Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGoldsmith Inlet Workshop 1996Goldsmith Inlet Workshop Following is a brief summary of shoreline erosion problems and proposed solutions in the vicinty of Goldsmith Inlet and Kenneys Beach. A full presentation, of workshop Findings, recommendations, and implementation steps, public meeting transcripts, and an updated version of a background information report will be available for distribution in several weeks. BACKGROUND Long Island was formed by glacial deposition on the continental shelf about 15,000 years ago. At that time sea level was approximately 400 feet lower than present. As the glaciers melted sea level began to rise; rapidly at first, and more gradually over the last 5,000 years. Rising sea level resulted in interaction between glacial deposits and coastal processes over a long time. As the sea rose, headlands formed at Florton Point and Duck Pond Point. Sediment was carded between the points forming a natural haymouth barrier which separated a small bay from Long Island Sound. Eventually, natural processes filled the shallow bay as the baymouth barrier migrated landward, leaving behind bay remnants we see today as Autumn Pond, Goldsmith Pond, Great Pond, and Lilly Pond. These same coastal processes are still active today. Shoreline erosion is the result of 5 major factors. Sea level rise results in shoreline inundation, and is a major factor over the long-term. Geology of the site is important over the long-term because it affects shoreline orientation to wave conditions, affects resistance to erosion, and controls topography and bathymetry which influence waves. Sediment supply is another factor. Too little sediment in a system results in erosion. S~iment supply can be influenced by long-term factors such as geology, but also by short-term factors such as coastal processes and human shoreline modifications. Available energy is another factor affecting shoreline erosion. It can have dramatic short-term impacts, such as when a coastal storm strikes, or long-term impacts resulting from day to day wave and current regimes. Available energy, including waves, storms, currents, tidal changes, and wind, is the most visible factor controlling erosion. Finally, experience has shown that humans can have a big impact on shoreline erosion. Improper construction of shore protection works and dredging practices have been shown by numerous examples to accelerate shoreline erosion over time spans ranging from months to decades. In the segment of shoreline between Duck Pond Point and Herren Point, each factor is playing an important role in affecting erosion rates. We know sea level is rising at the rate of about 0.8 feet per century in this area. Geology has determined that northwest facing shorelines and bluffs are most susceptible to direct storm impacts. Sediment supply in this reach is less than sediment losses, resulting in a sand deficit over time. Available energy constantly changes and frequency of coastal storms appears to have increased in the last 5 years. Humans have ~_~,-xtified the shoreline by constructing shore protection works. Examination of the impact of such works is the subject for further discussion. Based on 1969 Corps of Engineers data, Davies et al (1971) concluded the long-term erosion (1885 to 1965) for the shoreline between Duck Pond Point and Horton Point was approximately 1 to 2 feet per year. This is consistent with erosion rates along most of Long Island Sound. This erosion rate was confirmed by unpublished data collected in preparation of the Coastal Erosion Hazard L'me by the New York State Depathnent of Environmental Conservation for the period 1947 to 1983. Within the littoral cell from Duck Pond Point to Horton Point, natural erosion rates have been the greatest along bluffs between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet. Bluff erosion rates along Long Island Sound have not been adequately measured, but anecdotal evidence suggests erosion rates are generally less than 2 feet per year and occasionally increase to 5 feet per year. Storm related bluff recession up to 30 feet has been reported during a single event. Bluff erosion between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet results from its proximity to the headland and its shoreline orientation relative to storm waves. Headlands are the focus of wave attack, resulting in a locally greater wave climate than adjacent embayments. Major storms affecting this area generate waves from the northeast causing rapid erosion along shorelines with northwest - southeast orientations. Beaches and bluffs with this orientation are open to direct wave attack and localized storm surge elevation of water levels. The bluffs between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet have an orientation favoring natural storm erosion, as do numerous other bluffs in Southold. In addition, storm activity in the late 1960's, 1970's and 1980's was relatively modest. Since 1991 storm activity appears to have increased, resulting in rapid bluff losses along northwest - southeast shorelines. While this is unfortunate for property owners who built close to the bluffs during a relatively quiescent period, it is not unexpected from a coastal processes perspective. Homeowners along these bluffs are faced with moving back from the shoreline or attempting to hold the shoreline with bulkheads. Initial costs for these alternatives are comparable. However, bulkheads can have a significant impact on sand supply to adjacent beaches. In the fall of 1963 bids were let by the State Superintendent of Public Works to construct a stone jetty at Goldsmith Inlet, Southold, New York. The project was undertaken cooperatively with Suffolk County, who had plans to dredge the inlet to construct a marina and harbor of refuge in Goldsmith Pond. Inlet excavation and marina construction never took place and neither did construction of a proposed easterly jetty. Soon after construction of Goldsmith Inlet jetty, erosion rates east of the jetty accelerated. A study by Greenman and Pedersen Associams (1981) suggests erosion east of the jetty increased to approximately 11 feet per year between 1972 and 1979, with some areas experiencing erosion rates in excess of 17 feet per year. This is confirmed by informal field observations in 1976 suggesting an erosion rate in front of Kenneys Beach bulkhead over a 2 year period of 45 feet. The unusual rate of erosion east of Goldsmith Inlet was reiterated in a 1987 engineering report by the New York State Depamnent of Environmental Conservation, and a 1995 Corps of Engineers report judged erosion in front of Kenneys Beach severe in a littoral cell otherwise experienc'mg moderate erosion. 2 Observation of aerial photographs from 1955, 1964, 1969, 1976, 1980, 1993, and 1996 reveals that soon after jetty construction at Goldsmith Inlet sand began to accumulate west of the structure. Impoundment was nearly complete by 1969, and by 1976 the jetty fillet had reached capacity. It has remained at full capacity to present. This is confu'med in Greenman and Pedersen (1981). They note fillet capacity had reached its maximum by 1972 and sand was probably bypassing the jetty tip. They also documented that although sand capacity had maximized west of the jetty, erosion between 1972 and 1978 was extremely rapid east of the jetty. They concluded the cause of accelerated erosion was not apparent from their study. A 1987 Department of Environmental Conservation Report stated sand was bypassing the tip of Goldsmith Inlet Jetty, but there was no evidence of sand returning to the shoreline to reduce erosion. Correspondence documenting an erosion problem in the Peconic area dates back to 1961. After jetty construction a severe erosion problem was described, necessitating landward movement of at least one house by 1967. Accelerated erosion was immediately blamed on the jetty by residents to the east. Severe erosion prompted recommendations for groin construction in affected areas (about 3100 feet of shoreline). However, based on an engineering analysis, these plans were abandoned in 1973. Reasons cited were costs in excess of benefits and uncertainty regarding groin impacts on properties to the east. Correspondence suggests accelerated erosion east of the jetty extended about l~h miles by 1979. Debate over the jetty, whether to remove or modify it, has continued from 1964 to present. Since construction of the Goldsmith Inlet Jetty, several smaller groins have been constructed to the east. The Bitmer groin (approx. 190 ft long) was consta'ucted sometime between 1964 and 1969 in response to accelerated erosion. In the late 1970's a number of smaller aluminum groins (approx. 7 low profile groins, max length 48 ft) where constructed at Kenneys Beach to combat erosion. Sometime before 1980 the Lockman groin was constructed. In addition, bulkheads were constructed at several locations along this reach. Various reports cited attribute incremental erosion along the shoreline to the Bitmer and Lockman groins. The 1995 report by the Corps of Engineers states that small groins along the north shore can be effective in maintaining beaches, but ineffective at increasing beach size. They also note some groins are too effective, causing acceleration of shoreline erosion. In recent years, the Town of Southold has been working on preparation of a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) with the New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization. Erosion is one issue considered in LWRP preparation, and the Town has expressed particular concern over erosion at Kenneys Beach. This was reiterated in 1995 when the Town applied for an Environmental Protection Fund Grant to examine erosion problems between Duck Pond Point and Hortou Point. Although the grant was applied to study the entire Town shoreline, a subsequent contract with the Department of State has provided funds to examine the problem at Goldsmith Inlet and Kenneys Beach. These funds were used to organize a workshop. WORKSHOP SUMMARY On June 19th and 20th, 1996, the Town of Southold and the New York Department of State held a workshop in Southold to consider erosion problems in the vicinity of Goldsmith Inlet and Kenneys Beach, and possible actions in response to erosion. This report summarizes workshop proceedings and recommendations. In preparation for the workshop, a Background Information Report was prepared. The Background Report contained copies of available maps, aerial photos, reports, plans, and correspondence relating to the issue. In compiling the report, New York State Archives, Department of Environmental Conservation Files, Town records, and other sources were examined. Report copies were mailed to invited participants before the Workshop as a means of briefing everyone on the history and erosion problem status in the Goldsmith Inlet vicinity. Each participant was asked for additional information related to the issue. Supplementary information was distributed to workshop participants on the fa'st day. To solicit the broadest possible discussion concerning erosion issues at Goldsmith Inlet, invitations to participate in the workshop were widely distributed. In addition to officials from the Town of Southold and the New York State Department of State, invitations were sent to all State and Federal regulatory agencies so their concerns with proposed solutions might be solicited. Officials from Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works, Department of Parks, and the Executive office were invitexl. Neighborhood representatives were requested to attend and invitations were sent to Senator LeValle and Assemblywoman Acampora. In addition, a representative from New York State Sea Grant was invited and a representative of the private company which recently completed an erosion assessment of the Town. News items in local papers encouraged public participation. Finally, expert opinion and recommendations for proposed actions were solicited through participation of four recognized authorities on coastal processes. The Workshop convened on June 19 with introductions and a presentation of shoreline conditions given by Coastal Resource Specialists from the New York State Department of State and representatives of the Town of Southold. To allow direct observation of the problem area, the introductory discussion was followed by a walking tour of the jetty area which went as far west as the eroding bluffs. Participants drove to Kenneys Beach and walked westward to the Bittner property. Participants returned to Town Hall for an informal discussion of their observations. In the evening a public discussion and comment period took place allowing an exchange of information between membem of the public, federal, state and local offic'mls, and expert advisors. Public discussion indicated a zone of accelerated erosion extending east of Kenneys Beach. Anecdotal information suggests at least one house east of Kenneys Beach had to be moved landward due to accelerated erosion rates of approximately 5 feet per year (previous information noted the parking lot at Kenneys Beach had to be moved landward several times). Direct observation after the workshop indicates one or more houses are presently threatened by erosion. It was also evident from discussions that property ownem immediately west of Goldsmith Inlet jetty were concerned about any plan which would reduce protection levels 4 against shoreline erosion. On June 20, the Workshop continued as a split session. The coastal experts met separately to review aerial photos, bathymetric data, and other evidence and to talk among themselves about possible solutions. Regulatory agency representatives and others met to discuss outstanding issues and implementation steps for various remedial options. The experts returned to the group and presented tbe~r f'mdings and recommendations for action. A summary of these recommendations and implementation requirements are presented below. An attached map presents a schematic plan of proposed actions. These recommendations were discussed by the entire group and consensus was reached on an acceptable plan. The workshop concluded with a brief discussion of implementation steps. CONSIDERATIONS IN PLAN DEVE, I,O~ AND IMPLEMENTATION One goal of the New York State Department of State and Town of Southold in preparing this workshop was to remain objective regarding causes of erosion and possible remedies. As much as possible, data was gathered aad presented to participants in an objective, scientific manner so as not to prejudice participants toward any conclusions before the workshop. It is impoFtant to reiterate that, in reaching a consensus on a plan to address erosion at Kenneys Beach, workshop participants were aware of the following: · Erosion east of Goldsmith Inlet is proceeding at a rate in excess of normal erosion rates for this area. The most significant erosion is now centered along the shoreline around Kenneys Beach. · Any solution proposed to mitigate this problem must address maintaining protection for properties in Peconic Shores. Transferring the erosion problem from Kenneys Beach to Peeonie Shores is not acceptable. · Any proposed solution must to address environmental and health concerns related to Goldsmith Pond and Autumn Pond. Closing of the ponds or altering existing habitat is not acceptable. · While Goldsmith Inlet Jetty is an important concern, other coastal engineering structures built downdrift of the jetty also play an important role in shoreline dynamics. Thus any solution must address the reach extending from the bluffs west of the Goldsmith Inlet Jetty to approximately McCabe's Beach, the eastern end of the erosion zone. As the reader proceeds to review the f'mdings and recommendations which follow, it is important to keep in mind the following: · The proposed recommendations were developed from the best existing data. As new data is generated through monitoring and other efforts modifications to the proposed solution may be required. · The recommendations are not a f'mal plan. They can be considered a conceptual plan requiring additional analysis. Details of a final plan will need to be addressed through an engineering analysis by a competent engineering consultant. · Before an engineering analysis can proceed site data must be collected. This includes establishment of a coastal processes monitoring program. Preliminary work on installation of a monitoring program has begun. · The conceptual plan does not mitigate all erosion at Kenneys Beach. h addresses only incremental erosion caused by coastal structures. It is anticipated that after project completion normal background erosion will still impact this shoreline. · After project completion, Goldsmith Inlet will likely experience a temporary closure as sand moves past it. Over the long-term, the inlet will remain open, but will require periodic maintenance, just as it does today, to prevent temporary closures and migration. · Before the project can proceed to construction, an Environmental Impact Statement will need to be prepared to fulfil requirements under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This document will need to address all phases of the proposed work. · Collection of site data, monitoring data collection, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, and development of a final plan by an engineering consultant will require funds in addition to estimated funds for project construction. Origin of these funds is not immediately evident. The most hopeful possibility is obtaining funds from a combination of sources. In addition, once final cost estimates are developed, they should be compared to project benefits to ensure the proposed project is fiscally sound. · Although the following report lists 5 recommendations, it is the New York State Department of State and Town of Southold opinion that recommendations 1 and 2 must be viewed as a single recommendation. Timing of their implementation must be coordinated, and neither can proceed without the other. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following findings were presented by the coastal processes experts and concurrence by workshop participants was unanimous: 1. From a geomorphic perspective, the stretch of shoreline from Duck Pond Point to Horton Point should be considered as a single unit (littoral cell) for the purposes of sediment budget considerations. 6 2. The sand shifts both east and west along the shore, but net sand drift is from west to east. This bas been demonstrated by sand accumulation at coastal engineering structures in this littoral cell. 3. The net longshore sedunent transport rote to the east was estimated to be 25,000 cubic yards per year based on growth of the fillet at the Goldsmith Inlet jetty. 4. This stretch of shoreline has been retreating for the past 100 years; best available data indicate an average annual erosion rate of 1 to 2 feet per year. This historical rate can be considered the background erosion rate that is still occurring. Any accelerated erosion in response to sediment starvation by shoreline engineering structures is added to this background rate. 5. Coastal engineering structures have had a pronounced effect on the rate of shore erosion. With the installation of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty in 1964, the erosion ram accelerated to the east, prompting Mr. Bittner to build a groin/bulkhead, followed by the Lockman groin further east. This downdrift movement of accelerated erosion has resulted in the successive building of coastal engineering structures to retard the erosion; termed the domino effect. Presently the erosion hot spot is located at or east of the Kermeys Beach public recreation beach. 6. These shoreline engineering structures, while causing downdrift erosion, bave partitioned the shoreline into more stable reaches and hold a particular shoreline orientation. Shoreline bebavior in combination with a predominately eastward littoral drift is virtually controlled by these coastal engineering structures. 7. Goldsmith Inlet jetty is much too long, so large quantities of sediment moving as littoral drift are shunted offshore and lost into deep water (greater than -10 ft) from the beach system. Therefore, some modification must be made to this jetty, which was designed for purposes other than what it is now serving. The Goldsmith Inlet jetty, however, is not the entire problem, as the immediate problem of accelerated erosion at Kenneys Beach is augmented by coastal engineering structures just updrift. The following recommendations were presented by the experts to workshop participants for discussion. They were developed keeping in mind effectiveness, cost, political and environmental considerations discussed above. The recommendations were presented in order of priority: 1. Shorten Goldsmith Inlet jetty by 50%. This would allow re-establishment of the longshore sediment transport system by releasing some of the sand locked up in the fillet and stopping the loss of significant quantities of littoral drift offshore into deep water. The cost to remove the rock boulders was estimated at $50,000. 2. Build an intermediate groin at Peconic Shores (see attached map). The purpose of this 150 foot groin would be to hold beach width in front of this community sufficiem to provide 7 storm protection to compensate for shortening of the jetty. The cost of a low-profile aluminum or other groin was estimated at $30,000. 3. Nourish the rapidly eroding shore at Kenneys Beach. The amount of sand released from shortening the jetty is much too small to have significant impact here and it will be years before this material can travel along the shore to reach Kenneys Beach. Some immediate action needs to be taken to save the remaining public parking area and recreational beach and beachfront houses. An estimated 150,000 cubic yards of sand is needed from offshore shoals at an estimated cost of $750,000. 