estimates assume a
continuous construction schedule over 4 1/2 years, an alternative
project schedule was developed for costing purposes that breaks the
project down into discrete components, or separate constructable
reaches. This alternative was developed in order to take account of
possible delays in construction sequencing or project budgeting. The
main constraint in the construction schedule is the capacity to dredge
and distribute sand along the project reaches. Constructable reaches
can function on their own but remain compatible with the overall
construction plan of the entire Sea Bright to Ocean Township project.
Three reaches have been designated for the 12-mile project area.
Reach 1 covers Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach; Reach 2 includes Long
Beach south to Lake Takanassee; and Reach 3 covers the area from Lake
Takanassee to the Deal Lake outlet. Reach 1 is additionally
subdivided: Reach 1A contains Monmouth Beach and the part of Sea
Bright south of the Sea Bright-Rumson Bridge; and Reach 1B covers the
northern part of Sea Bright.

3.19 The preferred project schedule is construction generally from
north to south with Reach 1 being the first increment, since this is
the most eroded and vulnerable shoreline of the project. Reach 1A
would be constructed first, followed by Reach 1B in northern Sea
Bright. Reach 1A would require a temporary feeder beach until the
final phase, Reach 3, constructed at the south end of the project
area. The preferred plan calls for a single feeder beach at the south
end of the project, from the Deal Lake outlet northward to Deal, to
nourish project beaches between periodic maintenance operations.

3.20 The separate constructable reaches plan differs from the
proposed plan primarily in having feeder beaches for each of the
constructable reaches rather than only one at the southern project
limit. Thus, for each of the final plans considered, feeder beaches
would be placed at Monmouth Beach to nourish Reach 1, at Long Branch
north of Lake Takanassee to nourish Reach 2, and at the southern
project limit to nourish Reach 3. This allows each constructable
reach to perform independently of any other. Under the groin plans,
any groins scheduled in the overall plan for these feeder beach
stretches would be deleted in the separate constructable reaches plan.
It is assumed that groins will be built in feeder beach areas when arid
if construction of updrift reaches are completed.

3.21 Project Details: The following items have all been incorporated
into the design of each of the final project plans: feeder beaches;
advance fill; and storm berm caps. Feeder beaches are needed to
compensate for littoral drift deficit at the south (updrift) end of
the project area. The calculations used in estimating the littoral
drift potential in the project area led to the design of feeder
beaches that will increase the project berm width by approximately 90
feet in the immediate area where they will be placed.

3.22 Advance fill is needed in addition to feeder beaches to
compensate for the increasing rate of littoral drift within the
project area. Advance fill is a sacrificial quantity of sand placed
on the beach in addition to the design fill quantity. The advance
fill will be placed along the entire project length and add another 2:3
feet of width to the design project berm. Due to the increased
EIS-12

efficiency of the reduced maintenance groin plan, the beaches in the
groin fields will not require advance fill; however, the areas not
protected by the groins will require advance fill.

3.23 Because of the risk of wave overtopping with the authorized 10-
foot (MLW) berm height, the addition of a storm cap was investigated.
By increasing the design berm height to 12 feet, frequent scour damage
by overtopping waves would be reduced. This 2-foot storm cap over the
10-foot authorized berm height was found to help preserve the integri-
ty of the project features at relatively little additional cost, and
was included in the final selected plan.

3.24 In addition to feeder beaches, advance fill, groin notching and
a 2-foot berm cap, a 15* tolerance was added to the design fill
volumes to give a one-foot construction tolerance. An overfill volume
was also added, based on the suitability of the borrow material, to
arrive at the total initial fill volume for all of the final plans.
Scheduled maintenance sand volumes were also increased as a result of
a maintenance fill risk analysis. Based on the projection of the
historic sea level rise, the additional risk analysis fill is
sufficient*to compensate for sea level rise for all berm heights
considered. A final consideration for project construction concerns
existing drainage outfalls along the 12-mile project shoreline.
Forty-four outfalls must be extended to accommodate the proposed berm
and feeder beaches: 7 in Reach 1; 9 in Reach 2; and 28 in Reach 3.
The 50-foot berm width would require outfall extensions in Reach 3
only.

3.25 Project Costs and Benefits: The cross comparison of annual
benefits and costs for the entire project is presented in Table 6 of
the Main Report. The 100-foot berm fill-only plan has a B/C (benefit-
to-cost) ratio of 1.71. The B/C ratio of the 150-foot berm fill-only
plan is 1.52. Project implementation by constructable reaches
significantly increases project construction cost.

3.26 Comparative Impacts of Alternatives: The fill-only alternative
will introduce no new hard structures to the project shoreline, and
therefore is most compatible with changing coastal conditions. It
will have the effect of restoring historical rates of littoral drift
reaching Sandy Hook, without the potential of interrupting that flow.
The two groin alternatives, on the other hand, will mean a substantial
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources to establish
extended groin fields within the project area. While the groins will
be constructed in conjunction with fill placement, they have the
potential to disturb sediment transport in the project area with
possible adverse consequences for Sandy Hook.

3.27 Plans with the 50-foot berm will have fewer adverse impacts
relative to the other berm widths. Engineering considerations of
project survivability rate the 50-foot berm unsatisfactory. However,
its environmental impact is less than the larqer-scale projects. The
50-foot berm plan will reduce the need for offshore borrow material,
reducing the size and depth of offshore borrow areas. Other
environmental considerations are equivalent for the three berm widths.
The environmentally preferred plan is the fill-only alternative with a
50-foot wide berm.
EIS-13

3.28 Selected Plan: Engineering considerations of project
survivability led to the rejection of the 50-foot berm plans. The two
groin alternatives, authorized groins and optimal groins, were found
to provide no benefits to Sandy Hook, and were less economical;
therefore they were rejected. Groins are considered less acceptable
environmentally because they are hard structures that may disrupt
natural shore processes. The 100-foot berm fill-only plan optimizes
benefits among the plans considered most acceptable from engineering
and environmental stand-points. This plan offers the greatest net
economic benefit consistent with protecting the Nation's environment
and is therefore designated the National Economic Development Plan.
It will help restore historical littoral drift rates reaching Sandy
Hook, thus alleviating chronic erosion on Sandy Hook beaches and
helping to maintain their environmental quality. It is also the
selected plan, with an annual cost of $21.4 million and annual benefit
of $36.7 million.

3.29. Borrow Area Alternatives: Sediment suitability surveys of the
offshore region showed concentrations of good quality beach-grade sand
in the area off Sandy Hook and in discrete patches off the coast from
Belmar to Sea Girt. The proposed borrow areas are those sites most
suitable that are closest to the project area. To limit potential
impacts on coastal processes, the 30-foot MLW line is the inshore
boundary; engineering constraints place the offshore limit at 60-feet
MLW. Any potential cultural resource sites have been avoided, as have
topographic features that may attract marine biota. The scarcity of
suitable offshore sand deposits limits the options for selecting
borrow areas. The quantity of sand needed for project construction
precludes the consideration of upland borrow sources.

3.30 Dredge Alternatives: Alternatives for dredging and deposition
of project sand will be determined by the distance of the borrow areas
to the proposed project sites. To minimize costs, the borrow area
closest to each project reach will be used. The Sandy Hook borrow
area will be used for Reaches 1 and 2, and the Belmar borrow areas
will be used for Reach 3. Reach 1B, nearest to the Sandy Hook borrow
area, is close enough to make a 27-inch hydraulic pipeline dredge
economically feasible. For Reach 1A and the other project reaches, a
hopper dredge with pump-out capacity must be used. Use of either
dredging method is expected to have acceptable environmental impacts.
The large quantity of sand needed for the selected plan, nearly 18
million cubic yards, requires 4-1/2 full dredging seasons for
completion of project construction.

3.31 Mitigation Measures: Good engineering practices will, in most
instances minimize adverse environmental impacts from the pro-
posed project. Use of large-grain-size sand will minimize short-term
water quality and sedimentation impacts. While adverse impacts to
marine biota are not expected to be significant, pre- and post-
construction monitoring programs have been scheduled to confirm these
expectations and to aid in the designation and use of borrow areas for
periodic beach nourishment. In areas where the reconstructed beach
berm is much wider than the authorized 100 feet, additional treatment
of the excess width may provide habitat to regionally sensitive
nesting colonial shorebirds. Recommendations made by concerned
EIS-14

0 agencies are discussed in Section 6 of the EIS.

EIS-15

4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Environmental Conditions

4.01 The project area, Sea Bright to Ocean Township, is a 12-mile
length of ocean frontage in Monmouth County, in east-central New
Jersey. It is part of a larger authorized beach erosion control
project, covering the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey from Sandy Hook to
Barnegat Inlet, which stretches a total of 51 miles along the northern
half of New Jersey's Atlantic Coast. The immediate project area,
identified as Section I, encompasses all shore areas from the southern
boundary of Sandy Hook south to the Deal Lake outlet at the northern
border of Asbury Park. This section includes the following six
municipalities, north to south: Sea Bright; Monmouth Beach; Long
Branch; Deal; Allenhurst; and Loch Arbor, in Ocean Township.

4.02 The Borough of Sea Bright and the northern portion of the
Borough of Monmouth Beach occupy a barrier peninsula, the northern
terminus of which is-Sandy Hook, a unit of the Gateway National
RecreationArea. The barrier peninsula, including the ocean beach,
separates Shrewsbury River, which has a Federal navigation project,
from the Atlantic Ocean. The barrier peninsula is relatively narrow,
generally less than 1,000 feet wide, and has an elevation of about 5
to 10 feet above mean sea level (msl). South of the peninsula, the
rest of the project area lies within the headland portion of the
mainland coastal plain. This area of low bluffs has been eroded by
wind and waves during the recent geologic past, and the erosion
continues to the present. The bluffs immediately adjoining the ocean
range in elevation from 10 to 25 feet above msl. Two coastal ponds,
Lake Takanassee and Deal Lake, and the Poplar Brook drainage have
controlled outlets directly entering the Atlantic ocean in the
southern portion of the project area.

4.03 The project shoreline, while naturally a sandy berm and beach,
has been highly modified as a result of intensive human development
and concomitant measures to control erosion forces. Erosion has
nevertheless narrowed most of the project beaches, exposing shoreline
development to storm damage. In the barrier portion of the project
the beach, if present, is backed_by a seawall. Further south
variations of riprap construction and bulkheads protect the bluffs and
adjacent shoreline development. In addition, a wide variety of stone
and timber groins have been constructed all along the project shore.
Upland areas have been almost totally committed to residential and
commercial development. only a single length of little more than
2,000 feet retains some semblance of a natural shoreline, with dunes
backing the ocean, berm and beach. This is the area of Seven
Presidents County Park and North End Beach Club in North Long Beach.

4.04 Geologically, the project area lies in the Atlantic coastal
plain province. In Monmouth County, this consists of layers of sands,
gravels, marls, and clays deposited during the Cretaceous and Tertiary
Periods (roughly 1 to 135 million years ago). These sediments are
frequently overlain by Quarternary deposits and are exposed directly
to ocean wave attack south of Monmouth Beach. From that point north,
they are protected by the barrier beach. The submerged coastal plain
EIS-16

or.continental shelf is a flat sandy plain sloping moderately
southeastward for almost 100 miles to the steeply declining
continental slope. The surface of the shelf has an undulating
topography of broad swells and shallow depressions approximately
parallel to the present shoreline. over the past geologic ages the
shoreline has migrated many times across the 150 miles of coastal
plain province. successive sedimentary formations were deposited,
exposed to erosion, submerged again, and buried by younger sediments.
Pleistocene formations were deposited in valleys cut into older
formations as the sea rose and fell between points many miles seaward
and landward of the present shoreline. The existing beach line was
formed as sea the level experienced its most recent rise.

4.05 The geologic formations of the coastal plain dip toward the
south east with successively younger formations aligned to the south.
At the northerly portion of the study area near the Navesink
Highlands, Tilton loam and Red Bank sand appear at the surface.
Cemented ironstone, resulting from the infiltration of iron oxide, has
resisted erosion and resulted in hills standing as landmarks almost
300 feet above the ocean. From Monmouth Beach to North Long Branch
lies a bed of glauconite mixed with sand and clay termed Hornerstown
marl. A conspicuous feature of this formation is the shell topping
which has been observed at numerous localities. Through the city of
Loong Branch as far south as Lake Takanassee the Vincentown sand
outcrops. This formation has two facies, a calacareous or lime-sand
phase and a glauconite quartz-sand phase. The two may occur in
alternate layers; however, the latter is more common in the study
area. From Lake Takanassee to Deal Lake, the Manasquan and Shark
River marls appear. These formations are similar in content,
consisting generally of a mixture of glauconite with greenish-white
clay or light-colored earth. The barrier peninsula in the northern
portion of the project area is an elongate sandy spit of recent age
that extends northward from the coastal headlands and separates the
Navesink highlands from the Atlantic Ocean.

4.06 Waves approach the project area from a southward orientation
relative to the shoreline, generating a prevailing northward longshore
current that carries with it littoral drift that has resulted in the
formation of the barrier peninsula in the north. Longshore sand
quantities passing the northern project limit at Sea Bright average
about 350,000 cubic yards per year, while quantities leaving the
northern tip of Sandy Hook are almost 500,000 cubic yards per year.
The deficit of 150,000 cubic yards of littoral drift is made up by
erosion of the Sandy Hook beaches in an area that has come to be known
as the critical zone. The average wave height in the project area is
approximately 1.5 feet while storm waves may reach heights of 6 feet
or more. Tides on the New Jersey Coast are semi-diurnal. The mean
tide level for the Sea Bright area is 2.2 feet above mean low water
(mlw). The mean tidal range is 4.8 feet and the spring tidal range
reaches 5.3 feet.

4.07 Prevailing winds on a seasonal basis are from the south from
April through September and from the west from October through March
Most winds are of moderate velocity (14 to 28 miles per hour) and
winds of greater velocities (29 miles per hour and over) are usually
from the northeast. Hurricanes, formed in tropical latitudes, are
EIS-17

the most destructive storms affecting the Atlantic Coast, but
extratropical storms, which blow from the east or northeast and are
known locally as "northeasters," can be nearly as destructive, and are
particularly effective in eroding beaches. From 1938 to the present 5
hurricanes and 4 extratropical storms have had an impact on the
project shoreline.

4.08 The climate of the project area is dominated by continental air
masses directed by the westerly winds of the mid-latitudes, but the
Atlantic coastal waters superimpose a moderating influence. The
average annual temperature, as measured at John F. Kennedy Interna-
tional Airport, New York is 52 degrees F, with extremes of -14 degrees
F and 104 degrees F. Relative humidity is high, averaging about 70%.
The average annual precipitation at Sandy Hook is approximately 45
inches. The distribution of precipitation throughout the year is
rather uniform, with a slightly higher amount during the summer
months. Most of the rainfall from June through September comes from
showers, and therefore is brief but relatively intense. From October
to April precipitation is generally associated with widespread storm
areas, so day-long rain or snow is common.

4.09 The affected environment of the project area includes the
shoreline and immediate upland areas, as well as three offshore bottom
areas proposed for sand borrow: one large area off Sandy Hook; and
two smaller areas off Belmar and Sea Girt, about 6 miles south of the
project's landward limits. The project shore has an average berm
height of 10.2 feet above mlw and an average berm width of approxi-
mately 23 feet. The onshore slope averages 1 vertical to 10 horizon-
tal, while'the offshore slope averages 1 to 38. The proposed borrow
areas have thick sand layers on the ocean bottom and range from 0.5 to
3.0 nautical miles offshore in water depths of from 30 to 60 feet
below m1w.

4.10 Water quality conditions in the project area are affected by
effluents leaving New York Harbor as well as by local drainage and
sewer outfalls emptying into the ocean. With occasional exceptions,
project beaches meet all standards for primary cont'act recreation.
The waters of the Sandy Hook borrow area are condemned for shellfish
harvesting but are otherwise adequate for all marine water uses. The
two southern borrow areas, which are more distant form New York Harbor
influences, are located in waters that meet shellfish harvesting
standards, the highest classifi-cation for marine waters.

4.11 Upland habitats in the project area are restricted to the
vicinity of Seven Presidents County Park in North Long Branch. Sandy
Hook, which harbors a variety of upland and coastal habitats, lies to
the north (down-drift) of the project area. The eroded project area
beaches are a highly disturbed environment that offer little in terms
of natural habitat. Offshore, the borrow areas provide habitat for
organisms characteristic of sandy ocean bottoms. Low populations of
surf clams have been found in the Sandy Hook borrow area and relative-
ly higher concentrations have been found in the southern borrow areas.
Areas of high-use recreational fisheries, including portions of the
three proposed borrow areas, have been noted in the near-offshore
region between Sandy Hook and Manasquan Inlet.

EIS-18

4.12 There are no known prehistoric sites within the limits of either
theonshore or offshore portions of the project area. Sites dating
from the Late Archaic, approximately 6,000 to 3,000 years Before
Present (B.P.), through the Middle Woodland (2,500 to 1000 B.P.)
periods have been identified to the west of the project area.
Isolated prehistoric artifacts have been recovered from the
continental shelf to the south of the proposed sand borrow area. A
number of historic sites are located in the general project area.
4.13 Except for Seven Presidents County Park, the project area is
completely developed with residential and commercial land uses and
private beach clubs. Of the 12 miles of beaches in the project area,
about 3 miles are currently in public ownership, most of them in the
city of Long Branch. Long Branch also has the most concentrated
development in the project area, with a highly developed
commercial/recreational beachfront and multi-story residential
buildings nearby. The other municipalities are lower-density seaside
communities with a mixture of seasonal and year-round traditional
beach houses and modern condominiums. The Borough of Deal is an
exception in that it contains large homes of high value on sizable
properties atop the coastal bluffs. The total year-round population
of the six municipalities in the project area is about 40,000,
with Long Branch alone accounting for more than 30,000. Seasonal
populations are considerably greater.

Significant Resources

4.14 Water Quality: Water quality concerns are applicable to three
geographical regions within the project area: coastal beaches;
the Sandy Hook borrow area; and the Belmar borrow area, northeast and
southwest. The coastal beaches all meet water quality standards for
primary contact recreation, but as a result of heavy coastal
development, nearshore waters are closed to shellfish harvesting. In
Sea Bright the shellfish closure zone extends to three nautical miles
from the shoreline; in the rest of the project area, and continuing
south to Spring Lake, the shellfish closure zone extends 1.5 nautical
miles from the shoreline.

4.15 Coastal waters in the northern part of the project area are
affected by effluents leaving New York Harbor, but elsewhere local
drainage and sewage outfalls have an impact on coastal water quality.
Five local and regional sewage outfalls are distributed along the
project shoreline with a combined design flow of about 31 million
gallons per day (mgd). In addition, two outfalls along Sandy Hook
have a combined output of about 7 mgd and the Asbury Park outfall,.
just south of the project shoreline, has a design flow of 5.5 mgd.
Regional water quality monitoring by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) confirm the overall adequacy of the project coastal
waters in meeting ocean bathing standards. occasional incidences of
lowered water quality are usually related to high levels of pollutants
leaving New York Harbor or overloading of sewage treatment plants, but
only rarely are water quality conditions degraded to the point of
necessitating beach closure, and then usually only for a short-term
period. In 1986, all project beaches were open for swimming all
summer with the exception of the area arbund Chelsea Avenue in Long
Branch, which seemed to have an ongoing discharge of storm water
EIS-19

contaminated by fecal coliform bacteria from an unknown source.

4.16 The Sandy Hook borrow area lies on the north side of the
immediate project shoreline, and is geographically associated with
several known sources of possible contamination, 1) the background
outflow of waters from the New York City Harbor, (4 miles to the
north), 2) the dump sites directly offshore of the Sandy Hook
Highlands area, namely, the Dredge Material Dumping Site, the Cellar
Dirt Dump Site and the Sewage Sludge Dump Site (4-10 miles to the
east) 3) the Bayshore Regional Outfall System of Monmouth County (on
the southwest corner). Studies indicate that despite the proximity of
these pollution sources, the waters at the Sandy Hook borrow area
retain relatively good quality. The site is located in the closure
zone for shellfish harvesting that surrounds the mouth of New York
Harbor, but regular monitoring shows that water quality conditions at
the borrow area typically meet shellfishing standards. There is no
record of contamination in any of the borrow area sediments, and there
are no long-term water quality concerns that would restrict use of
those sediments for beach nourishment. Periods of degraded water
quality, such as low dissolved oxygen or high coliform bacteria, have
been recorded on occasion, but these are typically regional phenomena,
not limited to the Sandy Hook borrow area, and are short-term in
nature. Studies by the New York City Department of Environmental
Protection have indicated a 15-year trend of improvement in the
quality of the waters of New York Harbor, and the recent completion of
two new sewage treatment plants in Manhattan and Brooklyn promise
additional improvement in this major regional pollution source. As a
result, water quality conditions in the Sandy Hook borrow area are
expected to remain the same or improve somewhat within the foreseeable
future.

4.17 The two southern borrow areas, Belmar northeast and Belmar,
southwest, are located approximately 2 miles offshore of the South
Monmouth Regional Sewage Outfall, and are otherwise well removed from
any known pollution source. These borrow areas are located in waters
that are approved for and meet, shellfish harvesting standards, the
most stringent marine water quality classification. Rare events, such
as the low dissolved oxygen episode in 1976 that covered more than
3,000 square miles of the New York Bight, temporarily degrade the
waters of the Belmar borrow areas, but water quality conditions are
otherwise excellent. Borrow area sediments have been found to be
clean sand suitable for beach nourishment, and there are no serious
water quality concerns regarding these sites.

4.18 Coastal Biological Resources: The major resources of the
project shoreline are the beaches and coastal ponds stretching from
Sea Bright to the Deal Lake outlet at Ocean Township. Although
coastal areas are among the most productive and critical areas for
fish and wildlife resources, beaches are often biologically
impoverished and support only those only those species able to cope
with constantly changing ocean conditions. Beaches can generally be
divided into upper, middle and lower zones. The upper zone, extending
from dune areas to just above the high water line is dry except during
storm events or extra high tides. Ghost crabs and sand fleas make up
a major portion of the fauna. Where human disturbance is not
significant, this zone (along with the middle zone) provides nesting
EIS-20

and feeding areas for shore birds. Due to extensive development in
the project area, natural dunes have been greatly diminished. A few
remaining dunes occur near Long Branch. Influenced by tidal fluctu-
ations, the middle beach zone is often submerged and animals are more
susceptible to desiccation. Few species occur here. However, there
may be large numbers of adapted species. These include various
copepods, ciliates, tardigrades, gastrotrichs and turbellarians. In
addition, amphipods, annelid worms, small clams and mole crabs, as
well as other molluscs and crustaceans, can be expected to inhabit
this zone.

4.19 Naturally occurring rocky intertidal zones are absent from the
project area. However, man-made structures such as seawalls, jetties,
groins and bulkheads occur and provide a substitute habitat.
Barnacles, small crustaceans, polychaetes and molluscs occur on and
around these structures. The mussel, Mytilus is a dominant member of
this community. Fish such as flounder, common sea bass and striped
bass may use the areas with structures for feeding and shelter. Thus,
the relatively low productivity of sandy beach is supplemented by the
jetty-groin system.

4.20 The affected shoreline environment includes subtidal areas down
to 25 feet below m1w, taking the shallowest portion of the nearshore
zone, which extends approximately to the 90-foot depth contour. This
permanently inundated marine habitat hosts a large variety of bottom-
dwelling organisms, including those not able to withstand the periodic
desiccation of the beach zones. Phytoplankton in this zone are an
important food source for filter-feeding bivalves, and the faunal list
includes commercially important shellfish species. The inshore
portion of the nearshore zone is periodically affected by the scour of
high-energy storm waves, interrupting the generally stable conditions
of this ocean habitat as well as the successional stages of benthic
fauna development associated with it.

4.21 In addition to the ocean shoreline, habitats are found in two
coastal ponds within the project area, Lake Takanassee in southern
Long Branch, and Deal Lake at the southern limit of the project.
These linear ponds have controlled outlets, but Deal Lake experiences
some tidal fluctuation. These outlets have been recently renovated
and the NJDEP has installed an anadramous fish ladder in the Lake
Takanassee outlet. The fish ladder is intended to permit access to
the pond by anadramous fishes, such as blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis)* Presumably, Deal Lake has always remained somewhat
accessible to anadramous fishes. Lake Takanassee is a freshwater body
while Deal Lake is brackish near the outlet but mostly freshwater in
its inland extensions, up to 2 miles from the outlet. Freshwater fish
species that may be found in these ponds would be typical of urban and
suburban coastal environments, for example: American eel (Anguilla
rostrata); goldfish (Carassius auratus); carp (QMrinus carRio);
shiners (NotrgRis spp.); bullhead (Ictalurus sp.); bluegill sunfish
(LeRomis macrochirus); and largemouth bass (MicrgRterus salmoides).

4.22 Borrow Area Biological Resources: The significant resources of
the proposed borrow areas are the benthos (bottom fauna) and fin-
fisheries. The borrow areas lie in the nearshore zone which extends
from a depth of about 2 meters to the 30-meter contour. Phytoplankton
EIS-21

in this zone are an important food source for filter-feeding bivalves.
A sand fauna community is found in the proposed borrow area sediments.
Polychaete worms (mostly SRiORhanes bombyx and PrionosRio malmgreni)
are the most numerous macrobenthic organisms, but bivalves often
dominate in terms of biomass. The most important bivalve species are
the surf clam (SRisula solidissima), the tellin ITellinA agilis), and
the razor clam (Enis directus). in addition there are gastropods,
amphipods, isopods, sand dollars, starfish, and decapod crustaceans.
Common decapod species include blue claw crab, (Callinectes saRidus),
American lobster (Humarus americanus), rock crab (Cancer irroratus),
hermit crab (Paggrus longicarpus), and lady or calico crab (OvaliRes
ocellatusl. Several benthic species in the near-shore zone are
commercially exploited, including the surf clam, rock clam and the
American lobster. The offshore surf clam fishery is the single most
valuable fishery in the region covering New York, New Jersey,
Delaware, Naryland and Viriginia (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986).
The diverse benthic fauna provides food for demersal fish species.
The nearshore area provides a migratory pathway and a spawning
mackerel, feeding and nursery area for many species common to the mid-
Atlantic region. Important recreational species include black sea
bass, summer and winter flounder, weakfish, bluefish, red and silver
hake and Atlantic mackerel. Commonly occurring commercial species
include bluefish, weakfish, Atlantic mackerek, American shad, Atlantic
menhaden and the American lobster.

4.23 Shipwrecks and artificial reefs in the nearshore zone provide
habitat for attaching organisms not found on sandy bottoms. Within
the project area 14 shipwrecks exist within one mile of the shore.
Shipwrecks and aritficial reefs provide shelter for fish and
invertebrates. Hydroids, sponges, barnacles, mussels, polychaetes,
crabs and lobsters are some of the organisms expected to use
shipwrecks, artificial reef structures and irregular bottoms.
Atlantic cod, pollock, hake and black sea bass are among the common
species associated with this high profiles and thus, these areas are
important to both recreational and commercial fisheries.

4.24 Shellfish resources within the three proposed borrow areas were
surveyed in 1985. As noted in Sections 4.13-4.16 above, shellfish
resources in the Sandy Hook borrow area are closed to commerical
harvest whereas those in the two Belmar borrow areas are in waters
approved for commercial shellfishing. In none of the three borrow
areas were high densities of surf clams found. The Sandy Hook borrow
area had minimal surf clam concentrations. The two Belmar sites had
relatively greater surf clam numbers, but these were at best only
marginal from the stand-point of commercial harvest. In addition,
juvenile surf clams and 17 other taxa, including bottom fishes, were
recovered in grab samples within the borrow areas. These specimens
were of commonly occurring species in New Jersey coastal waters, and
did not distinguish the proposed borrow areas in diversity or
abundance from other neighboring sandy bottom habitats. This is a
community that if disturbed is usually readily re-established through
in-migration and/or setting of larval stages during the reproductive
periods.

EIS-22

4.25 A number of important recreational and commerical fisheries are
found along the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey. The Bureau of Marine
Fisheries of NJDEP conducted a fishing use survey of the project area
in the slimmer of 1987 to ascertain the extent of commercial and
recreational fishing within the proposed borrow sites. Their survey,
which covered an area stretching from Sandy Hook to Manasquan Inlet,
consisted of a questionnaire circulated to 111 charter and party boat
captains and 138 commercial fisherman/shellfishermen. Survey results
based on data from 91 respondents, show the several areas within the
proposed borrow sites support high-use recreational fisheries.
Specifically, the inshore portion of the Sandy Hook borrow area and,
secondarily, the two Belmar borrow areas were indicated as having high
recreational fishing use for such species as fluke, striped bass,
weakfish, and bluefish. While its nearness to the New York/New Jersey
metropolitan area raises the importance of the northeast New Jersey
recreational marine fishery, the survey did not identify the proposed
borrow areas as uniquely important habitats. Only one site in the
survey area stood out, that being the Shrewsbury Rocks, a natural rock
reef offshore of Monmouth Beach. To a lesser extent, heavy fisherman
use was made of areas in the north closest to the mouth of New York
Harbor, in inshore waters the length of the survey area, and in a
patchily distributed area offshore between Shark River Inlet on
the north and Manasquan Inlet on the south. Collectively, the
proposed borrow areas occupy a negligible fraction of the high-use
recreational fishing area along the northeast New Jersey coast.

