Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistorical Shoreline Change Analysis:Western Town Line to Horton Pt Final Report Feb 1999 by Aubrey Consulting, Inc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i CONSULTING. IN~ HISTORICAL SHORELINE CHANGE ANALYSIS: WESTERN TOWN LINE TO HORTON POINT SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK FINAL REPORT Aubrey Consulting, Incorporated 81 Technology Park Drive East Falmouth, MA 02536 FEBRUARY 1999 I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I HISTORICAL SHORELINE CHANGE ANALYSIS: WESTERN TOWN LINE TO HORTON POINT, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK FINAL REPORT February, 1999 Prepared for: Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Prepared by: Leslie Fields (Project Manager) And Kirk F. Bosma Mark R. Byrnes Aubrey Consulting, Inc. 81 Technology Park Drive East Falmouth, MA 02536 (508) 540-8080 Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. 766 Falmouth Rd., Bldg. A-Unit C Mashpee, MA 02649 (508) 539-3737 I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures List of Tables Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Geographic Setting 2.1. Coastal Geology 2.2. Coastal Processes 2.2.1. Waves 2.2.2. Winds 2.2.3. Tides 2.2.4. Sea-Level Rise 2.2.5. Tidal Inlet Processes 3. Analysis of Historical Shoreline Change 3.1. Data Sources 3.2. Data Compilation and Analysis Methods for Cartographic Data 3.2.1. Horizontal Control for NOS T-Sheets 3.2.2. Data Preparation and Capture 3.2.2.1. General Considerations 3.2.2.2. Application of Computer Cartography 3.2.2.3. Digitizing Cartographic Data 3.2.2.4. General Digitizing Guidelines 3.3. Data Compilation and Analysis Methods for Digital Imagery 3.4. Data Compilation and Analysis Methods for Photographic Data 3.4.1. Distortions 3.4.2. Methods for Geo-Referencing Photographic Data 3.5. Annotating Shoreline Position 3.6. Potential Error Analysis 3.6.1. Cartographic Sources 3.6.2. Aerial Surveys 3.6.3. Data Capture 3.6.4. Total Error 3.7. Quantifying Shoreline Change 3.8. Synthesis of Regional Shoreline Change Trends 4. History of Shoreline Protection and Human Impacts 4.1. Data Sources 4.2. Coastal Engineering Structures 4.2.1. Horton Point to Eastern Side of Goldsmith Inlet 4.2.2. Western Side of Goldsmith Inlet to Duck Pond Point 4.2.3. Duck Pond Point to Western Southold Town Line 4.3. Dredging Activity Page iii V vi 1 3 4 7 7 8 8 9 10 12 12 13 13 15 15 16 17 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 27 28 46 46 46 46 47 51 61 I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I Page 5. History of Storm Activity 63 5.1. Data Sources - Winds 63 5.2. Wind Statistics 63 5.3. Documented Storm Activity 65 5.4. Extremal Wind Analysis 66 5.4.1. General Approach 66 5.4.2. Extremal Wind Velocities 69 5.5. Data Sources - Water Elevations 71 5.5.1. Tide Analysis 73 5.6. Correlation of Historical Storm Data 73 6. Analysis of Longshore Transport Rates 77 7. Comparison of Results with Existing Studies 79 8. Discussion 83 8.1. Synthesis of Regional Shoreline Change Trends 83 8.2. Correlation of Shoreline Change With Shore Protection Structures 84 8.3. Correlation of Shoreline Change With Storms 85 9. Conclusions 87 10. References 89 11. Appendices Appendix A t: Shoreline Change Rates for Southold, New York, 1884-85 to 1998 Appendix A2: Shoreline Change Rates for Southold, New York, 1933 to 1998 Appendix A3: Shoreline Change Rates for Southold, New York, 1955 to 1998 Appendix A4: Shoreline Change Rates for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 Appendix A5: Shoreline Change Rates for Southold, New York, 1976 to 1998 Appendix BI: Tidal Harmonic Analysis Appendix B2: Historical Weather Records Appendix C: Correspondence for Mattituck Inlet ii I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. LIST OF FIGURES Page Location of Southold study site from Horton Point to the western town line. 2 The southward-most extent of the ice sheet during the Pleistocene Epoch. Directions of ice flow are indicated by arrows (Strahler, 1966). 5 Location of end moraines (shown in solid black) on eastern Long Island deposited during the Wisconsinian glaciation. Dotted areas are shoreside deposits ofoutwash and ice contact drift. The abbreviations are: CI, Captain Islands; NI, Norwalk Islands; MM, Madison moraine; LM, Ledyard moraine; OSM, Old Saybrook moraine; CM, Charlestown moraine; HHM, Harbor Hill moraine; RM, Ronkonkoma moraine (Gordon, 1980). 6 Annual wind rose for 1975 constructed from data collected at Montauk Point, New York. 9 Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1884 to 1998. 30 Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1884 to 1955. 31 Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1955 to 1964. 33 Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1964 to 1969. 34 Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1969 to 1976. 35 Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1976 to 1980. 37 Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1980 to 1993. 38 Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1993 to 1998. 39 Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1955 to 1998. 41 Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1964 to 1998. 42 Variations in long-term shoreline change rate between Goldsmith Inlet and the western end of Kermeys Road Beach. 43 Variations in incremental shoreline change rate between Goldsmith Inlet and the western end of Kenneys Road Beach. 44 Coastal engineering structures at Horton Point, Southold, New York. 48 iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Coastal engineering structures at Kenneys Road Beach, Southold, New York. Coastal engineering structures at Bittner property (between Kenneys Road Beach and Goldsmith Beach), Southold, New York. Coastal engineenng structures Coastal engmeenng structures Coastal engmeenng structures Coastal eng~neenng structures Coastal engineering structures Coastal engmeenng structures 49 50 at Goldsmith Inlet, Southold, New York. 52 west of Goldsmith Inlet, Southold, New York. 53 east of Duck Pond Point, Southold, New York. 54 at Duck Pond Point, Southold, New York. 55 west of Duck Pond Point, Southold, New York. 57 at Oregon Hills (between Duck Pond Point and Mattituck Inlet), Southold, New York. Coastal engineering structures east of Mattituck Inlet, Southold, New York. Coastal engineering structures at Mattituck Inlet, Southold, New York. Extremal results from application of a GEV analysis on observed wind velocities from Brookhaven National Laboratory. Location of the NOS tide station in Fort Pond Bay. Results of the tidal analysis performed on the 1960 data observations in Fort Pond Bay. Historical wind and water elevation records for 