4. Build a groin at McCabe's Beach. The purpose of this aluminum, template groin would be to further compartmentalize the shoreline into relatively straight line segments, but more importantly to hold the nourished beach in place. Template groins are designed to hold the available sand in place, but not to trap any additional sand that would sand-starve downdrift beaches. The cost of a 200 foot groin is estimated at $50,000. The groin should be built after the beach nourishment is completed. 5. Build a terminal groin at Horton Point. This groin should be constructed of large, imported rocks, and is estimated to cost $200,000. The purpose of this groin is to hold sand in the littoral cell, but its impact on erosion further downdrift and around the headland should be considered. Potential adverse impacts outside of the study area where not considered by the workshop participants, and must be studied before any major shore-perpendicular structure is built at this location. ADDENDUM TO RECOM/VIEPa)ATIONS Following presentation of the above findings and recommendations by the experts at the workshop, discussion continued. As a result of this discussion, the following conclusions were reached: · A coastal processes monitoring program should be implemented as soon as possible for the entire reach from Duck Pond Point to Horton Point. · Cost estimates presented above for the project are probably too iow. Dredging experience suggests higher costs in this area. Additional costs can be expected for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statemem and related public meetings, and for data collection and preparation of a final engineering report. Based on discussion it appears a minimum of $2 million will be required to complete the project. · While need for recommendations 1, 2, and 3 were not disputed, some discussion occurred over need for groins proposed in recommendations 4 and 5. In particular, the large groin proposed for Horton Point was questioned based on environmental grounds. Concern was also expressed that if sand naturally bypassed around Horton Point to easterly littoral cells, this groin could have an adverse impact on those beaches. At the conclusion of this discussion the experts indicated urgency for recommendations 4 and 5 was not as great as for recommendations 1, 2, and 3. It was their consensus the first three recommendations could be implemented without the additional two. However, they cautioned that implementation of recommendation 4, a small low-profile groin at McCabe's Beach would likely improve beach nourishment project stability. · At least one alternative plan was discussed. This included implementation of only recommendations 1, and 2 above, and removal of the Bitmer and Lockman groins, and public acquisition of the Bittner property. This alternative returns the shoreline to a near natural condition. A number of objections were raised to this plan and no consensus was reached. Numerous other plans were discussed informally but none had the universal appeal of the plan presented above. Assuming Town of Southold approval of the project as presented above, the following steps are required for implementation (as prepared by Dr. Kana in a supplementary report for the workshop): · Establish a beach and nearshore profile survey program. · Conduct an historical shoreline analysis using profile information, aerial photographs and historical maps, and bathymetric information. · Undertake geotechnical surveys to document beach and borrow site sediment conditions. · Complete an Environmental Impact Statement. · Conduct a design analysis and develop a prelimhiary project design. · Apply for the necessary Corps of Engineers, Dept. of Environmental Conservation permits. · Prepare final designs, project plans and specifications, and contract documents. · Let a contract to conduct the work and oversee work progress. · Monitor the completed project. 9 Goldsmith Inlet Workshop - Recommendation Norton Point :l~ ~,... McCabe's Beach  k Pond Point NORTH Legend 0 Shorten GoldsmRh Inle[ jetty by half its length ~ Install template groin west of Peconic Shores I~ Beach nourishment at Kenny's Road Beach and approximate borrow area ~ Install template groin at McCabe's Beach I~1 Install rock groin at Horton Point GOLDSMITH INLET WORKSHOP 'I JUNE 19 & 20, 1996 Background Information Report' GOLDSMITff JETTY WORKSttOP iNTRODUCTION The Town of Southold, New York, with the assistance of the New York Department of State, is working on ks Local Waterfront Revimli?~tion Program (LWRP). One important concern is erosion on the Long Island Sound shoreline berw~n Duck Pond Point and Horton Point. The shore near Goldsmith Inlet is a particular problem due to chronic erosion in that area. The Town of Southold and the Department of State have or~mnized a workshop to be held June 19 & 20, 1996, for the purpose of addressing the problems at Goldsmith In/et. By gathering representatives from all parties who have a stake in the outcome, together with experts on coastal processes, the Workshop will al/ow a consensus on a reasonable course of action to address the erosion. Evidence and advice presented will help determine whether the jetty at Goldsmith Inlet is having a detrimental effect on the adjacent shoreline, and [f so, what measures would be appropriate to alley/ate this effect. In addition to serving as an introduction to the upcoming Workshop, this report provides a compilation of back=wound information. The list of invited partidipants for the Workshop is found in Appendix A, and the Workshop Agenda m Appendix B. Appendix C is a general map of the study area. Other appendices cover a range of imbrmation including a property and flood zone boundary map, a generic discussion of beach processes, North Shore of Long Island erosion backg'round, pertinent U. S. Army Corps of Engineers material, a previous report on erosion in the area, and copies of aerial photography. Copies of correspondence axe included in the report representing decisions and opinions on the jetty and local erosion problems. These are included to ~ve some pex~'pecrive on the history of the issues. At the Workshop aerial photography will be available in stereo coverage for the shoreline from Duck Pond Point to ltorton Point, encompassing the Goldsmith Inlet and Kenney's Beach areas. The years 1955, 1964, 1969, 1976, 1980, 1993, and 1996 will be represented in this photography. Fun scale maps, jetty plans, jetty property survey, flood zone maps, and additional infomation will be available at the Workshop az well. If anyone receiving a copy of this report knows of additional information that should be included in the Workshop on June 19 and 20, please contact Nit. Barry Pendergmss of the New York Department of State. He may be reached at: Division of Coastal Resources I62 Washington Ave. Albany, New York 12231 Or by telephone at: (518) 4-74-6000 GEOGtLkPFr~C SKETC]5 Goldsmith Inlet is a small stream that drains a spring-fed pond into Long Island Sound. Another pond called Autumn Lake, tying roughly 1000 feet south west, is connected to the Inlet by a culvert, and provides a supply Of fresh water. In 1963 the New York Stare Department of Public Works drew up plans and let the construction contract for a 310 foot jetty on the west side of the Inlet, with the cost shared 50/50 by New York State and Suffolk County.. The jetty. was intended to protect the Inlet and initiate beach erosion immediately to the west. The Town of Southoid purchased the property necessary for construction, and the project was completed in February 1964. The Town prope~:y is now known as Goldsmith Inlet Beach,' a 1.4 acre park on the west side of the jerry. After construction, ownership and maintenance of the jetty was taken over by Suffolk County. In 1967 the Suffolk Town Supervisor suggested opening the Goldsmith Inlet as a "harbor of refuge", and constructing a second jetty on the east side of the inlet for that purpose, but this never came to fruition. In recent years maintenance of Goldsmith Inlet has been assumed by the Town of Southold, and the Town dredges approximately 3000 to 6000 yards of sand annually from the mouth of the inlet. This dredging occurs during the summer as sand builds up along the immediate east side of the jetty. The excavated mater/al is being used locally for a variety of purposes, Including beach replenishment. It has been observed that Goldsmith Inlet will close if not dredged. On the east side of the jetty, Suffolk County owns the 34 acre Goldsmith Inlet County Park, with approximately 1000 feet of beach ~rontage. This park includes the land immexiiately surrounding Goldsmith Inlet to the north, east and south. For additional discussion of the geographic character of the reach, see Appendices G. Fi and I. After consu'uction of the jetty, residents of homes to the west enjoyed a g-raduaily accrefing beach which expanded to the end of the jetty by the end of 1972.t Erosion of the beach east of Goldsmith Inlet has been the subject of controversy since at least the 1970's. The lack of sand bypassing the jerry ag~m-avated erosion east of the inlet, and Suffolk County eventually purchased and removed several residential properties (now part of Goldsmith Inlet County Park) which had been threatened as the beach receded. ~Greenm~n-Pederse~ Associazes, P.C., !~8!, Goldsmith I~let Je~zy Shoreline Impact Study, Suffolk County, New York, p.5 (see Appendix ~) The Kenneys Beach residential neighborhood and Kenneys Beach Town Park, lying i-i/2 miles east of Goldsmith Inlet, have also been suffering erosion problems since the 1970's. Southold Community Development Director lames N[cMahon estimates that Kenney's Beach ?ark has lost 130 feet in the past 15 years. The Kennel~s Beach Civic Association, a local home owuers ~oup, alleges that the Goldsmith Inlet jetty is the cause of aris erosion. Several private ~roins lying between Goldsmith Inlet and Kenneys Beach are also affecting the coastal processes within the area. The Work.shop must address the issue of erosion caused by the Goldsmith Inlet jetty, and the private g-roins. Participants will suggest and examine possible methods for bypassing sand around the jetty. Discussion will include possible impacts on the shoreline immediately co the east and west, as well as at Kenneys Beach. It is hoped that consideration of the broadest possible range of options will expose the solution most favorable to all concerned. Goldsmith Inlet letty: May 8, 1996 View We~t over Goldsmith Inlet Yetty: May 8, 1996 View east over Keaneys Road Beach, Towa Park: May 8, 1996 GOLDSMTTH'S E~FL.ET WORKSHOP - JLrNE ].9 & 20, 1996 Invited Participants: Jean Cochran Ruth Oliva Jim McMa hon Vale~e Scopaz Al Kmpski Laury Dowd Senator Kenneth P. LaValle Town of Southold Town of Southold Town of Southold Town of Southold Town of Southold Town of Southold .4~ssemblywoman Patricia L. Acampora Representative from east of jerry. Representative from west of jerry Steve Ridler Fred Anders sha William Daley Chuck g[amilton .al Bauder George Proios Richard LaValle Jim ~aggerty Lynn Bocomazo Bob Murray lay Tanskl Phil Sears NYSDOS NYSDOS NYSDOS NYSDEC NYSDEC NYS-OGS Suffolk Co. Suffolk County D.i~.W. USACOE, Re~flamry USACOE, Engineering US FLsh & Wildlife Sea Grant Allee, King, Rosen and Fleming Advisors Dr. Flenx~ Bokuneiwicz Dr. Robert Dean Dr. Tan gana Dr. Steve Leathemaan SUNY University of Florida CSE/Baird University of Maryland GOLDSiVlITft'S IN'LET WORK~RtIOP - ,]'biNE 19 & 20, 1996 TOWN H_M.I., TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Wednesday, June i2:00 - l:00 pm t:00 - 1:30 pm 2:00 - -t:00 pm 4:30 - 5:00 pm 6:00 pm 7:30 pm AG~A Introductory Lunch Overview of situation at Goldsmiths Inlet jerry Site Visit - walk from Goldsmiths Irder to Kenny's Beach (NOTE: Participants should dross casually and be prepared for a 3 mile Walk) Discussion of site v/sit Dinner (on your owu) Public Sessiou Overview of workshop Public Comment Period Discuss/on Thursday, June 20 9:00 - 11:00 am tkO0 - i2:00 pm 12:00 - 1:00 pm 1:00 pm Work Session/Discussion - Options and Implementation Issues The Next Steps - Consensus on prefer'md options and implementation procedure Lunch Bi SCALE 1':24 000 -.' tO.OOO-;oot ticks Based on the New Yo~ State Plane Coordinate System, Long Island Zone. 1991 magnetic dec!ina~Jon is approximately 14.$' West QUADRANGLE LOCATION iiI, ° ; 0 Z LU IU _] · ..... '-.., ~....~....--~~ ~ ~ -~,,, ~,_ ~'-. '"'-. ~s"'~"- =''''.~''. "'., , ~ ~ ~..~.;- '+.. '~. -.~ ~.. ~ ~ '.. ~ Property Ownership and Parcel Size, west of Jetty. (see attached map for location of parcels) Parcel Designation 67,1,11.001 67,1,9 67,1,8 67,1,7 67,1,6 67,[,5 67,1,4 67, i ,3 67,1,2 67,1,1 68,3,12 68,3,11 68,3,10 68,3,9 Owner(s) Town of Southold Wmard P. Listing and Violette G. Listing Margaret M. Atk/nson and Robert V. Longo Paullna D. Terranova Susan E. Smyth, lanet Dohm Baraard, S,,?~nn¢ Dohm and Sherry Dohm Beatrice D. Lynam Aagelo Georgio and Irene Georgio John W. Ulfl, Jr., and Alexander E. Luongo and T_~nda Luongo ? Lew Malone and Alice J'. Malone Robert T. Currie and Maura Currie He~el M. Fladdad Irene R.. Meissnest Lorraine H. Aalyan Sqr. Footage 66,839 8,595 8,770 9,024 10,072 i0,078 10,345 10,282 9,976 5,791 14,300 81,204 39,842 62,541 F1 Property Ownership and Parcel Size (see attached map for tocation of parcels) Parcel Designation Owner(s) Sqr. Footage 68,3,13 68,3.8.002 68,3,8.003 68,3,8.004 Gregory Michelis and 5tacy Michelis Thom~ Tumbarello and Judy Tumbaretlo Noel O. Mohammed 69,229 40,253 3d,417 36,290 Carrents are the s~und cause of e,,'oalon on the ?ecomc shores. B.~yanen report eddies in many bays, indicatin§ that water flows constanrl? in one direction, an rnnrter whether the tide [s flooding or ebbing. These currents con~bute tn ~ormadon of elongated rimmres, such as Nassau Point. Compared with the cwo inlets on [he Long Island Sound side of Southold, at least 9_5 in/ets, depending on how they are counted, are found on the Peconlc side. Tidal currents flowing throu~ these inlets move and deposit sand, both inside and outside of the inle~'s mouth. Under natural conditions. each inlet mai~mln~ a shallow cha~mel and ~rms ~oals around its mouth. Flowever, these inlets are dredged for boat navigation. The resulting desper charmets have changed the currents, which leads m different erosion patterns. The interaction of waves, offshore currents, tidal flows through inlets, and human consumction leads rna series of comofe.x erosion and deposition systems that change seasonally and yearly in response to weather. CONDITION 01~ SOTYI~OLD~$ S]~opwr. TNES The Long Island Sound Shot;eline " This shoreline has two i~le=; both ~rotected by. je~es - Mattimck Inles and Goldsmith Inlet. Martimck Inlet is heav~]y nsed by recreational and commercial boamrs. It is a. maritime center or' statewide sig~ifican~ ~aose ase~ ar~ an [moot'mat a~ect of Somhotd's champ. Shoreline west of the in/et (updrift side) Ilas ~erally acer~.~ seaward aa a resnlt of the je~iea,' but shoreline east of the jemSea ~s severely eroded. It ~ eroded close tn the je~iea, and the Iow bluffil a~t droles e~nnot provide sufficient sand to rea~pty the shoreline, re~alHn§ th a promi~ellt lhotelil~ oI~er_ - ' GoM~mith Inlet is'not tlavigable and is ant nqed .by bom. A' sm,He '~r~ __,' ' · ~ j~2 a~,muiZe~ inlet location. The inlet i~ a~ally an outlet tn a ~oasnd pond, and ~ra~r flow is anidi~onnl toward'the Sound. It is periodically dredged by the To~m and sand ia ~ed ilar off-lite ~nall-neHon lga'~oses.. It is =clear what role dredging inlays, if any~ in ke~ping~he inlet o~e~. Ho~er, r~ievt'of historical maps and photos back to the 1870's shows the '_mice ollen at .~rh d~r~ ex~rnined. Like M~n~n,ck rnl .er?.the west side (updrif~) trna aceannflazed sand wtnle the e~t side lms ~aded, res~lring in a prominent shoreline offset. During the past five years, shoreline ~en to the. aor~east Ires been heavily ~oded by a series of storms; some of wt~icf~ had ctta~c: aClrmaeh{%~ the 100-y~r storm. Over the pi~rioua 50 years, the same are~ eroded at a much slower ram. The ram of erosion d~rrinE the [aa.n: five ye~ s~.s tn be anomalously bigfl (tim is ~[~portnd by a study conducn,q in N'mequogue). The level of shore protection cous~'ucrion is evidmc= of the long-term lower ram of eroaiom Only a fow.thousand feet of bulkhead and lees than iIX) groins have been built ove~ the 39 miles of $outttold's Long Ma:ad Sound shoreline.' Long-turin shoreline ~oai.on is :low, became the bll~ have been ~le to resu~ly some of the sand lost to the s3~tem. Longqe:xn shoreline erosinn!~ag~ Iesa H~n I foot per year based On independent studies by Davies e~ al, 197I, and ttm Depar~;~$fEnv/mnmemal Comerva~on for the .Coastal Erosion FI~nnt Are~ Ac:. Exc~iona ocmr esat of M~-;,,,~- Inlet and ea~ of Goldsmiths Lnle~ ¢.5+ fffyr eroaiou). COASTAL PROC~.ZSES AaND SttOR~r.rNE EVOLUTION T~is chapter summar/z~ and is an introduc~/ou to coastal proc..~se.s md their inmrac~on Sourhold's shoreline. The intent or' this chapter is ~o pr~ent an overvie,~ or' the coastal precmses arT~:ing SouDiold. Chapter Fr contains the d *etailed, teach,y-reach de~cript/on of SouDiold. introduc-don to the physical proc.~ses governing the evolution of the coastal environment md their complex/~, the following is From Die U.S. ?~-my Corps of EngSn~' Shore ?retention Mam~ (1984-): .... The beach and nearshore zoue of a cons: is the re~ou where the forces of the sea react against the land. The physic.rd system wirdatu this m~ou is composed primarily of Die motion of Die sea, which supplies energy to the system, and the shore, which ~nsorbs this ener~. Be--~use the shoreline is the intersection of the air, land, and wamr, the physical inr,~rac~ons which occur in this re,on are unique, very complex, and difficult re fully understand. As a consequence, a large part of the understanding of the beach and ~earshore physical sysmm is simply descriptive in nature. A gene.'~l discussion de~cr/bing the physical coast with emphasis on ~he $ou~old reg/on is prese=~ below. Included are the evolution of Long Island, the forc~ Diat ac~ on Die shore, and its teac:ion m the,~e forr,~. The chapter is divided [urn r. hr~ sea:ions: I.) Caasral C-eomorphology - deve!opmen~ of Long Island and e~g c~astal landforms; 2) Coasmt Proc~se~ - forc~ affecting shoreline change; and 3) Sourhold Coastal Coedirions - response to aerial and storm-indtL~_ conditions &long the project shoreline (e.g., floodIng and beach and bluff erosion). A glos.~ry of pertinent coasta/ en~meer/ng and coastal geology-related m-ms is inctudnd for further refereuce. Primary refer~nc~ ased rtu-ou~out ~s docume~ include: Goveraor's Coastal Erosion Task Forc=, F'mai Report, Volume IL Long-Term 1994); o Snore Protection M~,,n!, U.S.A.rmy Corps of Eng~meem (USACE 198Z); o North Shore ofLong I. dand;-SttX~x: Coumy, Yew York, Beach F_.ro~ion Corarol and Intern ~furr/cane Stta/y Wurvey) (USACE t969); and A- -' cO .srxt Th= m~ ~-~ ~e To~ of So,id ~ ~c sho~ ~ong mc no~ shore of Long ~ ~m ~e ~ To~ bo~d~ ~,:,..~ ~)~ ~ Po~ ~ m~ ~ ~ ~n~g O~ B~, ~ H~or, Sh~ r~J~a S~, Hog N~ ~, ~ ~ ~i~e P~mc ~d O~ P~c B~), ~d ~ B~; ~ F~ ~l~d ~ BIo~ ~d So,~, ~u~old's sho~ns ~ ~ b~, blu~, ~, w~, ad b~ l~dfo~. To~phic ch~ ~d s~ ~mposi~on of ~e ~ d~i~e ac ~ ~ ~hich a~e landfor~ ~tera~ d~z~opm~ of ~e ~ng ~l~d ~ ~mpl~ ~ud~g ae ~volu~oa of ae sho~t~ ad ia G2 To rii/ly unde.-'stand die physical environment and ks d!m~mic dam'act, er, ks deve!opment must be examined historically. Tae foilowingpar~apbs, fi'om GTFII (1994), diacu~s Rte area's ge-ologic history. .... Glacial adv~nca during the Pleh'to~_~ae epoc~ generally ended ~t d~e ap- pm~am centeri~e of w~ ~ now ~ng ~l~d ~I~ 191&). S~w~ of ~e giaciem e~e~ive ou~a pD~a~ of s~d md ~v~ w~ d~osi~ on ~op of prong s~en~ ~d ~e g~y s~w~ slop~ Afl~c Co~ sihon on ae ~acenr con~en~ ~f. .... gently seaward sloping roc~ of obe Atlantic Coa.~al Plain are P~eismc~ae ~t deposi~ ov~ ~e I~t 2 ~lioa ~ w~ ~y ~mpos~ of a vm~ of loosely ~molid~ gl~i~ ~aw~ deposk~ p~y = mo~e or o~h. F~ modifi~oa by ~g s~ over e~nd~g so~w~ ad ~ ~o re~t. ~ w~ not a sm~ o~ ~s, b~ ~olv~ severM ~v~ ad ~..Mo~ So~old's Long hi~d Sold ~m, a Hd~ of ~ m~s - corn- Long ~l~d Sold sho~. amo~ Mi of ae Long hl~ So~ s/de of So.Id. ~ ae ~ B~ sid~,k ~ v~d b~ow. . :.. . ,$, · .~ BIuffs. A high smep bardc or ciiff. Degoske~ d~ring ~iachi movement, r. he~e coas~J [andforms are hi§h/y susceptible ~n ems/on and coll~se b~'~-se of r.e/r st~p seaward slope. BlurTs line mucfi of Sou~hold's Lon§ Island Sound shore and ~e east side of Lirde Hog Neck. o So/ts. ~ommed widen ae dominant wave'~ and currenm carry sedimem: i~r.o an Mon~ subaefi~ d~osifio~ ~wre, ~x~nd~g away ~om a h*-~dl~d. ~ne~ly ofien~ p~Id ~ ~e sho~e, wi~ s~enm ~po~ ~ong ~e ~m~ of ~e spit m ~ end ~ d~per w~r, ~ p~g ~e spit ~ ~w tong~. Spire ~w ~ a ~e~ ~s~ depend~g on ~o~ b~, s~ent mpply, ~d~ ~n~dom, md wave ~ Spit ~ o~n ~und on ~e P~c Bay side of Sou~old. T~i~ o ~. A zho~ ~w w~ay ~g ~ ~r m~on m~. ~e P~c Bay Shorn of So~dd.~ ~y ~em, ~equent ~n by ~d~ flows or ~on m ~1~ ~flf aw~ ~m d~ve wave ~. ~ong B. C OAfi'T.~ PROCES~ Shoreline confi~raxion is comranrly chang/ag as a re,alt of varying iaydrody~amio (wa~er motion. water level, and other forces) and sediment processes. The evolution of a shore!ine can be discussed both in the acrnss-the-:~ench gmfile and along the beach, which is often called Ion~hore. This evolution oc:urs during both normal low wave conditions and store. Du{ing e~e storms, the more spectacular changes oc:ur, but the aormat weath~ mnilitions act over tonger periods of rime and are important in undemmndin§ beach evolution. The movement of a beach in respome m waves is referred m as littoral tramport, defined as the alon~hore movement of sediments in the aesrshore zone by waves ~ct currents. Transport direc:/on is mostly determined by wave steepness, sediment cflaracmriscics, and beach slope. Longshore transport of sediments results from the initiation of sediment motion ~ incoming waves and continued movement due to lon~hore currents. The ma=~nimde and dkection of [on~hore transport is dictated by the angle of wave ~proach m the shoreline, sediment ~ara~fistics and supply, and available wave ener~/. Direction and ma__o,nimde of Ion~hore sediment transport is hi_~.hly variable from day m day. Differenc~ in [on~hore transporrmult in eidaer accretion or erosion of the shoreline, and are responsible for many of the oarrent erosion b.