4.26 Gateway National Recreation Area - Sandy Hook Unit: Sandy Hook
is the terminal 6 miles of barrier spit that stretches northward from
recreational coastal headland portion of Monmouth Beach. As a unit of
Gateway National Recreation Area, it is managed by the National Park
Service for natural resource management and recreational purposes.
Although Sandy Hook, itself, is not within the project limits, it Will
be affected by any action along the beach to the south, since the
project beaches are the source of sand that maintains Sandy Hook and
its beaches. Based on wave refraction studies of the proposed Sandy
Hook borrow area; no change to the wave climate acting on the beaches
at Sandy Hook is expected.

4.27 Because of its position on a coastal peninsula and because it
remains largely undeveloped, Sandy Hook contains a variety of biota
that is unique to the northern New Jersey coast. Its ocean beaches,
unlike those of the project area, are backed by vegetated dunes,
providing habitat for nesting shorebirds and other terrestrial
wildlife. Back dune thickets and forests create a diveristy of
habitats not known anywhere else along the New Jersey coast. On the
bayside of Sandy Hook are salt marshes and other estuarine habitats
that provide calmer and more stable conditions than the oceanside.
Sandy Hook's water quality, as that of northern project area in
general, is heavily influenced by the outflow from New York Harbor;
nevertheless, the ocean waters remain suitable for recreational
bathing, and the beaches, which are the largest and most accessible in
northern New Jersey,, also host the greatest number of visitors in the!
region.

EIS-23

4.28 Although Sandy Hook has high natural resource and recreational
values, like the project area it suffers from a chronic erosion
problem. The southern bathing beaches in particular are undergoing
severe erosion. Many dune areas have been washed away and one area,
termed the "critical zone", may be subject to breaching and inlet
formation. Causes of this erosion are both natural (shortage of sand
in the transport system) and man-made ( the system of coastal
protection structures to the south). Periodic deposits of sand from
various sources, such as harbor channel dredging, have forestalled the
threat of a breach in the critical zone, but there has been no long-
term solution to the problem.

4.29 Threatened and Endangered Species: There are no threatened or
endangered species within the 12-mile long project shoreline or within
the sandy bottom of the proposed borrow areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, letter dated September 23, 1987). Sandy Hook, however, hosts
a number of designated nesting shorebird species. The Federally
threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and State endangered
least tern (Sterna albifrons) annually nest along the ocean beach and
dunes. The State endangered black skimmer (RvnchORs nigra also nest
at Sandy Hook, but less regularly. Historical records show that the
Federally endangered roseated tern (Sterna dougalli) nested in small
numbers along the New Jersey coast, but the last record for Sandy Hook
was of a possible nesting in 1976. A State endangered plant species,
caudate wormwood fArtemisia candatA) grows abundantly in Sandy Hook in
interdune swales. Two Federally designated sea turtles, the
endangered leatherback and the threatened loggerhead, are known to
occur in the nearshore waters of the New York Bight on a seasonal
basis, and may be found within the proposed borrow areas during the
summer months. The Federally endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle may
also occur within the project area. They are known to occur in
shallow bays where benthic organisms provide a major food source,
however, their movements through nearshore waters are poorly
understood and information about their disribution is known almost
exclusively through standings (National Marine Fisheries Service,
letter dated December 30, 1987). Referenced letters are included in
the Pertinent Correspondence Appendix following the Main Report.

4.30 Recreation: Located within reach of the New York/New Jersey
metropolitan area, the northern New Jersey coast receives heavy
seasonal recreational use. Sandy Hook, with the largest public beach
in the area, accommodates over 2 million visits a year, the vast
majority of then beach visits. Belmar, a community south of the
project area with a relatively large public beach, receives nearly 1
million beach visits each year. By contrast, the 12-mile long project
area, Sea Bright to Ocean Township, handles fewer than 500,000 beach
visits per year. The relatively low beach use in the project area is
due to the more restricted access and fewer amenities in addition to
the generally poorer condition of the beaches when compared to nearby
areas.

EIS-24

4.31 Cultural Resources: In 1985, a Cultural Resource Reconnaissance
was conducted for the Corps in order to locate and assess the
significance of historic and archaeological properties in the onshore
portion of the project area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1985). The
Reconnaissance also evaluated the potential for submerged cultural
resources, such as shipwrecks ans archaeological sites, in the
offshore borrow area. Predictive models for archaeological sites,
were developed for the onshore project area and focused on the
relationship between sea level rise, shoreline transgression, and
reconstructed land use patterns. The Reconnaissance Report concluded
that the active barrier island complex in the northern portion of the
project area, where sedimentation could have protected sites prior to
shoreline transgression, however, field reconnaissance of the onshore
project area and examination of exposed stratigraphy documented
extensive disturbance of the present shoreline due to erosion, deep
ocean scour, and residential and commerical development.
The reconnaissance did not locate intact archaeological properties and
no areas, in which undisturbed cultural deposits warranting further
testing might be present, were identified. The Cultural resource
reports for this project are on file with the New York District and
the office of the New Jersey SHPO.

4.32 Inundation of the offshore portion of the project area is
estimated to have occurred between 7,000 and 4,000 B.P. Prior to and
during this period, the Reconnaissance Report postulated that during
time of lower sea level the offshore study areas would have included
bay, riverine, and headland environments. A predictive model
suggested that these ecological zones would have been attractive to
prehistoric populations. Coring data from the offshore borrow areas
indicated that lagoonal conditions existed at the east of Sandy Hook,
within the northern offshore study area. The slow accumulation of
lagoonal sediments resulting from sea level rise may have preserved
evidence of prehistoric occupation. Modern shorelines and barrier
island complexes began forming approximately 4000 B.P. As these
complexes developed, ocean scour and erosion would have disturbed
surface sites. The Reconnaissance Report concluded that the offshore
zone had a relatively high potential for the preservation of any
prehistoric sites protected by the thick layers of sediments.

4.33 Inundated historic period terrestrial sites were not expected -to
survive shoreline erosion processes. Recent attempts to control beach
erosion have increased the depth of oceanfront scour within the
project area. These geomorphological processes further reduced the
likelihood that surface or slightly buried historic properties were
preserved. Documentary reconstruction of historic land use patterns
argues against the probability that deeply buried deposits or very
substantial structures were present in the project area. No evidence
for intact historic resources was encountered during the field
reconnaissance. A number of historic structure and potential historic
districts were identified adjacent to the project area, well outside
the zone of project impacts. The Report found two, potentially

EIS-25

National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) eligible properties closer
to the project area. These are the Lake Takananssee Lifesaving
Complex and the Monmouth Beach Bath and Tennis Club. The seawall and
groin complex adjacent to the Monmouth Beach Bath and Tennis Club were
found to contribute to the property's historic value.

4.34 The Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report collated data on the
location of known shipwrecks and obstructions. Within the limits of
the proposed sand borrow areas, known wrecks clustered north of the
Shrewsbury Rocks. Other shipwrecks were located throughout the study
areas without any consistent pattern. Taking these data into account,
areas known to have wrecks were eliminated from further consideration
as sand sources. However, the Reconnaissance Report also concluded
that there was a strong probability that other shipwrecks, for which
it was not possible to define a location, existed within the offshore
study areas. The report recommended that an intensive remote sensing
survey be conducted in order to identify and assess any submerged
cultural properties, once the boundaries of the borrow areas were
determined.

4.35 On the basis of remote sensing data and geological coring, three
offshore areas containing materials suitable for beach nourishment
were identified. The northern area was located to the east of Sandy
Hook, north of the Navesink River. Two smaller potential borrow
areas, located at the south end of the project area, were called
Belmar N.E. and Belmar S.W. (Figure 7 in the Main Report). A Remote
Sensing Survey of these three areas was conducted (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1986). Side scan sonar, magnetometer and subbottom profiler
were utilized to test for submerged cultural resources. Survey lines
were spaced at 30 meter intervals to provide 100% coverage of the
borrow areas. Positioning was recorded with a Mini-Ranger microwave
range positioning system. The Cultural resource reports prepared for
this project are on file with the New York District and Office of the
New Jersey SHPO.

4.36 Three anomalies were encountered during the Remote Sensing
Survey in the northern borrow area. They were identified as being a
sewer outfall pipe, an anchor and chain, and a discontinuous strip
comprised of patches of rough topography. The latter is interpreted
as being materials and sediments dumped from barges or dredges on
route to the authorized dump site located a few miles to the east.
Anomalous geological formations identified as buried clay strata were
also found within the northern borrow area. These strata may be
continuous with nearby clay deposits radio carbon dated to 4800 to
1600 B.P. The Remote Sensing Report concluded that the clays may
represent lagoonal sodimentation anticipated by the Reconnaissance
Report. It is possible that evidence for prehistoric settlement has
been preserved below these deposits. While none of the discovered
anomalies were considered by the Corps to be eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), all of these zones in
which they were encountered have been eliminated as sources of borrow
material.

EIS-26

5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

5.01 Water Quality: There will be short-term adverse water quality
impacts during the construction period of this project. Dredging the
proposed borrow areas will generate turbidity and sedimentation
impacts within the immediate vicinity of the operation, but the
generally large grain size of the material will keep the area of
impact small and will ensure that there are no impacts beyond the
period of construction. Because the construction period will last a
minimum of four years, however, localized water quality impacts will
be experienced in one or the other of the proposed borrow areas for
that duration. Similar short-term water quality impacts will occur at
the deposition sites along the 12-mile project shore. Fill operations
will deliver a slurry of sand to the receiving shore, increasing
turbidity in the immediate area. This effect, however, will not be
significant since turbidity levels in the high-energy surf area are
naturally high.

5.02 Significant long-term impacts on water quality are not expected
to occur as a result of project implementation. Turbidity and other
water quality parameters at the borrow areas and disposal sites will
rapidly return to preconstruction levels with no lingering impact.
With changes in bathymetry in the proposed borrow areas, however,
there is a potential for decreased water quality in the newly-created
borrow pits. Depths below the existing grade will be restricted in
order to limit the potential water quality problems that might come
with reduced circulation and increased deposition of fine material
within the pits. Previous dredging operations in nearshore ocean
borrow areas, have not identified any long-term adverse impacts, but
water quality monitoring in the proposed borrow areas will be
conducted to help assure that there will be no significant impacts
from this project. Periodic beach nourishment, which is expected to
be required every 6 years, will have water quality impacts similar to
those for initial construction, but maintenance will be completed
within one dredging season. Long-term impacts of maintenance are not
to be significant.

5.03 Coastal Biological Resources: The proposed sandfill operation
on the project beaches will cover an area of the shore and nearshore
up to a maximum of approximately 25 feet below mean low water (mlw)
will be covered with a deposit of sand for the entire 12-mile project
length. Approximately one-third of this area of beach fill, or about
.8 square mile, will be raised from tidal or subtidal elevations to
above the level of mean high water. The tidal zone will be displaced
offshore from its present location and will experience no net loss in
total area. In fact, in areas such as Sea Bright where there is no
existing beach and erosion zone area as the tidal zone is pushed
offshore from the steep face of the seawall to more gradual sandy
beach slope. Almost all the increase in beach berm and slope will be
a result of the not loss of shallow nearshore zone.

EIS-27

5.04 The loss of littoral zone area will mean a direct reduction in
habitat for benthic marine invertebrates. This loss is negligible i
view of the existing nearshore area available. The loss in biomass
will be a short-term impact since resident species are adapted to
periodic disturbance and rapid recolonization. The new sand bottom
will be recolonized by benthos within a period of months following
beach reconstruction. Tidal zone species will have an area of habitat
equivalent to that at present, and there are expected to be no
significant long-term impacts to these species.

5.05 The creation of additional sandy beach implies a positive impact
since terrestrial species associated with this habitat may benefit
from its increased availability; however, the increase in sandy beach
area is also expected to increase human use of the shore, and this
would partly offset benefits for wildlife resources. In some areas,
where the reconstructed beach berm will be particularly wide due to
existing shore irregularities, it may be possible to protect an area,
from human disturbance to favor sensitive shorebird species.

5.06 The proposed project will not have any effect on coastal ponds
or other drainages entering the Atlantic Ocean. Outfalls and the
coastal pond outlets will be extended through the project beach berm.
so that there will be no interference or interruption of drainage
pathways. There is no anticipated adverse effect on anadromous fishes
using Lake Takanassee and Deal Lake.

5.07 Borrow Area Biological Resources: Potential adverse impacts
within the borrow areas include the following: destruction of benthic
organisms; altered benthic diversity following recolonization; changes
in circulation patterns; modified sediment deposition; and creation of
oxygen depleted zones. Loss of benthos will be the most direct and
most immediate impact in the borrow areas. Mortality will occur as
organisms pass through the dredging plant or as a result of transport
to an unsuitable environment. Burial of benthic organisms occurs from
resuspended and redeposited sediments. Sessile species are eliminated
by direct burial. Benthic studies have shown the borrow areas to have
relatively marginal shellfish resources, so the immediate impact% to
the surf clan will be minimal. Additional monitoring studies will
quantify the benthic biomass within the borrow areas and record its
recovery following dredging. If the water quality conditions and
bottom substrates in the dredged pits are not significantly altered
from those at present, then there will be no serious impact to the
recovery of the bottom fauna. The depth of the borrow pits will be
limited where possible in order to minimize the potential for altering
the bottom conditions within the pits.

EIS-28

5.08 Habitat changes wrought by dredging within the borrow areas
include changing circulation patterns on the bottom where newly-
dredged pits are created. This may set up conditions whereby fine
sediments are deposited, replacing the sandy bottom and leading to a
depletion of oxygen within the pits. Because many species are
substrate-specific or nearly so, biological communities can be altered
as a result of these changes. Filter feeding organisms are most
susceptible to fine sediments, and a change from a filter feeding
community to a deposit feeding community in the area of the borrow
pits may develop. Experience with borrow pits in the area of the New
York Bight do not show the likelihood of severe adverse impacts to the
borrow area benthic community. The ocean location of the proposed
borrow areas should mitigate against the development of depleted
oxygen zones, which would depress potential benthic recovery and
productivity. On the other hand, nearness of the Sandy Hook borrow
area to the mouth of New York Harbor, with its nutrient-rich waters,
affirms the concern for potential impact. Water quality and bottom
sediment studies following construction will monitor bottom habitat
conditions to confirm the assessment that there will be no significant
adverse impact.

5.09 The project will have no serious direct impact on marine
fisheries. Some bottom fishes may be entrained in the intake stream
of the hydraulic dredge, but most fishes are active swimmers and can
avoid areas of disturbance. There will be little impact to fish eggs
and larvae because the dredge areas are not sites where these life
stages are concentrated. The impact to fisheries will be due to the
reduced forage base within the borrow areas as a result of the
destruction of benthos. Because benthic recovery is expected to be
rapid following project completion, this impact to fisheries is an
anticipated to be short-term. There is some evidence to show that the
creation of borrow pits may actually enhance fisheries by attracting
fish to these areas of changed bottom contours, a situation that may
be related to the "edge" effect, or ecotones. Sampling for benthic
recovery and water quality parameters will help monitor project
impacts, including fishery impacts.

5.10 Gateway National Recreation Area - Sandy Hook Unit: The
proposed project will have a net positive effect on the National Park
Service unit at Sandy Hook. By restoring the beach to the south, the
project will also restore the rate of littoral drift reaching Sandy
Hook, thus reducing the erosion of Sandy Hook beaches. While dredging
the borrow area off Sandy Hook has the potential to increase incoming
wave energy reaching the shore, the borrow area configuration and
depth has been designed to minimize this potential. overall, there
will be a benefit to the maintenance of the beaches and minimal
adverse impacts on Sandy Hook.

5.11 Threatened and Endangered Species: The project will have no
adverse impact, and may have some beneficial impact, on threatened and
endangered species within the vicinity of the proposed project.
Restoration of littoral drift rates reaching Sandy Hook will help
maintain colonial shorebird nesting areas on the beach there. In

BIS-29

addition, there are stretches where the project beaches will have 0
greater than the design width because of existing irregularities in
the shoreline. It may be possible to attract nesting shorebirds to
these wider beach sections by restricting human access to limited
areas during the nesting season, and thereby, benefit these species.
The species most likely to attempt nesting in the project area would
be the piping plover and the least tern In the offshore borrow areas,
there is little likelihood of adversely affecting listed sea turtles.
The dredge plant will be established early in the year prior to the
seasonal occurrence of sea turtles, and it will be operated
continuously for the duration of the dredging season. Migrant sea
turtles would be expected to avoid the area of dredge operation and
experience no net adverse impact.

5.12 Recreation: The proposed project will significantly improve
opportunities for recreational beach use. Where beaches now are
narrow or non-existent, a usable recreational beach at least 150 feet
wide will stretch 12 miles along the project shore. This will draw
additional visitors to the New Jersey shore and provide a more
equitable distribution of beach users, lessening pressure on nearby
public beaches at Sandy Hook, Asbury Park, and Belmar.

5.13 Cultural Resources: Cultural resources in the project area were
identified in a Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1985) and Remote Sensing Survey (U.S. Army Corps;
of Engineers, 1986). The Cultural resource reports prepared for this
project are on file with the New York District and the office of the
New Jersey SHPO. Only two historic properties, potentially eligible!
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, were
discovered: The Lake Takanassee Life Saving Complex; and the Monmouth
Beach Bath and Tennis Club. These structures extend along the
shoreline and across the beach within the zone of beach nourishment.
However, sand placement in their vicinity will not be an impact on
them. Overall, the project will benefit historic properties by
providing protection from erosion. As a result, the Corps determined
that the Sea Bright to Ocean Township Beach Erosion Control Project
would have no effect on cultural resources. The New Jersey State
Historic Preservation Officer was furnished with copies of all studies
prepared for this project. The SHPO was notified for the Corps
determination of no effect on March 1987. Therefore, pursuant to 36
CFR Part 800.5(b), the Corps had, with the conclusion of the SHPO
review period, completed Section 106 coordination.

5.14 Subsequent to those consultations it was determined that the
northern offshore borrow area would have to be enlarged (Figure 7) in
order to provide sufficient quantities of sand for long-term
maintenance. Prior to the final boundary area delineations for the
borrow area, a supplemental remote sensing survey for submerged
cultural resources will be conducted in those areas not previously
investigated. The supplemental survey will follow the same
methodology employed in the original (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

EIS-30

1986). Impacts to any encountered anomalies will be avoided by
deleting that zone from further consideration as a borrow area. This
will ensure that the project will have no effect on cultural proper-
ties. The SHPO will be furnished with copies of the supplemental
survey report and afforded an opportunity to comment on the Corps'
determination.

5.15 Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project is one of several
Federal projects within the northern Atlantic coast of New Jersey.
The impacts of this project, therefore, may be considered to be
additive to the impacts resulting from the total Federal activity in
the region. Following is a discussion of the other Federal projects
and the impacts of the proposed project relative to them.

5.16 -As stated in previous sections of the EIS and main report, the
proposed project is only one portion, Section I, of the overall
authorized study for the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Sandy Hook to
Barnegat Inlet, beach erosion control study. The subject project
encompasses 12 miles of the 51-mile study region authorized. At
present there is no active Federal study for comprehensive beach
erosion control at the 6 miles of ocean beach at Sandy Hook. To the
south of the subject project area, a second beach erosion control
study is in progress. This study covers 9 miles of beach immediately
south of the subject project and stretches from Asbury Park to
Manasquan Inlet at Manasquan. This second study is designated Section
II of the overall project. It may provide for a beach compatible with
that proposed for Section 1, but because of the generally better
conditions of the beach there, the amount of sandfill needed for
Section II will be considerably less. About 8 million cubic yards of
sand will be needed and will acquired from ocean borrow areas off of
the area from Belmar to Sea Girt, near where the two Belmar borrow
areas for Section I are located. The study for Section II is in an
earlier stage than the subject study, and may not be completed before
construction for Section I is started. The remainder of the
authorized beach erosion study, approximately 26 miles of ocean shore
from Point Pleasant to Barnegat Inlet, comprises Section III, but
there are no studies programmed for this reach in the near future.

5.17 The use of borrow areas for sand fill for Reach II may impact
cumulatively with those used for construction and maintenance of Reach
I. Maintenance of Reach I, itself, will necessitate enlarging the
borrow areas beyond those limits already identified. It is expected
that these impacts will not be significant either individually or
cumulatively. Planned monitoring studies for water quality and
benthos within the borrow pits will help assure this assessment and be
helpful in developing additional borrow areas as needed.

5.18 The northern end of the proposed project is in proximity to the
New York Harbor Federal Navigation Project. Two existing channels,
the Ambrose Channel and the Sandy Hook Channel, provide deepwater
access from the ocean to the inner New York Harbor channels and
berths. The Sandy Hook Channel in particular passes just offshore of
the tip of Sandy Hook. It is a channel generally 800 feet wide by 35

EIS-31

feet deep, and is maintained by dredging on a regular basis. Recent:
dredging operations have included disposal of sand dredged from the 0
channel onto the critically eroded beaches of Sandy Hook. The
proposed project will not affect maintenance operations in the Sandy
Hook Channel since the rate of littoral drift reaching Sandy Hook
channel is not expected to change. The Ambrose Channel is the main
Federal Navigation Channel entering New York Harbor, with a width of
2,000 feet and a depth of 45 feet. This channel lies midway between
Sandy Hook and Rockaway Point, the two sand spits bracketing the
enhance to New York Harbor. Ambrose Channel lies beyond the limit of
proposed project impacts.

5.19 Gateway National Recreation Area is a component of the NationaLl
Park System and was established in 1972. It consists of four units,
three in the outer coastal waters of New York City, and one at Sandy
Hook. The Sandy Hook Unit contains nearly 4,688 acres and is managed
to preserve significant natural and recreational features. As noted
in Section 5.10 above, the proposed project is compatible with the
goals of the national recreational area by helping to alleviate a
critical erosion problem on the ocean beaches, and by helping to
maintain colonial shorebird nesting habitat. Implementation of the
proposed project will not cause any significant adverse effect on this
Federal park property.

EIS-32

LIST OF PREPARERS

The following people were primarily responsible for preparing this Environmental Impact Statement:

NAME EXPERTISE EXPERIENCE PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE
Joseph Vietri Coastal/Ocean 4 years Project Civil Engineer
Engineering Manager, NY District
2 years, Marine Construction
Robert Dieterich Wildlife Biology 12 years, EIS Studies, Physical Scientist
NY District

Karen Sullivan Aquatic Ecology 6 years EIS Studies Biologist
NY District

Stuart Chase Civil Engineering 20 years, Project Develop- Civil Engineer
ment, NY District

Lynn Bocamazo Hydraulics/Coastal 4 years, Hydraulic Studies, Hydraulic Engineer
Engineering NY District

Norman Blumenstein Economics 21 years, Economist Economist
NY District and
North Atlantic Division

Roselle Henn Archaeology 3 years, Cultural Resource Archaeologist
Management, NY District

Flavia Williams- Wildlife Biology 6 years, US Fish and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife
Rutkosky Service Biologist

Richard Hunter Archaeology Principal Investigator, Archaeologist
Heritage Studies, Inc.

Charles Dill Geology Principal Investigator, Geologist
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey

ETS-32a

6. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

6.01 Public Involvement Program: As part of the public involvement
program for the Sea Bright to Ocean Township project a steering
committee was organized for the purpose of providing an adequate
exchange of information and to insure local concerns were addressed.
The steering committee was composed of the Mayors of the affected
communities, Borough Engineers, State Legislators, personnel from the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Congressional
District Representatives and personnel from the New York District
corps of Engineers. Extending from the period beginning 1984 to the
present, numerous coordination meetings were held with the non-federal
sponsor and other concerned agencies to insure their input was
incorporated into both preliminary and final designs and plan selec-
tion. On April 16, 1987 a notice of intent to file an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) by the New York District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers was published in the Federal Register. No formal scoping
meeting was held for the project. However, the Corps coordinated with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other concerned Federal, State and
local agencies during preparation of the Draft EIS.

6.02 Required Coordination: The subject draft EIS will be sent to
various government agencies for review and comment. Copies will also
be sent to individuals who have so requested or who have indicated an
interest in the subject project. A final EIS, incorporating comments
received to the draft document, will then be circulated to complete
public coordination. Specific coordination with the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) will also be continued in order to finalize the
specific measures of environmental mitigation required by this
project. The Corps has concluded the Section 106 consultation process
for cultural resources in areas where cultural surveys have been
completed. Since it will become necessary to conduct a supplemental
remote sensing survey prior to completion of plans and specifications
for submerged cultural resources in the extended offshore borrow area,
the Corps will again coordinate with the New Jersey State Historic
Preservation Office when the supplemental survey report is completed.

6.03 Distribution of Draft EIS: The following agencies, groups, and
individuals will be sent copies of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement:

Federal Offices

Advisory Council of Historic Preservation
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
Region II
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -
Office of Ecology and Conservation
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs

EIS-33

Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Secretary
Public Health Service-Centers for Disease Control
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Region II
Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Project Review
U.S. Geological Survey
Fish and Wildlife service
National Park Service
Department of the Navy
Chief, Naval operations
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
U.S. Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Interstate Commerce commission
Senator William Bradley
Senator Frank Lautenberg

Regional offices

Interstate Sanitation Commission
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

State, County. and Local Offices

Governor Thomas Kean

New Jersey State Review Process
Intergovernmental Review and Assistance unit
New Jersey Department of Commerce and Economic Development
Maritime Advisory Council
New Jersey Department of Community Affairs
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Coastal Resources
Division of Fish, Game & Shellfisheries
Division of Marine Services
Division of Water Resources Planning
Office of Environzent and History
Planning Group
New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry
Economic Development Authority
New Jersey Department of Transportation
New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office

Monmouth County Planning Board
Borough of Allenhurst
Office of the Business Administrator
Borough of Deal
Borough Clerk
Village of Loch Arbor

EIS-34

Long Branch
Office of the Business Administrator
Borough of Monmouth Beach
Office of the Mayor
Ocean Township
Township Engineer
Borough of Sea Bright
Borough Clerk
Deal Lake Commission

GrouRs and Individuals

American Littoral Society
Association of Mew Jersey Environmental Commissions
Environmental Defense Fund
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Regional Office
New Jersey Alliance of Action
New Jersey Audubon Society
New Jersey Historical Society
New Jersey League of Women Voters
New Jersey Marine Science Consortium
New Jersey Public Interest Research Group
Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter
Marine Sciences Center, Rutgers University
Rutgers University, Department of Environmental Sciences
Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY at Stony Brook
Marine Sciences Research Group, CUNY, Brooklyn College
Newark Star Ledger
Asbury Park Press
Red Bank Register
Middletown Courier
Shrewsbury Daily Register

6.04 Public Views and Responses: The primary concern expressed by
local officials and residents was the desire to reduce beach erosion
damages. All plans considered have had this objective as the chief
goal. other community concerns involved property values, community
cohesion, and environmental attributes. There was a general disfavor
for nonstructural measures among the affected population. other
public concerns dealt with the cost of project features and their
efficacy in achieving project goals.

6.05 Concerns for environmental impacts resulting from the dredging
of proposed borrow areas have been expressed by FWS and NJDEP, and
measures to ensure minimal impact have been recommended by those
agencies. In their Draft Coordination Act Report (January 27, 1988),
FWS made several recommendations concerning project implementation.
In response to these recommendations and as a result of further
coordination with FWS and NJDEP (see Corps letter dated May 10, 1988
and FWS letter dated May 19, 1988) the Corps has agreed to the
following: where practicable sand removal from high value areas will
be avoided until all less valuable area have been dredged, each year's
construction will be scheduled to avoid areas of relatively high
resource value during the requested June I -September 30 period,
EIS-35

dredging activities will be conducted in a manner which minimizes
development of degraded water quality within the borrow pits, the New
Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries will be notified if pre-project
benthic sampling discloses commercially valuable quantities of surf
clams and a pre- and post-construction monitoring and assessment
program of water quality and benthic resources will be implemented.
The New York District is presently coordinating with FWS, NJDEP and
the Corp's Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) to develop a
scope of work for the proposed monitoring. A description of the
program will be included in the Final EIS. Referenced coordination
letters are included in the Pertinent Correspondence Appendix of the
Main Report.