1960 and 1961. iv 58 59 60 70 72 74 76 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of shoreline source and data characteristics for area from Horton Point to the western Southold Town Line, New York. Table 2. Estimates o£potential error associated with shoreline position surveys. Table 3. Maximum root-mean-square (rms) potential error for shoreline change data, Horton Point to the west Southold Town Line, NY. Table 4. Coastal engineering structures between Horton Point and eastern side of Goldsmith Inlet, Southold, New York. Table 5. Coastal engineering structures between western side of Goldsmith Inlet and Duck Pond Point, Southold, New York. Table 6. Coastal engineering structures between Duck Pond Point and the western Southold Town Line. Table 7. History o£dredging activity at Goldsmith Inlet, Southold, New York. Table 8. History of dredging activity at Mattituck Inlet, Southold, New York. Table 9. History of sand removal west of Mattituck Inlet jet-ties, Southold, New York. Table 10. Wind observations at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Table 11. Historical statistics o£wind observations at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Table 12. Distribution of wind observations greater than one (1) standard deviation away from the historical mean. Table 13. Table 13. Summary of documented storm activity impacting coastal areas of Southold, New York. Table 14. GEV extremal results from BNL wind observations. Table 15. Sediment accumulation rates at Goldsmith Inlet. Table 16. Comparison of shoreline change rates computed for this study with rates computed by Davies et al. (1971). Table 17. Comparison of shoreline change rates computed for this study with rates computed by Greeuman-Pedersen (198 l). Page 13 26 27 47 51 56 62 62 62 64 64 65 66 71 78 80 82 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of an historical shoreline change analysis conducted for the Town of Southold, New York, located on the north fork of Long Island. The purpose of the study was to determine the rates and extent of shoreline change along the Long Island Sound shoreline from the western Town line to Horton Point. Trends in shoreline change were correlated with the installation of coastal engineering structures and significant storm events. Results from this study, along with other baseline studies contracted by the Town of Southold, will provide coastal zone management personnel with more information on the causes of erosion, the potential for damages, and possible cost savings from a variety of potential remedial actions. In addition, the studies will provide background information for future permit applications and engineering design of preferred alternatives. A description of the geographic setting of the study area includes information on the physical characteristics of the study site, as well as the basic geologic history of the area. The dominant coastal processes impacting evolution of the shoreline are described, including waves, winds, tides, sea-level rise, and tidal inlet processes. The analysis of historical shoreline change was conducted using a computer-based shoreline mapping technology, within a Geographic Information System (GIS) framework. The purpose of the shoreline change analysis was to quantify changes in shoreline position using the most accurate data sources and compilation procedures available, and to characterize areas of erosion and accretion as influenced by human modifications and natural storm processes. Data from 1884/85 to 1998 were utilized in the analysis; data sources included National Ocean Service (NOS) T-sheets, large-scale aerial photography, and low altitude digital imagery. The report includes a detailed description of data compilation and analysis methods for each of the different sources of shoreline data. Additionally, a thorough analysis of potential errors was conducted to provide information on the significance of the magnitude of shoreline change. Rates of shoreline change were computed at 537 shore-perpendicular transects stretching from Horton Point to the western town line. To evaluate historical development of the Southold coastline, and to correlate the changes in shoreline position with natural coastal processes and human-induced activities, the response of the shoreline was evaluated over both short- and long-term temporal scales. Within the study area, the greatest rates of shoreline change were associated with movement at Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets. Long-term trends of shoreline change between 1884/85 and 1998 showed accretion on the updrift (west) sides of the structured inlets, and erosion on the downdrift (east) sides. In areas outside the influence of the tidal inlets, the average long- term trend in shoreline change over the period 1884/85 to 1998 was erosional. Average rates of erosion ranged from 1.3 ft/yr at the extreme ends of the study site, to 0.5 fi/yr between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet. vi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I At Mattituck inlet, long-term (1884/85 to 1998) updrifi accretion impacts extend approximately 2,000 feet to the west of the inlet, while downdfi~ erosion impacts extend approximately 2,700 fi to the east of the inlet. Post-stabilization at Goldsmith Inlet, long- term (1964 to 1998) updfift accretion impacts extend approximately 600 feet to the west of the inlet, while downdrift erosion impacts extended approximately 2,480 fi to the east of the inlet. Between Goldsmith Inlet and the Bittner property, the average rate of long- term erosion during the period 1884 to 1955 was 1.0 fi/yr. Erosion rates for this area rose to a maximum of 11.9 fi/yr for the five year period following jetty construction (1964 to 1969). Since 1969 the rates of long-term erosion have gradually decreased. The rate of long-term erosion from the time of jetty construction to the present (1964 to 1998) was 2.9 fi/yr. This represents an increase of 1.9 fi/yr from the pre-jetty conditions. Between the Bittner property and the eastern edge of the Lockman property (Leeton Drive), the average rate of long-term erosion during the period 1884 to 1955 was 1.4 fi/yr. Effects of jetty construction at Goldsmith Inlet were not felt along this stretch until after 1969. The highest rates of long-term erosion (3.1 to 3.5 fi/yr) in this area occurred during the period 1969 to 1980, and resulted from the combined effects of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty, and Bitmer and Leeton Drive coastal engineering structures. Following 1980 rates of long-term erosion gradually decreased. The rate of long-term erosion between 1964 and 1998 along this section of coast was 2.0 fi/yr. This represents an increase