*,~ds along the project mast Inm-n~tion of this [on.~hore movement - headlands, inlets, and shore protection ~uucmr~ - can result in si:qaificant impams on shoreline poskion. At Marrimck Inle,.. for ~xample, je~'y common ami eh..,,q dredging to reduce shoaling of the inlet channel resulted in ~'osion on the ens~ as the s~iment rapp., ly was hrerrupmd. The acroas-d:Ie-beach prlaflle (Figlh-~ 1-1) COrn'/rurally ad~.qs I13 dissipate the incoming wave energy. Beach response during normal condkions ks ~1~, a~ ~ave en~r~r is easily dissipated by the beach's natural protective f~mres. The beach will aea~e sand ~am the limaral transport and become wider and higher,. A~ the end of a rammer, a beaciz will am'molly have stored a large volume of sand. During storm conditions, Iaowever, the mast responds m increased amounts of wave energy, Ofie~ leading co the toss of significant .miantin~ of b,-~. du~, and/or bluff,~dal. F~u~= I-2 illuah~,~a beach response m wave ~rr=ehe durini a smrn~ The forbore h ertl_ed_ and tim b:~,-t-~l~re is often Io~ During large storms, the dune sy~ra or ~lu~ aze al~o eroded. The b*~e~ slope~ become tin, mr. $onm of the eroded sand [s-deposi~ in an ~h~re bar, and nnu:~mn be l~.o~ore. These lo~ae~ are som,'r~m~ (bu~ not always) tea~orary, ex~x in the ca~e of bluff ortner, w~iefi is a p~-m~,w eh~Ee m the coastal configuration. · · :Winds Over coastal regions result in coastal ~ thi~u~ ~ p~ mech~ni~m.s.- i) wind- generated waves, 2) ~d~xi4ndumd storm surges, and 3) a~l~,~ (wind-indu~:~4) sediment wanspom · C~..neraion of wind waves depmds on the f~eh (the distane~ over w~ ~at ~e w~d blows gr~m oi~on ~ ~m, ~ ofw~ ~,~ ~ ~ ofs~ A wide b~ ~j~o~ I-2 Be. zch £~pomce During a Storm is dso n~essary for dune formation. Dunes ar-_ iound in :he v/c/n/f! of Mammck :md Goldsmith [niea. but me Town does ant ~ave :he large dune sys~ms mac .~'e found ua Long island's Adantic shore_ Wind dam for [ong pedo~ of r~om ~e xvai.[able from obse~afiora x the Bmot~haven National Laboratory at Upton, the Suffolk County. Departmen[ of i:~biic Wort= and Hi,ways a Wes~ampton Beaci~, and the U.S. We.ar. her Bureau at La Guardia .-~'pm'= for New York City.. Shore-erin dam ~r= also available ~om the U.S. Wtmrher Bureau ~r Caive:'mn Air?om Average wind conditions for the aorr. he~t. sou~eusr, aorthw~r., ~nd sour~weat quadrnnr~ were estimared from the r~:~r~ ar the fo~ wind stolons. Wit~ minor ~xe,,~pdoas for me s=tion Iocar~i a~ La Guardia, the wind dir~c~on dism'bution for Long island can be gummariz~i a~ aot-',.he.~t, 20 percent; sourest, I7 percent.; aor~wesr., 30 pere,'nt; ~d souawest. 5~ pure=re. (Wind directions refer to ae dire.~ion from wMch the wind ii blowing.) Wino from the aorinem .mladram dominate during the win~er, :md wind~ from the sourtlem quadra~: dOmin:~r~: ~_.-"ing me .rammer. Tile wind ve!oci~ and storm duration during the winter md m be M~er than dttrin§ ~e ~,mmer. II1 the summer, tile percentage of c~m condifion~ ii over tO per~nr., while calm comiifio~ drop to trader ~ perc-..nt during' the win~r. These value~ .,mmm;,'e/?e wind conditions in the Loo. g Lstand vicinity, but may nog be direc*.Jy applicable to Southold because of their distanc~ (.'I.~. Guardia .Mrpon) and different topoTraphic se-"tin§s (Upton :ma Wes~anpmn). Because ~ Hum are aoc xv~able for coazml areas along ae uot-~, shore of Long Island. these d,m mu.vi be considered represen =t~ive. In ~didun to loestrin wind records, wind obsertatio~ during storm events are impor~r eva. lual~llg coa&r.8l r-i~nn~. Data obrnined d~ ~-.ni"m~ ~er~ xvailable for seve:-~l Iocafions, including Mour. zuk Point, Block Island, :md La Guardia .M~.orc. Table [-i co~,r,~,,~ thc pertinent maximum typically used m coedu-tw~ve &-~r'/m=r~t. T'ne mos~ ~. ptic~ie imbrmm'ion ~T. Sou~hold are records ~om nearby open-c~as~ weather s~uious. Block Island and Mcmm,,t- ?o/m a~=~ ~erefore, are suggetzed for use a~ Sou~hold; La Gt~rdh wind dam are used m ~-Sm~"r the records. Waves are ~zamd by wind blowing acros~ the waz£r with enea'gy wil ~ wave ~fim, wi~ wave br~-g b~i.~ w~ ~ by ~ve w~e p~ (wave h~ ~ p~. W~e ~ndifio~ ar ~y given G8 LONG ISLAND Table I-1 ~.~-i-~w~w w,~,~ ~LOGITY KEGORDS Teloci~-y Block Island 21 September 1938 Block Island 21 September 193B Block Island Block Island La Guardia~i.-?or~ Block Island Block Island Block Island Block Island 82 91 96 ia September 19aa 100+ 25 ~ovember 1950 9a 6-7 ~ov. mber 1953 95 6-7 ~ovember 1953 98 31 tu=~u~ 195~ 105 31 lu~s~ 1954 i35 12 September 1960 105 12 September 1960 120 ~-8 ~.ar:h 1962 ~8 Type of f-minu=a average Fas~es~ mile Gust Fas~as~ msia Gus= Fasuest mile 5 -minute average Ioca~ion over a period of dee ~ be des~--i~ed ~ih-oa~h ase of a wave spe~, where chara~m'isric wave condkions ate ~ ~o as H~e wave Wave ~ ~e enm~g ~ r,l~.~ ~o~ ~ e~ ~., I~). Giv~ ~e ~on of ~e Sou~otd Long ~l~d Sound/hor~e, wi.d~ ~m ~e ~ ~,~ ~ ~e w~ ~ primly ~om~le Br ~ wav~ ~onl Ee ~ ~ ~e P~, ~e ~ ~ 1~ ~ w~ ~e Lo~ hi~ Sold side. but ~ by G~ B~ ~ I~ ~c. USA~ (1~) ~mm~ ~ d~ ~r ~e Lo~ ~lmd Sound 1o~o~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ge ~ ~ ~ ~m ae ~e ~ ~ ~ wave Wive ~ 10 m 70 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~m I0 m ~ ~h. ~ ~' ~ ~o~ ~ H~= I~ ad I-5. ~p~e~ve of ~e ~h~ ~ ~o~ w~ ~on p~. Gl0 Gl! Gl2 Table 1'-2 Wildwood Hauui~uck inlet Hashamomuck Beach Orient ~oi~t Fishers island' Eas= Sheluar Island Liuule P~conic Graat Peconic Noz-~r~esu Nor~hea~c $our_hwes= 27 30 50 20 "9 ~ Z0 Feu~h 2O 6 ~0 To uhe Kace =kac res=ricus shor: period wind waves hut uoc r;eIls Water Levds Elevado~ of rile wa~er sur/ac~ can be cousidered as Gl3 Table I-3 $Oo'£~OLD TIDAL _ Horuon Point k.0 Truman Beach 3.~ 3.9 Orienz Poin~ 2.5 Sou~hoid 2.3 2.7 New Suffolk 2.6 Storm Sur%e~ Hurricane~ ~nd ~opical smrm~ =e ~arge w~nd ~ei~', ~ ~ ~ low p~ ~ ~pe~e~ ~ienu. ~n~e ~ c~e ~e ~amr dev~on ~ ~e ~o~e ~ ~e ~d fl~ ~e [~d. Seve~ gain =e Nvolv~: ~d ~, wave setup, b~m~c p~ ~o~ md ~ r~po~e ~ ~e ~'s ~on. ~e Codol~ fo~ ~o~ he~h=e. ~e ~ have c~ ~ ~ ~ d~om ~ ~ ~ t3 f~ move no~ ~ Long ~d So~. W~nd s~ress and baromexric t/de are of primm'y of ~e wind s=~s depen~ on w~d sp~ ~ ~o~ ~, ~, ~ n~ore slope. B~ic~ly, ~e w~d ddv~ ~e w~ ~m me sho~ w~r p~ up ~ ~e ~ ~u~ ~ ~, or ~e lower b~c p~ ~ ~e ~ of but M not p~y ~. How~, k ~ ~o ~ ~ ~W~ ~ ~ d~an co~o~ M i~ ~ ~e ~ w~ b~g Waye ~ dde (~ ~e ~ ~~ an ~ of ~e ~ ~), ~"~, ~d ~ sp~, md Gl4 Storm surge ~equency relationships, avafi~le ~or may locat/ons, are elmer compiled ac/e~ti~ated ~om historical dam or obtained r~%rou~ p~i~ve ~. Ta~e ~equenc~ ~e!~omhips d~cribe ~e ~u~ prob~fli~ of o~n~ ~r ~y p~ w~ [e~ event ~e higher dd~ height ever obse~ w~ 13.3 ~t ~ove M~ S~ L~ ~SL) ~ W~l~ Po~t dung ~e hu~c~e on Sep~mber 2 I, [938. At Po~ Je~oa H~or d~ ~e h~e of Au~ 3 I, 195~, a w~er sure etevadon of 9.45 feet ~ove ~L w~ ~. No Town of Son,old, but ~me ~r l~d p~o~ ~r ~ndon, Co~ ~ m~ide~ m be repr~enm~ve for ~e Long ~t~d Sold ~ore pr~ict~ wamr l~el ~ 14 ~ ~ove MSL, dose m ~e ph~i~ m~m ~ ~ ocmr. ~e more co~o~y ~ 10~y~ flood I~ ~s 10.7 ~t ~ove M~. ~ou~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~e I0~ flood, it is a sm~sd~ ~, ~ ~ w~ [~ h~ ~ b~ m~ ~ Son.old. Addi~onflly, if k do~' oc~r, w~r co~d ~e ~ ~fl Ievd ~m ~n on~ ~ a ~ven y~. ~a~g ~ sm~ s~ge Once Sea Level Rise : ' Sea le;~el rise Can be s~aramd'~o two c~-~or/e~: [) ~.~c Hse (~ ~ ~ etev~on) ~d 2) relative ~e (~ge ~ o~ [ev~ r~e m ~j~ ~). Relive rise ~clud~ ~g~ ~ bo~ about 0.3 Gl5 Nea~hore am'enr, piay ~n important ~le ~ ~e ~ol~on of ~ ~v~o~enm. Cu~en~ driven by fo~ m~s~: i) ~p~ differenc~ ~ w~ s~ el~om, 2) w~d, 3) mgled wave approa~ m ~e s~o~e, md 4) ~ disc~ge. Si~ ~m ~ be g~e~t~ by ~d~ a~ ~e~ ~o bays or [~oo~ or ~ ~ ~ h~bom. C~ ~ ~e ~ en~ flow ~d wffen ae dde is m~g (flood ~de), ~d flow oa~ ~ ae fide ~ls (~b ~). USA~ (I969) repam m~um ~e~ aong ae ao~ shore of Long ~l~d ~i~y m-ge ~m 0J m 3.5 ~o~ floodfide ~d 0.6 ~ 4.3 ~ om ~e ebbdde. Av~e ~z~ do~ Sou~old w~e mpo~ a Po~t - 2.7 ~o~ (flao~ ~ ~.2 ~ (ebb); 2) M~ ~- 1.9 ~e~ (flo~) ~d 2.3 ~oa (ebb); ~d S) Pi~ G~ - ]J ~o~ (flood) ~d 4.3 ~ (~b). ~ dv~ ~g~ or s~ w~ · ~e vetocifi~, whi~ ~ be s~n ~ Loag ~l~d So~ whm ~ wi,d~ ~m ae w~t slow ae ebb ride ad alow ~e flood ~de m b~g ~diao~ w~ md ~,~r ~ wa~ m~c~ e!eva~o~ ~m ~e Sound. Currenm mr~ ~ a~ wind blows over ~he w~,r's ~, md ~ on ae-su~ mov~en~ ~ ~e dk~on of ~e wind.. ~en ~e ~ ~ ~ a b~, such ~ wamr pH~ up ~in~t ~e [~d. ~h pHhg up ~f w~, whi~ ~ ~ wind s~p ~d M ~ componen~ A~o~e~ impormur mecb..i~m in r~e ae~-~ho~ region h ~e ~on ~ ~o~hore ~en~ c=~ ~d ~duc~ ~. whi~ ~nd ~o do~ d~g ~ ~. ~ ~ veiocifi~ ~idly d~e~e ~ ~e ~ho~l~e ~ ~p~, md ~, ~ ii~ ~ ~ ~ly ~e ~t of wave a~om ~ ~1~ ~e ~r Lo~ hl~ So~ ~o~in~ ~ of Pon ~ wb~ ~e ~m~ Sedime~t ~-a~maSsfics ~d Sm~ply Shoreline comiifio~, in g~,.~ ~ by ~e ~ of ~ ~g ~ l~vmg ~ ~. .Mong ~e So'old ~ ~ ~e p~m.T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~.~ bl~. S~ on mos: ~e ~ of Io~°~ ~on ~ ~'~ d~ ~ ~ ~ of ~g landform. As s~i~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~pt ~h flow. Sou~el~ ~ p~ ~n of Io~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c j~ at ~d ~1~ ~ ~t ~ flow, I~i-g m ~ om ~ ~ ~ of ~e ~ ~ flow d~ 1~ ~ p~a~, M~i"E ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~, lon~hor~ Gl6 E, tq~er~e Water Le,/e! Predic-~'on5 dominant force in dem.~nin/ng the dire~v, iou off bngshore transpnr~ on Sour"oil's Long Island Sound shoreline. On the ?~on/c Bay shore/inn, me dires:ion of lon~hnre tr'sns.~or~ wries ~ear~y. The orienr.,~don of the shoreline diffem by up to IS0". T'ne.'zqore, one srnrm causes longshore transgorc in cwo or more different dire~ons on the Pesonic ]gay shore. Addidonally, ~e many /niers, ~'ith and withou~ jeans, inmrrupt 'the longhorn transport. 'Fac Peconic Bay shore Ilas many small ceils for longshore transport, and c~n-ot be described in ~neral ~s the Long island Sound shore can. The volume of sediment trar~sporr~/ /s an impormat parame~r, ~nd its analysis r~qulres ~ large amount of dam. The problem needs to be studied in all tin-ce dimensions to d~,~.'-mine how many yards o/sedimen: are covr~ined in a foot ofbeatm. Several sensors ~'e aeeded over which to obtain these data beach profiles. The profiles can be su@plemenmd with ~edal pimm~rap, hs ~o de~ermine changes in form. bu~ the pborngr~ohs do not show elev~on ~,,ges. Without cofl~-Hng and analTzing these dam, onty the mos~ general ~ of sedimen~ rob,me and cimnge in ~ne longshore transport cam be made. S~or~ns Shoreline changes result from bo~fi day-m-day coastal proe,~es and storm-induced cossr, al proc~ses. It is hoc certain which of these change mech~ni_~rns ks mns~/rnpormnt over the long ~.--m; however, k is c./e~ thac both piny an im@o~an~ rote tn consm[ conditions. While shoreline changes under normal condi- tions are ~eariy imperceptible, those th,r take plac~ dur~ a storm event are or:mn dLs~inc~ As discussed earlier, srnnn winds rypic~ly ~ high, steep waves in conjunchon w~ ~e storm surge.. Increasing w~r~' levels expose higher pon/o~s of ~e b~ m wave ,~e~. and ~llow large waves to pass over the n~rstmre wittmut br~-i-~. ~ the poi.r where dm br~t~.~ ..o~. ~, which is ofmn close m shore, the rStl:lUininz stiff :tone is ~ to ct~5;~,!~_~ tl~ ~fl..~ed,wlv~ etl~'gy. Thi,s..~gc.g~.~ ener~ then e~,,ses erosion of the be:u:h, berm. dune, or bluff'. The ~ .~-'/al ks cfm-led or~hore in large quantities and ks depos/t~I in a bar forma~n tha~ grows to the poi~c wi~e~e the large storm waves break lazier off-~hore, spending their energy in tim su~...'~uue. ~Jrlm~,~y, these ~rm-L~[uc~i processes establish an otTshore bar ~ p~ovkies'protea~on ~om storm w~ve energy. Eroded beach msr,,,-ial ~i ot~n rema'n ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ao~ ~n~fiom when wav~ slow ~ Long hl~d Sold ~ ~ ~e ~w long ~ ~ m move ~ ~m d~p~ wamr ohm ~ b~. ~osion of d~ N ~m s~v~, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~m. Btuff ~sion ~ m~ pwbl~ ~ k ~ p~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~foie. ~ou~ pro,ye ~fl~. ~y, ~m w~ ~ w~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~m md flood lowqy~g ~. ~o~ a~.~ ~ ~m ~ m~ N ~ ;m~y evi~ Along :he coas~ine of New York St~re. ~o ~es of smtm events are o£ sign/ficanc~: 1) ~ropical storms (o~g~nsrfn~ in the ~'opic~) qrpically affec: the Ne~ York area ~om Suly to Oc:ober, and 2) ex- tratropical storms (origa,urin~ outside of the crop/c=), wi~ich are pt-/ma~y less ~nse winr-r s~ocms. l::Iundc:m~ are the mos~ powerftt[ tropical slnmms to n~eh tile New York ~ with wind speeds in ~xc-~s of?4 mph. Hismricutly, New York has been hi~ by a ~,,mh~ of hm-ri~; 24 g~orms have b~n ~ ~e ~ew York r~/on, hu~ move ~r ~ ~e ~ d~Jon, which inc:~ ~e wind spe~. M~y mec~roio~ ~o be!i~e ~ k ~ ~probable ~ ~e New York ~ ~uld be sub- j~ :o a h~e more pow~ ~ ~ 4 {w~ 5om l~ 1 co ~55 mph). D~e ~m ~is cl~s duration is [~k~. Fu~o~, ~o~ d~e m~imd~ ~ be ~c~ ~ Ee ~u~enc~ of big.h ~oni ~e New York ~ ~on have ~ot ~ ~ si~fi~t e~sion ~d flood~g b~e m~- mum sw~ i~g~ h~e ~id~ wi~ Iow dde, u ogpo~ m ~i ex~a~ooi~ ~ Ea~ have ~a~gi~ ~ ofi~m bu~id~ of ~e ~opi~, ~ly M Ee ~d- to ugper-t~md~ during ~e slow merci; ~i~ ~m ~o~ I~ Er a ~fi~ of da~. USA~ (1969) s~t~ Eat moderate co seve~ uo~ have ~ ~e N~ Yo~ ~ ~on over ~e [~y~ before ~965. Mo~ ~fl~, a ~ of seve~ ~ ~ ~ ~e New York ~ h Oaob~ i99t, D~b~ 1992, M~ 1993, ~ D~b~ 199~. T~le I~ li~ ~e severe Sep~amber la, !904 Sepc~m~.r 8,..193A ._ ~epc~m~er 21. 1938 ~$epcember .... August 3I, 195~ Sepc~er~27, I985(': H~c~e a~c I9, 1991 ..... . ~c~e Nave~er 6, i953, ~ch 6, 1962 -'~ ~ 28, t98~ October 30, 199~ Dec-~er I1. 1992 Ca. ro 1 B~ile Gloria ' Bob c Storm Damage ~'ottcK~n and Beach E:o$ion Control Rtconna~ssanct Study ~Vor~ Shore of L~ng Island, ~Vew York I. h-N'rRODUCTION i. The No~h Shore of Long Island, New York, extends west from Orient Point on the north fork of Long Island in Suffolk County. ro the East River in Queens County, New York City (see Figure 1). Following e~ensive storm-related flooding and erosion damages over the past several years, a reconnaissance study of the North Shore was authorized :o assess the need for storm damage protection and beach erosion con~rol measures. Two areas, the villages of Bayville and Asharoken, were identified for reconnaissance level plan development (see Figure 2). Quantkarive evaluations conducted for Bayville and Asharoken were used ro qualitatively assess the potential of other areas for feasibility-level study. Locations in the study area, including Bayville and Asharoken, were screened ro determine a significant need for storm damage protection or beach erosion comxoL 2. The North Shore of Long Island, New York, reconnaissance study was initiated due to ongoing coastal b~7~rds, including damages incurred ro shoretront property ~rough erosion and inundation of low- lying areas associated with intense storm activity. Tropical cyclones, especially hurricanes, and exrrarropical storms (northeasters) produce the high water levels and extreme wave activity generally responsible for coastal damage. Shore erosion has caused the loss of protective coastal structures and erosion of beaches and bluffs with subsequent damages to buildings and roads. Inundation of Iow-tying areas has resulted in evacUauon Of alTecred areas, isolation of several cornmumties, interruption of utilities and services, and flood related damages to coastal area structures. Th/s report represents an updated evaluation of storm-feinted damages along the North Shore, which were last reported _in the North Shore i of Long Island, Sa]~olk County, New York, Beach Erosion Conn-ol and Interim Hurricane Study ($za-vey) (USACE 1969). ~ A. Study Authority 3. A hurricane study was authorized by PubIin Law 71[ 84'~ Congress, 1~' Session, on 15 1une 1.955. Study authorization was in r~ponse .to severo damage to the coastal and tidal ar~'as of the eustem and southern United stamS'~rom the hun-icaaes of 31., Augus~ 1954 (CarSl) and 11 Sept. e_~er: 1954 in New England, New. York, and New serSey'~.~tal a?d tidal ar~s; and the hurricane of 15 October 1954, in the coastal and tidal axens ext~ding south to S~uth. C.~olina;'.and in view of damag{~ can~ed by other historical hurricanes. The Secr~/olLth-e Araly, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce and other Federal agencies con.cemed with hurricanes¢.was authorized and directed to can.se all examination and survey of the eastern and suuthera Seaboard .of the United States with re~peet to hurricanes. ~-. A beach erosion study was authorized on 20 Ma~h 1963 by the Committee on Public Works of the United Star~s Senate in accordance with Sectiun I10 of the River and Harbor Act, as approved on 23 October 1962, wherein the Secretary Of the Army was requested to cause a survey of the North Shore of Long Island in Suffolk County, and adjacent shor~ as necessary, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army in the interest of beach erosion control, hurricane protection, and related purposes. Storm Damage Prottc~an and Beach Erosion Control Reconnai~::anct Study North Shore of Long Island. New York Similarly, a beach erosion study was authorized on 19 June 1963 by the Commlnee on l~ablic Works of the House of Representatives. United States. in accordance with Section ii0 of the River and Harbor Act. as approved on 23 October t962. 5. A combined study to Laciude both the beach erosion control and hurricane protection smdie~ was authorLzed by the Chief of Engineers on 20 .tune 1963. This study was completed and published by the US Army Corps of Engineer~ (-O'SACE), New York District ON'AN), as North Shore of Long Island, Su.~olk County, New York, Beach Erosion Control and Interim Hurricane Study (Survey) m June 1969. 5. This reconnaissance study of the North Shore of Long Island, from the East River m New York City exmnding eastward to Orient Point on the nor~ fork of Long Island in Suffolk County, was authorized by a resolution of the Committee of Public Works and Transportation, US House of Representatives, as adopted on 13 May 1993, which sta~s: '.: Resolved by the Committee of Public Works and 2'ransporra~on of the United States House of Representatives, That, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ~nief of Engineers, is requested co review the report of the On'el of Engineers on the North Shore of Long Island, Suffolk County, New York. published as House Document 198, Ninety-second Congress, Second Session, and other pertinent reports to determine whether modifications of the recomme.,4rrtiont contained therein are advisable ar the present time. in ~he interest of beach erosion control, storm damage reduction and related purposex.[ on the North Shore of Long Island. New York. particularly in and adjacent to the comtma~es.of Bayville and Asha~.oken. New York. · . _ ...:: B. Study Purpose and Scope 7. This reconnaissance repor~ was completed in t'~sponse to the au~ori~ngSeso!ufion. The purpo~se of this study is to determine i/' Feder~ imerest and local support exist for one or more shore protection projects along the North Shor~ _of Long Island,_ ~fhe rep0r~ ~ de.f~a~ .~he prq.b~ms,..a?eds, and oppor~i6es assoc/~ed with flooding and erosion, and iden6T'y solutions .which are. ~O~h economi?lly justified and environmentally acceptable. :_ : .ca _ . ...:: _ .. 8. Tasks essential to the succ~sful completion of the reconnaissance phase are: DeHnition of problems and. opportunities, and idendficakion of potential solutions Evaluation of. whether planning shq.uld proceed fiarther, into a feasibility phase, based on a prelimir~'y appraisal of the Federal intm'~, costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of the identified potential solutions ~3 C. Study .Mrea Location Lon~ lsl~d ~n S~ffoik Co~ m ~e E~ ~v~r adjacsn~ co ~o~s N~k B~d~ m Qu~sr~ Coun~, by M~h b[uff~. A~ ~e b~e of ~e biu~ ar~ ~w b~, ~i~, ~ b~ foxed ~om ~cd ~[efi~s. To ~e ~. ~e sborc[~ becom~ mo~ m~u[~ ~d ~ mosdy com~d of continuo~ biuffs iO. %~a proj~ re=ch cmn.si~s of roughly 213 mile~ of shom'A-ou£ ~ong Long Bt~ Sound ~d [m ~soc!zt~d ~mb~ ~ N~sau ~d S~oLk ca~. To~ ~e s~y ~ ~ciude mc To~ of N'o~ Heisted ~d ~t~r Bay ~ N~sau Co~, ~ ma To~ of Ku~o~. S~to~. Federal Rep~rm · ~Vorrh ~,~re ~Long I~ $~ffogc Cmo,;, N~ ~o~ B~ f~=on ~ot ~ ~ E~ ~ ~), US'~y-~ of ~. New Yo~ DAaic~ I969. Re~o~ ~ ~om~ ~, US ,~y C~ of F~. New Yo~ Di~. 1995. · A~,%ar:ica.= Beed~. H=nnngran. zVe~t. For"< Set, on 103 - Recatw~irx~-.cz Report.. [35 .azmy Ca~s of Engmee:s. New York Dist.,-ic=. [988. Com'rot Fr. ood Des'nage Reduc~on. C.o.,m'al Conne_~.c,ar, ReczrmaHscmce Repor:.. US Army Co~s of Eng/u~rx. New England Divizion. I995. · Gove.'~.or's Coastal Erozion Co~ Sto~ ~ VoL 2: Long-Te~ S~, S~er 199~. · Long [s~' So~ ~ M~g~me~ Rrogr~ DG~S. New Y~rk S~e Depa~enz I.S.O.. M~e Scieu~ R~ C~m=r, Sine U~ve=i~ of New Yo~ 1973. Eye, on q/ ~ Pmczss~, No~o~ P~e St~on, Long ~l~d Li~dng Ca~, 1988. [2. 2-ne following =~i~ ~ave b~n ext.'re:e/L'om E= conclusion of t~e'~ove-..-efe.,~nc_-/USA. CE (I969) re..'om ' :' !3. Ff. ndingx. Erosion af b,,,,,'~ a~ Mgh b~ ~ g~v a probt~ &roug~ &e [~rov~ colOr'for ~ prore~n ~ ~o~ B~ ~ Po~ J~e~on I_5. The roralfir~r cost ~ r~ cm~idm'eat ittrprov~w~.r = S~ Meadow St, we Park, boszd on Marc% 1969 pric~, ir m'Yaw~red ar $~,39'2,000. Faa Federal share o~ rl~ roral first cost is e. rrimar~ ar $3,000,000 (68.3 perch, ir). Thexz m'zfmarer ~uda~ ~e coxrz of E. E~srin~ Projects 16. Severxt shore prote-..:ion projecr.s have b~n cor~rrucred a/cng ~he North Shore of Long [s/Mc. These inc!ude beaci~ nourishment, shoreline srrucmrez (e.g. groins, je'ries, and bulkheads). ~ wee navig=rion-ce!ared 9roj~rs. Shore projecxs ~ve b~n conciu~e'~ on a cumber o( [eve.~s. ring;.-,4 [0cai ind private to Feder~ and &are supporre:i. The following pa.m=._o-~, h x ........