EIS-36

INDEX

SUBJECT PAGES

Affected Environment EIS- 16-26
Alternatives EIS- 7-14
Appendix EIS- Al-A6
Areas of Controversy EIS- 1
Beach Restoration EIS_ 10
Beach Restoration with Authorized Groins EIS_ 10-11
Beach Restoration with Updated Groins EIS- 11
Borrow Area Alternatives EIS- 14
Borrow Area Biological Resources EIS- 21,28
Breakwaters EIS- 8
Buy-out EIS_ 8
Coastal Biological Resources EIS- 20,27
Comparative Impacts of Alternatives EIS- 13-14
Constructable Reaches Evaluation EIS- 11-12
Cover Sheet EIS- i
Cultural Resources EIS- 25,30
Cumulative Impacts EIS- 31-32
Development of Intermediate Plans EIS- 9-10
Distribution of Draft EIS EIS- 34-36
Dredge Alternatives EIS- 14
Environmental Conditions EIS- 16-26
Environmental Effects EIS- 27-32
Gateway National Recreation Area- EIS- 23,29
Sandy Hook Unit
Groins EIS- 9
Index EIS- 37-38
Introduction to Alternatives EIS- 7
List of Preparers EIS- 32a
Major Conclusions and Findings EIS_ 1
Mitigation Measures EIS- 14
Need for and Objectives of Action EIS- 5-6
No Action (Without Conditions) EIS- 7-8
Perched Beach EIS- 9
Planning Objectives EIS- 5-6
Plans Considered in Detail EIS- 10-15
Plans Eliminated from Further Study EIS- 8-9
Problems and opportunities EIS- 5
Project Costs and Benefits EIS- 13
Project Details EIS- 12-13
Public Concerns EIS- 5
Public Involvement EIS- 34-36

EIS-37

INDEX
(continued)

SUBJECT PAGES

Public Involvement Program EIS- 34
Public Views and Responses EIS- 36
Recreation EIS- 24,30
References EIS- 39
Relationship to Environmental Requirements EIS- 1-4
Revetments EIS- 8
Seawalls EIS- 8
Section 404 (B) Evaluation EIS- Al-A6
Selected Plan EIS- 14
Significant Resources EIS- 19-26
Study Authority EIS- 5
Summary EIS- 1-4
Table of Contents EIS-ii-iii
Table of Significant EQ Effects EIS- 3-4
Threatened and Endangered Species EIS- 24,29
Unresolved Issues EIS- 1
Water Quality EIS- 20,28

EIS-38

REFERENCES

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1954. Atlantic Coast of New
Jersey, Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet. Beach Erosion
Control Report on Cooperative Study. Office of the
District Engineer, New York District. 59pp.

------------- 1985 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for
the New Jersey shore from Highland Beach, Sea Bright to
Deal Lake, Loch Arbour, Boroughs of Sea Bright and
Monmouth Beach, City of Long Branch, Boroughs of Deal
and Allenhurst, Village of Loch Arbour, Monmouth
County, New Jersey, Final Report. Prepared for the New
York District by Heritage Studies, Inc.

------------- 1986. Atlantic Coast of New Jersey: Sandy
Hook to Barnegat Inlet. Section I - Sea Bright to
Ocean Township, New Jersey. Technical Review Meeting
II, Selection of NED Plan. New York District. 83pp.

------------- 1986. Final Report for Atlantic Coast of New
Jersey Sea Bright to Ocean Township, Monmouth County,
Remote Sensing of Proposed Offshore Sand Borrow Areas.
Prepared for the New York District by Alpine Ocean
Seismic Survey, Inc.

------------- 1987. Final Report. Geologic and Sanitary
Engineering Services for Atlantic Coast of New Jersey,
Sea Bright to Ocean Township Beach Erosion Control
Project. Prepared for the New York District by Alpine
Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Planning Aid Report
for the Atlantic Coast of Now Jersey - Sea Bright to
Ocean Township Beach Erosion Control Study. Absecon,
NJ. 16pp.

------------- 1987. Planning Aid Report. An Alternative
Analysis of the Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic Coast
of New Jersey - Sea Bright to Ocean Township Beach
Erosion Control Study. Absecon, NJ 63pp.

------------- 1988. Coordination Act Report for the Atlantic
Coast of New Jersey - Sea Bright to Ocean Township
Beach Erosion Control Study. Absecon, NJ 59pp.

EIS-39

Appendix A

Section 404 (b)(1) Evaluation
Sea Bright to Ocean Township

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

a. Location and General DescriRtion

The proposed project is located on the Atlantic Coast of New
Jersey from Sea Bright (south of Sandy Hook) to Ocean Township (at the
Asbury Park boundary), and includes the nearshore ocean waters to a
depth of approximately 60 feet. The project involves the placement of
sand along the entire project shoreline (approximately 12 miles) and
notching of the existing groins to recreate a beach berm 100 feet wide
at elevation +10 feet above mean low water (mlw). The authorized
project calls for a feeder beach at Ocean Township and a second one at
the north end of Loong Branch. To avoid frequent overtopping of the
10-foot high berm, a 2-foot storm cap of sand as "freeboard" is also
proposed.

b. Authority and Purpose

The Sea Bright to Ocean Township Reach (Reach I) is authorized as
part of the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Sandy Hook to Barnegat
Inlet, Harbor Act of July 3, 1958, in accordance with House Document
No. 332, 85th Congress, second session, as modified by the Water
Resources Development Act of 17 November 1986 (PL 99-662). The
purpose of the project is to control erosion in the highly developed
coastal areas of the northern New Jersey ocean shoreline.

c. General DescriRtion ot Dredged and EjU Mgterial

The material proposed to be deposited along the project shoreline
is predominantly beach grade sand. Approximately 17.8 million cubic
yards of material will be deposited during initial construction, and
nourishment quantities, to be deposited on a 6-year maintenance
schedule, will amount to nearly 2.4 million cubic yards each. The
material will be dredged from three ocean borrow areas, one off Sandy
Hook and two off Belmar.

d. Description gJ Prop2sed Discharge Sites

The discharge sites are the unconfined beach berm and nearshore
littoral zone of the New Jersey ocean shoreline stretching from and
including Sea Bright to Ocean Township, a stretch about 12 miles long.
The sand will be place in a band along the shore up to 1,200 feet
wide, for a total discharge area of about 2.5 square miles. The
habitats in the discharge areas include sandy beach and intertidal and
subtidal zones. The discharge is scheduled to occur year-round for a
period of three years.

EIS-Al

e. DescriRtion of Disposal Method

Two disposal methods will be used. In areas suitably close to the
offshore borrow areas, material will be dredged and disposed using a
hydraulic dredge and pipeline. Where hydraulic dredging is not
economically advantageous, material will be delivered to the disposal
area by hopper dredge.

II. FACTUAL DETERMINATION

a. Physical Substrate Determinations

The substrate at the disposal site is the eroded sandy berm of the
ocean shore. In some areas little sand remains, and ocean waters
impinge directly on the seawall protecting coastal properties. Series
of stone
groins have been constructed over the years all along the project
reach and form part of the disposal area substrate. The elevation of
the discharge areas grades from +10 feet mlw at the inshore end to -20
feet mlw at the offshore end for an average slope of about 2.5%.
There is a prevailing northward littoral drift along the project
shore, with sand ultimately being deposited at Sandy Hook. To sustain
this littoral drift and to maintain the project beach berm, feeder
beaches will be constructed at Ocean Township and at the north end of
the Long Branch. Disposal will smother benthic organisms in the
project area, but will not change the substrate type; recovery of
benthic populations in this high energy environment is expected to
occur within one year following disposal. There are no other physical
effects associated with the disposal of this material. Good
engineering practices during construction will help to minimize the
physical impacts of this project.

b. Water. Circulation, Fluctuation. Md Salinity Determinations

The proposed disposal of dredged material will not have any
serious effects on water quality parameters in the discharge area.
Because the beachfill material will be primarily clean sand there will
be no impacts on salinity, water chemistry, color, odor, nutrients, or
eutrophication. Clarity and dissolved gas levels may be affected
during the disposal period, but ambient conditions will be restored
shortly following disposal, and there will be no long-term impacts.
Taste is a parameter that does not apply to the Atlantic Coast of New
Jersey. There will be no significant changes in current patterns and
circulation resulting from the proposed discharge. The beachfill
material will be placed in the high-energy surf zone of the project
shore, but will not alter prevailing current patterns and flow, or
velocities. There will be no impact on stratification or hydrologic
regime in the project area. The project will shift the high water
line offshore of its present location, but will not alter normal water
levels or tidal fluctuations, nor will it affect salinity gradients.
Use of clean beach grade sand to the maximum extend practicable will
minimize any potential short-term effects.

EIS-A2

c. SusRended Particulate/Turbidit Determinations

Turbidity levels in the disposal area will rise during the period
of disposal, but this will not have a significant impact in the high-
energy surf zone of the ocean shore. The level of suspended
particulates in the longshore current will be higher throughout the
project life due to the effort to compensate for the natural deficit
of sand within the area's sediment budget. Most chemical and physical
properties of the water column will not be impacted over the long-
term, and short-term impacts will be negligible. These properties
include: light penetration; dissolved oxygen; and aesthetics. Toxic
metals and organics are not applicable to this discharge because of
the relatively large grain-size of the dredged material. coliform
bacteria levels in the dredged material may be a short-term concern,
but exposure of the reconstructed beach berm to air and light will
dissipate pathogenic levels within a period of weeks for no long-term
impacts. Increases in turbidity and suspended particulates may have
minor impacts on primary production, suspension/filter feeders, and
sight feeders within the discharge area, but changes in this low
productivity, high energy environment will not be noticeable. Use of
clean, beach grade sand will help to minimize any deleterious effects
of the disposal.

d. Contaminant 12oterminations

The proposed dredged material for disposal is all clean sediments
derived from offshore ocean borrow areas, and there is no danger of
spreading contaminants during project implementation. The Sandy Hook
borrow area is in the general vicinity of the Dredged Material
Disposal Site outside of New York Harbor, but the borrow area is at
least 4 miles away from the disposal site, and at a considerably
shallower depth. There is no record of contamination outside the
bounds of the Dredged Material Disposal Site. The Bayshore Regional
Outfall is located near the southwest corner of the Sandy Hook borrow
area, but there is no record of contamination from this source either.
No sand will be dredged from within 1,000 feet of this outfall. There
are no major sources of contamination in the vicinity of the two
borrow areas located offshore of Belmar, and therefore, there are no
containment concerns regarding these sediments. Preliminary testing
of the borrow area sediments at both Sandy Hook and Belmar gives no
cause for concern regarding potential contaminants. The sediments are
primarily sand, and do not have contaminant concentrations above
ambient levels.

e. Aquatic Ecosystem gnd Organisms Determinations

Effects on biota will be restricted to the physical impacts of
dredged material disposal and resulting turbidity and suspended
sediment concentrations. Effects on plankton will be insignificant.
Benthos will be destroyed in the discharge area, but recovery
following disposal will occur within a year. Nekton, the actively
moving organisms within the water column, will be able to avoid areas
of disposal activity, and will experience no significant adverse

EIS-A3

eftects. In conclusion, there will be no significant effects on the!
aquatic food web. There are no special aquatic sites in the project.
area, such as, sanctuaries and refuges, wetlands, mudflats, vegetated
shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes; therefore, there
will be no impact to special aquatic sites. No threatened or
endangered species or other wildlife will be effected by the proposed
discharge. Good engineering practices and use of predominantly large
grain-size material will ensure that there are minimal impacts
resulting from this work.
f. Pr02Osed Disposal, Site Determinati@n

The mixing zone at the discharge site ranges from the line of mean
high water (mhw) to about 20 feet below mean low water (mlw), in the:
high-energy shore and surf zone of the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey.
Sediments are not stratified, but readily mixed, in this area. Rates
of discharge may be as high as 18,000 cubic yards per day for
hydraulic dredging; less for the hopper dredge operation. Constituent
concentrations in the proposed dredged material are comparable to the
ambient levels found at the disposal sites. The dredged material,
about 90% sand, will be discharged on a continuous basis over
approximately 3 years. The proposed discharge will not contravene any
applicable water quality standards outside the mixing zone. Turbidity
and bacterial levels in the mixing zone may exceed ambient water
quality standards, but these levels will quickly dissipate to
acceptable ambient concentrations outside the mixing zone. Chemical,
dissolved oxygen, temperature, toxic or hazardous substances, and
ammonia ambient water quality standards are not likely to be 0
contravened at any time during discharge. During hydraulic pipelinet
disposal, dredged material will be discharged above the water line,
allowing much of the turbidity and other constituents to settle out
before reaching the water column. The proposed disposal is not
applicable to municipal and private water supply and will have no net
effect or a positive effect on recreational and commercial fisheries,
water related recreation, and aesthetics. The Sandy Hook Unit of
Gateway National Recreation Area, which lies just north of the project
area, will receive a net benefit due to the increased volume of sand.
reaching it by means of the prevailing northward littoral drift.

g. Det rmination 2f Cumulative Effects 9M thl Aggatic Ecosystem

The cumulative effect of the proposed discharge will be to restore
a functional beach berm and nearshore slope to a 12-mile section of
the New Jersey ocean shore. In so doing, historical littoral drift
patterns will be recreated, benefiting both the project beaches and
those at Sandy Hook, which have experienced severe erosion over recent
years. The proposal will protect the project shores from beach
erosion with no serious detriment to water quality or the aquatic
ecosystem. Short-term adverse impacts will be felt with each periodic
nourishment, estimated at 6-year intervals, but the magnitude and
duration of the impacts will be less than those for the initial
project construction.

EIS-A4

h. Determinations of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem

The secondary impacts of the proposed disposal include impacts
Oresulting from dredging the proposed offshore borrow areas to provide the
sand for project construction. Potential impacts include changes in
bathymetry, sediment type, water circulation and current patterns,
turbidity, and benthos. Borrow area design has incorporated these
concerns to minimize physical and biological impacts. The proposed
dredging will limit changes in bathymetry to minimize possible circulation
and sedimentation impacts. Benthic populations in the borrow areas have
been found to be, for "Che most part, rather low. Follow-up benthic and
water quality sampling in the borrow areas will help to assure that there
will be no significant impacts resulting from the dredging operation.
Restoring historical rates of sand flow to Sandy Hook will be a beneficial
secondary impact of the proposed dredged material disposal. Increasing
recreational use of the project shoreline will be an additional secondary
impact, but the existing infrastructure is adequate to accommodate the
increased recreational activity without significant adverse effects.
Little land in the project area remains undeveloped; therefore, there will
be minimal induced development effects from this project.

III. Findings of Compliance or Non-Compliance with the Restrictions on
Discharge

a. No significant adaptations of the guidelines were made relative to
this evaluation.

b. The designation of discharge site is determined by the stated project
-0. urpose, namely, to provide beach erosion control to a portion of the
Atlantic Coast of New Jersey. The only practicable alternative is no
discharge, which would not meet the project purpose, and would not
necessarily have a less significant impact. All potential impacts of the
proposed action have been considered, and steps have been taken to ensure
that these impacts will be at acceptable levels.

C. The proposed disposal of dredged material would not violate any
applicable State water quality standards with the exception of turbidity,
and possibly coliform bacteria. Turbidity standards may be violated
outside the allowable mixing zone, but the effects will be short-term and
insignificant. Coliform bacteria levels generally meet State standards
within the proposed borrow area sediments, but episodes of high
concentrations that violate those standards have been recorded. This is
transient concern related to effluent output of New York Harbor and I
exposure to light and air will rapidly dissipate any residual levels of
coliform bacteria in the disposed sediments. The disposal operation will
not violate the Toxic Effluent Standards of Section 307 of the Clean Water
Act.

EIS-AS

d. The proposed disposal activity will not affect any endangered Species
or their critical habitat or negatively affect the Sandy Hook Unit of'
Gateway National Recreation Area. There will be no impact or marine
sanctuaries designated by the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries*
Act of 1972.

e. The proposed discharge of dredged material will not result in
significant adverse effects on human health and welfare, including
municipal and private water supplies, recreational and commercial fishing,
plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites. The life
stages of aquatic life and other wildlife will not be adversely affected.
Significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity,
and stability will not occur. Impacts to recreational, aesthetic, and
economic values will be beneficial.

f. Appropriate steps to minimize potential adverse impacts of the
discharge on aquatic systems include good engineering practices and use of
dredged material which is compatible with the sediments on the receiving
shores.

g. on the basis of the guidelines, the proposed discharge site for
dredged material is specified as complying with the inclusion of
appropriate and practical conditions to minimize pollution or adverse
effects to the aquatic ecosystem.

EIS-A6

CONCLUSIONS

180. Federal interest is established in the construction of a plan for
beach erosion control for the project area on the basis that the beneficial
effects exceed any possible adverse effects.

181. In light of the overall public interest, the proposed action has been
reviewed and evaluated as well as the State of New Jersey's views and those
of other interested agencies and the concerned public, relative to the
various practicable alternatives for beach erosion control extending from
Sea Bright to Ocean Township, New Jersey.

182. The possible consequences of these alternatives have been evaluated
for engineering feasibility, economic effects including regional and
national economic development, environmental and social well-being. In
evaluation of the selected and other viable alternatives, the following
elements were considered pertinent.

a. Engineering feasibility

b. Economic factors of local, regional and national resources
development

C. Environmental impacts

d. Social well-being

183. The purpose of the project is to meet the demands for beach erosion
control from Sea Bright to Ocean Township, New Jersey. Erosion has
seriously reduced the width of most beaches with consequent increased
exposure of the shore to storm damage as a direct result of wave attack and
recession.

184. All of the alternatives available for meeting the beach erosion
control needs for Sea Bright to Ocean Township have been considered. It has
been concluded that the 100 foot fill only plan at an elevation of 10 feet
above mean low water with an additional 2 foot storm berm cap as described
in the report, is the best plan to meet these needs. The 100 ft. fill only
plan will provide increased levels of protection from the effects of wave
attack and recession as a result of storms. It is economically justified
with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.7 and maximum net benefits of
$15,200,000. This plan will halt the continued effects of long term erosion
and mitigate the effects of storm damage from wave attack and recession,
thereby reducing the risk to life and property for those that live' in the
project area. This plan will also enhance the recreational potential of the
area by creating new public beaches.

185. In evaluating the selected plan and the alternatives, the following
points were considered pertinent:

a. From an engineering standpoint, the plan of improvement selected as
described in this report, represents the most practical plan of
improvement to provide storm damage protection for this section of
the New Jersey shoreline. The plan can be constructed and
maintained in an efficient manner using currently accepted methods.

b. From an economic standpoint, findings indicate the benefits that
stem from the recommended works exceed the cost of the project.
The principal benefits are a direct result of the reduction in
damage from storm waves and erosion. Ancillary benefits include
recreation and reduction in maintenance for 'Sandy Hook and the
seawall.

C. From an environmental standpoint, adverse effects will consist of
the temporary disturbance of biotic habitats in the sand borrow
areas and along the littoral zone in the immediate area of beach
renourishment. No endangerment of any species inhabiting the
project area is expected. Positive benefits would also be accrued
by restoring historical drift rates reaching Sandy Hook, thus
alleviating chronic erosion on Sandy Hook beaches and helping to
maintain and improve their environmental quality.

d. From the aspect of social well-being the project will result in
improved social well-being for shorefront property owners where
homes and development would be removed from danger. The creation
of additional public beach frontage for recreational use will also
add to the overall social well-being of those who utilize the
area's beaches.

186. The plan of action is based upon thorough analysis and evaluation of
the various practicable alternatives for achieving the stated objectives;
the recommended plan of action is consistent with national policy, and
administration directives; and on balance, the total public interest would
best be served by the implementation of this plan.

187. Changes to the authorized project are not significant as defined by
current regulations and such changes can be handled by Post Authorization
Change (PAC) procedures. As outlined in PL 99-662, section 854, this
project for beach erosion control is subject to section 903 (a) of the above
mentioned law. Section 903(a) sets forth the procedure for certain projects
authorized for construction. In summary, Section 903(a) states that: 11in
the case of any project authorized for construction by PL 99-662 which is
specifically made subject to this subsection, no construction may be
commenced until the secretary has reviewed and commented on such project and
reported thereon to the Congress, or until 90 days have passed following
receipt of the proposed plan of the project from the Chief of Engineers,
whichever first occurs."

188. The final GDM will serve as a 903(a) report requiring Secretary of the
Army approval, thereby satisfying the required PAC procedures.

Prefatory Statement RECOMMENDATIONS

In making the following recommendations, I have given consideration to all
significant aspects of this GDM level study as well as the overall public
interest in protective measures for the New Jersey shoreline. The aspects
considered include engineering feasibility, economic effects, environmental,
social and compatibility of the project with the policies, desires, and
capabilities of the State and other non-Federal interests.

Recommendations

I recommend that the authorized project for beach erosion control Sandy Hook
to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, Section 1 - Sea Bright to Ocean Township,
authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1958 and modified by the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (PL99-662) be further modified to provide
for the implementation of a Federal project for beach erosion control, in
accordance with the plan selected herein, with such further modifications,
thereof, as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at
a first cost- to the United States estimated at $158,321,739 (September 1987
price levels), with annual operation, maintenance costs to the United States
estimated at $3,888,319 (September 1987 price levels) provided that
non-federal interests comply with all the requirements listed in the local
cooperation agreement printed in this report.

Disclaimer

The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at
this time and current Department policies governing formulation of
individual projects. They do not reflect program and budgeting priorities
inherent in the formulation of a national Civil Works construction program
nor the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch.
Consequently, the recommendations may be modified before they are
transmitted to higher authority as proposals for authorization and/or
implementation funding.

Marion L. Caldwell, Jr.
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Congress, "Shore of New Jersey from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet,
Beach Erosion Control Study," House Document No. 332, 85th Congress, 2nd
Session, July 1958.

2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Sandy Hook
to Barnegat Inlet, Beach Erosion Control Survey Report," New York
District, March 1954.

3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Study of the New Jersey Coastal Inlets
and Beaches, Draft Interim Report, Sandy Hook to Island Beach State
Park," Philadelphia District, July 1973.

4. Phillips, J.D., Psuty, N.P. and McCluskey, J.M., "The Impact of Beach
Nourishment at South Beach, Sandy Hook, New Jersey," Center for Coastal
and Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, June 1984.

5. Gahagan & Bryant Associates, "Cost Certification Report of P-867
Dredging Phase (II) Naval Weapons Station, Earle," Contract No.
N62472-85-C-1125, Northern Division Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, December 1986.

6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
"Coastal Processes at Sea Bright to Ocean Township, New Jersey",
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, August 1986.

7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Sea Level Variations
for the United States, 1855-1980," U.S. Department of Commerce,
Rockville, Maryland, January 1983.

8. Gorman, Laurel T., "Geomorphic Development of the Atlantic Coast of New
Jersey, Sea Bright to Ocean Township", CERC; prepared for US Army Corps
of Engineers, New York District, New York, October, 1987.

9 Division of Coastal Resources, "New Jersey Shore Protection Master
Plan," State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection,
Trenton, New Jersey, October 1981.

10. Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc., "Final Report - Detailed
Investigation of Offshore Sand Borrow Sources," Contract DACW51-C-0011,
November 1987.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This General Design Memorandum and Environmental Impact Statement
has been developed under the Planning Division, New York District
Corps of Engineers, Samuel P. Tosi Chief, Richard Maraldo
Assistant Chief; with the assistance of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Coastal Resources and the Division of Fish and Game
along with a dedicated group of consultants, architectual
engineers, and other professionals.

Overall Plan Formulation and management was provided by Bruce A.
Bergmann, Chief, Plan Formulation Branch.

All design control and direct project management actions were
under Mr. Joseph Vietri, Senior Project Manager.

Functional Management, was effected under Mr. Silvio Calisi and
Mr. Michael Thompson, Chiefs, Navigation and Coastal Section.

Coastal Engineering was directed by Jesse Rosen, Chief Civil
Resources Branch, Mr. James Urbelis and Mr. Robert Alpern, Chiefs
Coastal Engineering and Hydraulics and Mr. Stuart Chase Chief,
Project Development.

Day to day engineering management was performed by Ms. Lynn Marie
Bocamazo Project Hydraulic Engineer.

Assisting Engineering firms were:

Coastal Planning and Engineering: 3200 N. Federal Highway
Suite 123
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Mr. Thomas Campbel P.E.
Mr. Norman Beumel

URS Consultants: Mack Centre II,
Mack Center Drive
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Mr. Thomas MacAllen P.E.
Mr. Michael Cannon

Ocean Seismic Survey: 80 Oak Street
Norwood, New Jersey 07648
Mr. Gino Macarini
Mr. Henry Miller
Mr. Chuck Dill

T&M Associates: 1060 Highway 35
Middletown Township, N.J.
Mr. Richard Koesinski P.E.
Mr. Richard Morales P.E.

VEP Associates: 1140 Bloomfield Ave
West Caldwell, N.J. 07006
Mr. Val Manov P.E.

Additional Engineering Services were rendered by the following New
York District Personnel:

Mr. Gilbert Nersessian
Chief, Coastal Engineering

Mr. Richard Wright
Chief, Civil Projects Branch

Surveys, Model Studies, Geomorphic Analysis and Monitoring program
developed at the Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering
Center by Mr. Bill Birkemeier, Mr. Lee Butler, Dr. Nick Kraus,
Dr. Norman Scheffner, Dr. Hans Hanson! Ms Lucia Chou, Ms. Mary
Cialone, Ms. Jane Smith, Thomas A. Hardy, Dr. Don Staubel, Dr.
Cliff Truit, Ms. Laurel Gorman, and Mr. David Nelson.

Economic Studies were coordinated under the control of Ms. Cathy
Revicki, Chief Economic and Social Analysis section and Ms.
Maureen O'Connor, Acting Chief Economic and Social Analysis.

Day to Day Economic Management was under Mr. Norman Blumenstein,
00 Senior Economist.
Recreation Analysis Support was provided by Institute for Water
Resources, Messrs. Mark Dunning and Dave Moser.

Assisting Economic Consultants:

Dr. Jay Silberman
Professor
University of Baltimore

Environmental Analysis was conducted under the general guidance of
Dr. Simeon Hook, Chief, Environmental Analysis.

Day to day environmental management was performed by Mr. Robert
Dieterich, Ms. Karen Sullivan; Project Biologists. Cultural
Resources investigations were managed by Ms. Roselle Henn, Project
Archaeologist.

LN SANDY HOOK

SANDY HOOK

BAY
2 0 2
36 1 1 t I
Scale in Miles

NORTH PROJECT LIMIT

14.200 FT. BEACH FILL
14 GROINS
SEA BRIGHTOO#r'oe

S 7,100 FT. BEACH FqL
MONMOUTH BEAC 4 GROINS

21,300 FT BEACH FILL
LONG BRANCH-*- FEEDER BCH.
MONMOUTH 366 2 GROINS, 13 EXTENSIONS

COUNTY

_J7.800 FT BEACH FILL
DEAL
12 GROINS.1 EXTENSION

DEAL LAKE
ALLENHURST 600 FT. BEACH FILL
W@o 6RBOUR FEEDER -BCH.
ASBURY - PARK I GROIN
--OCEAN GROVE
BRADLEY BEACH SOUTH PROJECT LIMIT

__AVON-SY-THE SEA
SHARK RiVER INLEr
BELMAR

71 SPRING LAKE

IL SEA
FILL LOCATION
IRT

AA
MANASQUAN

FIGURE 2
AUTHORIZED PROJECT

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP REACH

ArLANrIC OCEAN

is 21 22 2? 26 29 32 33 34 3
11 10 It 12 is 14 Is Is 17 1 23 24 2526 31
2 3 4 5 6 7

ink
1,14
0
0 SHREWSSWY RIVER

ArLANrIC OCEAN

z 11 44 45
t 39 40 41 42 43 46 4
7 40 49 so 51 52 33 8453
--i -n MONMOUTH BEACH

c m
0 X
NORTH LONG BRANCH
c
x ArLANTIC OCEAN
rn
Ch G)
0 63 72 Tv so at 02 03 04 85 $a 87 11 92
44 44 By go To 71 a 73 as 191 93
90@

D
LONG BRANCH rAXAAfASSfF:, ELBERON
LANE

ArLANrIC OCEAN

LEGEND!
97 99 101 STONE SEAWALL
100 .02 .103 CONCRETE SEAWALL
STEEL OR WOOD BUL
........ .......... ROCK REVETMENT
AL.LENHURST Attempt.., 44 GROIN NUMBER
I.- B.