of 0.6 fi/yr from the pre-structured conditions. A detailed inventory of shore protection structures and dredging activity throughout the study area was prepared using NOS T-sheets, aerial photographs, 1998 digital imagery, field investigations, wetland permits, and state and federal records. Review of these data allowed compilation of tables and figures showing the location of all coastal engineering structures and approximate dates of installation. Comparison of these data with the shoreline change analyses indicated that installation of shore parallel coastal engineering structures between Mattituck Inlet and Duck Pond Point following 1955 did not appear to increase the rate of shoreline recession. However, between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet, the installation of shore parallel structures between 1976 and the present does appear to have increased the rate of shoreline recession. Dredging records for Goldsmith Inlet show removal of 2,600 to 6,000 cubic yards of sand every 2-3 years during the 1980s. Most of this material was placed on downdrifi beaches to the east. At Mattituck Inlet records revealed dredging intervals of 2 to 8 years during the period 1921 to 1965. During this time quantities ranging from 13,400 to 51,500 cubic yards of sand were removed. More recent dredging at Mattituck Inlet occurred in 1980 and 1990. A detailed analysis of historical storm data was completed using wind measurements from the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), historical storm accounts, and water level observations from Montauk Point. Review of these data showed no direct correlations between periods of increased storm activity and shoreline erosion. Although storm activity undoubtedly causes dramatic changes in shoreline position, the effects of individual storms could not be identified without shoreline data vii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I collected following each storm. The effects of individual storms on shoreline response were averaged out by the shoreline data spaced at 5 to 10 year intervals. Rates of sediment impoundment at the Goldsmith Inlet jetty were used to calculate rates of longshore sediment transport. The Goldsmith Inlet jetty fillet grew from the time of jetty construction through 1969, and approached capacity by 1976. Following 1976 the size of the fillet remained fairly stable, fluctuating with the annual wave conditions. Shoreline response data downdr/f~ of the jetty indicate that sediment bypassing was restored sometime between 1976 and 1980. Rates of longshore sediment transport based on the Goldsmith Inlet fillet data are 8,000 (+35%) cu yds per year. viii ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HISTORICAL SHORELINE CHANGE ANALYSIS: WESTERN TOWN LINE TO HORTON POINT, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 1. Introduction The Town of Southold, New York is located along the north shore of Long Island, and has approximately 24 miles of shoreline facing Long Island Sound. In response to concerns about coastal erosion, the Town of Southold, in conjunction with the New York Department of State, Coastal Zone Management Program, has taken steps to identify the cause and magnitude of historical shoreline change, and to develop remedial actions. As a first step, during June 1996, the Town of Southold and the New York Department of State held a workshop in Southold to consider erosion problems and potential solutions. During this workshop, a number of findings and recommendations for remedial action were developed. These recommendations included modifications to existing shore protection structures, installation of new coastal engineering structures, sand bypassing, and beach nourishment. However, prior to the design and implementation of any remedial action, it was decided that additional data should be collected to identify the existing coastal resources and quantify shoreline response to the dominant coastal processes. In October 1997, the Town of Southold received a grant from Senator LaValle's office to conduct a series of studies for a baseline database of the Town of Southold shoreline extending from the western Town line to Horton Point (Figure 1). The studies were designed to provide coastal zone management personnel with more information on the causes of erosion, the potential for damages, and possible cost savings from a number of remedial actions. The studies also were intended to provide background information for future permit applications and engineering design of the preferred alternatives. The following five studies were designed to develop the necessary information: 1) benefits analysis, 2) environmental inventory, 3) geophysical analysis, 4) historic shoreline analysis, and 5) shoreline monitoring: The integration of baseline data from these five studies will provide coastal zone managers with a series of tools that can be used to make informed decisions regarding the management of erosion along the Town of Southold beaches. In December 1997, Aubrey Consulting, Inc. (ACI) was contracted to perform the historic shoreline analysis. The purpose of the study was to determine the rate and extent of erosion and accretion from the western border of the Town of Southold to Horton Point. The study was conducted using a series of historical shorelines from 1884/85 to 1993. In addition, a recent shoreline from 1998 was obtained and incorporated into the analysis. The shoreline data were geo-referenced using landmarks with known coordinates, and the position of the high water line was used as a reference to determine the net shoreline position change and the rate of shoreline change for a variety of time intervals. Inventories of shore protection structures and significant storm events also were compiled and correlated with the shoreline change information. The results from the shoreline change analysis are presented in the following report. Long Island Sound Mattituck Inlet Horton Lane Beach ? ~ Matiituck Kenneys Road Beach Goldsmith Inlet / Cutchogu¢ / P~conic Great Peconic Bay Robins 1. Horton Pt. Scale in Nautical Miles 0 Figure 1. Location of Southold study site from Horton Point to the western town line. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Geographic Setting The Town of Southold is located on the northern shore of Long Island and has approximately 24 miles of shoreline facing Long Island Sound. The western Town boundary is located in Mattituck Hills; Orient Point, at the northeastern tip of Long Island, marks the eastern Town boundary (Figure 1). The study area covers approximately 7.5 miles of shoreline stretching from the western Town boundary, east to Horton Point. This portion of the Town of Southold contains two primary coastal headlands located at Horton Point and Duck Pond Point, and two tidal entrances located at Goldsmith and Mattituck Inlets (Figure 1). These features are connected by gently curved, sand and cobbie beaches, which are backed by a nearly continuous glacial bluff. Mattituck Inlet is heavily used by recreational and commercial boaters, and is classified as a maritime center of statewide significance, whose uses are an important aspect of Southold's character. The position of the inlet has remained stable through the use of two stone jetties installed in the late 1800s. Goldsmith Inlet is not navigable, and is therefore not used by boaters. A single jetty was installed on the western side of the inlet in 1963-64 to protect the inlet and to help create access to Goldsmith Pond for boating. Impacts from construction of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty have been the subject of controversy for a number of years. Shoreline development varies significantly throughout the study area. To the west of Horton Point, the Horton Lane and Kenneys Road Beach areas are heavily developed with year- round and summer residences (Figure 1). Many of the homes are closely spaced and are located with minimal coastline setbacks. Two of the Town's primary public beaches, Kenneys Beach and Hortons Beach, also are located in this area. Between Kenneys Road Beach and Goldsmith Inlet, development is less dense, with coastline setbacks typically located landward of the coastal dune system. One major exception to this is development of the Bittner property, which extends into the coastal dune and coastal beach resources. The area located immediately west of Goldsmith Inlet is a 1.4 acre undeveloped parcel owned by the Town known as Goldsmith Inlet Beach. The area immediately surrounding Goldsmith Inlet to the east, is part of the 34 acre Goldsmith Inlet County Park o~med and operated by Suffolk County. The County park has approximately 1,000 feet of undeveloped beach frontage. A small area of dense development exists immediately to the west of Goldsmith Inlet County Park. Many of the structures are located at the edge of the coastal dune system. Further to the west near Cabots View Rd. the dwellings are more widely spaced and are located along the top of the glacial bluff overlooking Long Island Sound. Between this point and Duck Pond Point, coastline development is generally sparse. Most of the coastal property is farmland, which abuts the shoreline in a nearly continuous and steeply sloping coastal bank. Development increases again in the Duck Pond Point area where a number of residences are overlooking the coastal bank, and a motel facility is located immediately west of Duck Pond Point. The area between Duck Pond Point and Oregon Hills (Figure 1) is characterized by undeveloped farmland with steeply sloping glacial bluffs. Residential development increases in the Oregon Hills area, and extends nearly to the eastern side of Mattituck Inlet. Many of the homes in this area are I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I located near the top of the bluff overlooking Long Island Sound. A small undeveloped parcel serving as a park is located immediately east of Mattituck Inlet. Another small park is located on the west side of Mattituck Inlet and is owned by the Mattituck Park District, A concession stand/bath house is nm from this location during the summer season. The density of residential development increases again to the west of Mattituck Inlet where the structures are located in close proximity to the shoreline. Further to the west, the coastal bank rises again, and the houses are located on the top of the bluff overlooking Long Island Sound. Finally, in the Mattituck Hills area, the study site is characterized by undeveloped farmland, and steeply sloping glacial bluffs. As is typical of most coastal areas, the shorelines of Southold are dynamic and constantly changing. They contain a variety of valuable wetland resources areas including coastal beach, coastal dune, glacial bluff, and salt marsh. As such, they provide a number of important functions including recreation, wildlife habitat, flood control and storm damage protection. Recreational use of the beaches during the summer combined with heavy coastal development, oiten place conflicting demands on these natural resources, underscoring the importance of comprehensive management of the shoreline. The historical evolution of the coastline is primarily dependent on a complex interaction between coastal geology, coastal processes (waves, winds, tides, and sea-level rise), and available sediment supply. On developed beaches, such as those at Southold, shoreline evolution is also controlled by coastal engineering structures (jetties, groins) and the infrastructure (i.e., roads, dwellings) they are designed to protect. To understand the sediment transport patterns along the Southold shoreline, first it is important to review the major geological factors contributing to the evolution of the area and the major coastal processes which shape the shoreline. Once the interaction between the natural geologic system and incident coastal processes is understood, the impact of engineering structures on beach change can be evaluated and quantified. 2.1. Coastal Geology During the Pleistocene Epoch, which spanned the interval approximately 1 million to 10,000 years before present, Long Island was modified by successive continental glaciations and their accompanying changes in sea level. The Pleistocene Epoch was characterized by at least four major cycles of glaciation during which time the ice advanced and retreated (Kaye, 1964; Strahler, 1966; Oldale, 1982). The most recent glacial stage, beginning 50,000-70,000 years ago, was the Wisconsin Stage (Strahler, 1966). The Wisconsinan ice sheet (termed the Laurentide in North America) originated in the Labrador Sea and Hudson Bay. As the ice sheet thickened due to the accumulation of snow, the ice began to spread. In the United States, the Wisconsinan ice sheet eventually thickened to I0,000 f~ and extended south to New York City, Long Island, and Nantucket, covering all of New England (Figure 2). The maximum extent of the glacier is marked by a discontinuous terminal moraine, which extends through Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard and Long Island. During its advance, the glacier carved the land underneath, excavating large pieces of bedrock from the terrain, sculpting ridges and valleys, and grinding larger rocks into sand, silt, and clay-sized particles. 4 I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 2. Known ioe limit Cape Cod '~"." "'. .,,"'"--"~'"~ 500 Mi. The southward-most extent of the ice sheet during the Pleistocene Epoch. Directions of ice flow are indicated by arrows (Strahler, 1966). 