~,-iz~ ~e major protec:ion proje?..s compt~ ~long the Nor-~ Shore. 17. No rezord of F~e.'-.dly momored bemcx ocur/shmenr e:-&srs ..:or cbc Nor-d~ Shore o~ i. cng Lsi~d_ Beach aounshmenr prOjes-_~s, however, wet.- :efformed ~r ~e fo/lowing Ioc~tions: (!) Bayviile (2) .qzbaroi~en Be:mn (1960 ~nd i964), ~m (5) StmkexM~,~nw Stare P~_,4x (195~. Tame proje:= conduc=ed by ~e Sram of New York ar 8a~Ie ~ 3~km 8~. m by ~ Lo~ hm~ Ce~ssion ar S~en M~dow S~e P~. Sever~ repo~ on ~gmon ~ Suffo~ C~/ H~rm~om No~pom Po=/cftc=on, ~d M~mc~ ~o=. Mom ~y, ~er S~on Fiood ~n=ol Aa of i9~, ~ em~genc7 sbo~ e~ion pmj~ ~ p~ ~or i ~n~ of shore!~ ~ ~ken B~. Tins s~y w~ ~ ~or ~ p~s~ of ~v~a~g ~e of pro~dNg eme~ e~mn ~mol pmr~oa m a ~ ~on of .~ Av~~. projec: ~ s~s~y ~p~v~ ~er S~on i0~ of ~e ~ver md g=~or A~ o~ 1962, ~ 7 Table 1 Population Trends, Towns on the North Shore of Long Island Town Of Sou~old 19,172 19,836 3.5 Sources: 1990 US Can~ provide north-south ro,,~ r. hruu~hou~ LOu~ l~{~.d In ~ddkiou m Eese thorou~iffares. ~ Long Island P.~ilroad's (LIRR) Pon W~,~i,~on B~uch provides ~ passenser t-ailro~d s~'v/ce flora Orea[ Neck. Manhasse£ and Porn W~,h~,.~ou tn New York CitT. The LIRR's 0ysmr Bay ~ Pon feff~rson Branch~s' provide se~vic~ m New York City ~um po/nm ~urdmr ~ on ~bc North Shot~. Thgre is also car/passenger f~n'y servic~ ~o Bfid~'pom Coun~=/cuz from Pon ~effe~ou and ~o New London, Conneaicui: from Oriem Point' In som~ pordous of d~e study'ar~ ~ l~:ai mad system'provide~ ouly Iimir~d acc~s' to ~he w~'~ These limitadous of~he u-anspouadou's~ ~re mos~pr°no~'= the projcc~n[ b,..~tl~.rt, which are com~-~x__M u~ uhe ,~i.{~r.t by 'uarmw spa'and toumbol0SJ: :": ' ' ' Flooding and erosion along the Nontm Shorn resulis fzum several f:mcrnrs, bu~ geue~y follo~ from shoreline ~e0m0uphoios7 mud i~ou of ti~x ~om--orpholosy wi~h ~ Long Is~,~d $o,r. rl. Shoreline uh¢ resul~ of Ioull-umn ~-~r{.. s~Souai p~ or~ storm eveuzs.' ~ section describes the physical ~.urcs of ~he North Shor~ coas~ and ~h~ info'on of d~es¢ ~m'~ ~ Long ~sland Sound. - ~ 25. Geomorpholo~v. C-~holosic f~rm-es' of ~ proj~c~ ar~a include bme~. bi-f~% dunes. wedauds. ~,~d barrier l~.~eorms. The mpo~auhic'~h"r~"~'" and s~dhn~u[ composition of' [hese ~eamres de~mine~ r. he m~,me~ hu wh/ch d:tese f~m,-~ h~''~ac~ with the rr~,~= c~_vi.,-oum=~ and have a ~ bearing on coastal ~-usion ~:I flooth~E, Stnrrn Damage Protecffa~n oa~d Beach Erasion Control Reconnaissance Sttutv Norl!t Shore of Long [dand. New York 26. Geomorphoingi¢ features along the Norm Shore of Long.Island are generally divided into two distinct regions, name!y: ,'.I) west of Pore J'effemon and 12) eas~ of Port .reffemon. The shoreline west of Pon J'effe~on is hig/zly irregular, indented by several deep harbors and bays, including: Little Neck Bay, ~fa.rlha~set Bay, He-.~psr~nH ~or, Oyster Bay, Cold Spring Harbor. Huntm~on Bay, Stony Brook Harbor. and Port areffersun Harbor. These bays and barbers are separated by peninsulas or "necks" extending into Long Island Sound. Bluff heights are genera/ly Iow, approximaze!y 30 feet. ~.long the westernmost portion of the study area and hicrease in an easterly direct/on ranging from 75 to 3. i0 feet in the vicinity of Lloyd Point. F. atom Neck and NIssequogue. Farther east. bluff heights are somewhat decreased to spprox/mately 85 and aO feet at Crane Neck Point and Old Field Point. respectivefy. Eroded bluff material has formed smMl pock~ beuehe~ in maW locafion~ between the projecUng headlands of the necks. Additionally, roarer/al eroded from the necks and offshore islands has been deposited as spits (e.g. West Beach on Ea~ons Neck), baymour, h bars (e.g. Old Field Beach ar Port $efferson), and tornbdios (e.g. Asharoken Beach). 27. The shoreline feamr~ east of Port left-e,*son are generally cha~vr~ized by regular, gently curved beaches separated by headlands which represent only mi~r pe~au'bafions to the general shoreline ~n~. Headlands in this area are tTpically assoc/ared with high bluffs (e.g. Herod Point bluff height is roughly i40 feet). Bluffs east of Port Jefferson are more conr~nnou~ rhnn thOse to the west wittl bluff heights generally decreasing from ~te~ to easL From Port 3efferson m Herod pom~ bluff heights range from 1O0 to 140 feet, whereas, eas~ of Herod Poim bluffhei!h~, d~ease ~o 35 feet near Orient Poin£. Where bluffs are not continuous, barrier l,ndforms bay. keri by rrm~h~ Imve developed_ Beach widths and slopes vary along fl~e ~rrire shore segment. 28. Coastal th'oc~ses and Clmr=~r~. The e=,~rs affec~g coa~x~ processes ~d shoml~ co~on flo~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~% ~ ~, ~v~, ~, ~ b~ch s~e~ ~d No~ ~om io~om ~ somew~ ~e. ~ ~n~on of ~ pmc~ for ~e study ~ea [s de~l~ ~ Ap~ A - ~-~ ~ ~ b~ on awfl~hle ~om 29. Winds..Average wind directions wer~ ~-r~m,r,~ in USACE (1969) as follows: northeast, 20 percent; e~nTar~. ~_f~,m a~a wi~ .mmaur~n~.-% nime of w~e~ repz~mt North shore open-coast locations. Derailed wind records a~ La Gaardia. ~ are available and a~re judged to be representative of the North Shore wind re~_;,,,~. B~ed on an :mlysis o£t~e La Gttm'dia ~.~. the design v.4ndspeed for a 50- year storm event is 78 miles per hour. 30. Water Levels. W~rer levels in the study area are d~:v-i,,-:m.~ by storm effecm (i.e. storm surge and wave setup) hi combination with aauouomical tid~. W,t~' levels and dalai ranges a~ong the North Shore vary si~n~fie, anfly, and g~bly ~ tn~ards the we~. S I..-~cronom/caJ tides along the study azea are semi-diurml. Mean dde ranges are 7. i, 7.¢, and 2.5 feet at Willets Point, Cold Spring [{arbor, and Plum Gut Harbor, reSPectively. Tidal damm~ were obtained for Port Jefferson and Willet~ Point ~rom the National Ocean Service (NOS), and are pre~ented in Table 2. TidaJ Datums, North Shore Of Lon~'l$1and Lacadan Oa~Jm ~ (f~t. ~IGVDI Willets point . . Highest 0baem'ed (21 ae0mm~er ;g38). : 13.7 ' .' Mean Higher High Wamr {MHHW~ -"' Mean High Water (MHW} 4.3 Mean Tide L~vel {MTIJ .... Mean Low Wamr (MLW} Mean Lawer ~w Wamr {MLLW} Lawe~ Obsemecl (10 Janua~t 1978] .7.3 Port Jeffereon HicJ~eS~ Observed {6 Fe0ruary (Long Island So"nd] Mean Higher Higt:.wa~ar {MHHW) - .. Mean High Wazer (MHW) 3.8 ' Mean ~-Ma Level (MTIJ. . 0.5 '. ~.. .'. ..... -'. _ .... ~oW w ..... Mean: ater (MLW) ....... 2.8.'- Mea;:G~er~w w~r IMU.W~ Lawe~ Obscured (10 January 1978! -8.6 $_~. Sea L~vel Rise..~,VarJadon-~ in sea level are '~,.~,R,,,*~,--~,~ .by global, r~:iozlal,_alad__local flu=Jars, and long-term sea level c. hange~ can have a dim~ h'n?act .on shoreline move~aents. A study of tidal records at the Barry-fy in New Yol'~ C~t~f and Monrmdr Poiil~ New..Yor~ il~r'~r~'c[ a1,~.rag~ rm~ o~ sea level i"~e of 0.009 and 0.006 feet per year, respectively. FUlZLre sea level rise for the study area was m~u as 0.008 feet per year or 0.8 feet per century. Starrn Damag~ Protec~ian and Beach F-mri~n Canrrol ~xconmmsa~ct Study ,Var,~t Shor~ 0£ ;.an~ L-l~,c; "w "~ ' while seawalls and jerdes are less fi'equent. BlurTs. ~s sca~< ~re;~iously. have heights Tang:rig to 150 ~ and are nearly continuous along Ge North Shore..~-eas w~thout biur~ ~re zenerally ldjacent to tidal Lr~ler~ and wave-built landforms. ~t0. Fff. istocical Shoreline Changes. Erosion has prevale~ dong most .~f ~e study ~ w~ ~e exc~tion of a few isolat~ pod<e= of a~e~om. Mos~ ~oretMe ~msion. p~c~iy 3l~ erosion. ~sociat~ wi~ sto~. USA~ (1~9), Da~ ~ ~ (1973), ~ ~e New Yo~ S~ Dep~ent ~viro~en~ Cohesion (~SDEC. ~ubl~h~l s,~a~ ~tonc snooze posinon sel~ s~o~ ~o~ ~e No~ Sho~. Sho~iMe ~g~ we~ ~amJn~ by: (!) b'SA~ (1969l S~o~ Co~ ~om I836 m 1965, (2) Davi~ e ~ (t973) m S~o~ Co~ ~m i885 [o ~965 ~d N~sau Co~ ~om 1886 ~o [970, ~d (3) ~SDEC (~ubl~) for N~s~ Co~ ~om Lga7 1980 ~d Su~o~ Co~ ~m 1~7 to [983. 41. Thc Suffolk County shoreline is _~er~-din~ at an average rate of betwe':.a i to 2 ft per year. Several locations (e.g. Eatons Neck, Fort Satonga. Crane Neck Poi~. Old Field point, Momlt Mise~z, and Mattituck Hills) were reported to have long<erin erosion rates of ap to 3.5 f~ per year. The shore segmem from Miller Place to ~:~tuck Mlet, fronted mostly by Mgh blu~ lying in long ~,nd geur. ly curved reaches, has experiealc~l ~rec~ion rates of muglliy 2 f~ per year. Accr~on has been characteristic of wave-built lanch~rnl$, $UC~ a.s Salld$ ~lit~ a;nc[ barrier baza at East Fort Point, Eatous Neck Point, Snntcen Meadow Stale Park, Por~ Jefferaon ~az~or, a~d Mount $il~i F;arbor. 42. In Nassau Cotu~, Davies ~z a2 (1973) report< rece~rio~ ray.~ of I to 2 · ~r y~ mong ge~y gene~y' ~<~c to-~v~t fo~ ~d low ~ w~e '~,~ p~ by g~mowhOlo~c ~fio~. ' ' ,. '- ' ~e ~e p~od ~am/n~ ~ ~ 1~ of~ anal~. ~, ~SDEC ~a~ ~ to a gene~ p~-of ~om{m, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I- m 2 ~: 45. l~vvill,- ~ Ch,,.~. Arab, sis. Fi~ 3 depic:s di~dz~l shorelin~ data for 1976, 1980, 1990 :,.d 1995. 1Vman ~ Wamr (MItW) shoreikm positio'~s ~ .a~l to represent shoreline locazicms for the ~,~.hle ~,~ F%,m"e 3 ~iso includes a series of shoretin~,t trall_?w~ ~ rn ~,l;,,-m $tlorelin~ ill.emerita. HiO Storm Damage Prottc.~on and Beach Eroxian Control Rtcan~i~mct S~y Nor~ Short of Long Id~nd, New York 46. Shoreline changes for the entLre period of record, from March i976 to April 1995. indicam that Bayville's shoreline is generally ac~edonal to s~bie with erosional se~-aenu comrmed ~o the easternmost shoreline. The average yea.dy aczretion rate is rou~Jy 0.8 ~.vr with maximum erosion a~d a~refion rates of 1.4 a~d 3.0 f-dyr, respe'~veiy. Accretion is mos~ nouble along the western porUon of the shoreline sear Oak Neck Point which evidently acr~ aa a sediment barrier to wcstward-dixec~ ct'stow, orr. ¢7. Asharoken Shoreline Change Analysis. Aerial photographs from 1976. 1980. I988 and 1994 were used to evaluam shore!ine ehan~cs :r fi.sharok~. The~e ~ara. along with li'a~e~ locations flied in the der~l-~il~ion of shoreliEe eh~e~. ~ preseraed in Figure 4. 48. The Asharoken shoreline eroded during thc 1976'to 199g period at afl locations except in~,nediately cast of the I.TICO intake basin. The average erosion rate for thc entire shoreline duri. ng tl~ period was 2.6 ~yr. Maximum erosion rams of aearty 7 fx/yr were measured for the shore segment adja~t to xud not~awest of the Aslam'oken Be~ch Section 103 project site ($TA ~+00). This ac~eiemr~4 erosion rate Hears to be the resuk of a series of groina which a~ to ~.~rc~p~ l~xor~ trampon. ¢9. Bluff Erosion, Bluff erosion ia prevalem along thc Nox~h 5'nore.. Storm aczivity within the pa~ sevexal yem'a has likely contributed to more w~leapread bluff erosion, however, q. anr~rafiYe asse~ment of bluff erosion rat~ axe not available. Pa~ ~ii,~ar~ of ammai bluff recaaaion We ranged from 0 5 ffJy~ar, with aa average rate of abo~ 2.0 ~year. Storm r~t~r~t bluff ree~io~ Sf nearly 30 ft ha?to been obse~ed ~ single severe eve. ms. 50. Sedb~ent Budget An.l~is ~ Bavvflle and Asharok~n..~.~ to apply, ~ormal sediment budge~ theory to Bayville are prob)emaric. A beV:er uade~ of Bayville shoreline behavior is achieved by comparing the b~mh m equ/h'brim~ bay theory.. This theory sugges~ ti~ Bay'ville's shoreline is a stable to mildly ac=etional .beada. form ca~ between the h,.~,-n.~ which ex/st a~ Oak Nec/: point and Cemm' Island Point.. F~rally, it ~ been noted that t~c b,~eh~ at Bay~de ia accre~nE,. This trend, is not Neck Poinx or Center Island Poim, it ia tr~ped within th~ embaym~ by ~h?e b~ah,a~. 5 I. A s~di-,e~r budget was prepared for ,Mlmmkea and Moarporat~ (1) historical ~boroliac movements a. ad alXenH~m ~rlra~r~ of volumetric changes, (2) offMlore losses due tn sea lev~ rise, (3) sediment caused by bluff erosion. (4) permanent offshore losses due to storm erosion. (5) ~.~;.~ares of longshore s~imc~ ~xaxtsport r"at~a, and (6) sources a~d sin~ of s,-~llm,-,-,r specific to the sim. The sedi~nent budget a:mlysis was developed for tt~ historical l~ried from ~ ~976 m AFr~ ~994.. This d~velopment was complicated by u~cm'taia ~acm of tl~ dise~,~,'g~ ~h~,,,,~t at r rr CO's North~ power plato. A sell~irivit'y analy~i~ was perfol:lxlgd by a..%nnn~ ehmnn~ ~,,,a;,,,.owr Io..~ Of 0 alad 2.5 percent. Reauks for both conditions are s',ma~zed in tt~ fo[lowlag Hll Storm Damage Protec~on and Beach Erosion Control Reconnaissance Study Notlh Shore o£ L~ng £sland. .V~w 'fork Sa. [n summnry, similarly behaved sedknent budgem me ob~m~ al ,Mh~o~en for ~s~ed d~c~ge ch~ei en~e~ toss~. ~e pfinc~p~ differenc~ ~e relar~ ~o ~mde of ~e longshore sed~ent ~pon =t~ ~o& act md dir~o~ com~caen~ a~ ~e ~tem bo~ of ~e study ~ md ~e dir~fio~ cvmponen= of ~e Iongs~c~ sed~ent ~pon m~ (=~er ~m ~e net ~te) to ~e w~t of~e L~CO ~acflw. Eider sed~enr budget ~ ptamible ~d ~e ~wer ~y lie be~n ~e ~o d~ge loss ~s~fiom. Differences me not hig~y ~po~t wi~ reg~d ~o e~g condiuo~ but could be ~po~ ~:om ~ ~s~s~g h~mfi~ ~ ~ co~itiom. A histofi~ ~s~smem of ~e shorel~e ~d b~e~c ~g~ befo~ ~d ~er coercion ~ ~CO facffi~ ope~on is r~ to ~e a b~ ~s~nt of ~e ~p~t of ~ f~ili~ on ~e ~h~oken shorel~e ~ to ~e 55. Borrow .~'eas. Beach nourishment cannot be conducted without idemifica~on of an approve~l borrow source. NA~X[ has conducted numerous beach nourishment projecm along the sout~ s~ore of Long Lsland and has utilized several Federally approved offshore borrow areas. Use of offshore borrow sources along the North Shore, however, ha~ b~n limited, tn August I960 and August 1964, the State of New York hydraulically placed a combined total of Sa,0,000 cubic yards at .~hazoken Beseh by dredging from an area about 1,000 ft offshore. Dredging from an offshore source (approXm'm~ety 0.2 miles off'sho?e) was also conducted in 19a7 at Bayvill¢ to place about 507,000 cubic yards of: beach material'. Tree!ring of about 40,000 cubic yards of fine beach sand from the south shore of Long Island was conduczed to replenish ~ beach ~ Sunken Meadow State Park m 1957. Both offshore or upland trucldng sources can provide the material nec~sary to complete beach aourishmem proje.~s along the North Shore, as evidenced by past projects. Uafornma~ely, there are cm, rm~ly no approved off~hore borrow sources in Long Island Sound. Accordingly, addinonal inve~igafions are required to [ocare and evaluaze offshore borrow sources. 56." Sources of beach compatible material~, include maira~-r~ance dmdg/ng of navigar/on channels and of~h0re sand deposits. W'flliam~ (1981) reported 14 areas in Long l~land Sound which contain relatively l~.g..e, quan~e~ of sand and g~avel thafam .~_~es_~'b!a by eonwmional dr~ methods. Several of these areas may f-alfffi ~'mtnirm~"m~ for im~t~,',*,~r.r~on in a Federally ~pomored ~noumhmen~ p~ojee.~.. These fac~or~ ix~-.lude 'fill crm~ant>iliW ~ volume, e~mnomic- fea~'bility, however; would require inv,~figafion beyond the scope of rhl.q rec. on-.i~nance ~ndy. In the at~ge of a Federally-approved borro~v source, beach ~ pl.~ evaluated in ~ repor~ ~ that mxnd will be trucked fi'om an Phmd'sr; m on Long Bland. 57. E.xi~-~, Co~I Strocture Evaluatim~- Thc effeOive~c~ of study ~ we~ ~r~ un ~e ~ of ~ ~ ~eof~e~. ~y,k~ fo~~ ~ve~ent w~ s~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~t by private ~ter~s st~ow~ x ~ v~ ~ d~i~ ~m~on ~ ~ of ~ ~. So~ of ~ wor~ were in good con~fion, but many w~ fo~ m be ~ ~ of ~. ~{12 58. Ar numerous shot-~ reno.See of ~e smd7 :,rea. c.he [ack of cc, ordinated p{rl. rming be:ween individual prope.?/ owners has resui[ed (n pro[es:ion of segmen[~ pomoas of :ne sbore!ine. ~is approach had led co the izzstalladon of ,stony dLsconnec=ed ~-,racm:~. inc!u~aing seaw~Is ~d bu~. ~e su~c~ va~ed gr~n~y m c~ndifion ~d ~ff~:iven~s. whom several i~z~c~ pointed ~o a desr~d efficiency due to t~e absenc: of pe~c~ic ~te~c:. k '~ ~ho ~vident ~ several [ocatio~ ~at bul~ ~d s~wa~Is wet: newly co~c:~ ~ pr=vio~ s~cmr:s had ~e:~ora~e~ or ~e~n d~aged by sto~ beyond ~e point of ~ff~iveness. 59. [£ was found that groins in the study area have been generally effec.-ive in maintaining existing beaches, bur imeff~rive at increasing beach size. This phenomenon, in general, is due m an inadequate supply of sand mainra/nlng existing Norm Shore beaches. In some cases. Ttoins are so eff~rive that sut~oty o~ ~,r,,ral Sedlmen~ was p~ven£ed from reac.~fing downdfif~ shores. -cau.sin~, an acceleration or' shoretine'~-~:~f!om,?',ms] ph~_nomenon has b~n de,ch%ed ~oove in c0nne~oa ~m b. modc=l shoreline changes ac Asharoken Beech. mad Photograph I shows s/m/Iar eff~:s = Kenneys Beach'in Southold. As in the c~se of sesw'sSs ,and- bulkhesds. ~-oin ~ff~tiveness is several c~es l'ms been d~reased by in~deouam, design and.,, lac~'~'f m~i,~renanc,...., Gro/n coma/on has b~n ~ccu~lished... ~'. using mate~a/s tach ~s. qm_mn'y-smne, boul.de"~, t/tuber, trapezoidal mncr~e blocks; pm-cast concrete be=ns smd ~led concre:e pipe. Of th~.~bov'e type ofconstzu=iam it ~ observed th~ ~roins ~mtruc:.ed ~vim placed quarry, sron~ gene..mlly w/thsrood the e!eme~r, much berm: and remain~ mom effective titan pro/ns utiii~ng other materials[ .P~rcions of Ba.vvfile and Asharoken ar~ c~,c:e.-'/z~ by a series of vemcal seawalls and buLkh~ds.--'Fnese sauctures m'~ particularly common in m.fron~ed by a~.rrow be-,ches. A ser/~s of nesv w:zical $~,-ucmre'~ have ~c~.ly b~a c~nsa-uc~ a~ A.slmro~a in~mspome to the 199'2_ stomm. Example sw_,~'~-'~ ~ shown in ?hom~,~h 2 (g~h~mken}. · ..,~." .~/57.' ...:. , f 60. PIac~nen~ ofb~e~' fill along the North S'nnm Ires besh an i/~t~ve.m~.vm'~:~' Two 5ils . . · ... .~i .:-' ..: . ~' : . ' . /::.l',~.qq~l~';;~p.~:~.' · ~r:;4F:. . were accom~I/.~h~ a:A.sh~rolmn Bec. h, btm t~ ~=aon of a~e,'.borm~...m-e~o,¢~s~_ rn the b ~eacn · ~ - ' '~:,~,, · :, · ,'. · ~ -' ~ -'~, :. "~ %:. · .Z, ',',q', .~:c.%.~- may tmve ~m~n2.re~po~ ndble Leer' for ~ Io~ o~ bem=h 5IK, The only: otfmr I~mnon_wtm~: a s,m,lar operamon vms 'ac~'~rm2t/sh~.'~s'ms = O~c Neck ~ C.~nmr r.s/a~. C.ms~w~y ~.i,,.h,.~..t B,-~,..fill Ires b~n pl'.ced along p6ffions of the study ~ ~vh/~ ~: or ~'~ ~jmmnt m a~v/g~blew~ _~?ays..yhem d~ed~ng ..... '; ::' . .' - ~,:~"'~'," ~' ri; -.'~ 7'(' ~ · :--, ~. · '.'C :~>...'? -~%:, ,7%;; shorn p -.ced have?-.-.:- by '=""¥'" " '"~'"~'&'"':~'~ '~ ; -'~"-:2 ~ ' " ' ..... ' "~ "-~;"-'-'-'9'- ' d orhe=.~'o~.to?~biI[~ tt~.t.?gl~i.dm~s.and blu:ff slopes m ~ few-strafe a_.-'e~;~me ~:lstaJ. l~Jon or s~n ~c~§ along thR b".,c,~m of be:~:t~s fmnrm~ Iow ~ ~ served m I~"~eaIosses of.w'b~ blown of bi~op~ by ~inMtl m~. A no.la e~a~le ofb~t~on wa~ ~.be ~d ~ O~ N~k H13 ?hoto~'apt~ I. lr,.,meys Be~ch (ea:srmi~ ~i~w), Town of 5oazhoid . Photograph ~ mklm B~ch (so~Lizesscw'~d ~ew), Town of W,,,,rlngt~n B. Storm 79 Storm Eve-nm. Two qyp,~ or' ~torm~ ~x~.ac: ~he ~mdy ~:. ~afy: (I) ~ropi~l s~o~ and kur~c~es w~ch ~pac: ~e New York ~m ~m July ~ough Cc:abet. and (2) ext~ropic~ wimer s~o~ r=fe~e~ m ~ ~ao~erx'. Bo~ ~o~ q~ ~use deva~ed wa~er leve~ ~d inhere wave condkio~, wNch produc= ioo~g ~d mer~ ~g~ ~ong ~e Long Ist~d co~ region. 80. Eis:oLScally, Ne,,v York h~ been ~abjec:~.~ ~o a. number of seve~ b~ ~d may have to. Ned ~ ~ r~ ~e ~. B~e of ~eir longer duration. o~== ~e 8~mag~ ~ ~ or ~x~ ~o~e of ~u~. USACE (1969) ~mt~ ~at 65 mo~ea~e m severe no~e~ers ~ve ~Ac~ ~e New York co~ r~on over ~e I~ y~ peNod precad~g 1965. More ~n~y ~d fo~0~ H~e Bob N Au~ 1991. a seN~ of severe no~te~ impac:ed ~e New York ~ region ~ o~n~ ~ Oc:ober i991. D~=mber 1992 ~d 199~. A more ~orough d~e~sion of ~md~ sram ~ ~e= men~ ~ag~ is con~n~ in Table 5 His~,',ric~[ Storms Im~pac~n l,:t ~,euTemb~' l,gO,,:t J - 1976 30 ac=miler 1991 1993 } - 39' C. Pv, obiem IdenHficarion and _&ssessrnent in USACE (1969), r=rle:: imoo~z diff:r:nc~ :n p~ysic~ ~e~!ine c~::~ md gen=rxi!y cc~=spond ~o Town md/or Caunw boun2~i~. Rezcz z~cNptie~ ~er: oO~am~ kom amd :ropes:on. prior r:po~ ~a · review of ~mric ph~togn?a. S2. Probtem Evaluation Criteria. In order to provide ~. ~niform b~.is ofcamoarisan be.'w~n reache& rAe nature and severity oi xi~oreiine prcblen'z we~ ide.'xified. ',;V~ie mae :vaiuar5.o~ inherently subjective, Re review is dependent on quantifiable dan .mc..~ ~ shom!ine erosion and damzge histor7. Specific sourc~ ct' dam utilized in ~is evaluation inc!ude: · Prior damage and posc-~ood r=pom · Flood i_~uranc= ciairns hismr7 Carrem flood in_qu-ance policy records Eismric mapping and shoreline change reCor~ · S ice imp~fion of repot'xed d~a-nage [oCano~ 85. Ba~ed on sic-' imw~iom the primary sourc~ of problems wexe cla.~ifi~ ~. e;atter flooding md/or erosion. T'ne severity off Re problem wa~ a~si_m~ed depe.'xieat on bo~. prior damage ki~or/ xnd judgemen~ ~ regar~ Re ~x'ter~ and ff~,,quency of furore damage. '~ai~ section d~c'ff~e~ the pmble.m a~s~sment re!drive to ~e ~ identified aamy - D. '". t'I'[6 < · Z · © P_roblem ]identification - Reach Descripnon. Reach [3 is located :n Riverhe~Sou~oid co~ ~omc: eas~'ard to Go(~i~ l~c~. O~cr man about one-~f mile of shore st Ma~ck ~ec ~d ~r~ate~y 2C0 fe~ a~ Gol~'s i~e:. Reach 1] ~s privately owned. R=idenfia[ deve[opment M ~e ~ong ~c entire reac~ wire some co~ercm[ ~d recreado~t boating stewing from &e federally ~in~ed Mammck Iv. Jet. Matfimck [~tc: and Cre!k set-tee ~ be or,Jy safe h.m'bor flong thc North Shore from Mount Sinai to Orient Poi~. Scone jemes a£ Mam~'c.~ ~nd Gold.stalin Izfle:s ~'~ the most prominent coastal m~cmr~. Reach i3 also cont~i,-~ secfiom wheze bluff szabUizafion mere.tree in thc fztnn of bulk,k~,H~ luve been con.sn'ncmcL Gcne:',~Lly ~e shore~finc ;..a c~ by ~gh ~ bluffs ~-uu~d by randy beac2~e~ which undulate be.~v~n h-~:[l~nds, and some rocR' inmnidal regicm axe critics. ,'v~.tsimck and C-old.smith Mie~s cause Large dowu ~ or. em due to be Mtemspfion ofb~ s,~-iim,-.-~ on Ls less evident a~ Goid~zi~ wi~ch appeam to be e:'od~ny on eir~be: side of Problem Iden~'~cafion. P:obiem.s in R.'~ch 13 ~ p~om~ ~;=r~ m e~on of ~ bluffs. . unde~in~ of scve~ hom~. Sgcc~fic 1o~o~ ~c~.~m ~ b~ e~ ~ ~ ~ck Pond Po~, M~mck H~or, ~ adja~ to bo~ Gold~i~ ~ M~ ~. B~ch ~ ~ e~sion is of concsm at M~ck ~d Gol~ ~c~, ~d.