DEAL ASBURY PARK
LAME

1/2 1
NA VESINK RIVER SCALE IN MILES

SEA BRIGHT
RUMSON NECK

OON
SLAN
NZ

MONMOUTH
BEACH

N
H
ORT
LONG
BRANCH
LOCATION OF 1962 EMERGENCY FILL FIGURE 4
PROJECT IN SEA BRIGHT AND MONMOUTH BEACH

STATION 54

20 YEARS
SHORELINE ANGLE 40
WATER DEPTH= 10 M

OVER 2.99 M so
60
2. 5 0- 2.99. M t8o 40
io
2.00-2.49 M -90

1.50 - 1.99 m 0

1. 00- 1. 49 M

0.50-0.99 m

0.00-0.49 M

(FROM REFERENCE 6)

WAVE ROSE FIGURE 5

is
cl) 17

m is

14
r- 13 77";
c
0 U)

0
c: 10
M
9

m 4
c: 3
m
z
rn
n
m
X 0
IT! 1.5 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
z
0 RETURN PERIOD. YEARS
-n LEGEND
6) MSL 1981 (0-5 FT. N.G.V.D.)
C HURRICANE
r;o NORTHEASTER
COMBINED HURRICANE AND NORTHEASTER
............... TOTAL WATER LEVEL - WAVE SETUP

SCALE IN MILES
0 2 4

SANDY HOOK

SANDY HOOX
SEABRIGHT BORROW AREA
DAY

NORTHERN PROJECT
LIMIT
...... Reach I (CONTRACT 6)

am
SEA BRIGHT

Reach I (CONTRACT A)
ArLANrIC

MONMOUTH BEACH
OCEAN

Reach 2

LONG BRANCH
..............

Reach 3
DE L
A

ALLENHURS

OCEAN Twp- SOUTHERN PROJECT

...........
ASBURY PARK LIMIT

OCEAN GROVE
F.x,.
BRADLEY BEACH
.... ........
AVON-BY-THE SEA
smARx vineR mrr
BELMAR

m
SPRING LAKE

BELMAR BORROW AREA

...... MANASQUAN

............
BORROW AREA LOCATIONS FIGURE 7

W
ROJECT FUTURE C *'S
/P 0=11E.ENT@-
4. 1-4 RESIDUAL STORM DAMAGE To

EXISTING CONDITIONS
STORM DAMAGE TO IWF-ROVEMENTS

2. HIGH WATER LINE

0 WITH PROJECT
x CONDITIONS
m EXISTING
CONDITIONS

0
n

cil
rn
z
m ADDED BEACH AREA. 3. STORM DAMAGE TO IMPROVEMENTS
VALUE OF INCREASED IBUILDINGS. ROADS AND UTILITIES)
RECREATION CLAIMED. AT EXISTING CONDITIONS.
0 2. EXISTING LAND AREA 4. STORM DAMAGE TO IMPROVEMENTS
C-) WITHIN 250' OF W/PROJECT FUTURE CONDITIONS.
H.W.L. NET INCREASE RESIDUAL DAMAGES CALCULATED
m IN LAND VALUE AS EQUIVELENT ANNUAL DAMAGE
rn CLAIMED AS INTENSIFICATION. 1991-2040.
z
QD

W/O PROJECT FUTURE CONDITIONS
STORM DAMAGE TO IMPR OVEMENTS

EXISTING CONDITIONS
2. STORM DAMAGE TO IMPROVEMENTS

ATER LINE

.rn EXISTING
CONDITIONS
-----..*--Wlo PROJECT
FUTURE CONDITIONS
C-1 I LAND ERODED 0 3FT/YR.
(HALTED . MAJOR ROADI
0 EXISTING VALUE OF LAND
ERODED 1991-2040 CLAIMED.

2. STORM DAMAGE TO IMPROVEMENTS
(BUILDINGS. ROADS AND UTILITIES)
AT EXISTING CONDITIONS.
0
rn
3. STORM DAMAGE TO IMPROVEMENTS
WIO PROJECT FUTURE CONDITIONS.
0 WITHOUT PROJECT DAMAGES CALCULATED
AS EOUIVELENT ANNUAL DAMAGE
c:
m 1991- 2040.
fTI
z
to

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
MUNICIPAL SEA BRIGHT MONMOUTH BEACH
BOUNDARY

m
0
0 ECONOMIC 2 3 4 6A
z REACHES
0

m
m SEAWALLS AND GROINS PROTECT BUILDINGS
> COASTAL EXPOSED SEAWALL _PROTECTING ROAD I I - I
0 ISEACH HELD EXPOSED SEAWALLS IBEACH WITHOUT
:r FEATURES BY GROINS SEAWALL
CD E:
0 z
c m
z
10
MON OUTH BEA
[AS
..S

HIGHLANDS RUMSO NECK

G)
c
m
m

tooo 4o

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
LONG BRANCH DEAL IALLENH@@ MUNICIPAL
BOUNDARY

m
0
0
z
0 IIA 8 B 9A 98 10 ECONOMIC
K REACHES
0
m Z.
4
m

0
FUNCTIONING GROIN FIELD HOLDS SNIALLI BEACH INEFFECTIVE GROIN FIELD COASTAL
UPLAND BEACH WITHOUT SEAWALkXP@Sl BEACH FEATURES
08%VFTL EXPOSED SEAWALL EDlITHOUTd
SEAWALL AL"
WITH GROIN$ AND BEACH SEAWALL SEAWALL
0
c r
z z

LONG BRANCH 'OVEA. Avg,
AKE
10,
rAKA SEE
ELSERO

DEAL

LCAL
ALLENHURST

----------

WAVE
ATTACK

STORM
RECESSION

OAMAGE

CRITICAL
DAMAGE INUNDATION

EVERY YEAR VERY INFREQUENT

FREQUENCY

SCHEMATIC OF CRITICAL

DAMAGE ANALYSIS
DAI @INUND

FIGURE 12

SCALE IN MILES

0 '44 '/2 3/4

ArLANrIC

OCEAN

SANDY HOOK
BAY

SANDY HOOK
CRITICAL ZONE

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

..........

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

.., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .-------
t4OK
-A-"
ZAAA" pRojECT
OF

SANDY HOOK CRITICAL ZONE FIGURE 13

so
49 -
48 -
47 -
46 -
45 -
44 -
43 -
42 -
41 -
40 -
39 -
38
37 -
36 -
0 35 -
34 -
33 -
Z 32 -
31
30 -
29 - MAXIMUM NET BENEFITS
u-
w 28 - $ 14.8 MILLION
z 27 - AT 100 FEET
w
26 -
25 -
24 -
D 23
z 22 -
z 21 -
4
20 -
19 -

17 -
16

14 -
13 -
12 -
11
10

0 20 40 60 so 100 120 140 160 ISO 200

BERM WIDTH (FT.)

ANNUAL COSTS ANNUAL 13ENEFITS

MAXIMUM NET BENEFITS
FILL ONLY PLAN
SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP

FIGURE 14

so-
49-
48-
47-

46-
45-

44-
43-
42-
41-
40-
39
38-
V) 37-
F_
(f) 36-
0 35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L)
34-
a 33-
Z 32-
U)
31
cn 30-
29- MAXIMUM NET BENEFITS
28- $ 13.99 MILLION
uj AT 95 FEET
z 27-
LLJ 26-
m
25-
_j 24-
23-
z 22-
z 21-
20-
19-
18-

16-
15-
14-
13
12

0 20 40 60 so 100 120 140 160 ISO 200

BERM WIDTH (FT.)

ANNUAL COSTS ANNUAL BENEFITS

MAXIMUM NET BENEFITS
AUTHORIZED -GROIN PLAN
SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP

FIGURE 15

50
49-
48-
47-
46-
45-
44-
43-
42-
41-
40-
39-
38
37
36
0 35
L)
34
33 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Z 32-
U)
31
U) 30
t: MAXIMUM NET BENEFITS
L, 29 $ 13. 14 MILLION
Lu 28 AT 85 FEET
z 27
Ill 26
(13
25
-1 24
D 23
z 22
z 21
20

16
13
14
13
12
:0 it
0 20 40 60 so too 120 140 160 ISO 200

BERM WIDTH (FT.)

ANNUAL COSTS ANNUAL BENEFITS

MAXIMUM NET BENEFITS
UPDATED GROIN PLAN
SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP

FIGURE 16

C
a
500.

U. 400.
0

w
z 300-
w

w
z

w
U)

W 200.

z
z

100-

0
1 2 3 4

BERM CAP HEIGHT (FT)

ANNUAL NET BENEFITS FIGURE 17
FOR BERM CAPS OVER
10' FT. M.L.W.

-4-

0 fooo .000
GRAPHIC SCALE-IN FE
A- MUNICIPAL SEA BRIGHT MONMOUTH BEACH
BOUNDARY PLAN

REACH BOUNDARIES
cl) O-EQUAL FILL
0 PLACEMENT PLAN

ZONES OF CRITICAL EROSION
C- CRITICAL EROSION
m PLAN

PUBLIC BEACH AREAS
0
z D-PUBLIC BEACH
PLAN r
0
SEAWALLS A4D GROINS PROTECT BUILDINGS
E- COASTAI EXPOSED SEAWALL, PROTECTING ROAD I I
FEATURES PLAN IBEACH HELD EXPOSED SEAWALLS BEACH WiTHOUTI
BY GROINS' SEAWALL

m REACH IS REACH IA
m F- COMPOSITE PLAN (CONTRACT 8) (CONTRACT A)
z @ 14
>
"s MON OUTH a
to
m

HIGHLAN03 RUMSO NECK

z
0 2.00 ...0 ..o.

ic SCALE IN FEET
LONG BRANCH ELBERON DEAL IALLENHURSTI A-MUNICIPAL
BOUNDARY PLAN

8- EQUAL FILL
PLACEMENT PLAN

c-CRIT
ICAL EROSION
PLAN

U)
D- PUBLIC BEACH
o PLAN
z

0
FUNCTIONING GROIN FIELD HOLDS SMALL BEACH INEFFECTIVE GROIN FIELD E- COASTAL
UPLAND SEA 'BEACH WITHOU EXPOSED SEAWALL BEACH WITHOUT SEAWA BEACH FEATURES PLAN
OSED WITHOUT
r
> ROINS AN@NALL &p
WITH BEACH SEAWALL SEAWALLSEAWALL

m REACH 2 REACH F- COMPOSITE PLAN

0.
z

act&*
LONG BRANCH XAKE
TA" SEE ELBERO

DEAL

PEAL
HURST
LAKE

c
;u
(TI
ED

"All

N564@00
0

N564,000
@![_DDLETO. N TWP.
SEA BRIGHT BORO

. . ....... ..

CD
0

.. ..... ....

570,000

N570.000

N-9 6 2,
_000

N562_@ooo

"op-

... .... ...

N568
000

N568 ooo

0
0
F

c*) AT,
Q,
CD
N560,000 - - - - - - - - -

hL5 0 @000

M
;o C)
0 M
Z
m
cl)

joM
M
(A
M
m
REACH
z
-n M
(CONTRACT B) LIMIT N566.0oo
;o
U) o
zr (CONTRACT A) LIMIT
o>
u) Z
-im -i ca
0 0
m m
-n 0
0
@;o C) 0 0
0 z ;K
9 cm 0 0
m
C) U)
0 rri
m U) Cc)
0 M >0
C
>
z z
m
m
z .0 >
Nq5 00
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3:

m i3
m 4s

MATOW LINE
.:MA,c NE::

0 0
0 0 0
0 q ArLANrIC OCEAN 0
0 Lo r4
11: Lo to
tn Lo In
Ln z z
106 z 108
110 112

E21! 4.000

... .......

... .....

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

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

ul
Ln -?@
9 ArLANr1c OCEA N p
0 0
0 0
0120 122 124 125 126 0

LEGEND:.
PROJECT BASELINE
- - - M.L.W. SHORELINE FOR

-2194,000

X_ 7
z@

. . ....... .

200
Ln

Fn
Ul
b

X%,j, lo

MATCA LINE D
3NI-1 HDIVW m REACH I LIMIT
LO

0
0
gol REACH 2 LIMIT r*j
0
a-(CCNTRACT A)
--OC-)O
-60-yotl -r-N
....... ..... ... .

0 0 @Or, 9 N

Xx:

..........

............... 000 ts

0 @ov

C)
0

ILI
Fl.d

<
000 r.-sgN

z r
0
Z
-1 rn
m
0
-0
Xx
0 @;o 0 0
z
rn
M
>
0
M
0 U) i:iIX
z
00--OOOTcg
W a)
M 0
-C) m >
(D ::E
z
.0 Z a) z
U) m
;o 6) M
> >
z -0 2:
c-
m

m
rmn @-D
0
MATCH
LINE "F" 0
.. .. ....... .

-Z
Ln
Lp ATLANTIC OCEA N
N
fit
0
0 0 170
0 0 0
0 164
162

0 -1 _j

cu pq

Q C.)

ui w
cc cr

..........

.... ..........
. ... ...... .... . ..
......... .... -
. . ........ .............
..........
()00 ......... .... ...............
. ........... .
... ..............
.. ...... ...-
. . ... .... .

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

. . ...........
..........-
....... .........
...............
.......... . . ...
NU

... .......
. ............. .. @Av
.. ........... ......
.. . . ......
. ....... ...........
..........
.............
. . .... ..... .
........... .
........ ..
............... . .....
. .. ..... . ..................
............
..........
.... .........
. .....................
....... ... ... ........

N
0 ATLANTIC OCEAN
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
k.000 174 176 178 180 182

00
.0

... ...... .
. .... ..... ... ..
.. . .... ....
.. ... ......
.........
.. ........ ...
..........
. .... . .................
. . ... .....
............. . . .......
.. ..............
. ........ ...... ........ . ..... -
. .. . ......
.... .. ..... . -

.... . .. ...
....... ... .. .....
...... .......-
..... ..........
.... ........
.. ..... ....-
. .. ....... .
co -.1 :::, @ I
.. ... .. ....
. ..... .......

.. ..... .....
@occ
@occ

0
OCEAN
AVE.
--- ---------- -

-wo 200 40*

F19T
SCAL

ATCH LINE mll --H FID -0-001-9191,
CD
0
0 RQSFLQ AVE 0 0
0

00
OD

MONmouTH DR
00
(D

-tb6r @11
AvE.
EAL-- PRO
ALLENHURST BO x
Zt
ih
CIO

a -000-11914

(D
rn

-A-
rn

ALLENHURST BORO--
VILLA 'E 01--- LOCH' WR--BOUR-
M
Z ;o G)
o m
c- z
m
cl)0

-n 0
m m a)
IT! m >
Ln
M--
rr, Z r-
M
a) -n M
M
X
CA 0
> DEAL
z I- OD 0
o r- -
cn --4 0
m --Im --i HOO-1 ZIO ------ 0 co
m 0 C-)= F)- A-110 Auv' xuneSV > m 000--1-or-N
0 :j 0 LAKE -1 ;u
0 @;o 0 0 Z5 g
?. o 2 x 0 z
c: Ill 0
m
M > >
z 0 (n
z rn -i
0 -j W a)
m C) M > 0
a -::E > ;, -n
_0 I? Z CD
U) m
Ull G) M
>
z -i
c-
0 C
@coc

m
m m p b
0 0 a
L C
0
C, 0 @10

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 80 PROFILE LINE 82

1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1965 SURVEY PROFILE
m 20. It DESIGN PROFILE 20@ DESIGN PROFILE
0 x P. 2' BERN CAP
0 la-

miw MLW
71 M G) 0'.
0@00' 12@01 1400' 1600' 1@00. V 4 0' 60
OD 0 20 % 4;0. 60'0. 35 86 1 210 35 800' 1000' 1200' 1400' 1600' 1800*
m 0 > %\ I I
z

-2a-
M -2d.

:]c 0
Z -36 -30

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
>m
0 PROFILE LINE 84 PROFILE LINE 90
.i z In 1965 SURVEY PROFILE 1965 SURVEY PROFILE
1- 20, -DESIGN PROFILE 20- -DESIGN PROFILE
0 m
>
10
_n to* 10,
0
;0 MLW--, 0. MLW
260' 4 0' 60 Soo, 1000' 1200' 1400, 1600, Isoo, ?00' 400' 600' 800' 1000' dOO' 1400' IiOO' 18'00'
35
-to'-

-20t
rn 20

1\)
0 NOTE:PROFILE LINE LOCATIONSARE
-30!1 -36J SHOWN IN FIGURE19
46 @11;0' @01

460 @16@0" 1160'

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 92 PROFILE LINE 94
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
m 2 DESIGN PROFILE 20t DESIGN PROFILE
0 X TYP. 2' BERM CAP
0 la. ..
10 10
:0 z %
M G) 0 MLW NILW
1600' 14@00' 20 800' 1000' 1200' 1400' 1600' 1800'
?00'--4;0' GOO- S;V 10!601 126V 1400 6 ol
a) 0 > \%
rn 3 z
ic a - Id-
m
z a
IC) m .2d- _zCr_

G)
Z -3d- -30-i

r SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
i z 0 PROFILE LINE 96 PROFILE LINE 100
n 19135 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
r- @@DESIGN PROFILE @@DESIGN PROFILE
0 m 20' 1 20-
(J) I

I lo,-
10 10
0
0. MLw 0. MLW
2bO Gov sou tolaw i?.60! t400' tl.00! t600' 260. \4,00'. GOO- SOO- 1000- 1200- 1400' IGOO' 400.

-lo'

;D
M -20@ -20t

PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS ARE
0 NOTE:
-30 -30-i SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 102 PROFILE LINE 104
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
DESIGN PROFILE 2 0'- DESIGN PROFILE
M TYP. 2' BERM CAP

10
0 10
m z ot % MLW O.__ MLW
m 2 0 400 Soo, Soo, 800' 1000' 1200' 1400' 16001 iaool
1000' 120W 140, 1@001 18100, _2'00@ 00, 600,
a) 0
m 35
;0 z
m -20'
z a -2d-
m

x -3d- -30
z
SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
> PROFILE LINE 106 PROFILE LINE 108
0 1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1965 SURVEY PROFILE
-n 20"- -DESIGN PROFILE
F 20'
0 m
> U) NO FILL REQUIRED lo..
Id-

0 MLw MLW
01.
i@00' 140' 1800' g6o'-%'@400' 600' 800' 1000' 1200' 1400' 1600' 1800'
2i0&@,, 4bV IZU $60 11300 12bO

-10, 35
L

15
-n It

c: -201.
;a 2e
m
NOTE: PROFILE
N E LINE LOCATIONS I@E
0 3&' -30* SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 110 PROFILE LINE 112
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
m 20 DESIGN PROFILE 20-' DESIGN PROFILE
x TYP. 2' BERN CAP

10. t..... la-
to
z 11
MLw 0.. MLW
0'. ------ r %
200' 400' 600, 800, 1000' 1200' 14@0' I@OV 1 0' 200' 400. 600. 600' 1000' 1200' 14'00' 1660' IiOO'
z Id. -10'.
0 35
m 0
-20.
m 20

z 3d -30*

M
SEA BRIGHT M OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
z 0 PROFILE LINE 114 PROFILE LINE 116
n 1965 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
r- - DESIGN PROFILE -DESIGN PROFILE
m 20% 20P.

10, 101.
C)
X MLIN MLW
260@ '460' GbO' 860' 600' 12bO' 1400' 1601Y 1800' 2 4 (Y 600' 800' 1000' 1200' 400. 400. doo.
35

c
m -20'.
rn _20,_
IN)
NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOC
0 ATIO@S ARE
1-30-1 -W SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 120 PROFILE LINE 122
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1965 SURVEY PROFILE
20 DESIGN PROFILE 20! DESIGN PROFILE
m
0 x TYP. 2' BERM CAP
0

_n
71 MLW o MLW
M G) 0. -1
26-@-4;O' SOO- 116 10@1010` 126V 140W 11600 11100' 21011 400' 600' 1100' 10'00' 1260- 14'00' 16@0' 400'
m 0
z

-20-
M -2d-
m tn
C) G)
Z -3d' _30-

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
-n > M
ri z 0 PROFILE LINE 124 PROFILE LINE 126
n 1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
0 r- 20 DESIGN PROFILE 20- DESIGN PROFILE
m

Id. to,-

MLw 0. MLW
260- 460 600. Soo 1600. 12@0. 1400' 1@00' la"Ool 200 40 600' SOO- 10@00' d0O' 14`00' IiOO' 18'00'
-to' -to*- 1\
G)

m -20! -20t
@460' ro;O'., 116

0 NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS ARE
.3o, SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOW14SHIP
PROFILE LINE 128 PROFILE LINE 130
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
m 20 DESIGN PROFILE 20,- DESIGN PROFILE
0 TYP. 2' BERM CAP
0
to'-

:0 z
It ML
m o'. - - w- 01- MLW
CD (1) N 2@0. 0. 600' 600' 10@00 1260 14;01 16'00' 18'00' 200P '400' -6;0' 800' 1000- 1200' 1400- 1600- 1800-
m 0
z
0
m
2
a m
m (A -2d
z -30,
r- "D
-n > ;a SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
z 0
.-i n PROFILE LINE 132 PROFILE LINE 134
F 1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
0 M 20, DESIGN PROFILE 20P.
ch

-n lo@ 101- NO FILL REQUIRED
0

MLw-, 0- MLW
2 00, GOOP Boo, 11300' 1260' 1400' 1600 1800' 200' 40a \ 600' 800' 1000' 1200' 1400' 1600* 1800'

-10,

c:
;D
m -20
IN)
0 NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS ARE
1-301 SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 140 PROFILE LINE 142
- - - - - 1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
m 20 - DESIGN PROFILE 20-"% DESIGN PROFILE
x 2' BERM CAP
(1) 10%
0

M Z MLW 01- MLW
M G) d- 0. 1 _" 0.-11% 0' 1000' 1260' 1400' 1600' 400'
a) 0 200' 400' rso, 100 120& 1400* 1600' 1800' 260' 46 N% r.;O. e'o
m 0 >

m
z
0 m -2d. -?.Of
M ILn
G)
Z - 3d- -30'

'D SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
-n > ;o PROFILE LINE 146
z 0 PROFILE LINE 144
n 1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
r- 20- DESIGN PROFILE 20P. -DESIGN PROFILE
m
U)
_n Id- 7*\ lo..
0
X MLw NLW
op. 000' 1200' 1400' 1600' 1800' '261Z Oa 600. 800' 1000' 1200' 1400' 1600- 1800'
-40 4 0' 600, 800, 1

-lot. 35 _10- N, 35
G)

:0
-20 -20 4601 60'
8Z)O' 10100'
IiIDI

IN)
0 NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS IRE@
3 -30 SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 148 PROFILE LINE 149
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
m 20'- DESIGN PROFILE 20- DESIGN PROFILE
x TYR 2' BERM CAP
0
-11 it
M Z MLW` 0.. MLW
rn G) o'- I I
CD C-) 20 4 0' 6;0. 66 10,00' 12100' 141@0' 1@00. 1;00. @00:@ 00. 6;0' 6100' 1000' 1200' 1400' 1600, 1600,
m 0 > %.%\ "
;u z -to-.
ic 0 11 35
m 0 -11
2
* a L')
M
m
z -30" -30*1

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 150 1 PROFILE LINE 154
.4 z 0
'n % 1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
0 r- 20@ -DESIGN PROFILE 20A -DESIGN PROFILE
m
@7 to*-
_n
C)
MLw 0 MLW
200' 1200' 1400* 1600' 1800' 200 Do- 600 800. 1000 1200' 1400' 1600' 1800'
@1400' 600' 800' 10011' 1200

T -to' -so!
G) '35
c:
m - 0.1
M 2
1\30
0 NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS ARE
I@ -30. -30'. SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 156 PROFILE LINE 158

1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1965 SURVEY PROFILE
20! DESIGN PROFILE 20,- DESIGN PROFILE
m
x TYP. 2' BERM CAP I
0
10

M G) co@ - MLW O,- MLW
0 2;0.-"@;O- 6;01 8;V 10@60 1260- 1400- 160CY 1;00' 20 8100' 10100' 1260' 1400' 1600' 1600'
0 > %. I
z
a 35
MI a
z m -2d -20'
V (j)
M
G)
Z 3Orj -30'

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
Z 0 PROFILE LINE 160 PROFILE LINE 162
-n 19135 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
F DESIGN PROFILE DESIGN PROFILE
rn 20%

lu
-n to
0
CI,. w O.. NILW
26 00. 6@0- 860. 1600. 1200. 1400. 1@0:1 Boo, 20Q@ -4@0- 6@10- S&O' IdOO- 12'00- 1400- Ii0O- 18'00-

NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS ARE
-10'. -10@ SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

m -20

0
-3

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 164 PROFILE LINE 170
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
20 DESIGN PROFILE 20'- DESIGN PROFILE
m
0 x TYP, 2' BERM CAP
0 lo@ IV-

MLW`
MLW
m
600* 800' 1000- 1200- - - DO-
2 660- 10@00' 12OC11 IZO 1600, 1800, -200- 1400- 1660- 1
CD 0 0 400' 600
m C) > %,@
Z
33 35

M -2d-
z -2(Y

M
G)
Z -3d -30'

-0 SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
-n > ;u PROFILE LINE 171 PROFILE LINE 172
z 19
85 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
DESIGN PROFILE DESIGN PROFILE
20P-
0 m

10,-
10,
0
;o MLW 0 MLW
200 400' 600' 800' 1000- 12bO' 1400- 1600, Isno, 200 40a 600, Boo, 1000' 1200' 1400. libo. 18,00.

G) 35
c:
-2 -20' NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS ARE
SHOWN IN FIGURE 19
1-36 j 1-30

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 174 PROFILE LINE 176
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
m 20 DESIGN PROFILE 2o'- DESIGN PROFILE
x I TYP. 2' 13ERM CAP I
10;.
10%

Z
N@ MLW MLW
M G) 0'. - @ I I
2'*b 40'0. 60'o. 8@w lo@o ",,,20 400' 600' 800' 1000' 1200' 1400' 1600' 1800'
!0 OF 1260' 1400' 1600' 1800'
z _10% -to'-

Z M -20r' -20f-
U)
G)
Z -3dj -3W-

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
z 0 PROFILE LINE 178 PROFILE LINE 180
1965 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
40, -DESIGN PROFILE 20'. -DESIGN PROFILE
m

lol-
_n
0
;u MLw v - MLW
1@00. 1260, 1;00. doo. isoo. 260- \4R Goo. soo. 1000. 1200' 14100' 400' 18700'

,n -lot
E) 35
c
:0 -20'
rn _20,_
44VU ov
bUu' "00' 'OUV' "4
00'

LINE LOC ATIONS AR@
1 19
0 NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS ARE
-30 SHOWN IN FIGURE 19
1-30'

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 182 PROFILE LINE 183
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
20 DESIGN PROFILE 20, DESIGN PROFILE
x TYP. 2' BERM CAP
0 zo- 10.- ........

M Z MLW
%I MLW
200"- -40 @60; 0 -. Soo- IOCIOP 1200' 140W 1@00. 1;00. 200' 46c@@6;0. 8100' 1000' 1200' 14`00 1660 18@00
0
0

z M -20' -20'

G)
Z 3d]

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 184 PROFILE LINE 186
z 0
n 1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
r- 20, -DESIGN PROFILE 20f- DESIGN PROFILE
m
U)
10 77' 10 .. ........ .
%..0 _n lo,
0 1. \
MLW 0.. MLW
8001 1000' 1200* 1400' 1600' 1800' 200',,,,AO(Y 600, Boo, 1000, 1200' 1400' 1600' 1800'
2 0 400' 6ow

c:
;a _20-
rn -201-
I\) NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS ARE
0
36J -30' SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 168 1 PROFILE LINE 190
1
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
m 2 0'- -DESIGN PROFILE 2 0-' 1 DESIGN PROFILE
I
0 x TYP. 2' 13ERM CAP I
0 W
'o

;o Z
M G) MLW` MLW
0 '12,00. ;0. G;O' 800' IOOCIP 1200' 14@01 1@001 1@00' 200*\ 4 0- 600. 800 1000' 1200' 1400' 1600' 1800*
0 >

35
Z rn -2d'
0
m -

-30'
z -3d
'o
r-
> :u SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
i z 0 PROFILE LINE 191 PROFILE LINE 192
n 1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
F DESIGN PROFILE 20P- -DESIGN PROFILE
m 2 1
U)
-n 10' to,- N:**"*-
0 j"ll
MLw 0.. % MLW
ZL,O"-4@V fbO' 86. lo!60. t2,00. 14,00' 1600' 1800'
2 0 400' Gov Bow 1000' 1200' 1400' 1600' 1900'

*Tll -10'.

r" -2d- -20'

0 NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS ARE
-3dj -30 SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
PROFILE LINE 194 PROFILE LINE 196
1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
60 20- DESIGN PROFILE
m I
0 x NO FILL REQUIRED TYP. 2'BERM CAP

m Z MLw MLW
MI G) O,- toIDo, I
0 \2kO' 400, 600, Boo. 10'0(Y 126V 14@0- 1@0& 1;OO' .;O 8,00 1200- 1400 1660 1800-
OD 0 > _ 1\
m 3 Z
0
rn 0
Z
0 Mm -2d
M -
0 G)
Z 3d] -34Y
r- 13
> SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP
-n PROFILE LINE
Z 0 PROFILE LINE 198
m 1985 SURVEY PROFILE 1985 SURVEY PROFILE
0 r- 20% DESIGN PROFILE 2OP- DESIGN PROFILE
MI
> U) i

10
0
MLw O.. MLW
op
-2 @ @0410 O' GOV 8;O. 1@007-12,0-wlioo, moo. lioo. 260- 4@0! GOO- BOO- 1000' 1200' 1400' 1600' Isool
,n
-lo'

;D
m -2 -20
19
0 NOTE: PROFILE LINE LOCATIONS ARE
-30 SHOWN IN FIGURE 19

EXISTING SEAWALL

10 CONSTRUCTION TEMPLATE
m
0

r- 0
0 M.L.W.
0 0
z m
m

--20
c i-
0
i
0 -10-
DESIGN FILL TEMPLATE

EXISTING PROFILE
-20J
m LINE No. 128

tie

0 200 400 600 Boo 1000 1200 14 0

DISTANCE (FEET)

REACHI REACH I REACH2 REACH LEGEND
(CONTRACT 8) ICONTRACT A) GIWO ADVANCE FILL (A)
12.220' 15.808, 17.655' 16.753'
FEEDER FILL (F)
C2::4 INITIAL FILL (1)
CONSTRUCTION TAPER VOLUME (T)*
CONTRACT

MAL
0
0 1 too*
z
m
z c .............. ....................
C MM NOTE ALL TAPERS
0 MZ 2nd 5 ON I SLOPE
C 00 CONSTRUCTION
C)M CONTRACT

GEAL
13 WIDTHS
m m-n A- 19.1'
0 z F-iol
c-0C-) I-100,
M m 0
0
i

0 3rd
0 C: CONSTRUCTION
Z 0 CONTRACT
z-i

WIDTH$
c A,
0 1to4y
m 0
10 m
4th
z CONSTRUCTION 0.542'

G) CONTRACT
7
m
+IDTHS
3

rn A
U) F45'
I too,

EXISTING SEAWALL REMOVED ROCK
20

BERM WIDTH 100'

EXISTING GROIN No-46

0
M.H.W.
0 ...

m ...... ......
13 M.L.W.
G)

0
2 DESIGN FILL TEMPLATE

0
m
0 -10-

EXISTING PROFILE
U)
m LINE No. 128
0

0 -20-1
z

"n
G)
100 2'0 0 30'0 4'00 510 0 60' 0 70' 0
rn DISTANCE (FEET)

N
EA

OCEAN
ATLANTIC 0
0
cz)
w
Lo
z

SECTION I SECTION
SECTION I REHABILATION SECTION 2 REHABILATiON
FEILUILITATION IOF OVERWASH MLZA REWORK ENTIRE OUTER FACE WITH
PROVIDE STONE TOE PROTECTION

(950 FT.) WITH STONE MAT.