5 i On Long Island, the Ronkonkoma end moraine marks the point of farthest advance of the Wisconsinan ice sheet (Figure 3). The ice sheet held this position for thousands of years, until a rapid wanning of the world's climate caused glacial melting and evaporation rates to exceed I precipitation (snowfall) rates, and the ice began to melt. Sand, gravel, clay, and boulders that the glacier had accumulated were deposited over extensive outwash plains to form portions of southeast Long Island. During this period of global warming, the ice sheet receded northward to I a second stillstand position along what are presently the shores of northern Long Island, the Elizabeth Islands and Cape Cod Bay. This second stillstand lasted for several thousands of years during which time sand, gravel, clay, and boulders were deposited along the edges of the glacier, I either directly by the ice or by streams. These deposits were in the form of recessional moraines and till sheets. The Harbor Hill moraine, which runs along the north shore of Long Island and through the Town of Southold, marks the position of the ice margin during this long stillstand I (Figure 3). The highly variable sediments of the Harbor Hill moraine (clay, sand, cobbles, and boulders) form the bluffs of the current Town of Southold shoreline. I I I Figure 3. Location of end moraines (shown in solid black) on eastern Long Island deposited during the Wisconsinian glaciation. Dotted areas are shoreside deposits of outwash and ice contact drift. The abbreviations are: CI, Captain Islands; NI, Norwalk Islands; MM, Madison moraine; LM, Ledyard moraine; OSM, Old Saybrook moraine; CM, Charlestown moraine; HHM, Harbor Hill moraine; RM, Ronkonkoma moraine (Gordon, 1980). I I 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As the glaciers continued to recede northward, the earth's crust began to rebound (rise) at a rapid rate, resulting in emergence of the shoreline and a lowering of relative sea level. In the vicinity of Long Island, a lowstand of sea level occurred between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. The lower sea levels at this time resulted in a shoreline that was much farther seaward than at present. Between 12,000 years ago and the present, the rate of isostatic rebound decreased, while eustatic sea level (worldwide) continued to rise. This resulted in relative sea level rise and a transgression of the shoreline. As sea levels gradually rose to the location of the present day shorelines, waves and currents eroded glacial deposits and redeposited the sands and gravels to form shoals, beaches, and spits. Winds transported and redeposited beach sands to form dunes, and marshes, and swamps formed in sheltered bays and kettle holes. In the Town of Southold, more resistant local geology caused headlands to form at Horton Point and Duck Pond Point. Longshore transport between these headlands caused the formation of a baymouth barrier that separated Long Island Sound from the shallow coastal bays. Eventually, natural sediment transport processes filled the shallow bays, and the baymouth barrier migrated landward. These same processes are continuing to shape the Southold shoreline today. 2.2. Coastal Processes The combined effects of coastal processes in the nearshore zone mold the beach into a constantly changing, evolving coastal landform. The dominant driving forces, which include waves, winds, tides, and sea-level rise interact in a complex fashion to cause nearshore sediment transport. In many coastal regions, this sediment transport results in either localized or large- scale areas of erosion and/or accretion. One of the primary factors that control the trend in shoreline change is the available sediment supply. On short-time scales (up to centuries), waves are the most important factor in reshaping the coastline, whereas relative sea-level rise and sediment supply are the dominant factors over longer (geologic) time scales. The dominant driving forces and the importance of tidal inlet processes are discussed in the following section to provide an overall review of the ability of natural coastal processes to sculpt and modify the shoreline. 2.2.1. Waves As winds blow across the surface of the ocean, they transfer energy to the water and produce waves. Winds that blow far away in the Atlantic Ocean create swell wave conditions, characterized by long wave periods. Localized winds create sea wave conditions, which are characterized by short wave periods and irregular wave heights. The most dominant waves in the Southold area are comprised of local seas caused by winds blowing from the west through the northeast. Swells are less common since Atlantic storm systems typically move easterly away from the coast or along the coast rapidly, a situation not suitable to the formation of persistent swell. In addition, the northeast-southwest orientation of eastern Long Island and the presence of Fishers and Block Islands, and Montauk Point tends to shelter the Southold shoreline from Atlantic Ocean waves approaching from the east and southeast. Waves from the northeast generated during winter storms can reach significant heights as winds blow down the axis of Long Island Sound; however, the rapid movement of most northeasters, as compared with hurricanes, prevents the formation of long period swell during these storms. 7 I I I I I ! I I I I I I I Sediment transport in the shallow nearshore zone is controlled by waves and wave- generated currents. Waves help to control the form of the coastal beach, and they are responsible for moving sediment along the shore (littoral drift) and across the shore. Due to the lack of field measurements of wave characteristics in Long Island Sound, a quantitative evaluation of wave climatology along the Southold shoreline is extremely difficult. Several studies have provided general information about Long Island Sound waves (Davies et al., 1971; Alice King Rosen & Fleming, Inc., 1996); however, specific information regarding wave heights, periods and directions is not available for the study site. Orientation of the study area shoreline and increased fetch distances to the west suggest that the largest waves approach the coast from the west, causing sediment transport towards the east. Examination of historical aerial photographs corroborates that the net direction of sediment transport is from west to east. 2.2.2. Winds Winds affect the beach in two primary ways. Winds can carry sand to or from the beach, depending on the dominant wind directions. Winds may also build dunes, whose sand may or may not become available to the nearshore zone at a later stage. The second effect of winds is to generate