~ ~ 8~gc ~c m ~c~i.i~g of hom~. ~o~g ~g~ ~e not judg~ ~ z ~nt ~cm~,-i~ f~ ~c ~ h~ Somd shoml~ · ' ' - Reach 1;:t Miner ~None 1-t19 P"eb[em l'dendfic~don - Reac.': t-:' Lcn_~ I~iand ~cund ~ouu%oid Mason [oca[~d [n R=sch [z mc:ud~ P%cmc. 2oumoM. ~nd Stirring. %aa To~ cf 5cumold ,:w~ approx~[~7 mile ,of snor:l~e i( "~- ,, B~2ch '~'ma ~e r:mz~der ~e:ng pmvac~iy o~¢d. Oe,/eioome=~ s~2sona[ r~siden~. ~horei~e bui~eada and i~a ,xa~ mosdy [ocamd ac K~.-meys Rand B~ch ann Hasaanomuck Beach. Sham ~ ~ ~ifi~ by undula~g concave s~dy beach~ '~ ~gc o~bors rock. 5ack~ by bluffs of m~emte height (Hereon PoinL [hie: PomL Roc'-9' Porn0, sat m~h md pon~ t~=~om~D, or d~ ~?=amc Ca~Ez Pxrk). Han~cmuck Beach a ~ mmboto w~ich jo~ i four ~. ~ ~c K~i~ Ro~ S~ ~d PaiNe Co~' P~rk Problem ld~nr/ficarian. ?=incipie concerns in Rmc2~ 1¢ ~ mi~ co beach erosion md flooding wire some bluff erosiou ~d~ ~ of GolPe ~ a :m~ of go~ w= codec:ed ~o promc: privaze more se~ m o~ ~ ~don of ~ ~on ~ m ~e j~ a~ Goi~mim ImeL Erosion sea~ mozt co~ a ~e:~ Bm~ we~ ~ p~n~ lei a~ ~e To~ of Soumoid faci~ ~ ies~ aborn 20 fa= ~ ma ~ ~ M I~ ~ ~. A~y, ~i. ing of ~om~ md tl~mg .of =~ mv~.~ ~ b~mds a ~d~ M ~ ~ of ~ B~r~ Fumm ~g~ due to sm~ ~d~ ~d wave a~ck for er~ng ~o~ ~ndidom N ~ m be ~e~ ~ ~ ~ez. Other areas Where damag~ have been rep. amd axe a~ Fla.~h=mqmuck Beach a_nd Pebble B~ch. Tae H~omum~ B~ s~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ lowq~ ~ be~n more se~en~ wNc~ ~e b~ck~.~y low b{~. ~on of ~c b~eh~ md bl~ ~ pm'~ wi~ scream hom~ ~mne~ due m flocd~g ~d emsiem Pebble B~,.wN~ ff~j~ ~ of~ci r a.~ ~ Counw Ro~ ~8. is ~e sim of ~ i~ge moral w~ ~m p~o~y ~ ~ ~ of ~ So~d. To ~e ~t. aewiy<o~:mc:ed ~owu bom~ ~a si~ ~ a iow ~ i~ f=~'of a ~ ~e ~ ~ a vc~ ~w beach. Tnb ~ea ~ mbj~ co ~ ~c ~ ~ e~m fl~g, ~ ~ve Reach 1~ Miner Septernaer 1995 Sto~ ~ge Protzcffon t~nd Bec. ch E~sio~ Cono'ol R~con~'tsance Study Nort~ Shore of Long Isl~t~d, Ne~ ¥or~ Table A-7 Maximum Fetch Distances Nas~amomu~ 8aa~ ~9 ,. ~r,en~ ~oi~ p- Table A-8 Wave Hindcast Input Data ~ Rae~h. A~:~ .~ w~,~- Dream. ~ ~ I~ O~,~ {f~ Ba~Ile 7 ~ I0 t~ 60 {50~ Ba~ 15 NE 10 ~ 120 (75i ~ 57 ~E 10 ~ 2~ REPORT ON ',_'.~ SHORELINE iMPACTS OF mEE,- GOL~SM__.~ ' v~' .'_-NLET JETTY TA~mLE OF CON~-~I-S L~t roduc Uion ~ua!ysis cf Shoreline Dyr. am!cs Results Discussion of Res~s Lmpact of Sto~s References Tables 5 8 9 Goldsmith Inlet is located along the north shore of the of $cu~hold, on the Cong island Sound~ wTMn-¢n' is about !3 wide at this point. This re~ort presents the results and discus- sion of a shoreline analysis conducted co determine the possible relationship between the stone jetty at Goldsmith inlet and the erosion of Kenneys Road Beach (Figure I). Specifically, the study area extends from approximately 2000 feet west of the co Eor~on Point, which is approximately 13,000 feet east of the in!e~. The s~udy area is characterized by a quartz sand beach, backed in most areas by one or more rows of dunes. West of Goldsmith inlet, however, and at ~arton ~olnt, the beach is backed by bluffs of 40 and 80 feet~ respectively. Between these bluffs~ the study area appears to have formed, in the geologic pasz~ as a prograding shoreline resulting from the infi!llng of an embayment between two headlands. The Goldsmith Inlet jetty was constructed in 1964 by New ~ork State to alleviate the erosion problem a~ Peconic Sound Shores, west of the inlet, and to aid in maintaining a tidal channel through the inlet. At some time between 1962 and 1966, a private groin was constructed approximately 3a00 feet east of the inlet. Within the past several years, numerous additional private groins were constructed along Kenneys Road Beach. Shoreline erosion on the north shore of Long Island has been classified as "critical" by the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers (!), which means that the area is "undergoing significant erosion where action to halt erosion may be J~stif£ed." I2 Zn!e~ Othe~ studies (e.g. 2) have confirmed this long term trend cowards sho~eline ~ecsssian in the study a~ea. As a ~esul~ of this t~end, numerous e~osion co~t~oZ devices, including Goldsmith Inlet jetty, have been constructed. Jetties and.g~ains function in a s imila~ manne? (Jetties being these structures located at inlets) in interrupting the longshore movement of sediment, which is predominantly from west to east in the s~udy &~ea. The ~esu!t is a building up of the beach on the "updrif~" side and eros!an on the ~downdrift" side. There is no fished guideline for dete~mlning the extent Of the dowud~if~ "erosion shadow" associated with a 1L~to~a! b&r~ier. The and ex~en~ of erosion depend on many factors, including beach characteristics, of£shore p~afi!es, frequency of storms, and shoreline orientation. Previous studies (~.and ~)~ have deter- mined that grains on. ~he North S~ore of ~ong ~s!and elicit share- Line ~esponses. slmlla~ to .those on a~he~-sedimentary coasts. . ~ In addition to being the lac&~ion at which the subject Jetty was constructed, Goldsmith inle~ is situated near a point of major shoreIine~o~ienta~ian change, whlch:can significantly affect the-'re!evant-'coastal processes (5)-: The shoreline to the' west of the study area:trends'mo~e towards ~;east-weet direc- tion, while t~e study, area shoreline trends more no,rheas=- southwest. ' -~ Analysis of Shoreline Dynamics Shoreline position and com~igur~tlon are constantly changin~ in response to storms~ normal wave activity, and engineering works. The analysis of these changes c~_u host be done zhrough ~he use of sequential data covering an appropriate time span study the problem at hand. The best source for This da~a is vertical aerial photography (6). For the purpose of performing the quantitative analysls, se!ec~ed aerial photographs were blowu up to a scale of 1" = ~00', using shoreline cul~aral features as control. Data collection and analysis was then performed using a variation of the orthogonal grid-address system (6) developed by Dr. Robert Dolan et. al. A ~r~nsparen= topographic map was prepared which contained all of the cultural features used for control, a~ ~he scale of ~he photographs. A baseline was estab- lished on this transparent o~eriay and perpendicular transects ~hen placed at 300' increments. Data gathering consisted of overlaying the ~opographic map cn each aerial photograph a~d carefully measuring the distance along each transect to the high. water shoreline. Eigh water shorel!~ue is generally recognizable on black and whi~e aerial photog~aph~ as & discernahle boundary between damp and dry sand (y). The data was then input for computer analysis. Programs~ were prepared to calculate changes of shoreline position, rates of change and s~andard deviations. The change in the landward/seaward position of the s$oreline any one point (transect) can be expressed as the n~e~n erosion/accretion, and bE ~he standard devia~io~ ~f r~e. The s~andard deviation is a particularly ~',~cful as it indicates the variability of the mean~ a~d~ thus~ the stability, or predictability, of the mean at any poin~- I4 Discussion of Results Between 1955 and t962, as seen on Figure 3 and Table !. ~h~ Goldsmith Inlet jetty, =.~ a erasior~ dominated in the study area, Sez~._ erosion occured west of rate of nearly 18 feet per year between 1959 and 1962. It is quite likely that this severe erosion, measured on the March 2~ 1962, photography, reflects the impact of the severe northeaster of March 6-8 of %hat year, the most severe extratropica! storm on record. ~T~_'s may ha%e been the major impetus for construction of the jetty. During this erosion dominated period, did experience accretion (Fig. 3)- Most notable among these was zhe 1000 ft. section immediately east of the Goldsmith inlet. However, the extreme variability of the shoreline movemeht on both sides' of the inlet, as' expressed by the high standard de- viations in this area, indicate that this was a very unstable shoreline, a condition, incident!y, which is characteristic of shorelines near tidal inlets. From 1962 to 1978, erosion dominated in ~he study area (Fig. 4), with the exception of the ?etonic Sound Shores area, which, being updrift of the Jetty, which was constructed in experienced dramatic accretion. During this period, a private groin was also .constructed near transect I5!. The extent of the erosion shadow from the Goldsmith inlet jetty is obscured on Fig- a by this private groin. Fig. 5 shows the shoreline movement from 1962 to 1972. This is the period during which the C~ldsmi~h inlet Jetty was accreting sand on i~s updrift side and would have had i~s severes~ impact on the dowudrift beaches. By the end of this period, 19~2~ the Goldsmith Lnle~ jetty had reached impoundment c&pacity, and was effectively bypassing sand. several ?_mired areas of shoreline Results The results of the shoreline analysis are oresenred in Figures 2-~ and Tables 1-10. Figures ~-o a ..... us ..... =va. of the rate of historical shoreline change for various time pertods~ with an end, elope of one standard deviation. The ~r~ect n~mbers rote- to the baseline loca~ion of individual transeozs and identified on Figure i. Figures 7-fl are computer printouts cf the data from Figures 2-6, and include tabu!a~lons of the statistics for the individual zranseots. Tables I through 9 are sbatis~ica! summarie~ broken do'~n into · say .... "reaches~ base and deve~ooed areas ?nese '~ the shoreline behavior both spatially and ~emporally. ~6 Discuss!Ch of Results (Continued) As shown on Fig. 5, the erosion downdrift of both the Goldsmith lnle~ Jetty and the private groin extended only as far east as zrznsect !Sq. From this point to the east, the shoreline under- went accretion. It is apparent £~om Fig. 5 tha~ the maximum extent of the Goldsmith Inlet erosion shadow is transect 184. if the private~groin were absent, it is. likely that the impact would not reach even this far east. As stated above, by I972, the Goldsmith I~let jetty was filled to capacity and bypassing sand. This bypassing has necessitated dredging of the inlet to allow for a tidal flow. Figure 6 shows the shoreline movement between 1972 and 1918. As indicated on this figure, and in'all of the tables, e~Tensive erosion occurred throughout the study area during this period. The shoreline west of the Goldsmith r_nlet-Jetty, which had experienced dramatic accretion between 1962 and I972, eroded at rates comparable to the remainder of the study area. This erosion of the Feconic Sound Shores beach accounts fo~ the high variability for this area indicated on Fig. 4. ' When the 1972- 1978 data is removed from Fig. ~, the standard deviation envelope- becomes much narrower, as displayed on ~ig. 5- it is apparent That the dramatic erosion, shown.on Fig. 6, dominates the 1~62- 1978 data (Fig. 4). In other words, although the period from the constructio~ of the Goldsmith Inlet Jetty up to 1978 was charac- terized by erosion throughout much of the study area, most of this erosion occurred after 1972, when the Goldsmith Inlet Jet=7 had already attained its impoundment cap~city and was bypassing sand. it should be noted ~hat, on Fig. 6, the standard dev±a~icn I7 Discussion of Results (Continued) values are zero because the rates are compuzed on The basis of two sets of photography~ giving one rate, and, thus~ no variability for this period. It is apparent from Fig. 5 that the Goldsmith inlet Jetty and the private groin combined to produce downdrift erosion, which extended eastward to about transec= 184. The erosion downdrift of the Goldsmith inlet jetty confirms a previous study (2, page Z4). The relative responsibility of each stout=ute cannot be determined from the data, but it is apparent that :he eastern limit of the erosion is determined by the private groin. The highest erosion rates within the period of study occurred between 1972 and !9~8j after the Goldsmith inlet JeTty had begun bypassing sand. ?ne cause of the accelerated, erosion during this period is not apparent from the data. A!~hougn normal, fair-weather~ waves cause day-~o-day changes in the position and configuration of beaches, storms are the major agent of shoreline changes. This is due both to the steepness of the storm waves and the elevated water levels, which allow wave attack above the normally acc!ye beach zone. There have been no major storms affecting the study area since 1962~ Moderately sized northeasters have occured nearly ewery winter since, however, and are probably responsible for a large percentage of the observed shoreline change. Evidence collected for the Cape EaCteras area (8) indicates that the recent (19Z0-19Y4) trend towards Lucreasing erosion may. be related to secular changes in the length of the storm season and the frequency and duration oF high wave actlvity du~ing this season. r_.~, indeed, the winter storm wave season has lengthened Lu the 'northeast,.it~9o~ld relate ~o-the observed increase in erosion the study area from 1972 to !978. The erosion experienced on both sides of the Goldsmith Znlet Jetty during this period (Fig. 6) indicates that the sediment was moved offshore rather tha_u alongshore, which points to the tu~bu!en~ I9 REPERENCES o · S~.or~__n. Study" U.S. Army, Corps o£ Engineers " ~ ~ Regional Inventory Report, North Atlantic Region· ~?o!~me Z, 19?l. Davies, D.S., et. al. "Erosion of the North Shore .of Island". Technical Report Series #18, Marine Sciences Research Center, S~ony Brook, N.Y., 1973. Long Cmholt, Thore. "Small Groins on the Shores of Long Zsland Sound". Shore and Beach, April i97.~, pg. 11-!3. Omholt, Thore. "Effects of Small Groins o~ Shoreline Changes on ~he North Shore of Suffolk County, New ~ork". New V_o-,-,., Ocean Science Laboratory Technical Re~ort No. 0028~ April 1974. Dcls-u, R.~ et. al. "Shoreline Forms and Sh .__ e Dynamics", Science. Volume 197~ p~. 49-51, j,,ly !, !97?. Dolan, R., et- al. "Atlas of Environmen~a~ Dynamics, Assateague island National Seashore"· ~ationa! Park Service Natural Resource Report #I~, Charlottesville, Va., October, 1977. Dolan, R., e~. al. "The Reliabi!i~y of Shore!Lue Change. Measurements from Aerial Photographs~, Shore and Beach, October: I980, pg. 22-29. Hayden, Bruce. "Storm Wave Climates at Cape Y~tteras, North Carolina: Recent Secular Variations", Science, December 5~ 1975, pgs. 981-983- IlO H : ME~N R~TE I ~ .g .,- F:EL~=j 7.E tn 7.1, "~ [ ' ~i.~ "'1' :'~ 7. ~ ' I~3- ~.~ ......~.:;- 7.2 ~.7 7.5 iT.H :2Hq ~ -F--~-a£ ,CRET ! FIN ~ERIT~. I FIN---F- )', I' I aq, -% 7 · qoq, '~ T-?7' t. !. .. '"b::k · ,,,.,r..:i .:~:=:.- ':.~ ' . -- I:~ -- l:~--I$-~-i:si~-~2 J "ii" l'n~ii ~'-=-"~:~ : ; 'I;; ~ ~ :::~ ;:~ ' ' ' ':'~1'~ li STiTN~ . i ..... ,< -F---He. ERE- ION 0£¥ ~ u..,. ru --...::a' -- =; HER,5 · :' '"'" "!Iii .i .;iilt 11!,!9 H~ '1 9 ° 2::,. I19 120 '--.22 !23 !24 / I .I / / ./ \ \. \ \ \ \ \ ::o :. ~ -~ ~::!~ I 0. I,.:. CO:- 125 126 / I ) \\ I ! \ 0 Z29 ooo-4 117 EROSION OF 'r~ .I~KTH ~RE OF LOnG ISLAND D. S- Davies J. S. O'Connor Marine Sciences Zesear=h Csnter State Univ~r$itF of New Xo~ Stony Brook. Few TOL4~ 11790 ~ha~u*r 2 S~%BILrTY_ OF "--~ ~DKT~_ -~--~0~E, LONG ISI~ND, ~FEW :~RK A comprehensive study of shore processes a~d heath dynamics has nco been made for Long Is!end's north shore. EarL? hnvestiq~tors such as ~ner Johnson (1925) descried ~e region's 9~ho!o~. ~c~ shore erosion reco~ized aa ~ economo p~bl~ by ~e ~ew 'fork State Leqislat~m ~ L947. The U.S. ~ Co~s of Enq~eers (1969) p~iished a beach e~sion cunt~i ~d r~por~ ~s, hoover, sor~llr needed for ~e ~r~ sho~ of Nassau Co~tlz. The U.S. A~y ~m of ~g~eers (!97!a) a~o ~c!~es Long Isl~d'~ nc~h s~re as part of its national shorel~e The north shore of Long ,island is o!a~sifie~ as a glacial degosition coast by Shaper~- (!96~). initial irregularities of the submerged moraine cons= have been ~moo=hed out by marine erosion and deposition wi-,,% t2ne result that t-he coast is Ln a submature stage of develo.um~= (Johnson, L9!9; 1925). The beach environment of the' north shore is s~m~!ar in many rms.~ec=~s to other areas Ln =he Long island Sound-New England region (U.S. Geological Survey, 1970, p. 79) . Physical ~haracteristics of the North Shore A. Physiou.==phlr of the Long island ~or~h Shore Kegion The main topographic feaTmree cE =he Long Ie~4 no_-~mh shore region are =he Long Isled So~d ~l~y, ~e ~ shor~ h~rs ~d ~aym, ~d ~he no~ sho~ sca~ ~d plateau. The depression that is now Long island Sound ha~ its origin during uime when sea lev~l was lower than it is at present (Surer, ~eLaguna and .=erlmutter, 1949). A s~ream (Sound River) devm!oped along the interface of the Cretaceous sediments of the south with dee.ol.~ weathered bectmD=k to the ~orth. This occurred some distance south of the pr=sent Connecticut coast (Johnson, 1925). The cretaceous sediments formed a ridge with a gentle son~he_--~ slope slid a steep r~Drthern s!o~e, cut h! the t--ansvmr~e valle~ of norah-f!cwing str~m~. These stream- joined the Sound ~ivmr at ~he base of the ridge. Veatch (1906) believ~d ~at the Sound River, which occupied a d~ai~ge basin aligned in a north ~o south fmshion s~lar to that of the Connec-~icu= River, flowed in a westerl%- direction before cuttinq across t. he area t. hat is ~resent!I Queens and Jamaica B~Ir to enter =he Hudson Canyon on the continen~l she~. Fuller (1914) thought that the westerly flow of the Soun~ ~%i~mr was obst---uct--~ by the de,coition of 'the Gardiners and M~-hasset fo~-~tio~s, with .~:e. ~s~.~..t. ha= flow w~s 4~ve~ed to the east. Surer et al. (1949) 8{~countm~-the e~l~¢m'for:i"w~stm~,~-~flowing Sound Ri~r, ~ staU~ ~at it f~ ~ ~e e~= ~ a ~---~1 a= ~8 ~e of ~e ridge. Evince su~s~ ~= ~e ~q !sl~-~ ~d ~rmssion w~ =he site of a L~e p~ig!acial l~e or se~ ~-]~-~ o~s~ fo~ ~tmr the glatt1 ice which deposited ~e H~r ~i t-~-~ ~-~ ~n= I~,OO0 ~m a~ receded north ~=o New Engt~-d (S~, 1~7). ~e ~ or ~as ~re ~ ~rior to ~e rise ~ sea Level ~i~ ~=~ ~e So~d ~ (~, D~ ~d Hei~zler, 1970) . 1914) . ~e ~etac~ ~=~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~set fo~a~io~% an(i, ]ate~7 on, J2 pr:j e~ eas=e~ ~ect!on of ~e nc~ s~ ~ ~ ~e we~ s~n~ ~er~fo~.' ~ J3 (140 fi). Beaches, Beach .:_--=c~sses ~nd ~*cme_.,n ~c_!at-ure pe=~= ~, or a ~ of ~ or a sea c!~f" (~al, !971, p. ZOg). J4 2-1. S~hor~-line ter~{nology (adap=ed f--om Ingle, L966, p. 12). wat~_r ~,:~%'es break- surf zone =o11±- swash wind motion ers Lit=oral currents sion bac.~ash grzin ~/,ze coarser :oar~ co~rser i '~a9 coarser" : ~indla~ ~enda % ~rai~ ( ~ de~l ~' ' d~m i~i'nc 'ccrecia~ 'er°'ion I~'~r- {er°'i°n a~=~'~i°~.c~ion ~Cian ' Fig. 2-2.~. Beach 'e~erg~-se~im~-t:~ela~ionships ..(adapted from. J5 h~ve formed ~u--.es at bar envi_-~nmen~s, and in some i~stances, at s~ab!e bluffs. The da~a of Fi.~e associated with beac2aes. B. Sea Level ~hanges Ail coas:s of t/Ts world have e.x~erie~ced some s.,~---rgence since_ ~2~e last ice age (Shepard and Wan!sss, 197I). This submergence is probably a resui-_ of continents! ice sheet melting ~-~d has played a major role in shaping tke con- figuration of Long Island's shoreline. The max~l l~werinq of relative sea level - roughly 100 m - occurred approximately 20,00G years ago (Cur_-~-y, 1965). At ~hat time much of t2~e continental shelf ~ e-xpoeed, and the shore! ;~e -,-~s displaced roughly !39 km (86 miles) ts the sour~heast of the present L~n? Island area (Uc_hupi, 1968). During the last 3,000 years, sea ieve[ has risen at a ~ery slow r~-~e. and Stuiver (1963) found ~hat su2~ergence of the Connecticut coas~ occ~,rred a~ the rat-= of 0.1 m (4 inches) per !00 ?ears dnri.~q this time period, Thi~ cGr~es.~cnds closely to ~ewmann's (1966) da~ f:r the westm~ ~ng !si~ ~a. Bo~ that sed~ent acc~ulat~n ~d salt m~h 9=u~ ha~ b~ ~ie =~ kee~ 9ace wi~h s~mergence on!~ d~q ~e !~t 3,000 ie~s. ~r~r to ~at t~e, ~e higher rate of s~merq~ce pr~d ~h ~io~t ~ ~~ ope~ ia~ons bays at ~e sites of ~e prms~= ~hes. ma~nta~ by ~e U.S. C~t ~d ~detic Sony. ~nq-t~ rm~r~ ~ to dete~4ne trade ~ r~lati~ sea leal r~e ~at ~uld o~e~ise be ~ meteorologic effects on a sh~-ta~ basis. Dicey (1955) fo~d ~nan for 60-year period fr~ iS93 to !953 me~ sea ie~! at ~ew To~ City ~se at avenge ra~a of 3.3 = :e~ ye~, for a =o~i ~ge of ~ut 20 ~ (8 D~q ~e per~d f~m 1940 to 1960, ~ sea le~! for s~tions along ~e At!~tic coast rose at ~ a~ge ~te of 2.4 ~ p~ ~ (~ ~d Shaw, i963). of sea level rise d~g ~e ~t a.~e. D~g ~e ~r~ !963 to L970, sea level a= Wi!lets Po~t ~se a= ~ a~ge ~'of ~.5 ~ per ~, for a rise of roughly i0 ~, or ~ou= 4 =~es (~s~ 197~). ~e ~ve ra~s ~u e~tatic ~d ts~o~c eff~ o~ sea !e~i ~ ~ ~e tectonic berg ~out-!.7 ~ per ye~. ~, .1972) . ~ere ~e~s to ~ a tatively_~o_~ges ~ ~he posi~n of ~ sea le~i-a~g ~e ~riod ~f h~toric ~rd. A ris~'s~ Ie~l ~a~s 4~er ~.offs~r~. - Wa~s ~d ~e ~'s"at"~e ~ zone ~n~ ~e~-~=~-~_.~s~9' (~g, 1969, p. 299) . D~g-'~e sho~ t~,of h~,. de~t ~d pla,~g, sm~l! s~ level ~qes-~u!d p~duce neq~effe~ on ~si~ of ~e ~ shore. ' ~ sea le~l-c~t~ugs-=o r~e at ~e.p~s~= .~id ~ ~r ~ extended period of t~, ~tia ~ges ~ ~e ~s~n ~6 aC=~n pa~s of ~e north shore could be ~ec=~. C. Waves Wave data for t.he north si:ora- of Long Is~-~ arm not available (U.S. Army Corps of ~nqinee_-~, 1969). -Waves that af~c the arms az~ generatsd by local winds. Long Island an~ Blo~k-Is!an~ s~p o~ s~.iI. ~ enterS:9 LQ~g _~sJ, ar~d Sound. Hog. wes=, ~ ~ ~-~-= ~" ~ ~le for th~ s]lallow-~tar J6 -waves of sho~--- ueriod that hit t_he coast. The limited fetch Lengrlus - "horizonua! disrsnce (in rl~e direc--icn of tine wind) orr which the w~d blows" (U.S. Coasna! Eng'--nesting Kesear=h Canter, 1966, p. A-i/) - and shallow areas Ln the Sound prevent buil~-up of large w~vee (Sanders and Ellis, 1961). .~or-,,heast w~nds during storms are re~.onsi~ie for waves OVer 2 m (6.6 hich Ln wee=arm areas cf the Sou-nd. Hurricanes can produce even larger waves. rh~ U.S. A_rmv Corps of ?.nqineers (1949) reporzed that waves 9 m (30 ft) high cccurred at ~ridgeport, Conn., durLnq t2ne hurricane of September 21, 1938. of tlne time, however, wave heights are small. At t_he Stratford Point light station on the Connecticut coast north of Port Jefferson, observations of wave height, direction and period were recorded durLng tZne three-year period from Oc--ober L954 =o October 1957 (Helle, 1958). Figure 2-3 shows ~he distribution of wave heigh=s d~rinq =2~at period. Wave heights of 1.2 m (3.9 fi) or under occurred rough!.v 98 percent of the tL~e. The maxi~u~ wave heights were rouqh!