...........

.......... ......
................ .......
0

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

wx 0
M 0 @ -
< 0
ew
m En to
0
0

0 0
0 ATLANTIC OCEAN
0 O@ 0
0

E2194.0()o

SECTION 2
SECTION 2 REHABILITATION
REWORK
ENTIRE OUTER FA6 EXISTING & 15% NEW CAPSTONE;
PROVIDE . STONE TOE PROTECTION (7450 FT. TOTAL)

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

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

200 0 200 400
sa@
SCALE FE ET
J.@@2192.00o

0
0 0
0 q ArLANTIC OCEA N 0
0 ul 14
N: Lo to
M to to
U) z SECTION 7a az REHABILITATI
z
REWORK.ENTIRE OUTER FA
PROVIDE STON5 ITOE PROT
SECTION 8 3200 FT. T(

E2194.000 -SECTION 7

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

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

-tw
. ..... .

ATLANr1c OCEAN p
0 0
0 0
0 0
SECTION 11 REHABILITATION
REWORK LOWER 50% OF OUTER FACE WITH EXISTING & 15Z NEW
CAPSTONE; PROVIDE STONE TOE PROTECTION (600 FT. TOTAL)

SECTION

SECTION 8
N 8 REHABILITATION
SECTIO =::@@ IT11 y
TER 'FACE W @XISTING & 15% NEW CAPSTONE;
REWORK ENTIRE OU (3200 'FT- TOTAL)
TECTION
PROVIDE STONE TOE PRO

230
220
.. . . .............
210

0.:::
...........

@-Pooo
ArLANTIC OCEAN
@?ooo

SECTION 14 REHABILITION

REWORK MIDDLE 50% OF THE OUTER FACE FOR 5 SECTIONS
(210 FT. TOTAL) WITH EXISTING 10% NEW CAPSTONE.

E219 Z G)

o -4

........ ...

.7
.......... ...
k

ATLANr1c OCEAN
0 0
0 0
0 0

z
rn z

0
2192.

OCEAN AVE.
A

OCEAN
B
LVD.

Ld
200
SCALE E

0 0
0 0
0
0

REHABILITATE EXIST
3/4 OVERWASH AREA

LOW WATER ELEV. Ocagn Ave.
m OCEAN FLOOR -V-BROKEN STONE SLOPE
ch Original V PROTECTION. 12" THICK
3/4" CLEAN STONE.157.
..eM ground IV THICK
FILTER FABRIC
50, 4 7' 50'

0 -1 SECTION I
X M 0 STA. 10 +00 - 19 + 50
0 a:X
> C)
REMOVE OUTER LAYER (5 TON -9 TON UNITS) LIMIT OF NEW CONCRETE BERM VOID FILLER
z & REPLACE WITH EXIST. 5 15% NEW 10, 12,F
r. CAPTURE (5-9 TON) -EXIST VOID FILLER TO BE BROKEN &REMOVED
m - T IN ORDER THAT THE DENSITY OF THE EXIST
510 3/4 WALL CAN BE EXAMINED.
c: FILL INTERNAL CAPSTONE VOIDS WITH
CORESTONE (TYPICALI'rSO TO '0500
i5 4e--EXIST. SPLASH PAD-SIDEWALK
Z Z NEW OR REHANDLED CAPSTONE
a) INITIAL TOE REINFORCEMENT 14't-I
m STONE.5-6 TON CAPSTONt

LOW WATER LEVEL
OCEAN FLOOR 101� CORESTONE LAYER. 12" THICK (2 LB.- 50 LB. TYPICAL)

_.---CRUSHED STONE
50' 47' 50'

TOE STRUCTURE SECTION 2
m STA. 19+50-94+00

REMOVE OUTER LAYER (5 TON-9 TON) & REPLACE
m WITH EXIST. a 15% NEW CAPSTONE (5-9 TON)

M co FILL INTERNAL CAPSTONE VOIDS WITH CORESTONE
(*"bO TO -ObOO)
a: 11/2 3/4
r- INSTALL TOE REINFORCEMENT STONE I
6 - 8 TON CAPSTONE
0 M NEW OR REHANDLED
10 M 0 CAPSTONE
0 m M
> 0
cl)
z

LOW WATER LEVEL
m 0
0 C
OCEAN FLO R CORESTONE LAYER.12"THICK
(2 1-8-50 LB. TYPICAL)
Z Z CRUSHED STONE LAYER.6"THICK
W 50' 48' 50*
m
0 TOE STRUCTURE
m

SECTION 7
0

'n STA. 167+50 179+00
F)
c
m
m

FILL INTERNAL CAPSTONE VOIDS WITH
CORESTONE ('050 T0150011 10,
EXIST. CONCRETE BERM FILLER 1112 3
REMOVE OUTER LAYER (5 TON-9 TON) I
REPLACE WITH EXIST 8 15% NEW BUILDING
CAPSTONE (5-9 TONS) CONCRETE
INSTALL TOE REINFORCE STONE COURTYARD
8-9 TON CAPSTONE
m
> LOW WATER LEVEL-*,
M co
't)> ;a 11.5'� CORESTONE LAYER, 12" THICK (2 LB. - 50 LB. TYPICAL)
* CRUSHED STONE LAYER.6" THICK
> G)
> r- 50, 45' - 50

TOE STRUCTURE
0 M
M M 0 SECTION 11
0 :r M STA. 251tOO-257tOO
(n > 0 REMOVE OUTER LAYER (5 TON-9 TON) 5 r-LIMITS OF NEW CONCRETE BERM FILLER
a) z REPLACE WITH EXIST. & 15% NEW 10'- 12' 1 ..
I- g CAPSTONE (5-9 TON) a BERM FILLER
m - FILL INTERNAL CAPSTONE VOIDS WITH FEXIST CONCRETE
0 CORESTONE (TYPICAL11050 TO 0500
0 c: 3/4
NEW OR REHANDLED CAPSTONE 11/2
INSTALL TOE REINFORCEMENT STONE 6-'s I I
Z Z TON CAPSTONE Ocean Ave.
w
m
> 161+
0 LOW WATER LEVEL--*,
3:
OCEAN FLOOR 11.5t
CORESTONE LAYER. 12" THICK 2 LB.-50 LB. TYPICAL)
50' CRUSHED STONE LAYER.6"THICK 50'
48'
)N)
4EW
r
16'�

OCEAN FLOOR

TOE S
TRUCTURE
c:
:0 SECTION 8
m
N STA. 202+00 - 234+ 00
4N.
C@ I I

REHABILITATION SCHEDULE

STATION LENGTH WIDTH DEPTH
STA. 269-i-50� TO 270#00' 50' 17' 4'
m
STA.270*60t TO 270-1-90t 30, 17' 4-
STA.271+35t TO 271465 � 3V 17' 4'�
m a)
REMOVE OUTER LAYER (5 TON - 9 TON) 8 STA. 272 + 50t TO 273+00� 50' 17' 4'
REPLACE WITH EXIST. & 10% NEW ISTA. 274-125t TO 274 -175 t 50' 1 17' 1 4'
CAPSTONE (5-9 TON)
TOTAL LENGTH WORK THIS SECTION 210'
NEW OR REHANDLED CAPSTONE
0 FILL INTERNAL CAPSTONE VOIDS WITH
;a M 0
0 X CORESTONE (TYPICAU AV50 TO4500 a.
(1)> C)
ch a) 11/2
U) r- 3/4
m 0
0 1
c 5 */o
X
Z Z
CD LOW WATER LEVEL :X
m 5
0 OCEAN FLOOR
3: SECTION 14

STA. 267400-277+00

m
@
WIT
0 '0500 @\

N 00"

Roo

HIGHLANDS

0 2 3

SCALE IN NAUTICAL MILES

SEA ORION

6.05900v

MONMOUTH VACH 44

NORTH
LOF40
OAANCM.

LONG BRANCH

MAL

ALLERINURST
LEGEND:

LOCH ARBOUR MAINTENANCE OF THE
XISTING FUN TIONAL
sOur, E C
ASBURY PARK STRUCTURES
LIMIT

. . . . . . . . . . .
........ PERIODIC BEACH NOURISHMENT

BEACH FILL TO A BERN WIDTH

IRACLIV @EACH
OF 75 FT. (BEACH WIDTH OF 215 F11

GROIN MODIFICATION

VOR

-W"X AYVM INIZr

FIGURE 25
NEW JERSEY STATE MASTER PLAN

SEA BRIGHT TO OCEAN TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION AND EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE (DOLLARS) SEPTEMBER 1987 PRICE LEVEL

FIRST
COST
PRIOR 1987 .1988 1989. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 TOTALS
YEARS IJ FMAMJJASONDIJFMAMJJASOND IJFMAMJJASONDIJFMAMJJASONDIJFMAMJJASONDIJFMAMJJAASS NO J FMA'MJJ ASONDI J FMAMJ JASON DI
PREPARATION OF DRAFT GDM 43,750,000

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL
GDIA
PREPARATION OF PLANS a $210.000 $210,000 $210.000 $2,10,000
SPECIFICATIONS (REACH [A) (REACH IB) (REACH 2) (REACH 3)

REVIEW Ek.APPROVAL OF PLANS
Ek SPECIFICATIONS

ADVERTISE.OPEN a EVALUATE
BIDS
ENGINEERING DURING CONSTRUCTION (FEDERAL WORK) $55.838 4111.5-64 $121.212 $139AOI 128,447
ENGINEERING Ek DESIGN (NON-FEDERAL WORK) -, $50,000 $223.345 t 8.564 $17.126 $9,218 144. $52,516 $5 .551.823
SUPERVISION S ADMINISTRATION $1,080.000 $60.000 $528.307 $1,417.003 $1,093,163 $1,412 $935.030-
A S, I a A (FEDERAL WORK) CONSTRUCTION
B. MONITORING PRE - CONSTRUCTION $46.875 $28.-125 * 1.19 1. 00 0.,
PRE - CONSTRUCTJON POST- CotjSTRUqTION 5 YEARS)
C. S, I a A (NON-FEDERAL WORK) $20.000 $496,571 103.541 $201.184 $-231.979 1322,1346 1 $26,258 7 .703.252
1. ) CONSTRUCTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN $13.224,801 $26.449,603
REACH I (CONTRACT A) -
REACH I (CONTRACT B) 11.871.637 $15,828,849
REACH 2 13.074.828 26.149,655
1
REACH 3 $12,@,63.129 $25,926,258 $ 14.5 .488,760

2-).OUTFALL EXTENSIONS
REACH I (CONTRACT A) 4 14 2. 720 1285,4 39
$153.621 t307,2 I
REACH 2
REACH 3 44 7,632 $875,263 12 .20 1,916

3.) GROIN NOTCHING
REACH 2 1192,950 t385,9 0
REACH 3 lita.,832 $337.662 1.085,344**
1 $10,933,333 **
SEAWALL REHABILITATION PLAN 410,93.3,333 00 $19.952.900**
REAL ESTATE $2.644,570 $3,308,630 $6,420,700 @7,579,0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4.900,000 414,614,794 $ 17.610,526 146,984,256 $38,494.820 $42.031.498 $28,261,434 192.917,328
TOTAL FEDERAL t4.900.000 1316,875 $14,047,071 t40,059.607 $30, 52 1,002 P4 1,2 19.587 $ 2 7,327.39 7 $158.321,739
@71.6 3 2
)TO 0

TOTAL NON-FEDERAL $.0 $14, 29 7.919 $3,563,455 $6,924,449 7. 973.8 18 811.911 $954,037 34,595, 5 89
NOTE: NOT INCLUDED IN FIRST COST OF TOTAL SaA COSTS OR EXPENDITURES.
INCLUDES CONTINGENCIES.
FIGURE 26

APPENDIX 8

PERTINENT CORRZSPowmcz

State of New Jersey
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TRENTON PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO

CN 401
DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCE$ TRENTON, N.J. 06623

December 3, 1987

Colonel Marion L. Caldwell
New York District
Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278

Dear Colonel Caldwell:

On behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection, be advised we
have reviewed the draft Local Cooperation Agreement for the construction
of the Federally authorized Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet Shore Pro-
tection Project, Section 1 Sea Bright to Ocean Township.

The department stands ready to enter into a more formal agreement
and provide to the Corps the following:

a) All lands, easements and right-of-ways
b) To undertake the reconstruction of the seawall in
in Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach and to carry
out this construction in accordance with Corps of
Engineers criteria
c) Provide public access to the beachfront, area
d) Hold and save the government free from all damages
arising from the construction except for damages due to
to the fault of negligence of the contractor or the
qovernent

Please be assured that this office stands ready to continue cooperating
with the district in order to carry this project to campletion.

Please feel free to contact myself or Bernard J. Moore at 1433 Hooper Avenue,
Two River, New Jersey, 08753 or 201-286-6447.

Sincerely,

John R. Weignart
Director

BJM:mm

#tatt of New 31croell

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CN 401 DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES
TRENTON. N.j OWS PLEASE ADORESS REPLY ?0
1433 HOOPER AVENUE
TOMS AWER. N.j 047S3
January 13, 1988 201-2&"447

Mr. Samuel Tosi,.Chief
Planning Branch
New York District
corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New Yorkr NY 10278

Dear Mr. Tosi:

Submitted for your review and approval is a proposal for the
rehabilitation of the Sea Bright/Monmouth Beach seawall. This
rehabilitation is part of the state effort towards the Sandy Hook
to Barnegat Inlet Federally Authorized Project-Section 1.

For st ate purposes, the total construction cost for the
rehabilitation of the seawall is set at $9,461,388. This cost
will be shared between the stateF and the Boroughs of Monmouth
Beach and Sea Bright.' In -order to comply with the Corps of
Engineers directives, a sum of $467,683 has been added to the
estimate for support services such as; engineering, surveying,
administrative, permitting, etc. In addition to that, an
additional 15 percent has been added to cover contingencies that
may arise between now and the start of the'project. This brings
the total cost of this project to $11,533,432.

As of this writing, be advised that the State of New Jersey is
planning to move forward with the repairs to this seawall and at
the same time obtain all the necessary easements, rights-of-ways
for the overall project including the beachfill. As part of the
state's committment, in accordance with state policy, additional
parking facilities will be provided within the construction area.
Provisions will be made to have people access the beach via
access points over the existing seawall to the proposed beach
area. All this work is being undertaken with the idea that the
Federal Government will be-in a positive position in 1990-1991 to
begin the massive beachfill in this area.
L
4.

Now Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer

Mr. Samuel Tosi, Chief
Page 2
January 13, 1988

We appreciate very much the help and technical assistance that
was provided to this office, from members of my staff and if
there is any other information required to move this project
along, please contact us immediately.

Sincerel

ernard Roore
Assistant Director for
Coastal Engineering

mm
Enclosure
y
@e r:@,

Ore,

UNITED STX DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Habitat Conservation Branch
Management Division
2 State Fish Pier
Gloucester, MA 01930-3097

December 30, 1987 F/NER74:TPM

Mr. Samuel P. Tosi
Department of the Army
New York District
Corps of Engineers
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
New York, NY 10278-0090

Dear Mr. Tosi:

This is in response to your request for information concerning
the presence of endangered and threatened species within a beach
erosion control project from Sea Bright to Ocean Township, New
Jersey pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The project plans will involve the placement of sand to
construct a beach berm and the construction of groins. Off shore
borrow areas will vary in depth from 30 to 60 feet below mean
water.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation
Branch indicated that loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles may
be present in the project area in a letter dated March 31,
1987. In addition, the endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle may
also occur within the project site. They are known to occur in
shallow bays where benthic organisms provide a major food
source. Kemp's ridley turtles may have been found in Long Island
Sound and the Delaware and Chesapeake Bay in summer and fall.
However, their movements through nearshore waters are poorly
understood and information about their distribution is known
almost exclusively through strandings.

No other species within the Northeast Region are proposed for
listing under the ESA of 1973, as amended.

For additional information or coordination regarding this
project, please contact Tracey McKenzie at FTS 838-6258 or (401)
782-3258.

y--
i cere 'I

oug as W. Beach
Fis ries Biologist
@ce
re y

B
oug as W@B
is rie
64 V-t., @\
W4

OR
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT AFt
Section 2(b)

Atlantic Coast of New Jersey - Sea Bright to Ocean Township
Beach Erosions Control Study

Analysis of the Corps of Engineers Selected Plan

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
New York, New York 10278-0090

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5
Absecon, New Jersey 08201

February 1988

Preparer: Flavia Williams-Rutkosky
Project Leader: Clifford G. Day

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT OR
Section 2(b) AFT
Atlantic Coast of New Jersey - Sea Bright to ocean Township
Beach Erosion Control Study

Analysis of the Corps of Engineers Selected Plan

Prepared by

U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service

February 1988

TABLE OF CONTENTS ORAcr

PAGE

LIST OF FIGURES . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ii. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

III. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A. NON-BIOLOGICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . . . 7

B. BIOLOGICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

IV. FUTURE WITH THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

A. NON-BIOLOGICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

B. BIOLOGICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . . . . . 19

NOURISHMENT SITE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 20

BORROW SITE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # # 22

V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Vi. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

VII. RECOMNENDATIONS FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . 30

VIII. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Ix. REFERENCES . . . . . . o 9 9 9 a # a . . . . . . . . 38

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

A. Coordination with the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife. . 49

B. Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species in New Jersey. . . . 50

C. Data from Proposed Borrow Area Benthic and Surf Clam Survey 52

D.. Fishes Common to the Project Area . . . . . . . 58

LIST OF FIGURES DRAFT

PAGE

FIGURE

1. Location of Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Location of Proposed Borrow Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o - o 4

3. Mid-Atlantic Bight Continental Shelf Faunal Types* * . . e . . . . . . 11

4 & 5o Fishing Areas and Fish Species Common to the Atlantic Ocean off
the New Jersey Coast . . . . . . . 14 & 15

6. Areas of High Fishing Use Within Proposed Borrow Areas . . . 16

I
'),RAFT
I. INTRODUCTION

This constitutes the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) report on fish and

wildlife impacts which can be expected as a result of implementation of the

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) selected plan to address beach erosion along

the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey - Sea Bright to Ocean Township, Monmouth

County. The report has been prepared pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Fish and

Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.),

and is for inclusion into the New York District's Phase I Stage 3 report to

the North Atlantic Division.

The authorized project area covers approximately 51 miles of shoreline

extending from Sea Bright to Barnegat Light. This report considers a 12-mile

segment, identified as Reach I, extending from the southern boundary of the

Sandy Hook Gateway National Recreation Area (Sea Bright) southward to the

outlet of Deal Lake (Loch Arbor) (Figure 1). Reach I encompasses the

municipalities of Sea Bright, Monmouth Beach, Long Beach, Deal, Allenhurst and

Loch Arbor. The entire coastal zone within the study area is extensively

developed, primarily for residential and commercial use. Erosion has

seriously reduced the width of most beaches, exposing shoreline development to

storm damage. Corps study objectives are reduction of shoreline erosion,

protection from coastal storms and provision of recreational beach areas.

The Service submitted two planning aid reports to the Corps concerning the

Atlantic Coast of New Jersey - Beach Erosion Control Study. In February 1986,

the Service submitted a planning aid report investigating shellfish and

SCALE IN MILES
0 2

SANDY HOOK

SAJVDr NOOK

SAY

NORTHERN PROJECT
AREA LIMIT

.w.
SEA BRIGHT
It.
Cis$

110MMOUTH BEACH

. ...... LONG BRANCH
MONMOUTH
-COUNTY
Cal.

DEAL

ALLEMMUR3T
BEAL &AS
.ft' ASBURY PARK SOuTHERN PROJECT
AREA LIMIT
;;EAU OROVE

BRADLEY BEACH
-ZVON-GY-THE SEA
SNAqjr Rivem nvLzr
BELMAR

3
PRINS LAKE

SEA GIRT

MANA30UAX

Figure 1. Location of project area.

DRAFT

finfish resources within the proposed sand borrow areas (Figure 2). In

September 1987, the Service submitted a PAR evaluating four erosion control

alternatives proposed by the Corps and recommending means and measures to

minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources and their supporting

ecosystems.

The Service requests that no part of this report be used out of context and if

the report is reproduced, it should appear in its entirety. Any information

excerpted from the report should be properly cited and include the page number

from which the information was taken.

SCALE IN MILES
a 2 4

SANDY HOOK

SANDY NOOK
SAY
rsandy Hook

. ........

SEA BRIGHT
It

Its
MONMOUTH BEACH

.. .......

L
ONG BRANCH

...........

DEAL

ALLENNURST

-Z--CCIAN TOWNSHIP
URY PARK
ASO

CC AN
z GROVE

....... ....I BRADLEY BEACH

......... ..
AVON-BY-THR SEA
Ivp ';;ANN APIVER J*LZ-,
BELMAR
Belmar N.E.

....... SPRING LAKE

Belmar S.W.
SEA GIRT

MANA30VAN
r
L

Figure 2. Location of proposed borrow areas.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED PLAN

The selected plan is fill only beach restoration, involving the artificial

placement of sand to widen beachs to a minimum of 100 feet at an elevation of

10 feet above mean low water. To avoid overtopping of the berm, a 2-foot

storm cap has been added to the design. The plan includes repair of the

seawall located in Sea Bright. Existing groins will be covered by sand and

depending upon safety considerations, any groin sections not covered will be

removed (Dieterich, 1987). The Corps has determined that this alternative

meets all study objectives.

The study area has been divided into 4 construction reaches: Reach 1-B, Reach

1-A, Reach 2 and Reach 3. The borrow area closest to each reach will be used

as a source of sand. Based on proximity to the proposed borrow area, a 24-

inch pipeline dredge will be used for Reach 1-B. A hopper dredge will be

required for Reaches 1-A, 2 and 3.

A new beach at Sea Bright to Ocean Township would suffer severe erosion at the

southend of the project as a result of updrift littoral drift deficiencies. A

feeder beach constructed in Ocean Township is expected to compensate for the

updrift deficiencies. A 6-year supply of advance fill is specified in the

project design to supply sand to allow for the increase in littoral drift

along the project area.

Implementation of the selected plan would require an initial fill of 17.7

million cubic yards of sand. Included in this figure is the total of the

D.JR'.L' F T

design fill volume, fillet volume, advance fill volume, feeder beach volume

and taper volume, plus a 15 percent tolerance added to the design fill, fillet

and taper volumes. In addition, 3.7 million cubic yards of sand are required

for periodic nourishment. This volume is calculated based on a 6-year

maintenance interval, except in the area between Sea Bright and Monmouth

Beach (Reach I-A),where construction would occur over a 2-year period due to

large initial construction quantities. The periodic nourishment total

includes advance fill, feeder beach fill and taper fill volume along with 15

percent tolerance and overfill. The total amount of sand required for the

project is approximately 21 million cubic yards.

III. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROJECT

A. NON-BIOLOGICAL

The Service anticipates that without shoreline protection improvements,

existing protective mechanisms would deteriorate, eroding beaches and exposing

coastal communities to extensive property damage and loss. Left unabated,

shoreline erosion would continue, causing a landward movement of the beach and

inundation of areas occupied by coastal development.

B. BIOLOGICAL

Coastal beaches are generally in a state of dynamic equilibrium, responding to

waves, winds, currents and tides. Such an environment is occupied by

organisms with the ability to adapt to the continually changing conditions.

Beaches can generally be divided into three zones: the upper (beach) zone; the

middle (surf) zone; and, the lower (nearshore) zone.

The upper zone, extending from dune areas to just above mean high water line,

is dry except during storm events or extra high tides. Burrowing animals are

the dominant invertebrates. Species diversity and abundance is limited and

distribution is patchy (Naqvi and Pullen, 1985). Ghost crabs (Ocypoda spp.)

and sand fleas (Talitridae) constitute a major portion of the fauna. Further

down (below mean high water) species diversity remains low; however, large

numbers of individuals are found (Naqvi and Pullen, 1985). Here the fauna is

characterized by worms (annelids), coquina clams (Donax spp.) and mole crabs

(Emerita spp.). Where human disturbance is not limiting, this zone (along

with the middle zone) provides nesting and feeding areas for shorebirds. Due

to the extensive development within the project area, natural dunes have

greatly diminished. A few remaining dunes occur near Long Beach.

The middle beach zone is heavily influenced by tidal flucuations. This is the

area of breaking waves and is often submerged, varying both in location and

area. Organisms in this zone are susceptible to desiccation. Few species

occur here; however, there may be large numbers of adapted species, including

copepods, ciliates.cardigrades, gastrotrichs and turbellarians.

The lower beach zone is nearly continuously flooded and, therefore, is a more

physically stable area, supporting a diverse fauna that includes polychaetes,

crustaceans and molluscs. The greatest abundance of commercial and sport

finfish and shellfish are found here.

Naturally occurring rocky intertidal zones are absent from the project area.

However, man-made structures such as seawalls, jetties, groins and bulkheads

occur and provide a substitute habitat. Barnacles, small crustaceans,

polychaetes and molluscs occur on and around these structures. The mussel,

Mytilus is a dominant member of this comminity. Fish such as flounder, common

sea bass and striped bass may use the areas with structures for feeding and

shelter. Thus, the relatively low productivity of sandy beach is supplemented

by the jetty-groin system.

The nearshore zone extends from a depth of about 2 meters to the 30-meter

isobar. Phytoplankton in this zone are an important food source for filter-

feeding bivalves. Several benthic species in this zone are commercially

exploited, including the surf clam (Spisula), rock crab (Cancridae), and the

American lobster (Homarus americanus). These and other benthic fauna provide

food for demersal fish species.

The nearshore area provides a migratory pathway and a spawning, feeding and

nursery area for many species common to the mid-Atlantic region. Important

recreational species include black seabass (Centropristes striatus), summer

and winter flounder (Paralichthys dentatus and Pseudopleuronexctes

americanus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), bluefish (.Pomatomus saltatrix), red

and silver hake (Urophvcis chuss and Merluccius bilinearis) and Atlantic

mackerel (Scomber scombrus)o Commonly occurring commercial species include

bluefish, weakfish, Atlantic mackerel, American shad (Alosa sapidissima),

Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tvrannus) and the American lobster.

Shipwrecks and artificial reefs in the nearshore zone provide habitat for

attaching organisms not found on sandy bottoms. Within the project area 14

shipwrecks exist within one mile of the shore. Additionally, the Monmouth

Beach Reef has been constructed by the State of New Jersey within the project

area about 1.8 miles east of Monmouth Beach (State of New Jersey, 1981).

Shipwrecks and artificial reefs provide shelter for fish and invertebrates.