elevated water levels or storm surge against the shoreline. Strong winds coincident with storms cause large volumes of water to pile up against the shoreline, thereby resulting in elevated water levels. The combination of storm surge and large waves is a major factor causing erosion of coastal banks, cross-shore sediment transport, and offshore bar formation. Local wind information can be summarized from data collected at the Brookhaven National Laboratories located on Long Island just southwest of Southold. Figure 4 shows an annual wind rose for the period 1975 using data from the Brookhaven Laboratory. The data show prevailing winds in the Southold area from the north-northwest with average speeds ranging from 6.5 to 19.6 feet per second. The greatest occurrence of high-speed winds (>29.5 ft/sec) also occurs from the north-northwest. During a significant period of time the winds also blow from the southeast and southwest; however, due to the shoreline orientation these winds have a reduced impact on wave generation and sediment transport at the study site. 2.2.3. Tides Tides along the shoreline play three important functions with regard to sediment transport. First, they serve to vary the width of the active part of the beach; large tidal ranges spread wave activity over a greater portion of the beach. To a lesser extent, nearshore tidal currents may influence the motion of beach sediments. Near inlets, tides also are responsible for ebb and flood currents that have the ability to transport significant quantities of sediment. I I I i The tides along the north shore of Long Island are predominantly semi-diurnal, with two highs and two lows occurring each day. At Horton Point the mean and spring tidal ranges are 4.0 and 4.6 fi, respectively. Further to the west near Mattituck Inlet, the mean and spring tidal ranges are 5.2 and 6.0 ft, respectively (US Dept. of Commerce, 1998). In general, tidal ranges within Long Island Sound increase from east to west as the Sound narrows and the basin size decreases. Due to the relatively small tidal range, tidal currents are not a major contributor to sediment transport offshore. However, tides are important in inlet processes, since the constricted openings at the inlets accentuate the tidal currents during ebb and flood flows. I I I ! I I i I I I I i I I I I I I I Wind Rose at Montauk Point during 1975 0 33O Wind Speed 9,00+ 3OO 270 ........ 24O 210 ~ 150 180 9O Figure 4. Annual wind rose for 1975 constructed from data collected at Montauk Point, New York. 2.2.4. Sea-Level Rise Global sea levels have been rising for the past 15 millennia, since the end of the last ice age. Worldwide sea levels continue to rise in response to glacial isostasy, wanning of the world oceans, and melting of the continental glaciers. Locally, however, relative sea levels have fluctuated due to the combination of land movements (neo-tectonism and human impact) and gradually rising ocean levels. Neo-tectonism can either cause a sinking of the land (subsidence) as in southern New England, or rising of the land (emergence) as in Alaska. Human impacts generally cause subsidence of the land, due to the extraction of groundwater, oil, or gas, for 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I example. The magnitude of each of these impacts is often uncertain, and the relative impact of each depends on geographical location (Aubrey and Emery, 1983; Braatz and Aubrey, 1987; Emery and Aubrey, 1991). The closest long-term tide gauge stations to Southold are New London and Bridgeport CT, and Port Jefferson and Montauk, NY. These stations have data that indicate the relative rise of sea level compared to the level of the land. Tide-gauge data from these locations show a relative sea-level rise ranging from 1.9 (Montauk) to 2.7 (Port Jefferson) mm per year (Emery and Aubrey, 1991). This is equivalent to a rise of 7.5 to 11 inches every one hundred years. Though sea-level rise may not appear to be a large factor in controlling shoreline erosion, it is a continual factor that will impact low-lying coastal areas, such as the Town of Southold, well into the future. For a beach with a slope of 0.01 (one foot rise over one hundred feet of beach), sea- level rise alone, absent other factors, will cause erosion of 63 -92 feet over one hundred years. Global wanning scientists have predicted increased rates of sea-level rise in the future. Though debate still rages about the magnitude of such changes, one can estimate that the rate of sea-level rise may increase by 50% during the next fifty years. Although the increase in water elevations due to sea-level rise may seem small when compared with those produced by waves and storm surge, these greater water levels are still a significant factor for beach stability. The potential impacts of an accelerated rise in sea level can be incorporated into future management plans for the coastal region, through zoning, construction, and other regulations. 2.2.5. Tidal Inlet Processes The evolution of a tidal inlet is based on the hydrodynamic forces created by local waves and tides. The flow through a tidal inlet is dominated by tidal currents, which are a result of differences in water level between the sound and bay. Inlet channels are scoured by tidal currents, until a stable geometry is obtained that allows for the currents to flow freely. Because tidal amplitudes, wave conditions, and winds are constantly changing, and these processes influence inlet currents, tidal inlets are constantly evolving. As an inlet evolves, sediment is scoured from and/or deposited in the channel in an effort to stabilize the tidal flow naturally. The tidal currents in a naturally stable inlet channel transport sediment as well. As the tide is rising, flood currents transport sediment inland to bays and coastal waterways. As the tide falls, ebb currents transport sediment offshore. The quantity of sediment transported depends on the velocity of the tidal currents, the characteristics of the sediment, the volume of available sediment, and the longshore transport rate. Typically, an inlet is dominated by one of the two tidal cycles. High velocity, short duration flood currents and lower velocity, longer duration ebb currents are characteristic of a flood-dominated system, and vice-versa. Consequently, more sediment is transported into the bays and coastal waterways for a flood-dominated system, whereas larger volumes of sediment are transport offshore in an ebb- dominated system. Speer and Aubrey (1985) and Aubrey (1986) found that flood-dominant systems tend to infill channels with coarse sediment, and ebb-dominant systems tend to flush sediment offshore, resulting a more stable tidal inlet system. The sediment transported by tidal currents is deposited in tidal shoals; flood shoals are located in the bays and ebb shoals are located offshore. Large volumes of sediment can be stored in these shoals. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I Beaches adjacent to tidal inlets can be dramatically affected by the sediment transport capabilities of tidal currents. The presence of the tidal inlet commonly interrupts the natural longshore transport of sediment. This sediment is captured by the tidal currents and can be deposited in the inlet, transported to flood and ebb shoals, or allowed to migrate beyond the inlet to the downdrif~ beaches. Natural by-passing of sediment can occur as material is transported offshore by ebb-tidal currents to the ebb shoal, then back to the downdrift beach by wave action. Depending upon the inlet geometry, sediment may be transported directly to downdrift beaches by longshore currents and/or by ebb-tidal currents. It is common for beaches downdrif~ of an inlet to erode because the inlet traps sediment that would otherwise be transported to the downdrif~ beaches. When tidal inlets are stabilized through the use of jetties, the effects of sediment trapping can be enhanced, thereby having detrimental impacts on downdrif~ beaches. The only two tidal inlets located within the Southold study site are Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets. Mattituck Inlet connects Long Island Sound with Mattituck Creek and a relatively small system of channels and waterways. The inlet was stabilized with two stone jetties in the early 1900s (east jetty completed in 1906 and west jetty completed in 1914). Review of historical aerial photographs and bathymetric charts suggests that the inlet does not have extensive flood or ebb-tidal shoals. This may be the result of a number of factors including, small tidal prism and low velocity tidal currents, high wave-induced longshore current velocities, steep offshore slope, and/or sediment characteristics. The Goldsmith tidal inlet system is considerably smaller than Mattituck Inlet, as the inlet connects a small coastal pond to Long Island Sound. A stone jetty was constructed on the western side of Goldsmith Inlet in 1963-64 to protect the inlet, to help create access to Goldsmith Pond for boating, and to allow for future development of the Town's recreational facilities (letter from L. M. Albertson, 1967; letter from R. Rokoczy, 1994; Appendix C). Because of the small size of the system, the current velocities are generally not high enough to scour a stable channel on the seaward side of the inlet. As such, the location of the entrance fluctuates slightly due to variations in incident waves, sediment supply, and tidal currents. A small flood-tidal delta has formed on the inside of the inlet near where the channel widens and currently velocities are reduced. Stabilization of Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets has had an influence on sediment transport patterns along the western Southold shoreline. Since the direction of net sediment transport is from west to east, installation of jetties at these inlets has caused an accretion of sediment on the western (updrifi) sides of the inlets, and erosion on the eastern (downdrift) sides. However, increased rates of shoreline change in the vicinity of tidal inlets are common, and cannot be attributed solely to coastal engineering structures. The relative magnitudes of shoreline change associated with these inlets and the causes will be discussed in later sections of this report. 11 I i I I I I 3. Analysis of Historical Shoreline Change 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. Analysis of Historical Shoreline Change A computer-based shoreline mapping methodology, within a Geographic Information System (GIS) framework, was used to compile and analyze changes in historical shoreline position between 1884/85 and 1998 for the Town of Southold shoreline between Mattituck Hills (western Town line) and Horton Point (Figure 1). The purpose of this task was to quantify changes in shoreline position using the most accurate data sources and compilation procedures available, and to characterize areas of erosion and accretion as influenced bY human modifications and natural storm processes. Because this information is critical to most coastal zone management decisions, emphasis has been placed on data accuracy and potential error estimates for gauging the significance of results. The following section provides a detailed description of the methods and data sources used in this study. 3.1. Data Sources Creation of an accurate map is always a complex surveying and cartographic task, but the influence of coastal processes, relative sea level, sediment source, climate, and human activities make shoreline mapping especially difficult. Historically, shoreline field surveys were so time consuming that long periods resulted between successive maps. Such infrequent data collection can make trends in historical shoreline change difficult to interpret. More recently, air photos, which have the benefit of a relatively synoptic view and potentially frequent collection and analysis, have been used to update historical maps. However, if air photos are to be treated as maps, images must be rectified to eliminate the effect of distortions in the photographic process. I I I I ! I I I I The three sources of data used in this study to evaluate historical changes in shoreline position were National Ocean Service (NOS) T-sheets, large-scale aerial photography, and low altitude digital imagery (Table 1). Shoreline position data for the period 1884-85 represent the earliest surveys on record for quantitative evaluation. The USACE (1969) Beach Erosion Control study for the North Shore of Long Island Suffolk County, New York cites shoreline change information from as early as 1836-38; however, actual shoreline position data from this time period were not available for this study. Data from these NOS T-sheets were surveyed using standard planetable surveying techniques and covered the entire study area from Horton Point to the western town line. NOS published a second set ofT-sheets for the study area for the period 1933. These maps were compiled from rectified aerial photography and covered only the eastern portion of the study area from Horton Point to Duck Pond Point. In addition, shoreline position information was obtained from a series of large-scale aerial photographs for the following time periods: 1955, 1964, 1969, 1976, 1980, and 1993 (Table 1). Photographs from these years were selected based on scale of original photography (<1:I 2,000), quality of photography, and spacing of time intervals. Evenly-spaced, reasonable time intervals are important for the analysis of shoreline change, as extremely short time intervals (<4 years) typically display large variations in shoreline position, and consequently have large associated errors. The time series of photographs selected for this study represents the highest quality and most reasonably spaced photographic data available. The photographs were obtained as overlapping, 9x9 inch images covering the entire study area. Finally, the most recent and most accurate shoreline position data were collected in April 1998 using low altitude, digital imagery. 