_v' 3 m (!0 fi) , while wave periods ranged between 1.5 and 7.4 seconds. Although these dana are .not applicable to any particular point on t-he Long Island -~hey do i.ndicaue the ~a~ure of waves co,art_Lng Ln ~-he Long Island Sound regimn. 0 lO ~O ~0 40 50 · 60 70 80 PER CENT. of SURF HEIGHTS '90 Fig. 2-3. Wave height frequent"! distribution, ~955-1957, Stratford PoKut, Connecticut. A~,apted from tabular data of Helle (!9~8)'. .... ~ ......~ -. Beach profi!e-~evelopment depencls on wave and se~-nt characteristics. A !~rge range in se~ment glo{, size exists on ~he beaches of the noz~h shor~; qive~ this se~m""t heterogeneity, beach profile development resul~s...large!y from wave action (Ellis, 1961) .. Local winds creat~ the waves in Long I'~l'a~d-Sound- These waves have short periods, an~-hence the~ have large ._wave-height· to wave- !eng~h ratios. T"nis.makes waves on Long Island Sound relative!I steep. Stsep -~aves are { .~pcrtan= 'aqents of beach 'erosion as they tend to cause sedime, z~ts to mov~ offshore Lnto ~.ee.uer water, rather thnn alongshore as littoral ·drift (Don Wonq, 1970~ U.$- Army Corps of-~--ngineers, 1964}. Savi!le (1950).~..Bascom (1951) ~-nd Scott (1954) have emphasized the ~-~ortence of wave ste·epne~·s in de$c_-i]~ing waves which t~-nd to erode beach s~men%s and oroduce the so-calle~ "storm beach" :rofi!e. Sea, one! cycles of beach accretion i~ s,~-r and heath erosion in Qintar that ·oo.-"~r ~along the C ~a!ifornia·-coast ($he~ar~, 1963a] and along the barrier beaches of Long is!end's sou~.h shore (Schubert_h, -1972)· have been related ~o wave e~eepness- ~esidents of the Sound Beach ar~a have reported a cycle of ~each san~ dso!etlon in winter foi!owe~ by·ben: bui!~-u~ in. early sun,er. However, seasonal c"Zc!~s tlc ao~ cc---ar at ali locations ~&!ong the north J7 Tides ~-~d T±~! C-rr-r_ents A brief discussion of tZ~e tides of Long Island Sound is found in Gross e~ al. (!97!). The data of Table 2-I show ~hat tidal ra/lqe increases fr~m east to wes=. The =ones of deposition and accretion associated with wave action migrate across the foreshor=. as t_he state of the tide changes (Duncan, 1964). 3e-.~m develnpmenu u~kes place shorew-~rd of t~e position of farr~hest advance of the swash-backwash zone (see Fig. in a s=udy of Connecticut beaches, Ellis (1962) r~ported that tidal current velocities rapidly decreased as the shoreline was approached. He concluded that littoral drift was produce~ mainly by wave action. This is probably r-he case for much of t-he Long Island shore east of ?or~ Jefferson. In contrast, under conditions of restric~ed flow such as at harbor entrances, tidal c-arrent velocitias are greater and hence play a qreater rOle in det~_?'~ining ~l~e a/id direction of littoral drift. The greater tidal ranges at t-he western end of the Sound probab!.v increase t2~e influence of tidal currents on littoral drift. E. WLnds =-nd Littoral Transport wi.nd s.=eed and direction are important factors ~n determininq flue rate of littoral transports. Li=-.ora! transport of sediment occurs as either beach drift Table 2-L. 'r.~uAL .~-NGE$, ~RTH-- $i~DRE, LONG iSLA~D, N~W YD~Ka Tidal Range Spring Location m (fi) m' (ft) wi!!ets Poin= 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 (7.1) 2.5 (8.3) (7.3) (7.t) 2-5 (8.2) (5.9) 2.0 (6.8) (~.0) (4.0) !.¢ (4.6) (3.4) l.~' (3.91 (~.S) 0.9 (3.0) a~.$. De~t..o~ C~,~r=e, 1971. T~e t.a~ies, east coa~ of ~or-~- and Sou~h ~-~rica. W~shing=~, D.C. 290 p. ~edload ~ ~e s~f zone ~d offahor~ req~ns. ~e d~ion ~d rat~ of lit~ra! =r~s~o~ dep~d ~!! on ~ue ~q!e of ~ve a~a~, ~d ~ve en~ au /hcr~, whi~a ~ tu~ de~end, on ~e w~d ~~=s of ~e ~-a-_ (Savi!!e a~i!~i~; of ~ed~t ~d its ~n s~e d~un~n (Fa~i!d, 1966). Seasonal ch~ge~ ~ ~_nd dir~icn p~uce ~tio~ ~ ~e al!tract!on of !i=nora! trisect. The uet ~= of li~:~ ~i~ ~q ~as~ a given po~ ~- i969}. Litnora! t--~ns.=o~ is the sole initial su~.pi~ of se~imen: to those of ~he no~ shor~ ~cn ~a=ked by ~q bl~s. ~ ~e sup~!y of maturally b~uqht to ~ ~ma ~y iitno~l ~n~o~ is blo~ ~y a b~rier, such assccia=sd with ~e ~od~g ~ea~ ha~ ~ 's~v~' ~ the sense ~ac tend ~o re~ sed~ts ~thou= de~si~ ~t~r~! ~eri~ f~m ~s~e~ ~eache~ directions a= ~e hea~ (~q, 1959). ~ =~o~ d~m~ns ~d ~ (1966). A ~ of li~ ~o~ ~ens for ~e no~h ~ac=eris=ics ~d, h~cm, ~ ~-~. W~ ~ fo= ~c~t~ns along Long Island's ~. ~hcrm ~ not a~ !~hle. ~o~, ~nq-t~ w~d ~a=a f~m LaGu~ia Fie~, ~ew To~, ~ p~iy ~p~s~ of ~e w~d con~t~ for Se~r~ Sto~ ~d ~e~ ~o~!~e Eff~ ........... J9 2-2. W~D CQ~ITIONS A~D FETC~ L~T=,E .~ OLD F~-.~.D ~EW W~d .oerc--a~ ~al wi~ 9er~sn~ To,m1 Wind_~ Fe~c2~ Dis~aac_~ D~_rec~!on ~cv~me~, ?er T~a? Duration, .:er .Year 01d ~_atd P~int W ? $ .aU.£..~.--my Cor~s of ~ngineer~ (1969; A~end/x C). nDa=a taken at LaGuard-%a Field, Few To~ from 1949 to 1961. JI0 ' 2. hurricanes: t~pical ~ic!cnes with susuai~-ed winds of au least 64 ~oCs (73 mph), and 3. great hurricanes: tropics! c.;clones wi~u ~ust~ed w~ds of au least LO8 I~ot= (125 ~h). Gr~at hu~ic~e~ cause se~re coastal d~age ~d are usually acco~ied by a 3 to 4 m (!0 - L3 fi) sto~ surge. Fig~ 2-4 qi~s ~e prob~i!ities ~at t~pica! sto~, hurric~es or grea~ hurric~es w~ll occ~ ~ ~y one ~ for each of four 93 ~ (58 miles) coastal se~=s of ~e Long Isled ~ea. ~e 9~b~i!i=ies are calculated from data giv~ by S~son ~d La~ce (1971) on obse~ed fr~encies of tropical c.vclones over ~e 85-~ar per~d L886 to 1970. The fr~cy of tropical ~;c!ones is greatest for ~e .c~tral ~o~n of ~ng !si~nd. Only one sto~ dur~q the period of re, rd occ=~ ~ ~e wes=a~ ~ng !si~d ~a. C. Extratr°pica! Storm Frequ. enc.v In a study of storms which caused siqnific~_n= water damage along ~he Atlantic coastal margin of =he United $~ates ~uring =he period 1921 to 1962, Mather, Adams and ~oshioka (1965) determined tlnat ~he recurr~--nce i~te~l of northeasters Ln t~he coastal areas of New York was a~ou= 1.2 y~ars. For. the Atlantic coast as a whole, northeasters were found to be frequent during =he ~onchs of ~ovember (mos= frequent), March, October, February, December and januar~ (least fre_cg/ent). Also, storm frequeneies over the period of record are marke recent years i ...... D. SCore Fr~qu_ ency Based on Shc:~!ine -2 The U.S. ~ Cor~s of Engineers (1969) has reviewed literature on storm occurrences that have affected the se~.~ en= of shorml~e f~m central ~ue ~ew H~sh~e~sa~e~s s~Cm b~. ' S~ p~s~g ~uqh ~his region were ~elie~d to ha~ eider ~us~ sc~"~e of-: ~orel~e d~aqe on Long Isled or at le~t ~reat~ ~e ~ea. ~e '~o~ were c!assifi~ as hu~ic~es, ~t~pica! sto~ ~d ~pi~ s~. :. Categories ~re assi~ed to ~e s~ on ~9.,b~is of a~ ~ey ~!~ on .~e shore ~ of ~ng Isled ~ A unusually D~rin~ the period 1635 to 1961 a tutml of 231 s~ ei~er~ ~reaC~ed or did some de~e of ~=-=ge to ~e ~nq' Is~ s~ ~ (T~le 2-3). Only 27 S~n of ~ ~ ~ ~d~=&-~ i635 ~'.1800. StO~. data p~duc~ se~ ~ .'(~ A) %~- p~b~l~ ~e~ ~11 '~oc~ented. Based on 204 .sto~ ~ for ~e ~ ~0O ~o 1~2, ~c~-.s~ate that ~e Isl~ ~a ~i~s a s~ ~ ~es. ~-~te ~m~ge about ouc~ ye~.' ~u~y se~ ~ oc~, o~ ~e a~;. ~ree .t~es ~eUy cenCu~. SCo~ S~ge Bo~-h t. Topical ujclones and ext=at--~pic~! s~o~- produce storm ~urges, 4efined as t2~e 'd-%ffer~ncm between the oh~er~ wa=er level and ~hat which would have been e~ected at the same place in the ahsen~ of the s~=m" ~Harris, 1963~ p. 2). Jll.c iJ J12- J13 The heiqhc cf the surge associated w~_~h a pai-~icu!ar storm depends, L~ parz, the fol!ow~--~.g four processes: i. The ~ve~ed b~ometar effect. ~e sea Lave! surface ts ale~uad hn a ~ressure ~op of 33.S6 ~l!~ars of mercury (! ~h) wi!! ~neor~uica3.1v lead to a sea level a!a~nion of 34 ~ (13 ~ches) (Hobbs, k970~. Lonq Is!~d So~d, hasLn ko,defies cause a decrease Ln the ma~iuude of ~his effect. 2. Wind se~-up. W~d szress on ~e '~ter surface will cause wa=er levels ~crease along ~e fetch in a do~w~nd dir~ion. W~d s~ress, and, hence, w~nd ~e=-up ar~ p~o~ionai to ~e s~ of the '~nd W~d sat-up ~s also ep~ced by 4ecreasLnq dep~ (Harris, !963) . Easner!y wLn~ produce a k~g~ w~nd set-up effect L~ ~he wes~e~ end of Long Isled 3. Wave set-u~. Br~Lnq ~ves tr~s~o~ water ~to =he near-shore zone, ~hus Lead~q to ~s~sed height of ~e wa=er le,~I sumacs in this area. Wave .set-~ may acco~n~ for as mu~ as L =o 2 m of sto~ s~ge heiqh~ au a beach (G~=~F, 1966) . ~e effect is ~ by wa~s which p~a!!a! =: ~e ~ast (~rris, L963). 4. Ra~fal! effect. Iat~nse ra~fali c~ lead tc ~ ~cre~e of wa~ar levels, esp~ia~y ~ estu~ies. Shor%l~e ~i~=ion piay~ ~ ~crn~t ~ie ~ ~di~q s=o~ surge. in general, confi~atio~ ~nich fair ~ ~crea~e ~ ~e r~qe of astronomical ~ide w~ll also fair ~ ~crease Ln stu~ s~ge heiqh=s. ShortlY--ne damage and erosion are ofta-n related to t-he m~ximum tides pro- duced by a s~orm. Factors which determine ~he maqnitu~e of storm surge in relation to mean high water ara the stage of t_he astronomic~i tide, the-intensi~y of the storm, =he ~eed of storm movement, and ~he angle of ~_he sto~n tra=k at t_he shoreline (Hobbs, 1970). Tropical cyclones and northeasters produce differs--hz effsc-.s with regard to the latter t~rae factors. Tropical cyclones range in diameter from 80 to 800 km (50 to 500 miles). The stronges~ w~ds ~ra located Ln a n~w b~d s~d~q ~e c~ter, or eye, of ~e sto~ (Tmnnehi!!, 195O). ~e b~me~ic pr~ss~e of ~e eye is a good ~dicator .of sto~ ~t~sity (~ris, ~966): ~d, ~i~l relationships sug~es~ ~at hu~ic~e c~a! press~ is ~e ~t fair ~e~e~q stu~ s~e (Hoo~r, 1957) . Sto~ s~e p~ ~d ~{~ w~ ~locitias[ howe~r, ~e act fo~d an the eye of ~e s=o~, b=t ~e d~plac~ to the right of ~he sto~ t ra~k. The wind pa~srn of ~ropical cyclones, consis~ of_ a oou/%tercio~-kwise spiral. ~e w~s ~ ~e right ~a~=s of ~is~.~ ~m ~re or less p~llel wi~, ~ r~forc~ ~, ~e ~iat~n~ ~-~ of ~e sto~. ~is re~forc~ent c~ ~e of conside~le ~e, as h~ri~s ha~ ~ed a= fo~d ~peeds of'6ver 50 ~ots (58'~h). W~,~ ~ ~et-~ ~m at a ~ ~ the right, or "d~ge~" hal~ of ~pic~ ~Zc!ones~ (w-~L, I939} .. So~-fac~q co,ts =ha= are ali~ed pe~cu~ to. sto~ t~..rm=~i~ ~e ~li-'~t of ~e. re~orcsd w~ds ~d ~ se=-~. ~o~,fac~q ~s ~e s~t p~tmct~. ~is is one re,on why ~e ~ecticut co~= Of ~ng Isled So~ ~l~y ~er~es s~ges of ~eater ~itu~e ~ ~e ~ ~nq Is~ ~ast. ~o~er favor is the build-up of ~ter a~nq ~he ~e~= ~ became of ~e effe~ of Cor~lis off, hors dir~n, thus =~{m{~q shore ~=m-ge L970). ~e w4~ds to ~e ief% of ~e s=o~ t~k =e a~ weber ~ ~ose ~o the d&__c_-ons o?posite to the translational move- right, ~_n' that ti~e winds blow h~ '-= -~ senn of t-he s~orm. The dominant effect of shoreline orients=ion on storm surge can be seen by ccmparLng r2ne storm ~ra~ks of the major damage-groduc~__~g hurricanes of t_he Lon~. Is!a~nd Sound region as shown Ln Figure 2-5. The hurricanes of September 2!, 1938 and August 31, 1954 travelled i~ paths perpendicular to t-he shoreline. Figure 2-6 shows =he surge heights produced by these c~ s~orms across t-he middle of Long Island Sound. ($ur~s heights in t.~e shallow bays along the coas= were con- siderably amplified, as shown in Table 2-4). The 1938 hurricane produced record tides for both t_he eastmrn and western ends of tine Sound. In t_he central section, the orufilss of both storms coincided with each or,her, but they are of record heig~= here also. Data from tide observations suggest that a portion of tine surge of such storms hits ~he New ~ngland coast near P~hode Island, and that ~ine surge ,wave travels from east to wes= through Long Island Sound (Harris, 1963; Hall, 1939). The height of the storm surge decreases in the wide, central section of Long Island Sound, but in, eases in height as =he Sound na=&uws near its western end as is shown in ~igure 2-6."'Thermals a'laq of about'two hours be~xeen ~2ne time of storm passage and t_Se time of maximal tidal.height at Willets Pod_n=~ Extratropicai cyclones ars a~out three times as large as tropics! c_/clones (Byers, 1959), though ~ressure ~adients ~d hence, w~d ~locities of extra- tropical sto~ arm L~er ~ ~nose associated w~ ~pic~ cyclones. Gusts of hur=ic~e velocity, howe~r, have be~ ~soc~ad with accepters L965). Wind 9at=e~s of co.heaters fo~ a co~=erclo~e spca! ~ow~d ~e c~er of ~ow ~me~ic press~e~'~'W~d ~ir~ctio~.. from su~ at a pa~icul~ ~ea ~ep~d-on'-~he ~Iati~ ~osi=~n o~'~e ,sto~ trad~ (Zaiqlar, Hayes ~d Turtle, !959). ~ a sto~ c~ter p~sps ~ =he 'west of ~he Is!~d So~ area, w~ ~itia!!y bl~ f~m ~e'"e~=. or ~u~eas=. ~v~ent p~esses, ~e'w~ sh~ft ~'a so~e~!y ~d ~ a westerly ~i= U~e of sto~ ~s~ ~ o~sho~..~ for ~e~~e of ~ng Wa~ a~ion on ~e ~ ~ ~en ~{~{~. If, ho~r, ~e s~ c~ter passes Uo ~e e~= of ~e So~d, .~e"'~al ~ b~ f~ ~e no--east. A= a later t~, ~he w~ ~er to ~e'no~ ~d ~s=. ~ ~e of sto~ onshore' w~ ~ong ~e ~ s~,?le~g ~ ~cre~ ~ height wLnd set-up ~ ~e area .... %. ." :~'~e effe~ of no~e~=er~ on s~i~e ~ oft~ depends on ~e~ speed of fo=~d ~=. If ~e s~o~ p~esses rapi~y,..~i~le w~d~'-~_c*~__ons o~r.a giv~ fet~ ~ pre~= ~e bu~d~ o~ ~ s~ ~ves. Eowe~r, if sCo~ p~ess '~ ~y..ridges of hi~ 9~e, ~ f~m ~ dirmction ha~ =~e ~uqh. to 'a~ on a~ ~ ~, so as =o produc~ ~s of ~Y~z,~ height for_a sp~i=~ ~ci~ ~ fetch 1~ (Bu~, D~iets~, B= ~d ~y, i957)~. ~e ~ heights on ~ open ~ast ~roduced by a'-s~ ~e~s~r of~s~ici~ ~te~s~ ~y ~al or exceed ~ose /~duce~'by ~y ~upi~l ~nes. ~us ~e~ w~ e~terly w~ o~ long · -,~ ~e se~ ~ ~d e~r~ ti~s of t~pic~ ~ones usually last less ~ s~x ho~s {~, 1966). ~e ~.~d ~ effe~s of ex~-~t~pical .c~lones, ~ough pe~aps less se~re, ~-n las= ~ to four or fi~ ~id~l cycles. P~lonqed atta=~ on ~ a~q bea~ d~q sucu-ssi~ high tid=,s c~ ica~ ~u~i~s ~d ~r~eas~ ha~ played ~= ~les ia th~ m,-dification of ~ne shorel~e. ~e preset ~mq Island s~r~e ~, ~ fac~, ma~/y ~he ~s~a of e~sio~ ~ ~posi=~n ~used ~y ~ese sto~. A severe J15 J16 ' J~? J18 or a hurricane can cause as much 4~mmge to the shots in a matter of a few :~ours as it would take normal weak-her condi=~ Obser'~tions ~dic=~m that "~s= en~ m~L~e anviro~=~, not ~ a ~ifo~ consist ~er ~ut r~her ~ s~o~dic u_s~s, or spu~s, ~ a series of ~or catas~phes" (~ayes, 1967, p. 52), Such a catast~phe occu~ed on Sept~er 21, 1938. this h~ric~e levelled 6 m (19 fi) d~es on ~e ~de isled ~ast ~a= ha~ been bui!d~q up s~ce ~e oc~rr~ce of a h~ic~e Sept~er 22, ~815 (B~, ~939). The ~938 h~ric~e also caused glac~! cliffs t5 m (48 fi) ~ height ~ rec~e o~r 10 m (33 ft). In~sti~tors of heaves ~ ~e New ~q!~d ~ma (Zaigler, ~ ~ Tut=la, L959: Hayes ~d ~o~yd,' 1969) ha~ concluded ~at bea~ p~ie de~= is l~gely ~e res~t of ~e se~rity wi~h~ ~e pr~v~ few ~n~s. S~ activity ~es not necessarily cause ali beaches ~ e~de; ~at is, w~ direction ~d ~ta! ~nfi~ation c~ cause littoral ~ift ~ ac=~u!ate ~ areas ~stre~ f~m ~se ~at ~e e~d*nc (Zeigler, Hayes ~d ~tt!e, 1959) The effects of the nor~heastsr differ from those of hurricanes in ~hat the latter produce higher tides. However, .northeasters are much more freq~er~t tlnan hurric~-nes, ~nd the combined effect of t"~ or more s~:~ in a short period cf time on beaches ~hat have not achieved full post-s~urm beach build-up can be just as devastatinq. Therefore, similar shoreline changes can be expected from a · hurricane, a sever~ northeaster, or several northeasters occurring in a short- t~m~ knterval. However, the magnitude of' ~he changes .will probably be largem?in.the instance of sev~r~ hurricanes as tidal inunclati~n is ~he main cause of shoreline damaqe (F.-e-m~n, Baer and Ju~q, 1957) .... The impact of ~he 'September 21, 1938 and t-he Sepal-her 14, 1944 h~rrica~es on shores in the Lonq Island region ha~ been well do~amented (~ichots and .~ston, 1939: Howard, 1939; Brown, 1939; Chute, 1946).. These studies indicate ~ha= there will be ~feri~g rmsu!ts of se~re sto~ for ~iffer~nt shore environments. main Types of shore environment ara found on._Long Is3a~d'.s north shore; bluffed coasts and bar beachesi':- Bluff~ coasts arm pr~m~rily, erosion .fea~ures~ while, bar beachas~ which inol~e sp. its, ba_vmouth .bars and .tomboios, .ar~ primarily depot. sitiona! formations. The effects of hurrie~-e a~a=~ .on these .~o envi=omme~ts are outlined in Table 2-5." The mos~ ~r~=tic ~-ges -~une and bluff erosion and in!-et fo~m~tio~ - are the result of the s~ozm :surge,,~.which for. a' period. '~f only a few hours esse~tia!ly '~eates a new shoreline of -~hmergence .in~'areas not normally exposed to direct wave and t4~t action (Brown, 1939). Figure 227 shows the- sequence of cha~ges in profile ~eveJu:pment ~ha= would most likely o?cur on Long Island's-~or~h-shore as the result of hurricane activity. ~ . <~... Chute (1946} studied hluff recession alonq the-southern Cape CO~ caused by the hurric-~ne of Se.mte~b-_r 14, 1944. The magn/tude' of cliff 'recessiOn was found to be related to several Shore~-e characteristics: ~- _~,1.' Virtually. no clif~ re, salon oc=ed in those ar~as where the .. .. . was .at least'~2~m (138 fi) wi~e.'" with ~'~f~s ~-~nt retr&_atmcL up tu .15 m (48'ft)]as a res%~3t of~'t),¢ storm. The w~der ~eaches were effective, in absorbing wave Sncrgy. ' 2. High bluffs receded less then lo~ bluffs.. Give~ =he san~ recession, more debris will s~,~p, t~ =he base of a high bluff than a lo~r bluff. Therefore, more material mum~c be removed by wave action ac the base of the high bluffs in or,er for a~{cional recession to Ji9 General Shoreline Trends and Processes Imp. errant features of the nomth shor~ of ~assau and SuffoLk Cou==/es are summarized on large-scale ba~e maps, each covering ~5~e ~ ~ev~ ~?~ cf shoreline. Station locations, rates of s~orsline erosion (~) cr acc~ (.%), and exten= of ~he flood plain (stippled areas) arm givmn on six haae ~assau (Figs. 3-1 tu 3-6) and 24 for Suffol/c (Figs. 3-7 tu 3-30). T' ~I_LLaqes, major roads, and waterways are also -h~wn. The fol~-on~c ~ap at t-he enc~ repor~ gives the location and figure nr~er f~r each base ~. Sts included within the base maps are also indicat~ on ~he fol~-uut Shoreline length for the north shor~, the south shore, the eas~.mx-~ slmor--s of the Peconic Ba~s, and t_he v-~rious i~l~-c~ associ~a~ with the -~-,-'~"' ~ qiven in T~ble 3-1. Ara=ual shoreline e~sion and .acne,ion rates are indicated o= ~-- ~ase ~Us ~ feet per ~e~, a~raged o~r ~e 80-~ ~d ~85 ~ 1965. 'Fo= S~o~ For ~assau ~, be~e ~e s~ ~s ~ ~t a~h~ (s~ ~, page 90 ), ~he e~s~n-ac=et~n :a~s at s~e4,~ ~ ~T~-ed. ~, we believe =he loca~n ~d n~e= of s~ns s~f~m for 9~u~o= ~ ~ ~ be~e~ ~st s~t~n~. E~s~n-~4on ~s for ~ s~ ~ ~--~ ~ Ind,, T~ie 3-5. parameters, such as foreshore beach width a~d of consistent relationships could ~e ~rai: siz'e.ankl~/~Xusuall/ for bo~ for--~=~ and ~ ~ pe~o~ for 79 s~t~ns. '~ ~{- s~, i6~ ~le 84~ pe~~tl- ~.s~e* ~e s~ ~ Pi~= 3-32 for ~e Pi~e 3-33 for ~e bateaU* · ~~ ~ s~e ~ also ~ho%~ Bea~ ~"~ (~le 3-5). 50, and 85 'p~n~ of the ]~._~,,.1~.. ~ ~ than ~.he 15~ ~=in size, median 9&~3~n, and 84~_h per~ti!e J20 The 9ragu s£-~e of oorV. h shore beaches is determined by the effmcus of waves and ~w'L~.ds on 9!acia! deposits from uhe ice age. Eroding. bluffs also coour~uue sedimenn to the beach, al--houq'n much of the material may be too coarse To be moved from t_he base of the bluff (except at storm tides~ or may be t.-o fL~.e ,'o remain on the beach (see Fig. 3-34 for bluff qraLn size) . -trollies of the beach perpendicular to the shoreline were taken for stations. Though the profiles have uo~ been incorporated in this s~udv, ~each widtl~s* a~o-_ shown ~_u Figure 3-35 a_nd Ln t-he Beach Utility Index.- P-~Dtact ion Measures A. Engineered Structures The purpose of groins (Fig. 3-36) is to retard sand m~vement or erosion. Eowever, "on ~he Jersey coast, where qrDins have been used ex~,ensive!v, it ks (Gross, 1972, p. 384). Gro~s c~ effec:ivmly save a beach on one side-but cause ext~si~ e~s~n on the o~er side (Fig. 3-36). Jetties ~ desired to preyer, shoaling of a ch~el. Unfo~a~ly, ~ney often cause ac~m=ion up~ift of the ~! ~d erosion do.drift of it, as ~i!usurated ~ ~g~e 3-37. Bu/2~heads (Fi~. 3-38) are designed to prevent loss of land, while seawal!s (Fig. 3-39) are designed to prevent waves from M~m~ging upland features, Groins, jetties, piers, seawails and buLk~heads are subject to wave action ~nd typically require continual maintenance to prevent their deterioration. In 1965, 55 percent of the groins in Suffolk County. were in poor condition (Table 3-2). The percentage is prohabi,£ higher now (1973). A-n invento_~.v.' of t-he above st_-uctures in Suffolk County by township is given in Table 3-2. For an extensive treatment of the planning and design cf protection st---uc-_ures, consult U.S..%,~my Coastal Engineering Reeear=h Canter (1966). B. Vegetation and Te=&=cinq Vegetation and ter~acinq are ~m?ortant measures of bluff eroeion cont_-:!, to protect the bluff from direct wave atta=k (Fig. 3-40), buLkheadinq is also necessary. hut Wildwood State Pa_~'k (Station 113) has essentially e2{m~mated bluff erosion (Table 3-4). This has cut off a source of san~ for ~e adjo~g beach, whi~ prob~ly ac~ ~r its ~ wi~ ~ high ~te of s~rel~e e~sion (see Beach Ut~it~ ~d~). For ~ d~ssicn of ~getation ~-8 te==ac~q te~i~es, ~nsult ~ne ~ew York S~te ~o~e~=i~ ~s~s~n $e&~ice, A~i~l~l Division, 246 Griff~g Avenue, ~rh~d, ~.~. 11901, ~d How t~ ~ld ~ a B~ by G~rq~a Reid (!969). Beach Utili The Beach Utility Index (Table 3-~) comprises six separate characteristics. The n,~hers associated with each characteristic are defined in Table 3-4. ~umber "1" r~presents ~ opt{m~ ~_ state with successively higher number: representing condition~ fur"her and fur~er f_~m t_he ideal. %~pica! applica=i=ns of =he =ti!ity in~ex a~ d/s~assed in Chapter 4. *Beach width is defined as the distance f--~m the ~ean high tide line to the base of a bluff, dune or st--uc.--.~, such as a road. J21 ~22 J23 ~iq. 3--31. Erosion and acc=.e~ion r . J24 E~CN FiG. 3-32a. ForebeaCh grain s/ze. Median grain sizes ar~ iadicat~d ~y dots, and =he rmz~ges skcwn ~lc!ude 68 percen= of the total particle w~igh=. J25 Fig. 3-33a. Sac.tbeac.~ graia size. ~ig. 3-33b. Bac-%.heach grain J26 BLUFF Fig. ~-3.. Bluff cr~in size. J27 Fig. 3-35a. ~each width. Fig. 3-35'n. ~'eack wide. J28 /~ew york State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New Yorl( 122.33- Henry G. Williams Commissioner Mr. Francis T. Hurph7 Supervisor Town of Southold P.O. Box [174 Sou=hold, ~F~ ~1971 29, [987 Dear Hr. HuzThT: Enclosed are ~wo copies of a repot= de~a/lin~ the rasu!