Hydroids, sponges, barnacles, mussels, polychaetes, crabs and lobster are some

of the organisms expected to use shipwrecks, artificial reef structures and

irregular bottoms. Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), pollock (Pollachius virens),

hake and black seabass are among the common species associated with this

habitat. Mackerel and bluefish congregate around structures with high

profiles and are important to both recreational and commercial fisheries.

The importance of the mid-Atlantic Bight, from the intertidal zone to the edge

of the continental shelf, is high in terms of fisheries for both finfish and

shellfish (Saila and Pratt, 1973). Three types of bottom faunal groups have

been identified as widespread on the continental shelf of the mid-Atlantic

Bight: 1) sand fauna; 2) silty sand fauna; and, 3) silt clay fauna. Each

group is based on sediment type and the presence of associated species (see

Figure 3) (Pratt, 1973).

Sand fauna occupy the proposed borrow sites which occur at depths where

currents intermittently transport sediments. This habitat merges with the

sandy beach and extends to depths of 30 to 50 meters. Ripple marks and sand

waves indicate the mobility of the substrate and animals inhabiting these

areas are adapted for movement in sand and recovery from burial. Oxygen

levels are generally high and suspended food is abundant. Thorson (1957, as

cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979) has reported that in

communities where Spisula is dominant, such communities may exhibit the

greatest known productivity from the ocean bottom. The offshore surf clam

fishery is the single most valuable fishery in the region covering New York,

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (U.S. Department of Commerce,

1986).

Shellfish resources within the 3 proposed borrow areas were surveyed and

previously discussed in the Service's 1986 planning aid report (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1986). Twenty-nine stations within the proposed borrow

areas were sampled on August 22-23, 1985. A 5-minute tow was taken at each

AOL
740 740 72* 701, Go,*
9 F I I

4r 42*

liltI
400
40*

34*
3 We
SAND FAUNA
It P 704

SILTY-SANC FAUNA

SILT. CLAY FAUNA
34* A

PROJECT ARLA

'76* 74* 72'
Figure 3..Mid-Atlantic Bight Continental S@elf Faunal Ty%-
A map of continental shelf faunal types in the Mid-Atlantic
Sight showing general areas occupied by proposed faunal types.
From Pratt (1973)

DRAFT

.-dtion using a conventional hydraulic clam dredge. A Petersen grab bottom

sample for juvenile surf clams was taken at each station.

Study results disclosed that surf clams collected from the borrow areas ranged

from 41 to 194 mm in length, indicating the presence of several age classes.

Uneven size is a common occurrence, since predation often greatly reduces the

survivability of larvae and small clams. Thirteen benthic species other than

Spisula were taken by the hydraulic dredge, not including four bottom feeding

fish. Additional benthic species were collected via Petersen grab. All are

considered common inhabitants of the ocean bottom. Study results are given in

Tables I through 5, Appendix C.

c-,rf clam populations within the Sandy Hook borrow area were very small and

ld not be expected to support commercial clamming, even if the area were

not condemned waters. The clam density within the Belmar borrow was barely

sufficient for commercial harvest and the total standing stock within all

proposed borrow areas represents an insignificant portion of the total

resource in the State. This does not infer that these areas do not have the

potential to support large densities. With different conditions, including

less predation, the areas can be expected to produce larger populations. The

volumes of old shells in the dredge samples (see Table 3) reflects the

historical productivity of these sites. Anoxic water conditions during 1976

and the predation by a number of Invertebrate and vertebrate predators are

probable causes for the present low population densities (U.S. Fish and

-Wildlife Service, 1986).

DRAFT

Finlish resources were also discu5sed in the 1,:,rvice's 1986 planning aid

report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986). Long and Figley (1982)

provided the primary source for finfish data. Table 6, Appendix D, lists

sport and commercial species present and Figures 4 and 5 (from Freeman and

Walford, 1974) illustrate potential finfish species along with locations of

fishing grounds and shipwrecks.

Data resulting from National Marine Fisheries Service groundfish cruises could

not be used to assess site specific resources due to the low sampling

intensity (Himchak, 1987). However, site specific data was obtained by the

New Jersey Bureau of Marine Fisheries, which conducted a fishing use survey

of the project area. The Bureau determined the extent of commercial and

recreational fishing within the proposed borrow areas using a questionnaire

that was developed in coordination with the Service and the New York District.

The questionnaire was sent to Ill charter and party boat captains and 138

individuals involved in commercial harvesting of finfish and shellfish.

Survey results based on data from 91 respondents, show that several areas

within the proposed borrow sites support high-use recreational fisheries.

Specifically, blocks 9, 13 and 15, 69, 70 and 74 (Figure 6) received high

recreational fishing use for various species, including summer flounder,

striped bass, weakfish and bluefish. Based upon the findings of the survey,

the Bureau recommended that sand mining activities avoid the high use blocks

to the maximum extent practicable.

t
1@7
I-z It"

1 JUM. _-C n a V

90
SLut Hip-sy 117 :W" < I
Newark Jcrny CAY, WP nL= PC:= SC_
z::: rn
Blaci, Sea b@.

Tc=
_0-fAr.' rs 1. W
- let@_;:=< hac xaarun
:0 -0
81"Casb CC
Ir

AUanG, Cod
I'M

Brookhm 46

4
-78
40
52 7
51 49
b. 50 44
A.;
4z
=-nu-Me r.
coo., U-W
%U

0
cr@ I G-

I-" C,
C -4
0 +
;C ir- M. c__ G_
Ro='c ShoaP 001d 0 cz::::%
-0, jo@ SC ;or R@'ze
C-41" Bu:

ca. tz

+
SANDY XCOI
+
A=uros@ Ria::
ct=
i'm zn: 7o
N& <Z
+ -er
C__ i b -PAd ":A-
Utie BU7. 'r
132
132 lyco@@
Bi7i 11 ::;@ Sco- PUP
Ge
vil-Por. 1-,3 134 1
St- G IB=k I
X
+
135
136 =2 Buov o: W
SUD.2%
137 BL;o@- (Re
SCZ
ROCKS
A, act bi=k oti!
New e r s e y I t.+'
WF

17 F=om
+
+ s.
Sez, ar
14:

A
Red B=k
@jo "'P \,.F +
4P
+ a
t@@ .. '.7 Buoy 81 ,Cx -nd
X@
fnt(C BA Th:
'z + Mud
Lan- 3---= Ground Hole!,
6 +
Figure 4. + @Wr.: Erd Ground
or
F*-:ron Ground, Tn.- Fam.
:E:b.-. @-7
Fishing areas and fish species
common to the Atlantic Ocean off the
Nuo Jersey Coast. Yellow line Bank
0
indicates the project area.
% C.
Asbu-y P

7-'10'

I- U 74'(JO' 73'50'

Gccu=
Lin Bf2nc* +
F rims
-,4v Long Br Grounds
Wst Eati Grou
400:0' W + Eberom Grounds, +

+
F-ngl=d Bank

Ice.. U I- 41@
Park <
Asb
Su,pW bus
::kl%*@Cr cz
white Perch, Black =d a --I
+
BLark sea bass Sh---k River lr@-C' lCondace
V x,
A 1% (S:harikttLLVer
Whim -lin el=ar 3

Sprring Uk
.CA AtUndc wd Se-_ Girt Inle,
VP_ (Cr sed)
Mmmq= nd
9::@ Squirrel ha" 4 Finn Rzage i SP%r -
@> , u"r
I 'cc and Orznr
0' C;@. Um hai. \10
-/V-
To-cod bt=quan Inlet
4%4 - - -:"peg)
=:sq.:= Sea Buoy Ou@
Dolphin +

Gray sea cmut
7 10
10'4' -4 CAPA Manasquan Ridge
OUP'. +
Northern kinosh 9 1 (Southew Ridge)
W'o + +
Laurriton

Northern duke
J AKET.
17 16
%ulowpand

VAnter do-, 19

Atlantic mzacm. +
and Chub mackami
V20 +

Adanda bosio 21 +
is 27 r- -

SICUP rGARS 26
Nofthem puffer 30 32 +
31
Snooth
S SaocMw shark dt'
1"Un shark 33
3 34
361
Tauwg
9 +
Blue crab +
Figure 5. Fishing areas and fish apecies common'to the Atlantic Ocean off the
New Jersey Coast. yellow line indicates project area.

LLre
Areas of High Fishing Use Within Proposed Borrow Areas.
The proposed borrow areas are outlined In green.
The yellow blocks support a high-use recreational fishery.

.Iv6

r a 9 a a

Ar
./-a

VZ:7

.00
'0 -23. '2

2F- 2

:.53. -OP

r
0 37 391
00
7v
41. AP-

;CL;.
.we
46 4
lip

'54.
Me
Mr

68 -79

44 d5 1472

DRAFT
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION POLICY

The Service's views and recommendations on this project are guided by its

Mitigation Policy (Federal Register/Vol. 46, No. 15/January 23, 1981). This

policy reflects the goal that the most important fish and wildlife resources

should receive the greatest level of mitigation. The term "mitigation" is

defined as (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action

or parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or

magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by

repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) reducing

or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations

during the life of the action; and, (e) compensating for the impact by

replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

The Service may recommend support for projects when the following criteria are

met: 1) the project is environmentally sound; 2) the least environmentally

damaging alternative is selected; 3) every reasonable effort has been made to

avoid or minimize damage or loss of fish and wildlife resources and uses; 4)

all important recommended measures have been adopted with guaranteed

implementation to satisfactorily compensate for unavoidable damage or loss

consistent with the mitigation goal; and, 5) for wetlands and shallow water

habitats the proposed activity is clearly water dependent and there is a

demonstrated public need. The Service may recommend that the project not be

implemented for those projects that do not meet all of the above criteria and

where there is likely to be a significant fish and wildlife resource loss.

DRAFT
IV. FUTURE WITH THE PROJECT

A. NON-BIOLOGICAL

Implementation of the selected plan will provide benefits which fall into

three principal categories: storm reduction, intensification and recreation

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987).

Storm reduction benefits include:

0 reduction of structural inundation;

0 reduction of wave attack to structures;

0 reduction of damage associated with long-term and storm induced

erosion;

0 reduction in lost land;

0 reduced seawall maintenance cost;

0 reduced maintenance costs at Sandy Hook; and,

0 reduced public emergency costs*

Intensification benefits are increases in land value expected to result from

project implementation. Recreational benefits are enhanced recreation

potential provided by increased beach area.

B. BIOLOGICAL

The selected plan calls for the initial dredging and placement of 17.8 million

cubic yards of sand along the shoreline within the project area. As

previously discussed in the Service's September 1987 PAR (Rutkosky, 1987),

activities associated with beach restoration (i.e., dredging and disposal) can

DRAFT

The Service has determined that the sandy beach in the project area has

moderate habitat value and is relatively abundant on a national basis.

Continued loss of sandy beach is anticipated without the project. We have

also determined that the ocean bottom in the project area has moderate habitat

value for shellfish and high value for finfish and is relatively abundant on a

national basis. The Service's mitigation goal for either habitat is no net

loss of habitat value, while minimizing the loss of in-kind habitat value. No

change in the amount or quality of ocean bottom is anticipated without the

project.

be expected to cause--at least temporary adverse impacts to fish and wildlife

resources and their supporting ecosystems. These impacts will occur both at

the borrow and nourishment sites.

NOURISHMENT SITE IMPACTS

Beach nourishment has been shown to have profound impacts on organism density

and community structure (Reilly & Bellis, 1978), due to the elimination of

non-motile organisms. The survival of motile species is dependent upon the

depth of the nourishment material, the length of burial time, the time of year

the nourishment is undertaken and the particle size distribution of the

material (Naqvi & Pullen, 1982). Other habitat factors of particular species

must also be considered.

Adverse impacts are not confined to beach areas and include: failure of adult

intertidal organisms to return from near-offshore wintering areas; reductions

in organism density on adjacent unnourished beaches; and, an inhibition of

pelagic larval recruitment effort. Studying beach nourishment in

North Carolina, Reilly & Bellis (1978, 1983) report that the nourished beach

recovered slowly, and during the recovery period, secondary productivity

remained low. Measures of community structure indicated low diversity, and

low secondary productivity, resulting in reduced utilization of the nourished

beach by migrating consumers*

Naqvi and Pullen (1982) also report that in many cases where faunal enrichment

has been observed following nourishment activities, this was related to

invasion by opportunistic species.

Gorzelany (1983, as cited in Nelson, 1985) found no negative impacts for any

element of the nearshore infaunal community associated with beach nourishment

carried out during a period of low biological standing stock and low

recruitment (mid-October through January). Restricting construction

activities to winter months is recommended.

Artificially constructed beaches generally exhibit steeper profiles than

natural beaches (Halsey, 1987). Since beach zonation characterization

includes levels above water, water land interface and total submergence,

profile alternations may change beach zonation and thus, community structure.

Construction of a 100-foot wide beach will result in the elimination of a

greater amount of shallow water marine habitat than would occur with lesser

beach widths. (Borrow area impacts will thus also be increased due to the

quantity of sand required, both for initial construction and periodic

maintenance).

Very little published information is available regarding the impacts of beach

nourishment (as opposed to borrow area dredging) on nearshore fish. One

Florida study (Holland, et al., 1980, cited in Nelson, 1985) has examined the

effects of beach nourishment on nearshore species. The results of the before

and after study reported a temporary increase in fish abundance along the

newly created beach.

Although the available evidence suggests that beach nourishment causes minimal

biological impacts,the Service recommends that deposition areas be monitored.

This recommendation will be discussed further in Section VI, "Recommendations

for Mitigation."

BORROW SITE IMPACTS

Cerrato & Scheier (1983) present a discussion of the effects of borrow pits on

benthic organisms. Conditions at the bottom of borrow pits have been found to

differ from ambient bottom conditions. Pits often act as reservoirs for fine-

grained sediments, organic materials and pollutants. Bottom water exchange

may be impeded if areas are dredged substantially below adjacent areas. The

resultant reduced flushing in combination with the decay of accumulated

organic matter may cause an increase in oxygen demand, giving rise to depleted

oxygen levels near the bottom. Reduced mixing may produce salinity,

temperature and oxygen stratification.

Cerrato and Scheier (1983) have summarized borrow pit impacts on benthic

organisms as documented in studies conducted in New York (Swartz & Brinkhuis,

1978), New Jersey (Muraski, 1969), Maryland (Drobeck, 1970), Virginia (Boesch

& Rackley, 1973), Florida (Taylor & Saloman, 1968; Sykes & Hale, 1970;

Saloman, 1974; Turbeville & Marsh, 1982; Culter & Mahadeuan, 1982) and Texas

(Harper, 1973; Poag, 1973; Rodgers & Darnell, 1973). Cerrato & Scheier (1983)

note that ecological effects were attributed to dredging in a majority of the

cases* In many instances dredging substantially altered the physical

environment, such that species diversity, abundance and composition decreased

as compared to control areas. These impacts persisted for more than 10 years

after dredging. An exception is the Turbeville and Marsh (1982) study which

reported no adverse impacts, relating the health of benthic fauna in the pit

D R T

to the strong currents within the study area.

Where alterations have occurred within macrobenthic communities in the

New York Bight, the result has been reductions in populations of species

which are predominant food items for demersal fish and invertebrates (Boesch,

1982) . Bokuniewicz, et al. (1985) also report differences in faunal

composition in borrow pits and control sites in the lower Bay of New York

Harbor. Faunal composition at control sites was more stable and diverse over

time than at the borrow sites and borrow pits appeared to influence benthic

fauna in adjacent areas.

In addition to the initial dredging and disposal the selected plan calls for

the dredging and disposal of 3.7 million cubic yards of material at 6-year

intervals for the life of the project (50 years). Reported estimates of

benthic recovery time after dredging range from less than one year to greater

than 18 years (Drobeck, 1970; Harper, 1973; Rodgers & Darnell, 1973; Saila,

1976; Oliver, et al., 1977; Rhoads, et al., 1978; Brinkhuis, 1980; Saloman, et

al., 1982; Culter & Mahadeven, 1982; Turbeville & Marsh, 1982; Cerrato &

Scheier, 1983).

Recovery periods can be prolonged as a result of repeated disturbance. This

project has the potential to cause long-term, perhaps "permanent" loss of

faunal productivity and therefore, less frequent maintenance is preferable

with regards to minimization of adverse impacts on aquatic resources.

R T

Further minimization of adverse impacts can be realized through confining

construction activities to winter months (Brinkhuis, 1980; Naqvi & Pullen,

1982; Nelson, 1985). Studies conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Coastal Engineering Research Center indicate that construction during the

winter protects biological resources (Naqvi & Pullen, 1982). During winter,

biological productivity is low, thus engineering activities carried our during

this period would be less detrimental.

DRAFT

V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCEMENT

The Service's September 1987 planning aid report recommended that the Corps

consider providing public access facilities (i.e., parking) to realize the

potential for recreational use afforded by beach improvements. We continue to

offer this recommendations.

The selected plan for the proposed project involves the construction of a

beach 100-feet wide along the entire project area. At some locations this

construction will require the placement of sand in excess of 100-feet. We

recommend that the Corps investigate the potential to create shorebird habitat

or to construct dunes in these areas. The Service is available to provide

technical assistance regarding this recommendation.

DRAFT
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION

Beach nourishment and sand removal from borrow areas can adversely affect

benthic communities and higher trophic level organisms that use these

communities. Direct mortalities occur as a result of dredging activities and

from sand deposition. Changes in sediment character may prohibit

reestablishment of certain species or populations, perhaps for extended

periods. Significant changes in benthic communities can result from

modification of wave energies and sediment dynamics brought about by dredging

activities (Bokuniewicz et al., 1985; Hanlon, 1984; Reilly and Bellis, 1978).

Secondary impacts would be short- or long-term disruptions to food chains

caused by reductions in invertebrate populations (Reilly and Bellis, 1978;

Reilly, et al. 1980; Boesch, 1982).

Summarizing his review of the literature, Nelson (1985) notes that although

considerable information exists on the effects of dredging on benthic

communities, much less is known about the specific consequences of beach

nourishment. Recent literature on the quantitative effects of beach

nourishment on benthic organisms is derived largely from studies funded or

conducted by the Coastal Engineering Research Center of the Corps of Engineers

(Pullen, et al., 1980) or individual Corps Districts (Naqvi and Pullen, 1982).

Many of these studies tend to support the view that, although dredging and

beach nourishment virtually destroys existing organisms, the effects are

temporary or short-term and, therefore, are not significant. It should be

noted that most of these studies were conducted in southern states such as

North Carolina, Texas and Florida. In Florida many species spawn almost year-
00
26

Ar a

round and extrapolation of these results to potential impacts in New Jersey

poses risks.

Nelson (1985) identified only four beach nourishment studies which contain

data to compare benthic populations at nourishment sites before and after

nourishment, Parr, et al., 1978; Reilly and Bellis, 1978, 1983; Nelson and

Gorzelany, 1983 and Saloman and Naughton, 1984. In discussing these studies,

Nelson (1985) indicates that there are decided deficiencies in terms of

spatial or temporal adequacy, (Parr, et al., 1978 and Nelson and Gorzelany,

1983), or in data analysis (Reilly and Bellis, 1978, 1983) and states that the

need for biological monitoring of beach nourishment sites will not diminish

until a more substantial body of well-designed and analyzed studies is

available. Naqvi & Pullen (1982) recommend that biotic surveys be carried out

at nourishment sites, before, during and after nourishment. Pre-project data

are needed to recognize possible project impacts.

A one-year post-dredging study of benthos in borrow areas associated with the

New York District's Rockaway Beach Erosion Control Project (Spight, 1977)

suggests that while borrow area repopulation was rapid, the resulting

population may be a transient one. over time, dredged areas may accumulate

organisms and organic matter leading to depletion of oxygen supplies. Muraski

(1969) reports that low oxygen levels are typical in dredged holes in

New Jersey waters and Spight (1977) notes possible indications of a similar

fate for the areas he studied, concluding that future events were not

predictable from the data available for one-year post-dredging.

rm
T

Drobeck (1970, as cited in Cerrato and Scheier. 1983) found few benthic

invertebrates in pits dredged 7 and 15 years prior to his study. Dredged

areas in San Antonio Bay had not recovered former abundance 18 years after

dredging (Rodgers and Darnell, 1973). About 80 percent recovery was reported

for dredge cuts aged 18 years and older. Previously cited reports of benthic

recovery time range from one year to greater than ten years (Rutkosky, 1987).

Where benthic populations recover to pre-nourishment levels within 1 to 2

years, the effects probably are "short-term" and are, therefore,

"insignificant." However, the effect of stress events on an ecosystem is

dependent upon many factors, including the nature, magnitude,

frequency/duration of the event. Thus, repeatled disturbance of borrow areas

which could occur as a result of renourishment dredging has the potential to

cause more "permanent" reductions in benthic populations and a consequent

decrease in the commercial and recreational fishery within the project area.

The proposed beach nourishment project has the potential for long-term,

significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources and their

supporting ecosystems. It is our opinion that appropriate mitigation for such

projects at this time are impact assessment studies designed to determine the

resource losses associated with the project. . Economics and personnel

limitations often result in restricted data acquisition; thus, it is important

that monitoring efforts focus on areas of direct impact. Mobile organisms,

such as fish and crabs will be indirectly affected in that they can escape

areas of dredging or deposition. The need to seek new food sources will

result in redistribution which can be expected to cause increased competition

DR it"'k I F T

for food. While such indirect effects are important, the effects on the

benthic fauna are the most direct and severe. Thus for this particular

project, impact assessment efforts should focus on benthic populations

(including surf clams) and water quality. A well-designed study will provide

documentation of any significant resource losses. Documentation of these

losses will lead to the development of measures to avoid, minimize or

compensate the losses. Such measures can then be incorporated into ongoing

and future beach nourishment projects. The following section (Recommendations

For Impact Studies) outlines the Service's recommendations for impact

assessment studies to evaluate the effects of the proposed project on the

benthic invertebrate populations and water quality (including sediment

characteristics), both within the borrow areas and at the nourishment sites.

!n. ic-T
j.; .

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDIES

Review of the available literature suggests the potential for long-term,

significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources and their

supporting ecosystems resulting from the proposed beach erosion control

project. Monitoring is the primary means currently available for meeting the

equal consideration for wildlife provision of the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act. Due to the importance of the benthic populations to

commercial and recreationally valuable fishes within the project area, a study

should be implemented which would monitor the borrow areas and the nourishment

sites during and after construction. Pre-project data must be collected to

provide a "standard" against which to detect a change for this project and

potentially for future projects of the same type.

The following discussion of impact study design is taken from Green (1979)

wherein he discusses 4 prerequisites for an impact study. The first is that

the impact should not have yet occurred, enabling before-impact data to be

used as a temporal control to which after-impact data can be compared

Second, the type of impact and time and place of occurrence must be known to

enable a sampling design appropriate to tests of hypotheses to be developed.

Otherwise what is being conducted is a monitoring study to detect impact,

rather than an impact study which will test against the null hypothesis of no

change due to impact. Third, measurements of relevant variables must be

obtainable. Fourth, a control area must be available.

These prerequisites then suggest a design having, at a minimum, one sampling

before and one after the impact begins, and at least two locations differing

in degree of impact. Such a design is an areas-by-times factorial design in

which the evidence for impact effects is a significant areas-by-times

interaction. Given these prerequisites, the choice of sampling design and

statistical methodology must consider the following criteria. First, it must

be possible to test the null hypothesis that any change in the biological

community of the impact area, over a period of time which includes the impact,

does not differ from a control area. Second, it must be possible to relate to

the impact, any demonstrated change unique to the impact area and separate

effects caused by natural environmental variation unrelated to the impact.

Third, the method should lead to both an efficient and effective visual

display of both change due to impact in relation to other sources of

variation, and the relationship between impact-related change in the

biological variables. Fourth, the results should be applicable to subsequent

biological monitoring to detect future impacts of the same type. Lastly, the

test of the null hypothesis must be as conservative, powerful and robust as

possible.

Pre-construction surveys should be conducted to provide quantitative

information on the benthic fauna, sediments and current selected water quality

characteristics within the proposed nourishment and borrow areas.

Benthic data should characterize existing species composition, diversity and

abundance. Within benthic communities, seasonal variability and spatial

patchiness is large and may mask all but the largest effects of a project;

DRAFT

therefore, benthic organisms should be evaluated on a seasonal basis (Green,

1979: Naqvi and Pullen. 1982 and Nelson. 1985).

Measurements of turbidity, total and suspended solids, dissolved oxygen and

temperature should be collected at each station where benthic data is

collected. In addition, sediment samples for grain size analysis should be

collected at these stations. Replicate samples should be collected where

possible. Depths should be recorded at each station in order to chart changes

in the shape of the borrow area.

Data collection should begin at a minimum one full year prior to beginning of

construction and should continue for a minimum of 5 years after construction,

unless pre-project conditions return prior to the end of this period. Post-

impact sampling should begin as soon after impact as possible because of

potential interim changes not associated with the project.

The Service recommends that the following sampling schedule be implemented:

1. Pre-construction sampling to occur in April, July, October and again in

April.

2. Post-construction sampling to being within two weeks of the activity,

followed by sampling 3 months later, 6 months later and at six month

intervals for the next three years. Thereafter, sampling should occur

annually for the remainder of the assessment period.

The sampling design should be determined by the requirement of the method(s)

employed for data analysis. Design and sampling considerations are

extensively treated in Nelson, 1985 and Green, 1979. Methodologies for

sampling high energy sand beaches are also presented in Cox, 1976; Hurme, et

al., 1979 and Gonor and Kemp, 1978.

The costs of sampling efforts were discussed with the New Jersey Bureau of

Marine Fisheries. The following cost figures are based on these discussions

and include costs for data analysis and report preparation. Actual study cost

is related to the magnitude of the effort required to collect and analyze the

data. In order to approximate a cost, the Bureau of Marine Fisheries figures

were transposed into "per sample cost" for benthic and surf clam data. Water

quality costs (which include sediment collection) are presented as costs per

day of boat operation.

BENTHIC SAMPLING: $ 167.00 per sample

SURF CLAM TOW: $1000.00 per tow

WATER QUALITY: $ 600.00 per day for a 30-foot boat

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to cause significant

adverse impacts with respect to fish and wildlife resources and their

supporting ecosystems. Beach nourishment will convert aquatic areas to dry

beaches and the invertebrate and vertebrate inhabitants would be destroyed or

displaced. Coastal waters can be expected to experience turbidity and

sedimentation increases. Suspended sediments may adversely impact spawning of

certain commercial and recreational fish species. Avoidance of nourishment

operations during late spring, summer and early fall can reduce this impact.

Dredging will generate turbidity and cause sedimentation both in and around

the dredged area. Effects on aquatics will vary with species. Decreases in

dissolved oxygen may result from the resuspension of organically-enriched

sediments, as well as changes in currents or tidal movement within the borrow

pits. Extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen will selectively eliminate

sensitive benthic invertebrate species and inhibit the use of the area by

fishes.

Adverse effects on photosynthetic plankton, an important food source, can be

expected to result from reduced light penetration due to increased turbidity.

High sedimentation levels can be expected to inhibit growth of filter-feeding

organisms by clogging the feeding apparatus*

Pre-construction sampling should be conducted at nourishment sites, within the

proposed borrow areas and in control areas, which will not be disturbed.

DRAFT

Post-dredging observations should be conducted for a sufficient period of time

to allow patterns of invasion and community reestablishment to be determined.

If pre-project sampling indicates that shellfish populations have improved to

levels acceptable f or commercial harvest, the New Jersey Bureau of

Shellfisheries should be provided with advanced notification to allow time to

inform clammers who may be interested in harvesting the area before the sand

removal occurs.

Reducing the amount of sand removed, and thus the depth of the borrow pits,

should lessen the potential for adverse impacts. Reduction of pit side slopes

to prevent steep drop-off may minimize any water circulation problems.

Preliminary plans for corrective measures should be formulated prior to the

initiation of construction so that corrective measures can be implemented in a

timely manner.

Borrow areas identified as supporting high use commercial and recreational

fishing (Rutkosky, 1987) should be avoided as sources of beach fill to the

extent practicable. Therefore, the Service recommends that those areas of

lesser value be used as sand sources before dredging in higher value areas.

Development and implementation of an impact assessment study to identify any

significant resource losses associated with the proposed project is

recommended. It is the opinion of the Service that such a study represents

appropriate mitigation for beach nourishment projects at this time.

Documentation of resource losses will enable the development of measures to

avoid. minimize and compensate the losses, for this project and for future

beach nourishment projects.

In summary, the Service recommends that the following measures be included in

project plans to minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources:

1. avoid sand removal from high value areas until all less valuable areas

have been dredged;

2. avoid construction operations during the period June 1 through

September 30;

3. conduct dredging activities in a manner which minimizes development of

degraded water quality within the borrow pits;

4. notify the New Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries if pre-project benthic.

sampling discloses commercially valuable quantities of surf clams; and,

5. conduct an impact assessment study of the proposed project as described

in Section VII (Since this study is the mitigation plan for the proposed

project, we recommend that the study design be included in the

Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the proposed project).