~s of our reconnaisance s=udy of coas=ai erosion o~ r. he st"retch of Long Island Sound shoreline between Duck Pond Po/n= and Hot=on Po/nc. As 7on ,~ill no=e we concur cha= =here is a serious problem of be=ch erosion, par=iculart7 in =he Kennel's Beach area. There ar~ a number of s:ruc=urai me=hods of reducing the effec=s of such erosion and raco-~,end chac a feasibili~'7 s=udT.be conduc=ad b~ on:side ccnsul=an:s =o deters/ne =he bas= course of ac=ion. Upon receipt of necessary assurances from ~he Town of Sou=hold will begin =he process of ob=a~-4~g a budge= alIoca~on for the Senator La~alle has a!read7 indicated his ~i!!in~ss co work for rapid receipt of funding. Bureau a£ Flood Procec=±on enclosure cc: S--=~or ~aValle H. BerEer I T.~,:,x,;r,~ OF £OUT-iOLD" COASTAL ~O$iON KECO~A~$~CE STUDY FLOOD ?~OTECTION May, i987 K2 TABLE OF CONT~--~4T$ II. III.. IV. V. VI. A1 ~arna:ives Cos: Shar~n~ Couc!usiou Ea¢o-~enda=ions i 3- 4 4 $=ud~ Loca:ions LIST OF FIGURES K3 COAST.~L L~OSION R~CONNAtSANCE £TUDY May, I987 Introduction A) Local Request - A coastal erosion study was requested by The Town of Sou:ho!d, Suffolk County. Supervisor ~rancis J. Muryhy, on behalf of the Town, made a formal request for such a study in a January 6, 1987 letter. The !et:er was im direot response co a Town Resolution adopted on December 2, 1986. g) Authority - The Depar~au~ of Environmental Canservation is authorized under Chapter 7, Section 1531 of the Uuconsolidaced Laws to" .... arrest erosion and alleviats or prevent damage resulting therefrom and as protection from storms..." by con~:.-uct!on of "...bulkheads, groins, jetties, fills and other works and improvements upon lands and lands under wa:er oiled by any county, city, town, village, park, or beach erosion control d/strict...". c) Study Location - Yhe study area stretches from Duck Fond Point to Hot:on Point on Long Island Sound in the To~ of Sou:hold. The s:udy reach is approximately S.I =niles long. Figure [ shows ~he study area and its relative location on Long Island. II. Scooe of Study Purnose - The purpose of this study is to identify erosion problems along a reach of Long Island Sound shoreline in the Town of Sou:hold .(Duck Pond Point co Eorton Po/n:) and co determine the feasibility of providing erosion protection for the area, based on economic, social, environmental, and eng/neering considerations. s) In!tla/ Investigation amd Fast Histor~ - The area of concern cam be fur=her subdivided into five (~) separate geographic reaches. They ara as follows: ' 1) -Duck Pond Point 2) Goldsmith Inlet 3) Bitraer Groin Kenneys Beech 5) Eor=on Point The following is a brief description of each reach: i) Duck Pond Point - Pa£rI7 high bluffs (30-40 fee: high) are extr~mel7 vulnerable to high wave energy attacking ~he toe of =he blu/f. Eros/on has been so severe in the pas~ =hau i 2) 3) most of the privately owned property is protected by wooden bulkheads. The U.S..4_~my, Corps of Engineers, in a !969 Survey Report of ions Island's Nor=h Shore, indicates chac :he shoreline from Oregon Hills, just east of Duck Fond ?oinc, to Goldsm/=h Inlat had receded from !00 co &00 fee: over the 130 7ear period from 1836 through 1963. 3ased on that data the shorel/ne a= Duck Pond Polnc retreated at an average race of 3 feet per year. Goldsmith Inlet - ~ae Goldsmith jetty, constructed in i964 wi~h a lengr, h of some 310 feet, appears to be responsible for much of the removal of sediment from =he ecs=ward littoral drift. The net effecc bas be~n an increase in beach ~idth west of the jetty while ~here has been siguiflcan= erosion east of the inlet. In recenc 7ears sediment has begun to bypass the jetty as the area of ac=rs=ion on the western side has reached an apparent scare of sa~uration.. He,ever, =here has not been a no=!ceable increase of deposition of littoral ~ateriat :o the east of the jar:7 and i= may be man7 years, if ever, before =ha: occurs. ~ittner Groin - The same basic condi=ions ~xist in the ~icinity of =he Bit~ner Groin as a= Goldsmith Inie=. ~robiem, he.ever, is less severe due to ~he gre/n's shorter leng=h(approximatel7 i90 fee~ long)and the absence of in!e~ dy-~mdcs. Once again, the groin appears to be the likely cause of the beach build-up to i:s west and ccnsequentiai beach s=arvaciou for a short 4!scance immediately 4) ze..eys Beac, h.- This has been a =rcublesome spot over the years. ~arious a~tempts ~o arras: eros/om have had only l~ed success. ~each no~ts~n:, ~bble plac~enn, and b~l~head cousc~c:~on have had iircle success i~'scabilizln~ =he beach. ~e erosion probl~ appears =o be ge==~g worse, par~a~lar!y ~ =he ~c~i~ of =he To~ Beach parking lo~ ~d the shora!~e ~edlately =o~ ~e east. Pr/vats effor;s .-. t~ stab~ze =he are~ .l~edia=~y. wes= of =he To~ Beach p~R%~s Io~ have be~s~a= successf~. Bul~eads, bo~h ~a=-~e par~n~ lo=:h~. ~farmd. However, chis success h~ ~e~ i~ted ~7 a loss of beach ~ front of =he Her=on Pein= - This area resembles Duck Fond Pein= except =ha= =he bluffs are slightly higher and steeper. The bluffs ~ave lit=Ia or no toe pro=mc=ion and are vulnerable to wave ac=ack. The U.S.'-Arm7, Corps of Engineers, in =he !969 Sur~ey ~epor= of =he No'{-=h Shore, indicates that the shoreiLue receded 150 feec ever the 130 year period from i836 te 1965. This represents a 1.2 foo~ average annual K6 A) Structure! - A~propria=s solutions to be considered should include beach nourishment, relocation of threatened homes, beach s=abiliza=ion measures such as ~roins, and cons=rue=ion of revetments and bulkheads. Care must be exercised when considering revetments and bulkheads ro guard against exacerbated erosion to adjacent 9roper=±ss and eventual loss of the beach. In those cases where homes are in ~m4~en=. danger of being damaged or considera=!on should be given =o relocating scl-ut=utes fur=her landward if io= size perm/cs. ~henever possible th/s.is- the,pre, streW' solution and for individual property ' Ex=r~me care and so'nd engineering desi;n must be used when selecting groins and Je=:ias as a solution. The h/stories of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty and the Bit=ncr groin i!!us=rate that such s:ructures may disrupt the littoral drif:,.thereby_e~acerba=ing:erosion downdY.i£= o£ =he " strut:utes. Provisions must be included in any groin proposal to address =ha probl~m~ o£.downdrift sand starvation. '' ' '- Other possib!~'al=srna=i%es shouid consider shortening of groi~ and combinations of ;hess. To evaluate the overall ef£ect of these alternatives it is necessary-co ~uan=ify the To s,.,-..~;~-izs..the folio~.ng st~-uctural~=erna=fves should be 3) Revetments and/or ~ulkhea~" : ' 4) ~elocacion of homes · ~) . ~ior~anmn& ,ana/~= ~am~.. g =he BiZrmer ~rOln ...... ic_~=~portanc tO"co~der'Uon~trnCt~'a.l.'alfernatives for /.:7 fut~:d~'elo~menc.~ Non?~cruc~ural measure~, would - '." ~c~m~ Co reduce ~loo~/ng or ~%osion~but rather would '%~7~-~'~ce;~he u~and.de%e!opmenc of =he are~to.'m~-/mize ..sr~siou.iosses'ii~$ecbacks].anddeve~opment restrictions '''could'be !mplem~nred'~hich'w°ttld ~uard aga/nst'~ul~se activities in chese ~locd and erosion prone areas, The Town of Sourhold should consider ut!I/zing CoastaJ 1~ ,sion Hazard .Area Renu!scions an~ Flood Pla/n tac~ques co m/n~_m/ze fu~urs ~=ges. It ~·.. ! ..".-=..~ bui!C coo close co Long Island Sound. Many pre~kou~ K7 development activities have destroyed =he on=urn! protec=ive features such as dunes, bluffs, and beaches chat protected this shoreline. It is impornan~ hoc co repeat uhese mistakes. c) Structural and Non-S=ructuraI - In som~ ins:anoes certain s~_-uc=ural measures coupled ~ri=h appropriate setback requirements may be the soluc!on. Such solu=!ons would be specific and should be addressed accordiug!y. IV. Cost lhar/n~ A) state and 30Z local cos= share. The To~= of Sou=hold ~outd be required to enter /nto an ~greemen: with the $ca~e ~ereby i: ~ou!d agree co ra/m~urse =he State 30~ of the cos= of conscr=ction. The cost of preparing plans, speu!fications, cost estimates, engineer/ag, and. inspection services are considered =o be a ~ar= of =he ¢~s= of cons:r~c:!on. ~) Federal-State-Local - In ~he even: =ha: federal monies are zade ava/!abls for a beach erosion control project :he cost sharing would mos: likei~ be 50Z federal and 50~ non-federal. The 50~ non-federal portion would be broken do~n =o 70I S=a:e and 30Z local. ~e local shar~ would therefore represen= 1bi ~d the state s~re 351 of the ~=ir~ cos= of canst~c:ion. Conclusion There is sufficient evidence of erosion 4=m~$e =o =he stud/ad reach of shoreline, as well as a number of possible solutions, =o justify a feasibi~4~/ study. A detailed study, ~ould documen: historical -erosion pro~lems and iden~!f7 and ~-~yze possible scruc:ural and non-struc:ural solutions. This study should also include cos: ~ud dssi~n i~formatlon for rscu~ende~ solutions for publicly ovnad lands and rsoo-~--~ed s~rats~ies for the protection of priva:e lan~s. Since the Oepar=men= does uo= h~v~ the ~taff resources to prepare such a study, i: is 'reco"~"ended chat a] ¢o~'sultant be hired. Upon request from =he To~z of $oU:h. old and assurances Chat ~hs w/l! re~hurse .the s~ata'for '30Z '~f studYicosrs',-~he Deparumen: wi1! prepare a budge.= req~,est ~or the nscsssaz,/' funds and upon receipt of approval' of =hose fumds w!!!'pre~rs a da:ailed Re.cues: For Proposal.(RFP). The study is enk~-ted to oosc up '$50,000 and ~ou!d de=arm/ne =he'feasihfl/ty' Of reducing or arrest/nS erosion through =he cons:ruction'of sro~on s:ruc=ures and/or ocher appropriate measures. CEHA/CE7 K8 FEO~O 5k E_~.zh ibi t _m aa,-ch 6, 1961 dr. Gran~ I. II.*,well r'.cx 28. P.econlc, N.Y. Oeer Mr. ~ipwell: have received your letter concerning erosion damage along notch shore of Southoid Tcwn, and parcicuiarly the area aC Peconlc. This condi:ion ~as been brought to ~y attention by bach per- sonel observation and letters from ocher individu~s ~o ~re desply concerned, as we all should be. le~ me assure you that I will do all in n%, power ~o have the necessary step~ taken Lo correct chi~ condition. I h&ve already ~aken pIctures of ~his damage, and have Oaken ~hc me,tar-up wiEh the CourtLy ~xecuc~ve. Il will also be discussed wilh lhe dntJre Ooard of Supervisors. I would appreciate-the use of any pictures you may have ~ha: you feel would be of help ~n presenting ¢n~s problem ~o t}~e Board cf Supervisors. Thanking you For your in:erest )n this maCter, I remain, Very. truly yours_ - Lester M. Albcrtson Supervisor L;-IA/ea Albany - J. Butch M~v~rran0 Stats Supe_~_nte~-nt of Public Wot.ks, today (~hursday, Sept. 1~, 1963) ~nnounced receipt' of a low bid of $134,361 from H. L. Bishop Co. L:c. & Sc~/th Shore Cont~. & Dredg. Corp_ ~ West Ha/~Dt~n Beach, N.Y. /for beach' protection work at G~l~.~th Inlet on the nor~Jn shore of Lon-~ island near Peconic in Town of $out~nld. Seve~ ~i6a w~re r~c~-ived. A stone jet~-f, will be con~_ructsd cn the we~t side of the ir~iet, near Mill Lane, ex~sn6~-q nort.~erly intu Long Island. Sound. Work is expec~_~d to begin shortly after a ccnh~act is cffic~!!y executed. ~he contract will be awar~d -- £ol!cw/~g a rcu~e cheez by State engineers of all bids r~ceived -- tu ~he cunt_~act~r who is found t~ have s~tted the icwest v~{~. ~here usnally is a lapse cf a~cu= one month between rmceiB= of bids and con,--act S~ for ~le~o~.~ 180 ~1~ Serf, district engineer in charge of the Depa~e~nt's district of£i~e at Babylon. BP 63 - 92 Q2 Mr. J. 8urch McMorran, Superintendent New York S{ate Department of Pub]ir Works 1220 Washington Avenue Albany, New york January 30, 1967 Oe~r Mr. McMorran: The County of Suffolk has acquired considerable land for park purposes which ~ncludes Goldsmith's Inlet, From Long Island Sound, ~n the vicinity of Peconlc, Long Island. Through State and County cooperation some years ago, a jetty w~s constructed, projecting out into Long Island Sound, and protecting The west slde of the Inlet. It is the intention of the County Board of Su~ervlsors to open GoldsmlCh's InbC as a harbor of refuge off Long Island Sound, and lc Js necessary, ac chis time co construct a jetty on the e~sc side of the inlet, as well as providing for beach stab~lization on the eas~ side. The County of Suffolk has funds available for erosion ~ork, and I feel sure thac the County's share of the cost of such project will be ~ade available. Therefore I would request the cooperation of your off,ce in obtaining State Funds for thls necessam/.work. This who)e area is now suffering From extensive eros)on, and I feel the m~tt~r is of great urgency. Thank you For your assistance. cc: County Dept. Public Works Yaphank, N.Y. FEB 1 f Er. J,~ur~h IcCurr!n, ~sider a ~rave injustice done to 2e a~d ~y ~e~- are ~ro~r~y owners c~ 3cued View Awe., Pecon!c, It aeems the ~tate and ~unt? w~lneers arbttr~l!y de¢id~i t~ ~!!~ a Jetty ~ ~ ~ng Is~d Sclc Lu or, er tc create a deeper beach west cf ~ Road. The result Is %~t the bea~ !a new ove~i!~, w~!e ~e beach east of t~ Je~y, ~ w~ch I ~ pe~m!!y ~ter~sted, ~s been ~F!eta~ destroyed. :i I hav~ J~t had to employ he!.~ tc move my beach house back fifteen feet fr~ the c~b!!~ b~. ~ the ~use ~ilt i~ was protected by ~ feet cf Oa~ before C~ ~ ~e bea~. ~!1 ~d Is n~ f~l~ ~to the water -at ~e~ ~ tide. ~rmerly we had fifty feet cf Lovely ~each at hlg~o.tice. Now we can't even walk cn the beach at high tide because t~er~ is mc beach at kith tide. T~e fact that I have spent several ~thousanc dollars to build · a ~ead to the beach which eccn will be awas~ shou!~ a!~c be ?oi't~ of notice. it ~o~ not maJ~e much se~ae tc me tc destroy one Oeach L~ ~ ~ bullg up ~cther w~ no ~e felt ne~ bul!~ I ~..-~ ~S ~ condition cc~d ~e cc~ect~ by I.~e~.~nl~ weu!d mppreciate your c~nsider~tlcn on thi~ matter RECEIVED ~ 14 I~67 '.~md, & l~-e~ud~ cf ~he situation. The property owners, both · '--'.-: 7;,~s~e~' a~.d v~te~, ~e ~eo~le who ~u~ ~e~ m~ey ~d !~or =~ .-''-:- ":'~'~_.. ~ ~' the lovely ~ot ~t !~ !s/dc deae~e '"'~'~ "".:~" ccnside~i~. I ~e y~ a~. Qs February 21, 1967 Dear Mr. McMcrran: The enclosed ~ ~o ? ' ~= ~o=_~s~onme.~__ concerns mattere cf ~r~mary Im. por%ance to you_- agent!. This ccrresucndence, has r., c~ been ac.~.ow=__~___:-~ ~ =~-=~ aha Governor Roche ...... wcu!d a~-~reoiate.. .... =2 ~ou would re~!7 d~ect!i ts the correspondent ~d send this office =~ copt cf ~o~ redid. S_.,c .... ~uc. correspondence from: ~. G. M. T!sdale 4 Sub=on Place New Tork, New York Date: Feb~ 23, 1967 T0; Mr. ~er W~!ch, Acting Director for ~_oo~ Control '~ TisSUe' let=er dated J~ua~ 31, 1967~ Ref~r~_ng ~c ~'~. refersmce above. The d~ge ~o w~ch Y=. Ti~le referenced is s~lar that w~ch ~s occurred ~l ~ong ~he ~o~h shore in ~pro- tecte~ areas. ~ const~ction of ~ ' _ prevented materi~ from be~g c~ie~ ~o bhe ~ea in hcwevsr, ~s sm~! ~o~ cf ~o~ed s~d spread over 2,000 foot l~'st~lp would be h~rdly noticeable. The beach to t~ West, ~-~ch s~ p~ of i~s pu~ose. ~ addition, it h~s stabi~zed ~he ~u!e~ to a m~rked de~ee. i ~ ~c!cs~g ~wo photos cf t~s ~ea; both were ~en of the houses. Z ~ve ~so no,ed the ~ waSer ~k on photo, .~ch was ~en at low wa~er. ~s beach ~s now ero6ed ~d ~ ~. Ti~e s~s ~s reeved ~her ~nshore. I rate ~d ~ addition, ~he westerly beach wo~d ~ve Q7 restor~_tion work be dons ~ ~s ~a. There is no dcub~ that it is_~ !e~L~e rec~est ~d re~ires p_~_c_~_~y. The _ ~ ~ ~he eas=erly side of the i~et const~action of ~ g_o__ cn would cost appre~tely $2OG~OOC. ~_~ plzcemen~ ~d/or co~cre~e c~lbb~g -~e~d cost ~ additlo~ $200,000.00 at the most. These fi~es :~e ~gh ~d subject tc ch~ge ~te~ the co, lotion of so--eT ~d desi~ work. Q8 ~. james Status of where ~he ~?--reI ~'ark h~ ~een c~ple~d ~*~ ~pos~ ~o~ loca~ious Sappier 15, 1967 for ~elr Sp~ or ~ca~on. To dams, ~ese sheets have ~t beau ret~--~. ?rojecu L~O C~id,~,~th ?-!.' East Thi.'s .~.-r~ject ,=as cri~,~!~7 de,igc_ed ~ud a~proved by ~e ~'fo~ Cc~ Bo~ of ~_sors ~ ~t !968. ~. K~ersr re~es~ed a -~nr ch~e ~ ~e co~ct~T p~-~ ~ '~ ~e ~ 1969. S~c~ 196~, the C~ ~s bee~ e~ea~ ~ ge~ ~e ~cass~ ~h%m~f-way re.-sd far ~e cc~c~cn of ~ ~iu~. ~ecsnt f~]~ s~o~ caused co~ider~hl~ d~e ~ ~e cout~ct ~=~ta, ~n~ i ~e~ ~ the cou%rac~ o~-~2~77 propos~ ~ be ~ for ~e ~T co~o~, i s~Eest ~t ~9'. Project iCO- This project ~_s .aTp. roved on July 10, !96E; to data the County has ~-o~ ob~*-~d ~ the neceeea?/'easementm ~-e~ed for the hy~rm~7~c f~ll place- me~. ,Due to the Iai. se cf ~lne~ i be ~!!evm ~ha~ this project should be surveyed to det~,~* if the ~.=t~ .=ro.uosmd contract is adequate. Projec~ ~2~ -Eatcns ,.Veck ,~e con~ac~ for tl-~s pr~jec~. ~as appruved ~ ;~ed to a~i~o=. T~ Cc~ cb~d ~ ~ ~c~s~ p~s!s ~ the cep~c~ of one ~t ~ e~ ~ ~. Cn~on pr~cee~~ ~r~ ~ ~ Fe~ !9~, ~ ~e ~o~ ~ ~ ac~-e the ~9 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: gldred Ric5 Engineeri~ Report, 3eac5 [rosion ?to jet: !20, July 27, 1973 A field su:-rey of Jul7 !0, 1973, and rev~--~w of previous work and correspondence, form the basis for chis repot=. HI~TCR¥: Resolution 74Z-66 (10/la/66) and Resolution 833-66 (1!112166) for plans with Suffolk County. Resoiut£on 57[-88 (8/26/68) for cUns:~=c=ion fqr $190,000. Charges $l,08a.$i cocci, of ~flich $62a.5[ charged co isc Lcscance in a period of 9/67 - 5/68. One ~ong scone jec:y (]00'T) ,;as completed by the Scare ~_n !96A on the The situation ac Goldsmith appears co be s~m{lar co cha~ at <~adLng River, chac ~s, an existing jeeP7 on =he ~es= side of in!e~ wi~h erosion on east side of in!e~. The goldsmi~h In!et: hc~ever~ appears quite a bi= smaller =hen the Wading River 5niec. The first 1200' ~ of land ea~c of the r_nle= is ~med by SuffoEc C~unry. The uex~ i900'? is in private ownership. The pru~.ose~ projec: is ~o protect chis 3100' of beach b7 7 concrece crib gtc/ns at a cos= not =o a~ceed $!90,000. 2/18/70 memo from Raines co ~.Iie7 statizu3 the projec= was submitted ~o Cmanc7 ia 1968 ~ut chac he believes because of recen~ storms the proposed prcjec: ~s inadeqj~ate and Cfla~ ~te piers be voided. CONCLU$ION~: The proposed project' T_ believe Cc 5e iaadetT,~a=e fr~-, ~he paso ~nc:i~ of c~crece crib ~o~s ac ScoC~s ~each ~ere failure of ~e ~ro~ has occu~ad ~ ~ould cos= ~ee or f~r c~m~ ~e cost for c~craCe ~b ~ro~, ~us ~ d~drif= of ~7 gro~ c~=~c=i~. Hydraulio fili ~ould be cos=i/ as "he area involved is ucc close ~a a harbor of refu~e. Also, e~viroumentai interests w~uld probably oppose 4rad~iug in the Sound. With the negation of the ¢o~cepcs, a=~ ~he relac!ve[7 lo~z costs of-the original en~er~g~y s~d and ec~i!y Qi! 1973 Com~tissi~a~ of ~li= Yaphank, N~w Y~k 11980 $ imc~_vmly, Q12 '.--;on. ~izon i- ~ock~f~ii~_-~ "'u. Pl of a,7 Le~er to ~. The _~nc!osed Ln~u~--,- is fr~ a con- stituent of m~e. ~b~d you pte~e respond? Please send co me your ~c~n arm;,er d~Iicste,, along ~th the Ie~er r.om=- ~ 'Jr.~ ~ed Sr. ates C'2:~r ~ DENTLA~ October I7, 1977 Senator Oaniel ?. ~Ioynihan 733 Third Avenue New York, ~ew York 10017 Oear Senator Moynihan, r am one of the residant~ of the 'Nor~ch Shore in Pet:nit, west of the Goldsmith jetty. [ have just learned that there is a sz~ng 9olitical.infi:ence composed of a judge and same FC[ influence who would like to dispose of the Goldsmith jetty. I do not mind aris decisions taken on sound engineering juogemenc but to make it on the in~uence by some YZPs whose personai incense ~s the main m~tivatlng force disturbs me very much. For this ~ason [ bring this to your attention to investlgace an~ if chis is false chon : apologize. If it is no~ false then ~ would apbreclate iC if you would take action to prevent such a ~ollticat in~uence in making ecologically impo~an~ decisions. For your information, anclcsed is a copy of the lector [ wrote to the County Legislator, ~rs. Joyce 8urland, to thac fact. With most kind regards. 'Cordial ly, Heskel M. Haddad, M.D. HMN:hg Enclosure Q15 October ~7, 1977 Mrs. Jo¥oa Burl:nd - County'Lebislats'r'_ --" '" :-" !st. District ~9 East Main Street Riverhead, ~ew York 11901 gear Mrs. :ur,and, [ am one of m'-he residenc~ west of the Goldsmith jetty and understand that there is a movement to push toward the dismantl of this jetty which has prese.~{ed the ecology of the beach west of it. Logically speaking, I do not see how it could affect the beach east of it. ~ feel that the dismantling of this jetty would be a project of an ex:r:~me waste and may cause tremendous damage co ou~ ~each wnic~ may affect Fnany of the homes, part of them ali-year residential homes, in that area. The most logical thing is another jetty to protect Kenney's Beach the same 'way that Goldsmith jetty 'was built several decades ago to protect our beach. The purpose of mywriting to you is to beg you to pay attention hoc to any "political inrguence" from any constituency but rather to make your judgemmnt based on sound engineering for the protection of the North Shor~ bea~qes, our beach included. With ~st kind ~gards. HMH. ng Cordially, HeskeI M. HadOad, ~,.9. Q16 TO: New York e= eno. v. Santa - Hirshurn Lac=er of 3/7/79 co Foiiowing is.a brief hisro~/ cf events coucerning the above which was ~:an~ed ~o ~he Tow~ of Souchold by OGS. /he projac~ was :om- pta:sd in Februa~£ 196& ia conformanca with Chap:ar 535, Laws of i945 which allows the Santa Ca perform ma~or Beach Procacslon Projects ia cooperaciou rich a parr:icipa~ing local governmen: a~ency. Ihs ecsc of ~he ja:~y at goldsmi~h iniac was shared ~0-50 by NYS and ~he Cour.