The Corps should also consider providing public access facilities (i.e.,

parking) to facilitate public use of the restored beach area. Further, we

recommend that the Corps investigate the potential for development of

AU @ " @
@-,,AFT

shorebird habitat and dune creation within the project area.
0

0 37

DRAFT
REFERENCES

Boesch, D.F. 1982. "Ecosystem Consequences of Alterations of Benthic

Community Structure and Function In The New York Bight Region" IN: G.F.

Mayer (ed.), Ecological Stress And The New York Bight: Science and

Management. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of

Marine Pollution Assessment, Stony Brook, New York. 532 pp.

Boesch, D.F. and D.H. Rackley. 1973. Interim Report on Environmental Effects

of the Second Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Construction, Effects on

Benthic Communities, V.I.M.S., Gloucester Point, Virginia

Brinkhuis, B.H. 1980. Biological Effects of Sand and Gravel Mining in the

Lower Bay of New York Harbor: An Assessment from the Literature.

Special Report 34. Reference No. 80-1. Marine Sciences Research

Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York.

Bokuniewiez,, H., R. Cerrato and D. Hirschberg. 1985. Studies in the Low Bay

of New York Harbor Associated with the Burial of Dredged Sediment in

Subaqueous Borrow Pits. Marine Sciences Research Center, State

University of New York, Stony Brook, New York. (Unpublished report

prepared for the New York District Corps of Engineers).

.0
A F 1"

Cerrato, R.M. and 'F.T. Scheier. 1983. Effect of Borrow Pits on the

Distribution and Abundance of Benthic Fauna in the Lower Bay of New York

Harbor. Draft Report to the N.Y. District, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. 255 pp.

Cox, J.L. 1976. Sampling variation in sandy beach littoral & nearshore

meiofauna & macrofauna. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal

Engineering Research Center, Tech. Pap. 76-14.

Culter, J.K and S. Mahadevan. 1982. Long-term effects of beach nourishment

on the benthic fauna of Panama City Beach, Florida. MR 82-2, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir,

Virginia. 57 pp.

Dieterich, R. 1987. Personal communication. Project Ecologist, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (New York District), New York.

Drobeck, K.G. 1970. Comments on submerged borrow areas in Chincoteague,

Sinepuxent, and Isle of Wright Bays, IN Assateague Ecological Studies,

Part I, University of Maryland NRI Contribution No. 446, p. 183-87.

Freeman, B.L. and L.A. Walford. 1974. Anglers Guide to the United States

Atlantic Coast, Section III Block Island to Cape May New Jersey.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington, unpaged.

DRAF-110*

Gonor, J.J. and P.F. Kemp. 1978. Procedures for quantitative ecological

assessments in intertidal environments. U.S. Envir. Prot. Agency

Report. EPA-600/3/78-087.

Gorzelany, J.F. 1983. The effects of beach nourishment on the nearshore

benthic microfauna of Indiatlantic and Melbourne Beach, Florida. M.S.

Thesis, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida. 114 pp.

Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling Design & Statistical Methods for Environmental

Biologists. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 257 pp.

Halsey, S.D. 1987. Personal communication. Coastal Geologist, New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources,

Trenton, New Jersey.

Hanlon, J.R. 1984. Fish and Wildlife Resource Studies for the Fire Island

Inlet to Montauck Point, New York Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane

Protection Project Reformulation Study Marine Resource Component. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Cortland,

New York. 53 pp.

Harper, D.E., Jr. 1973. A,comparison of dredge cuts versus undredged flats.

IN.: Environmental Impact Assessment of Shell Dredging in San Antonio

Bay, Texas. Prepared by Texas A. & M. Research Foundation for the U.S.

Army Engineer District, Galveston, Texas, Volume V, Append. C2.

D R J4 1' It. apt

Holland, E.T., J.R. Chambers and R.R. Blackman. 1980. Effects of dredging &

filling for beach erosion control on fishes in the vicinity of Lido Key,

Florida. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, Jacksonville, Florida.

Unpublished Report, March, 1980.

Hollis, E.H. 1964. Literature Review of the Effects of Turbidity and

Siltation on Aquatic Life. Staff Report, Department of Chesapeake Bay

Affairs, Annapolis, Maryland. 26 pp.

Hurme, A.K., R.M. Yancey and E.J. Pullen. 1979. Sampling Microinvertebrates

on High-Energy Sand Beaches, CETA 79-3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Long D. and W. Figley. 1982. New Jersey's Recreational and Commercial

Fishing Grounds. NJ Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, Nacote Creek,

New Jersey.

Marsh, G.S. and D.B. Turbeville. 1981. The Environmental Impact of Beach

Nourishment: Two Studies In Southeastern Florida. Shore & Beach, July

1981.

Mayer, G.F. (ed.). 1982. Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science

and Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office

of Marine Pollution Assessment, Stony Brook, New York. 532 pp.

D R A 9g, "T

Muraski, W.S. 1969. A Study of Submerged Dredge Holes in New Jersey

Estuaries with Respect to Their Fitness as Finfish Habitat. New Jersey

Dept. of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Fish and

Game, Nacote Creek Research Station. Miscellaneous Report No. 2M. 32

PP*

Naqvi, S.M. and E.F. Pullen. 1982. Effects of beach nourishment and

borrowing on marine organisms. Misc. Rept. No. 82-14, Coastal

Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Fort

Belvoir, Virginia. 43 pp.

Nelson, W.G. 1985. Guidelines for Beach Restoration Projects. Florida Sea

Grant Report 76-14. Florida Sea Grant College, Florida Institute of

Technology, Melbourne, Florida. 66 pp.

Nelson, W.G. and J.F. Gorzelany. 1983. Biological & physical monitoring of

beach erosion control project, Indiatlantic/Melbourne Beach, Florida.

Part II. Biological Monitoring. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District,

Jacksonville, Florida. Unpublished Report, November, 1983.

Oliver, J.S., P.N. Slattery, L.W. Hulberg, and J.W. Nybakken. 1977. Patterns

of Succession in Benthic Infaunal Communities Following Dredging and

Dredged Material Disposal in Monterey Bay. Tech. Rpt. D-77-27, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,

Mississippi.

Parr, T., D. Diener and Lacys. 1978. Effects of beach replenishment on the

nearshore sand fauna at Imperial Beach, California. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Misc. Rept. 78-4.

Peddicord, R. 1976. Biological Impacts of Suspensions of Dredged Materials.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,

Environmental Effect Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Paper

presented at WODCON II, World Dredging Conference, San Francisco,

California, July 10-12, 1976.

Poag, C.W. 1973. Foraminiferal Community. IN Environmental Impact

Assessment of Shell Dredging in San Antonio Bay, Texas. Prepared by

Texas A. & M. Res. Found. for U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston,

Texas. Vol. III. Append. BIO-C.

Polis, D.F. 1974. The environmental effect of dredged holes-present state of

knowledge. Unpub. Rpt. Water Res. Admin., Annapolis, Maryland. 21 pp.

Pullen, E.J., R.M. Yancey, P.L. Knutson and A.K. Hurme. 1980. An annotated

bibliography of CERC coastal ecology research. Misc. Rept. No. 80-5,

Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort

Belvoir, Virginia 22 pp.

DRAFT

Reilly, F.J. and V.J. Bellis. 1983. The ecological impact of beach

nourishment with dredged materials on the intertidal zone at the Bogue

Banks, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal

Engineering Research Center, Misc. Rept. No. 83-3.

Reilly, F.J. and V.J. Bellis. 1978. A study of the ecological impact of

beach nourishment with dredged materials on the intertidal zone. Inst.

for Coastal and Marine Resources, East Carolina Univ. Tech. Rpt. No. 4.

Reilly, F.J., Jr., D.M.L. Cobb and V.J. Bellis. 1980. Biological

implications of beach replenishment. Pages.269-280 in N.P. Psuty and D.

McArthur (eds.) Utilization of science in the decision-making process.

Proc. Sixth Annual Conference, The Coastal Society, Arlington, Virginia.

330 pp.

Rhoads, D.C., P.L. McCall and J.Y. Ying. 1978. Disturbance and Production on

the Estuarine Sea Floor. Am. Scientist, 66:577-586.

Rodgers, R.M. and R.M. Darnell. 1973. The effects of shell dredging on the

distribution of meiobenthic organisms in San Antonio Bay, Texas. IN:

Environmental Impact Assessment of Shell Dredging in San Antonio Bay,

Texas. Prepared by Texas A. & M. Research Foundation for U.S. Army

Engineer District, Galveston, Texas. Volume III, Append. B10-B.

Rutkosky, F.W. 1987. An Alternative Analysis of the Army Corps of Engineers

Atlantic Coast of New Jersey - Sea Bright to Ocean Township Beach

Erosion Control Study. USDI, Fish & Wildlife Service Planning Aid

Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Absecon, NJ. 63 pp.

Salia, S.B. 1976. Sedimentation and Food Resources: Animal-sediment

Relationships, IN: D.J. Stanley and D.J.P. Swift, eds. Marine Sediment

Transport and Environmental Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Saloman, C.H. @1974. Personal communication reported in Polis, D.F., 1944,

The environmental effect of dredged holes-present state of knowledge.

Unpub. Rept. Water Res. Admin., Annapolis, Maryland. 21 pp.

Saloman, C.H. and S.P. Naughton. 1984. Beach restoration with offshore

dredged sand: effects on nearshore microfauna. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-

SEFC - 133.

Saloman, C.H., S.P. Naughton and J.L. Taylor. 1982. Benthic Community

Response to Dredging Borrow Pits, Panama City Beach, Florida. NMFS,

Southeastern Fish.Center, Panama City, florida. 138 pp.

Saunders, L.H. Environmental Impacts of Beach Nourishment in Florida.

Undated, unpublished report, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville,

Florida. 12 p.

DRAFT

Spadoni, R.H. and T.J. Campbell. 1981. Environmental Monitoring Report for

the Delray Beach Maintenance Nourishment Project. Unpublished report

submitted to the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Arthur V. Strock &

Associates, Delray Beach, Florida. 54 pp.

Spight, T.M. and K.E. Tarbox. 1977. Rockaway Beach Erosion Control Project,

Dredge Material Research Program, Offshore Borrow Area. (Final Report,

prepared for the Department of the Army, New York District, Corps of

Engineers.) Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California.

State of New Jersey. 1981. New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan. Volume

2: Basis and Background New Jersey Department of Environmental
0 Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, Trenton, New Jersey.

Swartz, S.M. and B.H. Brinkhuis. 1978. The Impact of Dredged Holes on Oxygen

Demand In The Large Bay, New York Harbor Special Report 17. Reference

78-5, Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York,

Stony Brook, New York 11794.

Sykes, J.E. and J. Hale. 1970. Comparative distribution of mollusks in

dredged and undredged portions of an estuary with a systematic list of

species. Fish. Bull. 68:299-306.

Taylor, J.L. and G.G. Saloman. 1968. Some effects of hydraulic dredging and

coastal development in Boca Ciega Bay, Florida. U.S. Fish. Bull.

67:213-241.

Thorson, G. 1957. Bottom Communities (sublittoral or shallow shelf) Geol.

Soc. Amer. Mem. 67(l):461-534.

Turbeville, D.B. and G.A. Marsh. 1982. Benthic Fauna of an offshore Borrow

Area in Broward County, Florida. MR 82-1, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers,

Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 26 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Atlantic Coast of New Jersey: Sandy Hook

to Barnegat Inlet. Section I - Sea Bright to Ocean Township,

New Jersey. Technical Review Meeting II. Volume I: Main Report and

Appendices.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1980. Seasonal Restrictions on Dredging

Projects by NMFS in the Northeast, Volume 1. Prepared by Profiles

Research and Consulting Groups, Inc., Vernon, Connecticut.

1986. Status of the Fishery Resources Off the Northeastern United

States for 1986. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-43. National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries

Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 130 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. An Environmental Report on the

Atlantic Coast and Assateague Island, Virginia Study, Unpublished

report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Ecological Services,

Annapolis, Maryland. 39 pp.

1986. Planning Aid Report, Absecon, New Jersey.

University of Rhode Island. 1973. Coastal and Offshore Environmental

Inventory. Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. Marine Publication

Series No. 2. Marina Experiment Station, Graduate School of

Oceanography U. of Rhode Island, Kingstone, Rhode Island.

Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, D.M. Knott and M. Maclin. 1979. Effects of

Dredging and Unconfined Disposal of Dredged Material on Macrobenthic

Communities in Seawee Bay, South Carolina. South Carolina Marine

Resources Center Technical Report Number 39. South Carolina Wildlife

and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, South Carolina. 9 pp.

Y
DR'Ap F,
0 ' . A

APPENDIX A I

Coordination with the New Jersey Division of
Fish, Game and Wildlife
0

@-
I
Po T
0

APPENDIX B

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
0 in New Jersey

0
50

FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
IN NEW JERSEY

Common Name Scientific Name Status Distribution

FISHES:
Sturgeon, shortaose* Acipenser bravirostrum, E Hudson and Delaware
Rivers plus other
Atlantic coastal
rivers

REPTILES:
Turtle, green* Chelonia mydas T Oceanic summer visitor
. coastal waters
Turtle, hawksbill* Eretmochelys imbricata E Oceanic summer visitor
coastal waters

Turtle, leatherback* Dermochelys coriacea E Oceanic summer visitor
coastal waters
Turtle, loggerhead* Caretta caretta T Oceanic summer resident
coastal waters
rarely nests:
Cape May and Atlantic
Counties
Turtle, Atlantic LeRidochelys kempii E Oceanic summer resident
ridley* coastal w4ters

BIRDS:
Eagle, bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus E Entire state
Falcon, American Falco peregrinus anatum E Entire state -
peregrine re-establishment to
former breeding -
range in progress
Falcon, Arctic Falco peregrinus tundrius, E Entire state migratory
no nesting
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T Entire State
Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii dougallii E Entire State

MAMMALS:
Cougar, eastern Felis concolor,coup-ua E Entire state probably
extinct
Whale, blue* Balaenoptera,musculus E Oceanic
Whale, finback* Balaenoptera physalus E Oceanic
Whale, humpback* Megaptera novaeangliae E Oceanic
Whale, right* Bala6na glacialis E Oceanic
Whale, sei* Balaenoptera borealis E Oceanic
Whale, sperm* Physeter catodon E Oceanic

MOLLUSKS:
None

PLANTS:
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides, E Sussex County

51
*Except for sea turtle nesting habitat. PrinciDal rasnnnsihilitv for thesp anpefpn iA

D.0- .4 1 @
A 1-7v
xj i, @@
0

I APPENDIX C
Data from proposed borrow area
10 benthic and surf clam
I survey (Tables I - 5)

0
52

TABLE 1
NUMBER OF DREDGED SURF CLAMS AT GIVEN LENGTH TAKEN FROM
PROPOSED BORROW SITES (Sandy Hook)

STATION NUMBER

15 16 17 is 20 22 27 28 29
NUMBER OF CLAMS

41 1
44
47
50
53
56
59
62
65
68
71
74
77
80
83
86
89
92 1
95 1
98
LENGTH. 101 1
(MM) 104
107
110
113
116 2
119 1
122
125
128 2
131 1 1
134 3
137 1
140
143
146 3 1
149 1
152 1 .1 1
155
158 2
161
164 1 1
167 1 1 1 2
170 1 1

-- ----------------------------------------------
TOTAL 14 5 1 1 8 3 2 5 1

MEAN LENGTH AREA B126 MEAN LENGTH AREA C157
NUMBER OF CLAMS 21 NUMBER OF CLAMS 19

Table 2

BENTHIC SPECIES OTHER THAN Spisula TAKEN IN HYDRAULIC CLAM DREDGE

STATTON BELMAR SANDY HOOK
1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 It 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 TOTAL

molluscs app.
F-valvia
A3tarte castanes
Insis dirt4tU2 1 2
Pitar morrhuans 1 4 3 8
4astropoda
Lunatia heras 3 2 4 4 1 5 3 3 2 26 1 3 1 5 33 8 2 3 S 6 10 21 19 7 216

Cophalopoda
TO-1130 spp. (Eggs) I x
Xiphosura
1.1-mulus polyphamus I I I 1 2 1 1 1 1 9 25
Crustacem,
Fe-cap;da-
Zane-or 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 17
Libinla, app. 1 1 2 9 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 7 7 20 3 1 56
Pagurus pollicarts 2 2 2 6 1 1 2 7 1 1 2 27
Ovallpes ocellatus 6 9 1 11 21 8 16 9 6 a a 13 8 10 1 1 7 17 15 11 12 253 19 14 63 15 6 568
Echinodermata
Echinarachnius pare& 110( 0( viol 030 A 00 W 5 1
Asterlas forbest 2 5 6 26 a 3 5 19 4 2 73
Stpunculide x x x
Finfish
ScopthAlLUs aquosUs 1 1 3 2 7 4 5 1 1 23
Trinectes asoulatu3 I
Parallchthys dentatua 3
PrlonotU3 3pp.

tDredge filled with mud. Not brought an board.
06)(sprosent but not quant1fied

TABLE

Surf Clam Catch At Stations In'Proposed Borrow Areas

LOCATION I
DATE 'STATION LORAN C LA?. LONG. DEPTH TEMP. 00 CLANS IN BU. CLAM VALVES MEAN CLAM
NO. M. FT. SURF. DOT. SHELL TRASH LENGTH
IN HU. 01M)
Belmar 996ax-996or
8/22/85 1 26929-%3527 Atf 09.95- 7 58.8%1 15.2 50 20.1 20.1 1.8 4.9 161
2 26924-43526 4d'09.65- 7 57.95' 17.7 58 21.0 19.5 0.4 0.7 158
3 26920-%3524 hd'og.%5- 7 57.%s- 18.9 62 21.0 20.0 o.i (6 CLANS) 2.9 149
% 26923-%352% 4CF09.01 7 57.801 18.3 66 20.0 19.2 0.2 10.5 132
5 26926-43523 4d'09.33- 7 58.20- 16.8 55 22.0 ig.6 0.5 i.6 123
6 26923-43521 4d'og.151 7 57.90- 16.9 62 21.0 21.0 1.0 12.0 163
7 26926-%3521 008.95- 7 50-38- 16.8 55 - - 0 0 -
e 26930-43521 4d'og.5o- 7 58.90- 17.3 57 22.0 21.5 1.6 2.1 156
9 26926-43516 008.65- 7 58-501 16.4 54 21.0 19.9 2.0 5.6 155
10 26928-%3519 008.88- 7 58.78- 17.0 56 21.0 19.5 1.0 2.8 163
il 26933-41-52i %d08-95: 7 59-30- 15.2 50 22.0 20.0 1.0 5.6 W
12 26929-43515 008-55 7 59.00- 16.8 55 21.0 21.0 1.0 1.3 155
13 26931-43isii Ndo8.46: 7 59.20- 16.4 5% 22.0 21.0 o.6 1.1 162
Sandy Hook 14 26934-43517 008.53 7 59.63- 17.3 57 21.0 20.8 2.0 12.8 138
8/23/85 15 26962-%3675 4d2%.301 57.651 9.1 30 21.0 21.0 0.2 4.0 128
-11 16 26959-43675 4d24.281 7 57.319 10.% 34 21.0 21.0 % CLAMS 7.2 152
di 17 26956-43674 4d'24.10 7 56.90- 12.2 40 21.0 20.8 1 CLAM 17.0 121
is 2695%-411616 1024-35: 7 56-651 11.9 39 2i.5 20.0 1 CLAM 3.0 16o
Sandy Hook 19 26958-43615 4d24-30 7 57.200 11.9 39 21.5 21.0 0 9.9 -
8/23/85 20 26958.43682 4d24.go-. 7 56.90, 10.7 35 21.0 21.0 0.1 (8 CLAMS) 1.2 150
21 26959-43688 025.606 7 56.6s, 10.7 35 21.0 21.0 0 1.0 -
22 26960-43692 4d26.00- 7 56-81- 12.2 40 22.0 21.3 3 CLAMS 0.5 163
23 26961-43696 026.40, 7 56.80- 12.2 40 22.0 22.0 0 0.5
24 26963-43694 4d26.20- 7 57.200 10.1 33 23.0 22.0 0 0
25 26963-43691 025.80- 7 57.30- 9.4 31 22.0 21.0 0 0
26 26963-43690 4d25.80- 7 57.40- 8.5 28 22.0 21.5 0 0 -
27 26962-43686 4?25.40- 7 5?.35- 9.1 30 22.0 21.0 2 CLAMS 0.8 165
28 26959-43682 4CO25.000 7 57.108 10.4 34 22.0 21.4 5 CLAMS 0.2 158
29 26961-43684 4d'25.20- 7 57.30- '10.4 34 23.0 21.4 I CLAM 0.8 170

@LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE AFFROXrNATE MID-TOW POSITIONS.

TABLE 4

Juvenile Surf Clams in Petersen Grabs

Total Number of' BELMAR SANDY HOOK
Juvenile'Surf Clams 162 32 567 761

Average Number of
Juve2iles per
0.1M 12.4 5.8 57 2T'.1

Average Size
of Juveniles 1.9 5.4 11.4 8.3

Table 5

Denthic Invertebrates In Petersen Samples
STATIONS BELMAR SANDY HOOK
2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 IT 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2T '28 29
Bivalves
Astarte castansn' 2 3
Ensts direceus
Nucula proxima 1 2 2 138 2 1
Pandora gouldiana I I 1 2 2
Perlploma leanum I
Pitar morrhusna 1 2 2
SPt3UIa solidisaLma 2 3 1 82 3 21 1 65 2 2 3 24 3 9 10 39 16 3 360 12 118
Tellins &gilts 2 12 1 8 1 15 1 14 3 1 1 1 1 4 6 1 9 3 3 1 1
Gastropods
Na3sarlus trIvitattus I I I I
Lunatta herom I
Polchaeta
Ampharste acutifrons
Aricidea jeffroysit 1 4
Glycera americana I I I I I
G. capitata 13 5 1 8 2 4 5 1
G. dibranchiate I I I
Lumbrinerts. tenuts 1 16 3 1
Hagelons roses I I
Kephtys incisa 4 3 3 1 4 1 2 1 5 3 4 1 1 2
N. pteta 3 2 2
Herelmyra punotata 1 1 16 1 7 16
Ophelina scuminata 3 1 1
Scoloplos fraglIts
Sthenelais Uslaola
Cru3tacea
Isepoda
Cirolana concharum
2
Amphipoda
Hau3toriU2 canadensis
F. I I I 1 2
Hysidacea 0
Heomysis americana S4
Decapoda
Ovallpes ocellatus z C
Echinodermata
EchinarachnLug Parma is
Nemertea
Cerebratulus IaCtGU2
Micrura leidyi 2 2 1 1 1
Procephalothril SPIralls 5 1 1
Vertebrata
j@odytes americanU2 3 1 3
(sand lanae)

I
@ 0 APPENDIX D

Fishes Common to the project area
(Table 6)

TABLE 6

FISH SPECIES COMMON TO THE PROJECT AREA

RECREATIONAL SPECIES

GADIDAE
Merluccius bilinearis (silver hake/whiting)
Urophycis chuss (red hake/ling)

PERCICHTYIDAE
Morone saxatilis (striped bass/rockfish)

SERRANIDAE
Centr02istis striata. (black sea bass)

POKATOMIDAE
Pomatomus saltatrix (bluefish)

SCIAENDAE
Cynosc regalis (weakf ish/gray sea trout)

LABRIDAE
Tautoga onitis (tautog/slippery bass)

SCOMBRIDAE
Scomber scombrus (Atlantic mackerel)

BOTHIDAE
Paralichthys dentatus (summer flounder/northern fluke)

PLEURONECTIDAE
Pseudopleuronectes americanus (flounder/winter flounder)

COMMERCIAL SPECIES

POMATPMIDAE
Pomatomus saltatrix (bluefish)

SCIAENDIDAE
Cynoscion regalis (weakfish)

SCOMBRIDAE
Scomber scombrus (Atlantic mackerel)

CLUPEDIDAE
Alosa. sapidissima (American shad)
Brevoortia tyrannus (Atlantic menhaden)
ASTAMAE
Homarus americanus (American lobster)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW YORK DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
NEW YORK. N.Y. 102?a-oooo

*Cftv To March 25, 1988
ATIM"Im"ar

Environmental Analysis Branch

Mr. Clifford G. Day
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 534
705 White Horse Pike
Absecon, New Jersey 08201

Dear Mr. Day:

The New York District has reviewed your Draft
Coordination Act Report dated January 27, 1988 for the
Atlantic Coast of New Jersey -Sea Bright to Ocean Township
Beach Erosion Control Study.

In general, we are in agreement with your description of
the proposed project and assessment of project impacts. We
do not concur with your statement that the proposed project
has the potential for long-term significant adverse impacts
to fish and wildlife resources and their supporting
ecosystems. While there will be repeated disturbance of the
borrow areas, the amount of sand required for project
maintenance is approximately one fifth of the amount to be
dredged and placed on the beach for initial construction.
Disturbance during maintenance work will be of a lesser
magnitude and impacts to aquatic resources will be less
severe than those associated with the initial work. In
addition, with regard to the State of New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection's Fishermen Use Survey, we
consider the survey blocks referenced in the Coordination Act
Report to be of moderate rather than high value relative to
the entire area included in the survey. The region around
the Shrewsbury Rocks-and areas lying in the inshore edge of
the survey area are of higher value than the referenced
blocks and would be subject to greater environmental impacts.
The Corps will, however, attempt to avoid dredging the higher
value areas until all less valuable areas have been dredged
to the maximum extent practicable.

Lastly, we would like to clarify the issue of pre- and
post-construction monitoring. At a meeting in Trenton, New
Jersey on December 2, 1987, attended by your agency, NJDEP
and the Corps, it was agreed that NJDEP would be responsible

-2-

for pre-construction monitoring for the first dredging site.
Once construction funds become available the New York
District would be responsible for future monitoring.

Further comments on the report including our response to
recommended mitigation measures is enclosed with this letter.
Following your review of our comments we would like to
arrange a meeting to discuss any outstanding issues of
concern. If you have any questions please contact Ms. Karen
Sullivan of my staff at 212-264-4662. Your continued
cooperation in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Samuel P. Tosi, PiE.
Chief, Planning Division

Enclosure

Enclosure 1

Comments to FWS Coordination Act Report January 1988
Sea Bright to Ocean Township Beach Control Study

I. P. 6 - The first complete sentence should be changed to, "In
addition, 3.47 million cubic yards of sand are required for periodic
nourishment,"

2. P. 6 - The last sentence should be revised to, "The amount of sand
required for initial construction of the project is approximately 21
million cubic yards."

3. P. 9, para. 3 - The third sentence should be changed to,
"Additionally, the Monmouth Beach Reef has been constructed by the
State of New Jersey offshore of the project area about 1.8 miles east
of Monmouth Beach.

4. P. 13, para. 2 - Although blocks 9, 13, 15, 69, 70 and 74 support
high use recreational fisheries relative to other sample blocks within
the project area, except for block 13, they are of moderate value
relative to the entire sampling area. Other blocks in the sampled area
which support higher recreational use (including block 13) have been
identified. The higher value blocks included the region around
Shrewsbury Rocks and blocks lying in the inshore edge of the survey
area. The paragraph should give a better indication of the relative
value of the referenced blocks within the sampling area.

5. P. 21, para. 1; P. 24 - As indicated in the Corps response to your
Planning Aid Report (letter dated November 3. 1987) for the project,
this recommendation cannot be implemented. This Is discussed below in
the Corps' responses to recommended mitigation measures.

6. P. 21, para. 2 - The proposed project will result in no net loss of
shallow water habitat. Following construction, the beach fill is
expected to shift somewhat as it adjusts to existing wave conditions,
resulting in an intertidal zone that, between maintenance fills is
similar in size and,conf6roation to the present intertidal zone. The
intertidal zone will be displaced seaward and any net loss of area
resulting from the project would involve subtidal marine habitat.

7. P. 23, para. 3 - This paragraph does not reflect the fact that
after the initial dredging and placement of 17.8 million cubic yards of
sand, maintenance will consist of the dredging and placement of 3.47
million cubic yards of sand. Since a much smaller area will be
disturbed during project maintenance, impacts to aquatic resources will
be less severe than those associated with the initial work.

8. P. 25, para. 1; P. 36, last para. - As part of the local
cooperation items presented in P.L. 99-662, the non-Federal sponsor
must provide for public access before construction of any portion of
the project could begin. The first federal construction increment is
slated for Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach with a feeder beach in the

vicinity of Long Branch. Accordingly, a public access plan has been
submitted for the Borough of Sea' Bright and one is expected shortly for
Monmouth Beach and Long Branch.

9. P. 25. para. 2. P. 36, last para. - The Corps will investigate the
potential to create shorebird habitat or to construct dunes in areas
where project construction requires the placement of sand in excess of
100 feet.

10. P. 30, para. I - At a meeting held in Trenton, New Jersey on
December 2. 1987 and attended by your agency, the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the Corps, it was agreed that
NJDEP would be responsible for pre-construction monitoring for the
first dredging site. Once construction funds become available the New
York District would be responsible for future monitoring.

11. PP. 32 and 33 - The details and scheduling for the recommended
sampling studies will be worked out with the Corps' Coast Engineering
Research Center (CERC). CERC will be providing technical assistance
for project monitoring. Proposed monitoring schemes will be
coordinated with your agency.

12. P. 35. para. 2 - By the nature of the dredging process, sand will
naturally form gentle side slopes along the edge of the borrow pits.
Corrective measures will not be necessary to minimize water circulation
problems.

13. P. 35. para. 4: P.36. no. 5 - In the first sentence, the term
"impact assessment study" should be changed to monitoring program.

Recommendations

1. Avoid sand removal from high value areas until all less valuable
areas have been dredged - This recommendation will be implemented where
practicable.

2. Avoid construction operations during the period June I through
September 30 - Based on NJOEP's Fisherman Use Survey, the area to be
dredged Is of moderate recreational value relative to the entire
sampling area. The Corps does not.believe that the proposed dredging
will result in significant impacts to fishery resources in the effected
areas. Construction and maintenance of the Rockaway Beach, New York
Erosion Control Project, directly across the Ambrose Channel from Sandy
Hook, has proceeded for 12 years without any seasonal restrictions on
dredging, and without any changes in local fisheries of water quality.
Restricting dredging to the period between mid-October through January
would prevent work during the best part of the season. Dredging during
the winter Is not a workable alternative because of the severe climate
that reduces efficiency and safety. If the project were constructed
under this restriction, implementation and maintenance costs would be
significantly greater due to the longer duration of dredging
operations. As Is noted elsewhere in the FWCA report, most of the
referenced CERC studies were conducted in southern states where

dredging in the winter does not present the same concerns for safety
and efficiency.

3. Conduct dredging activities in a manner which minimizes development
of degraded water quality within the borrow pits - This recommendation
will be implemented.

4. Notify the New Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries if pre-project
benthic sampling disclosed commercially valuable quantities of surf
clams - This action will be implemented.

5. Conduct an Impact assessment study of the proposed project as
described in Section VII - The Corps wJ11 implement a pre-construction
and post-construction monitoring program of water quality and benthic
resources of the project area. Information about the proposed
monitoring program is included in Appendix A of the GDM and will be
discussed in the Draft EIS. As previously noted, NJDEP will be
responsible for pre-construction monitoring before initial
construction. This was agreed to at a meeting held in Trenton, New
Jersey on December 2, 1987 and attended by USFWS, NJDEP and the Corps.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW YORK DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL 13UILDING
NEW YORK. N.Y. 10278-0090

:
PLV go May 10, 1988
f=ftTQ"4W
Environmental Analysis Branch

Mr. Clifford G. Day
Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 534
705 White Horse Pike
Absecon, NJ 08201

Dear Mr. Day:

This is in reference to the meeting District staff held
May 3, 1988 with Michael Chezik and Flavia Rutkosky of your
office and Bernard Moore and Bill Andrews of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

At the meeting it was agreed that the District would
send a letter to your office confirming some of the points we
had discussed. Specifically, I would like to clarify the
following issues:

a. Seasonal restrictions on dredging. As noted in the
District's March 25 letter commenting to the January 1988
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report, for this project
it is not practicable to avoid dredging June 1 - September
30, because the costs of doing this would be prohibitive.
For instance, mobilization and demobilization costs would be
enormous, the time required to construct the project would
lengthen from four years to perhaps eight years and, because
large amounts of sand would be lost from the unfinished
edges of partially constructed beaches during each
demobilization period, the quantity of sand required to
construct the project would significantly increase. This
increased need for sand would result in-an increase in the
size of the borrow areas.. However, where practicable we are
willing to schedule each yearOs construction to avoid areas
of relatively high resource value during the requested
June 1 - September 30 period. We will include a statement to
this effect in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the project.

b. Monitoring. It was agreed at the meeting that the
Service would change its description of the proposed benthic
and water quality studies to monitor.ing and assessment. I
, Nt

want to emphasize that this program will include not only the
collection of pre-construction and post-construction data,
but a commitment to take remedial actions if the monitoring
reveals that the work is causing a significant problem in
either the borrow areas or the disposal sites. The purpose
of the monitoring will be to document both before and after
conditions in the project area in order to determine if
unacceptable impacts are occurring (or if conditions which
could lead to an unacceptable impact are developing) and to
document predisposal predictions. The program will be
designed with the intent of providing the District with
clearly interpretable information, within a reasonable time,
about whether an adverse condition has been reached or is
likely to occur, so that decisions about continued or
modified site use can be made. At this time the District
believes that there will be no serious impact to recovery of
either bottom fauna or finfish after construction, provided
water quality conditions and bottom substrates in the dredged
borrow pits are not significantly altered from present
conditions. A description of the proposed monitoring and
assessment program will be included in the DEIS and the
General Design Memorandum (GDM), as will the conceptual
monitoring plan (copy enclosed) developed for us by our
Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC). We will include
your office in the development of the final plan and should
be contacting you soon to arrange a meeting with
representatives of CERC.

C. Funding for pre-construction data collection at the
first dredging site. Mr. Bernard Moore, Chief of the Bureau
of Coastal Engineering in the NJDEP, indicated at the meeting
that his office was ready to fund at least a large part, and
probably all, of this part of this initial work.

I hope that the above resolves your remaining concerns
regarding this stage of the study, and -look forward to your
continued involvement in the project.

Sincerely,

A^-A
?-,Samuel P. Tosi, P.E.
Chief, Planning Division

Enclosure

A109. Performance of Design Beach Fill Project. An analysis was conducted
to assure the reliability of the be ach fill design. The method used for
this fill performance evaluation is not sensitive to berm width. Shoreline
change models which can be used for this type of evaluation use the angle of
waves between adjacent shoreline sections to compute sediment transport
rates. Since the fill is continuous, a detailed shoreline model study would
probably show similar changes for different berm widths. For this reason
only one fill performance discussion is presented for each erosion control
plan.

A110. Shoreline Change. A model would predict changes at the project ends
and feeder beach limits. If not provided for during construction, a sand
fillet would form at the south end of the project. This could cause erosion
of the project by acting as a groin. However, since 1 on 5 fill tapers are
to be constructed in conjunction with the fill project, the project end
effects are expected to be minimal.

AIll. During construction of erosion control projects with groins, an
effort should be made to notch the groins in order to minimize the impact of
the structures on downdrift beaches. Ideally, groin notches should be
constructed at the same time as the fill is being constructed. This would
prevent the excessively long groins from trapping littoral drift material
and negatively impacting downdrift beaches...

A112. Continuous Proiect Constructed in - Phases. A beach fill project
placed in Section I (Sea Bright to Ocean Township) without feeder. beaches
would suffer severe erosion at 'the south end to make up for updrift
littoral drift deficiencies. The erosion problem would be similar to the
phenomena experienced in the Sandy Hook critical section. The remaining
beach in Section I would erode uniformly in response to a linear increase in
the littoral drift along the project length.

A113. The updated fill plan provides for one feeder beach at the southern
end of the project area to compensate for the sediment deficit at that
location. The projected erosion rate of the feeder beach is 164,000 cubic
yards per year for a total of 984,000 cubic yards over the 6-year
maintenance cycle. The length of- the feeder beach at Ocean Township is
estimated as 8,540 feet and is based on the erosion- at the Sandy Hook
Critical Zone. The updated project also provides for continuous advance
fill over the entire project area including the feeder beach at Ocean
Township. Advance fill will be placed at a.rate of 314,000 cubic yards per
year for a tc@tal volume of 1,884,000 cubic yards at each 6-year maintenance
renourishment project. This quantity includes 174,000 cubic yards per year
to offset the effects of the increasing littoral drift component and an
additional 140,000 cubic yards a year required to comply with the
maintenance fill risk analysis. Movement of the additional 146,000 cubic
yard risk analysis quantity out of the project area by littoral forces is
not expected. Expected offshore losses due to sea level rise will be
adequately supplied In the maintenance -7olume.

A114. Once littoral drift deficiencies are made up by the Ocean Township
feeder beach, there is no apparer.: advanza6e to szockpiling additional f` 11
at other feeder beach '.oca:--*ons along :he nroject as suggested
Re.ference 5. The updated design fill and maintenance fill would bur'; all-

A69

but a few of the longest existing groins. The impact of these, structures on
the sediment transport rate would be minimized by notching the groins at the
design shoreline.

A115. Individually Constructed Reaches. If any of the three constructable
reaches were built independent of the remaining reaches, then a feeder beach
would be required to compensate for the sediment deficit. The feeder beach
would need to be placed at the south end of the reach. The fill quantity
and lengths of these feeder beaches were developed in Section III of this
appendix.

A116. The shoreline north of the feeder beach in an independently
constructed reach would also be subject to the increasing littoral drift
potential. This would require continuous advance fill in addition to the
feeder beach material. The maintenance fill of any constructable reach will
positively impact the shoreline to the north of that reach. The feeder
beach and advance fill will generally increase the sediment transport along
the reach to the potential rate. This will eliminate the need for a feeder
beach along the shoreline north of any independent reach. The shoreline
will be subject only to the increasing littoral drift rate.

A117. ImDact on Sandv Hook. The current erosion problem at the Sandy Hook
Critical Zone is due to an inadequate supply of sediment from the beaches to
the south. Based on the Existing Conditions Sediment Budget, the present
supply of sand to Sandy Hook is approximately 392,000 cubic yards annually.
The littoral drift potential for the base of Sandy Hook is approximately
493,000 cubic yards a year. A beach erosion control project which could
increase the supply of sand to Sandy Hook above the present rate would have
a positive impact on the erosion problem. An erosion control project which
would decrease the sediment supply to the Hook would accelerate the erosion
of the Critical Zone.

A118. Impact on__Sandy Hook Navigation Channel. The project is not
expected to have a significant impact on the shoaling rate of the Sandy Hook
navigation channel. Construction of t 'he selected plan will not increase the
littoral drift rate beyond the potential rate. The maximl- potential rate,
will occur, as it does presently, in Sandy Hook just north of the critical
zone. The rate decreases to the north approaching the channel. 7he amount
of material moving north into the channel will remain constant. 7he amount
of fines in the fill material is viry low. Most of the fines will move
offshore and settle in deeper water.

A119. Monitoring, Progr Pro-construction monitoring will consist of a
survey of beach profile lines. @.ediment samples of the beach and borrow
area, aerial photographs of the project area and biological samples
collected along the beach and the borrow sites. Post-construction
monitoring will duplicate the pro-construction effort at intervals of 3
months during the first two years, six months during the third year, and
once in the fourth year. Posc-construction field work will be followed by
lab and data analysis and summarized in reports. 7he proposed monitoring
program will begin in 1990 and extend through 1994. Monitoring is divided
into 4 tasks:

A70

A120. Task I - Fill Placement. 7"he beach fill project will be monitored at
selected intervals before and after placement along 25 profiles as scheduled
in Table A42. The 25 profiles consist of 23 sites evenly spaced within the
fill area and two control profiles, one mile north and south of the project
limits. Sediment samples will be collected during each profile survey, at
three sample locations (Mean High Water - MHW, Mid-Tide level - MTL and Mean
Low Water - MLW) per profile line. A total of 15 short cores will be
collected (3 sampling locations on 5 selected profile lines) on the pre-fill
placement sampling trip to characterize native beach seasonal and storm
related variability in sediment distribution.

A121. A monitoring team will survey the 25 profiles once yearly, collecting
both onshore and offshore data to identify the seaward depth of profile
closure and to characterize the active envelope of fill response. Sediment
redistribution across the entire profile will be monitored during this
survey by collecting seven surface sediment grab samples ( 1 MHW, 2 ',IITL, 3
MLW, 4 bar trough, 5 offshore bar crest, 6 offshore bar seaward slope, and 7
at closure depth).

Beach Fill Area Sediment Sampling Scheme:

Year Times/year Number of.Samples Total

pre 15 cores (3 cores x 5 profiles)
construction 60 surOace (3 samples x 20 profiles) 75

post- 1 3 surface x 25 profiles 75
construction

1 4 3 - 3 surface x 25 profiles +
I - 7 surface x 25 profiles 400

2 4 3 - 3 surface 'x25 profiles +
1 - 7 surface x 25 profiles 400

3 2 1 - 3 surface x 25 profiles +
1 - 7 surface x 25 profiles 250

4 1 - 7 surface x 25 profiles 175

Monitoring fill after major storm events (greater than 20 year return) would
include sediment sampling at 3 surface x 25 profiles - 75 samples/storm
event and would be performed as an add-on cost to the scope of work.

A122. Data Analysis will tnelude: profile volume change and shape
readjustment, area of loss or gain on profile, volume of fill remaining on
project, assessment of alongshore and cross shore fill movement, and
seasonal and storm response. Sediment analysis will include grain size
statistics of native and fill material with readjustment over monitoring
period, seasonal and storm grain si=e response and assessment of fill and
renourishment factors for fut-_re fill requirements. Report writing will
summarize behavior and response :f beach fill zo local and regional coas-al
and geomorphic processes.

A71

A123. Task 11 - Borrow Area. Borrow area monitoring will include
collection of surface sediments before dredging and immediately after
dredging to support biological monitoring and assessment of fill
suitability. These casks will be coordinated with a biologist for
concurrent collection period. Table A43 summarizes the borrow sampling.

A124. During the fourth (last) year of monitoring, the monitoring team will
collect 18 cores, 5 at Sandy Hook borrow (2 transects) and 10 at Belmar
borrow (4 transects). Transacts will include concrol sites outside of
immediate borrow pits. About 6 samples will be taken per core (20 ft. Long)
for a cotal of 108 samples. This sampling will also be coordinated with
biological sampling of the borrow area.

A125. Data analysis will include sediment statistics in tabular and graphic
form for sediment fill suitability, borrow area sedimentology to support
biological analysis and usability of borrow area for future projects and
analysis of subcontractors bathymetric surveys for changes in borrow pits
and calculation of infilling rates. Report writing will evaluate borrow
changes, determine the rate of borrow area infilling, and identify current
patterns in the immediate area.

A126. Task III - Shoreline Changee. Subcontractor will provide 9 aerial
photography overflights of the project area and construct a base map.
Coverage will be a single flightline witht 60% overlap stereo coverage of
entire project area shoreline, including control profile locations one mile
north and south of project limits. Black and white or color infrared film
with a 9 x 9 ipch film format will be specified. The scale of the
photographs will be sufficient to identify shoreline features. A scale of
1:500 is suggested for the base map and aerial photography. Proposed aerial
flight times are listed on Table A42 and should be coordinated to occur
during ground surveys.

A127. Data analysis will include shoreline changes and profile changes from
pre- and immediate post-construction and bi-annually as in Table A42.
Products provided will be tables and maps on shoreline change rates and
volume calculations of fill remaining at each flight time. Report will
augment the acquired data base of historic shorelines to determine the
readjusted rates of accretion nd erosion within each littoral call or within
each section. This is important &long shoreline reaches consisting of groin
fields, where profiles in each groin pocket are not feasible.

A128. Task IV - Biological Assessment. Biological surveys of both beach
and borrow areas will be conducted. One biologist and technician will join
the field team for the proposed field trips listed in task I and II. Field
collection will consist of grab samples offshore and quadrate of beach areas
to assess presence of infauna.

A129. Data analysis will evaluate changes in 4,nfauna in the fill area,
effects of turbidity on fauna of the beach and borrow area and the effects
of dredging activicies; on borrow area infauna. Report will describe and
quantify the changes to or the reestablishment of :he biological community
in the fill placement area and borrow and compare to control sites.

A72

TABLE A42
SAMPLING SCHEDULE FOR BEACH FILL MONITORING

PRE-FILL POST-FILL FIRST YEAR
PLACEMENT AS-BUILT 3 mo. 6 mo. 9 Mo. 12 mo.

CERC Profiles x x x x x
Sediment x x x x x

FRF Profile x
Sediment x

AIR PHOTOS x x x x

BIOLOGICAL samples x x x x x x

SECOND YEAR THIRD YEAR FOURTH
3 mo. 6 mo. 9 mo. 12 mo. 6 mo. 12 mo. 12 mo.

CERC Profiles x x x x
Sediment x x x x

FRF Profile x x x
Sediment x x x

AIR PHOTOS x x x x x

BIOLOGICAL samples x x x x x x x

TABLE A43
BORROW AREA SAMPLING SCHEDULE

PRE-DREDGING POST-DREDGING FOURTH YEAR

CERC sediment cores
surface samples x x x

BIOLOGICAL samples x x x

SUBCONTPLACTOR boat X X x

A73

t"T Ot
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

P.O. Box 534
705 White Horse Pike
Absecon, New Jersey 08201
(609-646-9310)

May 19, 1988

Mr. George Howard, Director
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife
CN 400
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Dear Mr. Howard:

This letter is in reference to the May 3, 1988 interagency coordination
meeting with the New York District Corps of Engineers regarding the Atlantic
Coast of New Jersey - Sea Bright to Ocean Township Beach Erosion Control
Study, attended by William Andrews from the Bureau-of Marine Fisheries.

In a follow up letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), dated May
10, 1988, the New York District has summarized their views about issues
discussed at this meeting., Copies of their letter have been provided to the
Bureau of Marine Fisheries and a copy is enclosed for your convenience. The
Service is currently preparing the final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
report [Section 2(b)] for submission to the District and we are requesting
your review and comment on the information in the enclosed Corps of Engineers
correspondence.

Seasonal dredging restrictions are addressed in part (a) of the letter. The
Service has recommended that construction operations be avoided during periods
of high biological productivity (June 1 - Sept 30). However,- we also
recommended that sand removal be avoided in the "high value" areas (as
identified by the Bureau of Marine Fisheries) until all less valuable areas
are dredged. The latter "sequenced" approach was suggested by the Bureau of
Marine Fisheries at the December 2, 1987 interagency coordination meeting and
subsequently Incorporated into our draft Section 2(b) report. The current
proposal put forth by the District would preclude the adoption of the
recommended "sequenced" dredging.

It is our understanding that the "monitoring and assessment" program addressed
in part (b), would at a minimum collect benthic (including surf clams), water
quality and sediment data as described in the Section 2(b) report. The
description of a monitoring program attached to the District's letter provides
a generic concept only. The final study design will be an interagency effort.
To this end, we have provided William Andrews with information describing a
benthic resource assessment technique (BRAT) developed by the U.S. Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. This technique is designed to produce
quantitative estimates of the fishery value of unvegetated soft bottom
habitat.

The Service's Section 2(b) report is to be included in the District's
environmental impact statement for the project. As such, we request your
further comments,if any, by June 6, 1988.
'Your attention to this request is appreciated. If there are any questions,
please contact Flavia RuItkoskey at this office.

Sincerely,

Clifford G. Day
Supervisor

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW YORK DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10278-0090

March 4, 1987
REPLY TO
ArTgNTION Of.

Environmental Analysis Branch

Mr. Gregory A. Marshall
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of New Jersey Heritage
New Jersey Department Protection
CN 404
Trenton, Nev Jersey 08625

Dear Mr. Marshall:

The New York District, Corps of Engineers, has previously requested
Section 106 comments from your office on cultural resources studies
prepared as part of the Sea Bright to Ocean Township, New Jersey Section
of the Sandy Book to Barnegat Inlet Beach Erosion Control Project
(Enclosure 1). We have not had a response to this request.

The Corps has determined, on the basis of the following cultural
resource studies which have been provided to your office, that this project
will have no effect on cultural resources eligible for or listed on the
National Register of Historic Place.

"A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the New Jersey Shore
from Highland Beach, Sea Bright to Deal Lake, Loch Arbour,
Boroughs of Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach City of Long Branch,
Borough of Deal and Allenhurst, Village of Loch Arbour, Monmouth
County, New Jersey." Prepared for the New York Districts U.S.
Army Corps of kzineers, (1985).

"Final Report for Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Sea Bright to Ocean
Township, Monmouth Countys Remote Sensing of Proposed Offshore
Sand Borrov Areas." Prepared for the Nev York District, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (1986).

If we receive no comments from your office in fifteen days, we will assume
you are in concurrence with this determination, as pursuant to 36 CFR
,P&rt 800-5.

If you or your staff have any questions on this subject, please
contact Roselle Henn of the Environmental Analysis Branch at (212)
264-4662.

Enclosures Sincerely,

To,
el Tosi, P.E.
Chief, Planning Division
, A@a=e

DEPARTMENT OF EN,.RONNMNTAL PROTEMON
DIVISION OF PARKS AND FORESTRY
OFFICE OF NEW JERSEY HERITAGE
CN-404
TRENTON, N.J. 08625
(609) 292-2023

17 March 1986

Mr. Samuel P. Tosi, P.E.
Chief, Planning Division
U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers,
New York District
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090

Monmouth Couaty, New Jersey
Multiple Municipalities
Highland Beach to Deal Lake, or Sea Bright to
Loch Arbour
Sea Bright to Ocean Township [a.k.a. Sandy Hook
to Barnegat Inlet] Beach Erosion Control
U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers
Department of Defense

Dear Mr. Tosi:

Thank you for affording us the opportunity to review, as
professional staff to the New Jersey State Historic Preservation
Officer, a draft version of A cultural wources reconnaissance for
the New Jersey shore from Highland Beach, Sea Bright to Deal Lake,
Loch Arbour, Boroughs of Sea Bright and Monmouth Beac7h-, city 21 Lijn&
Branch, Boroughs of D@_al and Allenhurst, Village of Loch Arbour,
Monmouth County, New Jersey, 1 August 1985, by Heritage Studies of
Princeton, New Jersey.

It is an excellent report; no changes are suggested. Vhen the
-final version is issued, the copy destined for this office should
contain original photo3raphic prints or enlargements.

We concur with the investigator's conclusions and agree with
his recommendations for off-shore research. This phase of the
work should be thoroughly discussed and carefully planned in view
of the uncertainties and unknowns and the high cost-of underwater
archaeological surveys.

Sincerely yours,

Jonathan Gell
Principal Environmental Specialist

JG:oho

6 August 1986

Environmental Analysis Branch

Mr. Gregory A. Marshall
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of New Jersey Heritage
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN 404
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Dear Mr. Marshall:

The New York District. Corps of Engineers, Is pleased to
furnish you with a copy of the final report for Atlantic Coast of
New Jersey Sea Bright to Ocean Township, Monmouth County, Remote
Sensing of Proposed Offshore Sand Borrow Areas. We request that
you furnish us with Section 106 comments on the findings of this
report.

In our 30 May 1986 letter to your office we requested Section
106 comments an the final report for the onshore portion of this
project. We would appreciate receiving those comments as well. so
that we say proceed with project plans.

We thank you for your cooperation and Interest In this
project. If you or any of your staff have any questions, please
contact Roselle Henn of the Environmental Analysis Branch at (212)
264-4662.

Slncerely.

Enclosure Samuel P. Toal. P.E.
Chief, Planning Division

May 30, 1986

Environmental Analysis Branch

Mr. Greg Marshall
Deputy State Historic Preservation officer
Office of Nev Jersey Eeritage
New Jersey Department of Environmental protection
CN 404
Trenton, Now Jersey 08625

Dear Mr. Marshall:

The New York District Is pleased to forward to you a copy of the final
report entitled A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the New Jersey
Shore from Highland Beach, Sea Bright to Deal Lake, Loch Arbour, Boroughs
of Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach, City of Long Branch, Boroughs of Deal
and Allenhurst, Village of Loch Arbour, Mommouth County, New Jersey,
prepared by Heritage Studies.

Your office has previously commented on the adequacy of the draft
report. At this time we request that you review the final report and
provide us with Section 106 comments for the onshore portion of the project.

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Ms. Jan
Ferguson of the Environmental Analysis Branch at (212) 264-4662, Thank
you for your cooperation with regard, to this project.

Sincerely,

Samal P. Tosi P.E.
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure

September 9, 1985

Environmental Analysis Branch

Mr. Greg Marshall
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of New Jersey Heritage
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN 402
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Dear Mr. Marshall:

We are pleased to enclose for your review a copy of a report entitled
A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance for the New Jersey Shore from Highland
Beach, Sea Bright to Deal Lake, Loch Arbour. Monmouth County, New Jersey.
This report was prepared as part of the New York District, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, proposed Sea Bright to Ocean Township, Beach Erosion Control
Project.

Please review this report and provide us with Section 106 comments for
this project. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Jan
Ferguson or Roselle Henn of the Environmental Analysis Branch at (212) 264-4662.
Thank you for your time and interest In this project.

Sincerely,

Enclosure Samuel P. Tosi. P.E.
Chief, Planning Division

@.a=Lwjuent ot sheet piling to
p6ii wittout buckling it or ruining its interlocking
seam is forced to dig out the boulder or obstacle with the aid of
heavy equipment in the stream bed. The resulting unacceptable levels
of disturbance would be an equally serious concern of the New York
State Dept. of Env. Conservation.

I suggest that either the sheet piling solution or the rip-
rap channel plan will produce disturbance during the construction
period and that the N.Y.S.D.E.C. should resign itself to accepting the
levels of disturbance for one yearly cycle of water levels in order to
save the lives and welfare of the people using the Route 9N
thoroughfare for years to come. So, I ask you not to dismiss the rip-
rap channel plan on this particular D.E.C. objection.

I implore you to dismiss the steel sheet piling plan because
of its completely inappropriate appearance, and because of the
aforementioned scenario. The rip-rap plan is the solution. It will
be a long-lasting answer to the problem that exists and will
harmoniously blend in with the natural and man-made conditions in the
mid-19th Century Hand-Hale Historic District.

Sincerely,

James A. Kinl y,
Director, Adi ondack
Center Museum &
Essex Co. Historian

-c: Marion L. Caldwell, Jr., U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
Karen A. Gustina, of It to to
Stanley Fafinski, It to to
J.R. Lambert, N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation
Bruce Fullem, X.Y.S. Dept. of Parke & Rec. & Historic Preservation.
@@me tKn il c,
i
Ad

Historial Brewster Library Colonial Garden
Society Court Street
Elizabethtown, NY 12932
518-8736466

Februarty 23, 1988
Chief of Planning Division RE: Pin 1116.26.101
Dept. of the Army Streambank erosion
N.Y. District. Corps of Engineers protection, Route 9N
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building Elizabethtown, N.Y.
New York, N.Y. 10273-0090

Dear Mr. Tosi,
Thank you for sending along a copy of the Enviromental
Assessment for The Branch of the Boquet River Streambank Erosion
Control Project in Elizabethtown. Essex County, N.Y. for my review.

After reading through the information, I would like to state
my opposition to the project as it has bees proposed and recommend
that you reconsider using the rip-rap channel plan as originally
stated (Alternative C). My major concern is one of aesthetics in the
historic Hand-Hale District.

During the early 1980's my wife and I with painstaking effort
completely restored the exterior of the Hand House as well as many of
the office and meeting spaces inside. We now operate the Adirondack
Center Museum which will soon be annexed to the Hand-Hale District,
and I also serve as the Essex County Historian. My wife and I
participate in many of the activities of the Elizabethtown Social
Center wdhich now owns the Hale House, and my wife serves as a Trustee
on the Board of the Boquet River Association. This invlovement is why
I feel compelled to write to you and voice my concern.

In the selected alternative, the 750' of steel sheet piling
with a concrete cap and a 4-foot metal picket fence bisecting the
Historic District will be a conspicuous eyesore. The plan promises to
introduce three different materials, shapes ans forms from the late
20th Century engineering world and to prominently expose them in the
middle of the mid-19th Century Historic Distriot. This construction
will stich out like a sore thumb; it is a poor choice.

In analysis of the glacial deposits that line the bed of the
Branch one must raise a skeptical eyebrow with the New York State
Dept. of Transportation's soil boring data. Boulders surely sxist.

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
NEW YORK STATE Agency Building 1, Albany. New York 12238 518-474-0456
Orin Lemnan
Commissioner
March 9, 1988

Ms. Leslie Eisenberg
Department of the Army
New York District, Corps of Engineers
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
New York, New York 10278-0090

Dear Ms. Eisenberg:

Re: CORPS
Bouquet River Stabilization
Elizabethtown, Essex County

The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has reviewed the above
project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations,
36 CFR 800/801.

This project: has been previously reviewed by this office through NYS
Department of Transportation activities. The information submitted by your
department is consistent with that previously reviewed and it is the opinion of
the SHPO that this project will have no effect upon districts, sites, buildings,
structures, objects or archeological resources in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Place . The SHPO knows of no other
significant cultural resources other than the listed Hand-Hale Historic Distric
which might be impacted by the project.

If you have any questions, please contact the project review staff at
(518) 474-3176.

Sincerely,

Julia S. Stokes
Deputy Commissioner for
Historic Preservation

JSS:IMG:sm
PR9 (9/87)

An Equal Opportunity/Affermative Action Agency

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14112773 0