~f of Suffolk for a purpose of :he jetty was ~o maintain ~he opening a~ ~:a;-luw for fu~ra develoom~t, of :he Town's r_c~,_ Recently, wi:him ~he iasc u~ years or sa, :he screcc~ cf beach eas~ Co Hot,on Point has exper"ion:sd acne!arc,ed beach erosion. A group of beacafru~ ~rop~r~7 ow~era located i~ md. les ecsc of :ha jec:y have main- cained chac ~he ject7 is ~he cause af ~heir problem. The ac:ached from D. J. SCan:on, August 22, 1977 an~ Resolution adopted by ~he "Kent[eys Beach Civic Associaclon "~oi~Es up c~eir posicion. Word of :he efforts by :he Association co have ~he jetty removed or altered has raised considerable opposition from ~he beach front o~ers co :he wesc of :he jenny who ars joying :he benefits of a %-ider bea~ because of :he je:%y, t have received approximately 40 pos:cards and Ia:tars opposing any :colon to altar or re- move =he Judge Lochman had con:acted me 'iasc February co ge: ~ views on the efface of the jeer? co his properry. I c~id him ~ :hough: he should move toward a ~osi:ive at:amp: :o proten~ ~is property by coustruc:ing a groin ac his property and ~o concac~ the Town to repair a boac launching ramp which was give_ag him proteccio~ in ~e form of a groin. He ham applied Co us for a cidai we:lands pecmic to consCruc~ a west is the cause of his p¢oblem. DDR:i1 /~- cc: D. Midd!eron, D. Lark/r~, J~es [~a!!ay, C=ief, Wa:ar Mmpi. - Albany Q17 TO: F~OM: SUE, JECT: er ~ New York Slate Depar~men~ of Environmental Conservation J~mes F. Kelley- Dave De,drier- Auks: 7, 1979 .... As you ~e aw~-e the above meet~g'w~s'"~ged by Peter N. BkS,- P.E. of the ~S A~a~ey ~eher~s Office ~ud w~ held Friday Au~st a~ ~he Southold To~ At~ached is a list of a=tendees. Mr. Skimmer chzired the meet~_.ug and st&_~ed by giving a disser~cation of haw the iG's Office w~s effeczlve in hay-Lug jetUies removed in the "Levon Case" aC J~mespg.z~. ~2sa, high!ighzed was their involvement in requiring L,-~.CO ~o monzuor beaches at Shareham ~nd J~mespo~ (presen~ ~ud proposed si~es of Nuclei_- Power Plan~s). A sp.e~ker representing each faction present was then given ~he oppo_.~cunitT =o express ~heir ~_ews concernLug the problems and possible causes-p~Cicui~rl7 ~he effects of paso erosion control s~r¢ctures and the b~s~o~ of the affected Liszed below is Zhe general'position t~ken by each racoon: Eennev's Beach C_w_. issoc.(l~ m~es east of Go!dsmi~h Contends ~hat erosion at Ken_ney's Beach has accelerated from 1.75'/y? to 9.6'/yr since the constr~c~ion of the Goldsmith Jetty. Prope_~y owners have spent thous~uds of do!~ars in the form of bulkheads~ groins, ~ud sand f~7~ which they feel is a temoor~_~ holding action. They v~_ew the Goldsmith Jetty as the ma~ar con%ributing factor for their oroblem and wan~ the ~et:Y removed and the accumulated sand (they estima%e lO0,O00 cy) to be dist~-~_buted eastward 2 miles. Peconic Sound Shores Assoc.(~mmedia~el¥ west of.~Yet) They con~end that Kenney's Beach had been eradi~C long before the jetty was constructed 3us~ as ~heir beach had. They are now en~oy- Lug ~he benefits of. the jetty ~nd wan~ no ~l~er~tian or remov~! of the ~etty. NY Dis~. Coros of Enzrs. Representative was from the P~gulatoryBranch ~ud was not f~m~iar w-ith the prabl=-ms. Presented ~nform=~ion re: oermits issued for pas~ activities (Permit'to NYSD~g to construc~ jetty - and la~ of permits for or~lv, prape-.~cy'owners work eas~ of-~et~y ~ud west of Eenne¥~s 'Beach). Also, s=a~ed ~ha~ ~he Corps did a study of the area in 1976 and would ~n~e ~hat data av~i~ab!e. Q18 LN"!'_ $ DE~ .The fo!!owinE is DEC position thac the stretch of beach from GoldsmiSh to Hot, on PC. should noz be co~ed ~o Shoreh~ or J~es- oo~ (remoT~ of Levon Je~ie~) ~d ~i~uck because o~ the in si~es of s%rac~es, Zhe lack of c~-ren= daua ~d the m~=~-~ -~in~ factors ~e~=_ ~c~u== erosion ~e .oleos a~ each soecific, si~e. .~so szased was ~-~.~=~ ~he 3e~=7 w~ cons~racted a~ Cclds~th by Zhe DB~ at the requesz of zhe To~ ~nd Co~=/ for ~he p~ose of s%abilizin ~he ir~e~ ~o ~low for fu~'~e recrea~ion~ development. F~her~ Uhe jez~y is_~-~c~o~in_ g ~ _~_=__=~=~-~1=. ,~ p!~ed, is m~nc~inE a v~uab!e weZ!~nd ~d ~here is no e~_dence produced Zo ~dicate ~ha~ the jetmy _ __osco_ _ easz a% Kelley's Beach. J~so ~y ~rk ~.- · vo!vea ,~_5a ~he ~e~y or s~d ~-edg~u~ requires ~S Tid~ We~!~ds Pe~u ~d wo~d l~el7 req~rs preparation of a fnV ~S. 'S C D~*; Agreeable ~o NT_SDEC oosi:ion that comuaz-lson Co other a_Teas should hOC be used in assessin_=_ .__=e¢~-c~s of C~!dsmi~h Jetty. Gener-=_!!?- not in favor cf aiUe_~_ug 3eCZy but showed in=eresZ in bypassLUf_ accumu- lazed s~_nd eas~wa~-d to eroded beaches..~Zso sta~ed was ~he fact ~ha~ accelerated erosion has been zak!ng place in ocher a~-eas of ~he notch shore where no s~ruc~-~es ex!s~ or a_~e ~oo distan% to be a factor. NYSAC- ~ ..... ' Presented ~he legal asoec~s of ownership' of lands under water, accre~ed lauds (na~u_~a! and m~=made) and eroded lands (natural or mem. induced). Town of Scu~hold Neutral position ~aken due ~o overall erosion orob!ems ~hrough- ou~ coastal ¢.,~eas of ~he Town. D~-ec~ Lnvoivement w~ltR f~g erosion con=rol pro~ects Townw~lde is no= possible. Mr. S~er concluded the meeting by requesting each agency or g?oup involved to provide past studies, relevan~ data, photos, e~c. Co hWm by Augzst 13, in order for the AG's office to establish a da~a base for assessing ~he problems and possible a!~erna=ives available to the C~ldsm!~h oroblem area. The AG's office promises a "package"to be sub- m/tied co ~ interested agencies or groups by Augus~ 20 and has sched- u!ed anoZher meeting for ~on. iug. 27 at Sou=hold Town H~]. DDP~ cg c.c. D.J. Nidd!e~on J. Scherb D. Lar%~ n A..~cb~ ~n J. McEenna Dear enjoyed our racen: me--tin9 at '?~ur a_lzg..t__~ hume.' I tkouWh= you migJ:u !ikc co :eview zone of ~'u,: ma~-arlals rala:i:~.i. to :Ize Goldsmith ie~u~' proOlem. At i~_~esen~, we kava retained Rober: Pike as our local counsel la, pur-~ue ?.%~ mauler wi~h ;.~e town officiai~, =--nd I am doing ~h.e same wir2~ t2~e A~:orney General's office. One of tiae .iue.~ I'v,_- enclosed is :,~e February 6, I980 letter from ~ht, A.~torne'..· General ~_a Town a%aorney Tasker. We ~tough~ a~ the ba%~lu a~ains% uke Jeu~i.', but ~her~af~er ~e A~=orney General side witk ~ne N.Y.M. ~cpar~en~ of Enviro~enta! Conse~ation, (it's client agen~z) . Thai'agency has ~akem ~e ~si~on naaura! sand bypassin~ around ~le Jetay has res~,~: a ~sition dimpu~md by experts and non-experts a!ike! As someone who has ~=n :he gr,)w~n of ~n~ ~and bar off shore, you ara ~ique!y situated to a~test ~o ~he falsity of ~e D.E.C. position. If you r=call our conversation, ~he chief mDokesman fo= ~e O.E.C. no::~ o~er ~han ~e man who originally approved ~e e~ec~on ~he Golds~h Je~ty~ 0bvio~s!y, he is in a conflict of position ~a~ prev~n~ h~ from being a reliable so,ce of opinion ~out ~e Jetty ~nd i~ dire effec~ on ~e ~roundinq area_ In ~sa~ regard, i'm ~closing a !e~ter from Don one of o~ ~ers which forcefully ~d acc~ta!y states our position ~hen ~d ~ow. I wish you a mos~ hea!~h? and plea~ant winter in Florida and take the liberty of keepin~ you up to dat~ as to any new develop- merits in t_he Goldsmir_h Jetty saga. STANLEY P'DSESS cr~t~tu~ ~ d~r~nc~ ~ Peconlc So nd Shor s Associ. fion ]inc. ~ce~ho- ~. 1985 Al! member~ of-5out~old Torn Bo~N :~ soutaoi , s.' Y. iiSZi OU} . Dear ~emberz: '~ TOV~{ CF ~CUTHCLD ~he members of ~he Peconic ~ound S~ores Assn. ~ew ~th increasin~ concern the efforts of the ~enne~'s ~each property owners to persuade the town to re~o~e or p~rtiaiiy destroy the :niet ~et:y which h~s been so effecti~e in protectin& :he homes ~nd beaches ~e~t of :he j~ttr since its instail~ion20 years ~&o. ~he Peco~ic Soun~ Sh~res Assn. sympath!sez with the Kenney's Be~ch lpr~perty o~ners Ln the damage done to thel~ beach b~ the occ~ss!on- l~i ae~e~!ty of n~ture. Unfortunately, :he damage '~n recent yei~s ~~ continuation o~ :be nature! erosion which d~tez b~ck to ~he ear,lest of times. ~n f~ct, 18th century B~itish ch~rts show ' the erosion r~te then to be almost simil~ to the rate pre~iiin& in recent years. Any ~erze effect of the 5oldsmi~h 'jetty on Kenney~s Beach Is only speculati~e ~nd cert~iniy not pro~e~ e~en cap~bie of proof. If professional opinions are to prevail, t~e_~e_~man-Pedersen r~port el-dore~ ~y th- &~n~-ey General's Office in..l~ and meant to be the final Judgment in the jerry's ~u£1t or innocence surely should be given the most credence. Not only does this report give the Goldsmith Jetty a virtual clean bill cf health, it directs our attention to the Bittner Jetty ~s the main cause of the ~enney~s Beach problem. The mo~t recent severe erosion problem at the Town Beach itself has o~viously been caused by the ins~allation of the Lock. man gro£ns. What is being proposed regarding the Goldsmith Jetty is strictly an experiment an~ a very dangerous one at that. This proposed · weir is not a recognized ~rocedure for handling erosion problems but is really another way of t ryin~ to remove Goldsmith jetty and' · leaving an island of ~tones sittin~ out in the Sound, constituting a navigational hazard as well. Should the experiment fail and prove to be detrimen==l te those on tho west side, who have invest- ed on the strength of the jerry's protection, will the town then replace the stones and return the jetty to its original condition7 Additional town costs can only be the result if the members of the Peoonic Sound Shores Assn. are compelled to undertake legal action to retain the ~rotec~ion w~ic~ h~s been ~rovided ~o their Q22 properties by the Jetty and on w~lch so many have relied when making heavy investmen:m in new an~ i=proved homes. Surely we have the right to expect the town government to refrain from action which will certainly damage our prooerties as well as destroy thee~__~__~=~_~_beach and boat ramn. ail of which become viable recrea:lonal £aci!itie~ We symoa:~i~e with the Kenney:s Beach property owners but we do no: believe that we s~ould be sacrificed on the altar of their concern. The Jetty should remain in:act and we ask you, as our elected representa:lyes, :o be mindful of our Instead of :earing down Goldsmith Jetty,more jetties should be built as was in the ori~inal plan When Goldsmi:h J~:ty was built. 5incere!y yours. P~CONIC SDU~D SHORES A$$~. Pe:er Terranova. Pr~esi~dRn: Marilyn Ho£mann, sec'y. Box Peconic, N. y. 11958 Q23 Q24 ! New York State Depar~z~ent of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, ~Jbany, New York 12233 March 4, 1994 ~. A!ber: J. Krupski, Jr. Vice President, Board of Town Trustees To~ of $outhold Town Hall 53095 ~ain Road - P.O. Box 1179 Scut_ko!d, New York 11971 Dear W_r. Krupski: I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your Sep=ember 8, 1993 letter. We encountered some problems in finding ~e oriqina! project file. Upon review of the file I was able to trace the history of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty. The primal-f reason the jetty was constructed was to maintain Lke opening at the inlet to allow for fun/re development of t_ke Tc~'s recreational facilities.. The files also indicate that a secondary purpose was to create a recr~eationa! beach west of the jetty. This is rea!i/unconfirmed but several documents do mention the creation of a recreational beach. The re_cuest to construct the jet;y was made by the Count-f. The ~ew ~ork State Department of ?ab!lc Works developed plans and let a contract to COheir=ct the jet~. The project which was com~_leted in Febr~a_~ 1964 was cost shared 50/50 bet~een the State of New ~ork and the County of Suffolk. Dccuments within the file indicate the length of the jetty and its downdrift impact have been the subject of controversy over the years. Specific~ly, residents j~t east of the jetty and KerLney's Reach claim that =he shadow effect of the jetty has ~een the cause of beach erosion at the Two sit~. I find some validity to the claim ~ediate!y east of the jet~! bu: no evidence at Kenney's ~each, which is located 1.5 m'il~_.~ east of the in, et. Kenney's Beach is simply too far east to be effeC~ed to any measurable degree. Q25 Shortening the jetty wi!! ce~a~--~ly have an impact. ~_ore sand wi!! bypass the inlet and may ultimately nourish the area east of the inlet. However, the width of the beach and the protection afforded the residents west of the jetty will diminish. Therefore, the Town must evai~ate the situation very carefully and notify the State whether or not the Town w~nts to taper or r~move the jetty. if you have any further questions please fee! free to contac% me at ~!8-457-3158. Sr. Coa~tai Engineer Coastal Erosion F~nagement RGR/tc Q26 March 5, 1996 The Honorable Patricia L. Acampora New York State Assemby Legislative Office Bldg, Room 725 Albany, New York 12248 Dear Pat, Thankyou for passing along the DEC communication regarding the Goldsmith Inlet Jetty. I received it just recently because it sat in the KBCA P.O. box until a few days ago. It appears that there is motion here; however cautious. I'm sure that this is a result of your efforts since nothing has been initiated at the T.O.S. end that I am aware of. I did talk to Jean Cochrane this week because I heard from a KBCA member that something was afoot. Jean did not know the details and referTed me to Jim McMah~n, Director of Community Development. Jim conveyed essentially the same message as the DEC letter to me. Let me comment on the DEC letter. First, I find the insensitivity of statements to the effect that,"..any action taken will have strong opposition.(from beneficiaries of the Jetty)", simply astounding, given the damage, losses and expense, both public and private, incurred by downdrift property holders. Secondly, it seems grossly disingenuous to ma~e the statement,"..there is no possible way to definitively establish any downdrift effect the Jetty may have had...". One need only examine the volumes of aerial photographs before and after Jetty construction to document the effects. Additionally, anyone who walks the beach West and East of the Jetty and talks to T.O.S. Highway Dept., and Peconic Dunes Co. Camp about the history of beach repairs required since the Jetty was built would have no trouble definitively establishing the downdrift effect 'of the Jetty: The letter also raises questions such as: What constitutes a 'moderate reduction in length' ? What and how much material will be removed and stockpiled ? What constitutes 'unanticipated effects' of the modification Who will be answering these questions ? Finally, the approach to modification of the Jetty can take forms other than shortening. Principal among the alternatives is tapering the vertical profile down to natural beach level at the o~ter end. This will facilitZte natural bypassing, while maximizing beneficial effects on the updrift side. In brief, KBCA ~ants to be consulted and wants to be a participant in the process of Jetty modification. Again let me thank you for your efforts on encouraging to see recognition of the problem toward a solution. our behalf. It is and some movement Don Stanton, Dir. I~BCA Q27 Michael Baker: April t969 Scale: 1"=i000' 27 4 28 3 29 AGC: April 1976 Scale: !"=1000 ' 70-1967 70-1968 69-1945 69-1904 68-1927 67-1e, o4 ,' ~1~27f3 AGC .~ 67075 68.-19~_7 qlmP~7~ AGC (~707 AGC 67075 70-1967 mil AGC: March I980 Scale: L" =1000 67-0489 69-0540 68-0492~. 70-0543 71-0595 AGC 809~ 80 ~,GC 809~ 68-0~92 ~ iliA, R 80 q~.. II'~R 80 AGC r-d- 809~ B/ ~'~ .,: a 80 AGC 809:} 71-0595 · AGC: April 1993 Scale :1 "=~000 ' .; ?' AGC :April 1996 Scale'. i"=1200' 18-996 18-998 19-1035 19-1034 i8-1000 4. The Suffolk Times · June 27, 1996 forGolds mith:s: Chop the Jetty WL'oastal experts suggest it as cure for beach erosion By Tim K®II~ PECONIC--ThC town may I~ve bcach emcon camed by the Ouldsmith A group of cmml specialists Inought m Sonthold last week tluough a mt~ istlns 30O-foot ~kt k~. plas instelt~ mod d~dged from the boumn of Long The price? From $1.3 million to S2 · million. The sou.~e of tbe fuediogl Thnt hns yet to be detemlned, although offi- clnls hope for state or federal ~rants, and nm considering passing part of tho And while it tony be numy years be- fore an)- construction takes place, town ofulals say they've neve~ been ¢los~ shmlenlag the mnin jetty and adding ~ others, the coastal expe~ts may also what had been an insurmmmmble polltl. Goldsmith Inlet jetty, which lntmupU the prevalLlag we~t-to-e~t movement of sand, Is re~onsthla for ~e e~cahin to s~uetm~ also camed the besch lmmedl. ntely to the west to expend omwant by seve~l hundred fee~ A~ homeowners in the Kenny'! Beach w~ have ardently risked for ~e jetty to be cut b~ck. if not That difficulty was evident during s public hen~ng on tbe e~on pto~m~ nt Town Hall last Wednmdny night, with inlet spe~ng for ~eveml hom~s. It hns to go. mid the people from the en~ But those from the west cautioned against taking such a dmstlc step without the ability m predict accm-etely ~ ~sulfing THE sAND FLOWS HERE--Dr, Timothy Kana of South Carolina explains the Impacts of tides and currents along the sound shore in Soulhold. Ustening in are Councilwoman Ruth OIIva end Fred Anders and Steve Ridhir of the New York Department of State's coastal resources division, 'I love ~ wnte~. I love the beach," said EHIOl Pmkoff, who lives on Nollh Se~ Drive to tho cast of 0m jetty. "But the agony '~'re going through HYing thing should be done. What should be done Is s~o~e the jetty. It*s that sim- Not so, according to Den Atklanon, vice president o! the Peconic gound ghc~es Association, which represents the homeownen wmt c~ dm inlet "It's a question of money," ho said. "If the}, had hoilt mom jetties, Kmmy's Beach H~p From th~ The s*~mh for a anindon brought rep- resentatives of the New Y~k Del~t- ment of State, which p~ovided a $20,000 unmt for dm effort, plus canstul expms from sevmld ~ univm'ulttca to gouthdid for last week's two-dey ccaf~ence. As expected, the ccmultants did ~ec- ommand shortening the inlet jelly, but surprised local officials by ndditioanlly · ecommanding the eonstructinn of n smaller, lower p~oFde stm¢tme just to the w~.st. Ir..nowlag thnt the mduetion of the Goldsmith's jetty would cause the bcach to the west to shrink, the group ~ecommended a anw 100-foot sUuntme. mad~ of sheet metal mthm' than Ixml. "It was a p~etty good concision, I think." mild Fred Ander... a cc~thl m- merit should be completed in conJun~..' '~-~ flon with the construction of two tonsil groins to the east of the inlet,-at'M~- Cnbe's Bench ~1 n~r l-lmm~'s l~nt~ the new suuetm-es shobld not I~ in-' ~ spee~nud with tho Depenmant of State,,one of the confm~an¢o plmici- ~litd. . · e wmt side ~ ~k w~in ~h would ~t cmple~ly ~e ~ m~l wo~P p~ ~ l~ f~ of ~-J m ~ I~ [~ blt ~ld ~ ~t on ~ N~ July 25, 1996. The Suffolk TImes · E? Town Hall Notes representing the Gold~mith Job Tho mult~ ora ~ s~y ~ ~t of ~e Ool~i~ 1nlm ~mty ~ ~ng ~ ~nf~a~onal ~t~g in ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~y. T~ ~- have praised the pla~' as a workable compromise. But meml~rs of ~e Peconlc Sold Sho~s Community ~o the west adamantly oppose it, fem'ing it /n front of their homes. By Tim Wa~ker O~T--A handful of Long Island R~Jl Rofd offleiab ~ ~m- ~l~in a~'~ ~, ~n ~ Io~ ~ ~ vfl~'s ~ mu- ' ~ ~ ~e L~ ~d No~ ~ ~ ~t I~k fi~ ~ey ~long ~ a ~n f~ ~d~,~. ~ m~ of ~ To~'s ~ ~mi~. ~]y ~"I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~fd ~ of ~e vilia~'s fr~aflon, ~enu ~ ~ ~ w~ ~e ~n ~ ~ ~ f~. ~ ma~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~tln ~- '~e've m~ a m~r h~t in ~d. "But ~ f~ 1 ~'t ~1~ ~ ~- ~ ~ L~R officios h~ ~ ~ ~llhg ~t ~ ~i~s o[ap~ ~ up~ ~30 of ~ 1~5 s~ons ~ ~ng Is~& ~lu~ng G~'s. ~e up~ ~ ~ of a $5~ mill~fl ~ystm~ im~mt of ~ L~'s aging d~l I~ C~tlnued from page 17 ~ pisser c~ and the tmc~ tbey C~eenpm. t Is to s~e about $500,000 in ~ Sou~M ~ vHh~ ~t f~ ~ by e~in~ hvid F~ of ~e peels of theoo plans can ~ combined Imo piam s~wm, *ptSht or ntme," be saM. *'Tlnia is Just to sdmulnte some tlmu~l~t concern LIRR official Nick LaRocca lind with the vtliase's effo~s, 14o ssdd tim company woold be tmi~y to coop- ente in the viliaSe'S plans, but first the~8 hns to be a phn. what's going ob be~," Mr. L&qocc4t sn~d. "Tbe~ are b'dnp that w~k well f~ us offal them nf~ thJnp that work SouthoM Town Planner ValerJe Sco- paz otrfemd · solution. She su~ested the Southold Town Transportation mmtsdves, meet qdu with t.~RR md Iown lad ~h? pimP8 m'ficials to ~v&~ce a antfl~ idan to show to the f~]rosd conq2eny before 1~ nmves Mo · fsr fdonf h its remnsm~ctton, · areas .... B~ N. An~si ~ .r ~uth Fork with Sag H~rbor.snd b~' ih~ W~ ~e~ On the tour. , hen proceeded [o O~een~rt When ~ked If he ~ntic .............. Vdlnge where Mayor .~pell' ' f~n~ing ~t. the proJeCt, ~ll ' ~e Stale. of. NeW York., ~ve,tho~ in attehdan~e a' tour ".re~nded "~'"fe~l the ~ound- s~nsJ~d a ~buiia~t Mod~ay of' ' of the a~as th~ ~aritime act has~ :wor~ha~ ~en 'laid '~f~r 'f6mre the ~E~st End'~ maritime c~me~ as ~ar~ of a ~ri~ for thb~ ~ho aided a~d {ho~ he 'i~*'h~ping funding)." · . . .. ,.. will be helpe~ such a~' the.'" [n'&femn~' to the. road are members of the Htslor c Omen~ m~ioe railway. ' "~ll~tio~':'"~roblem~ Neb"' MarmmeAdyiso~.~mm[ttee. , = According to Su~l~r: Brashich~ 'chai~' 0f~ the 'Iowa ~e Histori~ ~nte~ Mar- Cochrsn, the key lo keeping trnnsOortation ~mmittee, asld itlme Activity Act was ~sed in ...... ar I 4 w ) .lobs on .the ~s~ End ~s mare- the town, m ~njunction with ~ ~h ~ and ~ d~ gned raining the tourist industry. ~o th~ highway department is to sdemffy, re~gm~ and p~- "majo/'are~" ~hrsn felt had ~orEl~g t~cu~ the simiion~ ~e h slur ~ ~mational and ....... · = · . ;. :' to be nddr~d were renovating a ~rher ~ .the year, com~ercsal.cultur~.~u~s, the marine~railroad syslem ~tashlbh {nformed~tho'lo&n a~sated w~th marm~e actm .... ' ...... · - . , . which Ii~ ~m.~e Green~ ~ard that the tow~ ~.slnt~ to ry. o~ the ~n~ ~1~ ~htpYn~s~d~l~ing. the end bf~.:~ and Pecon~E~t ~ ' road ~llulion problem which New York State''Capital designed to provide economic, educational and inspirational ibefy~eflts to tho~e areas tha. t qun, I- The North Fork has t~o members who sit on the adviso- ry committee--Southold Town Supervisor Jean Cochran and Village of Greenport Mayor David Kapell.. The tour' began on the currently plagues the town. According to Kapell, the concentration of the lout through Greenport was on the marine railway located in the Oree6p~T~. Ship Yard. The rail- ,.iwayi:.if resurrected, would be ~ used f'o.i' th6 I~iuling and mainte- · ~an, c~.b~ ~ll'ships. Kapell felt the rsilway~ivas "Well Yeceived' Improvement Budget to help mitigate problems the town has in regards to store1 Walef runoff., and the pollution it causes.