12 I Table 1. Summary of Shoreline Source Data Characteristics for Study Area from Horton Point to the Southold Town Line, New York Date Data Source Comments and Map Numbers 1884/85 USC&GS Topographic Maps First surveyed shoreline using standard planetable surveying (I: 10,000) techniques; Horton Point to Goldsmith Inlet (T-sheet 1577b June 1884 survey); Goldsmith Inlet to Mattimck Hills (T- sheet 1730; June 1885 survey); Mattituck Hills to the western Town Line (T-sheet 1729; June 1885) April 21, 1933 USC&GS Topographic Maps First aerial photographic survey of shoreline; Horton Point (1:10,000) to just east of Goldsmith Inlet (T-sheet 5337); Goldsmith Inlet to Duck Pond Point (T-sheet 5070) May 12, 1955 Shoreline interpreted from aerialCoverage from Horton Point to the west Southold Town photography (1:12,000) Line April 1, 1964 Shoreline interpreted from aerialCoverage from Horton Point to the west Southold Town photography ( 1:12,000) Line April 1, 1969 Shoreline interpreted from aerialCoverage from Ho, ton Point west to about 1.0 mile east of photography (1:12,000) the west Southold Town Line April 6, 1976 Shoreline interpreted from aerialCoverage from Horton Point west to about 0.6 mile east of photography (1:12,000) the west Southold Town Line March 24, Shoreline interpreted from aerialCoverage from Horton Point to the west Southold Town 1980 photography (1:12,000) Line April 5, 1993 Shoreline interpreted from aerialCoverage from Horton Point to the west Southold Town photography (1:12,000) Line April 13, 1998 Shoreline interpreted from Coverage from Horton Point to the west Southold Town digital imagery (1:9,600) Line; images collected at low altitude with a digital camera using an integrated GPS and inertial navigation system I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.2. Data Compilation and Analysis Methods for Cartographic Data Since the mid-1800s, significant changes in surveying procedures and cartographic representation make it necessary to document changes and adjust historical dam for accurate comparison with more recent photographic data. The following discussion focuses on the elements of data preparation required for accurately superimposing shoreline position data from historical maps and aerial photographs. 3.2.1. Horizontal Control for NOS T-Sheets In order to utilize the NOS T-sheets for quantitative studies of spatial and temporal change, it is necessary to bring all cartographic data to a common system of horizontal control. To do this, geodetic variables must be identified and evaluated for all maps. The basic elements of horizontal control and map preparation are the spheroid of reference (more recently called the ellipsoid), geographic datum, and map projection. The spheroid of reference is a mathematical representation of the earth's surface or a specific portion of the earth's surface. Variables comprising the spheroid are distance measurements of the semi-major axis and semi-minor axis. Various spheroid calculations are 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I often compared by their values of flattening. If a is the semi-major axis of the earth and b the semi-minor axis, then the flattening f is defined as (a-b)/a (Snyder, 1987). There have been many spheroid calculations, the most important of which are the Bessel spheroid of 1841 and the Clarke spheroid of 1866. The Bessel spheroid of 1841 was used for all maps (i.e., NOS T- sheets) prepared between 1844 and February 1880. The Clarke spheroid of 1866 was adopted at this time and used until 1989, when it was officially replaced by the GRS 80 ellipsoid (Wade, 1986). It is unclear which spheroid was used for maps made before 1844, although reference is made to a value similar to that of the Walbeck 1819 spheroid. A geographic datum, as defined by Shalowitz (1964) is "the adopted position in latitude and longitude of a single point to which the charted features of a region are referred. More specifically, it consists of five quantities: the latitude and longitude of an initial point, the azimuth of a line from this point to another point to which it is tied by the triangulation, and two constants necessary to define the terrestrial spheroid. It forms the basis for the computation of horizontal control surveys in which the curvature of the earth is considered." Prior to 1899, there was not a triangulation network that covered the entire country. Instead, there were several detached systems of triangulation based on astronomic readings. Each of these systems represented an independent datum. With completion of the transcontinental arc of triangulation, it was possible to unite these independent networks into a single datum for the entire country. This datum was named the United States Standard Datum and had its origin at station Meades Ranch in Kansas. In 1913, the network was expanded to include both Canada and Mexico and renamed the "North American Datum". However, no changes in the definition of the datum, and therefore no changes in the coordinates of any points, were made. The practice of the Coast and Geodetic Survey has been to update each of the early T- sheets to the current, best known coordinate values when there is a need. Updates consist of drawing a new graticule on the existing map. This could lead to the presence of several different sets of lines representing the same coordinates. There have been six occasions for updates, although it is often the case that corrections for several or all changes were made at the same time. The majority of the maps that pre-date the North American Datum, have been updated to the North American Datum, and many have been updated to the North American Datum of 1927. This is evidenced by the presence of new latitude-longitude lines drawn on the maps. These new lines are drawn and marked with the date of correction, the datum to which the map is corrected, and the initials of the person performing the correction. The procedures for manually performing these corrections are outlined by Shalowitz (1964), but modem computers provide much faster and more accurate methods for datum transformation. On occasion, there were surveys made before any triangulation stations were established in an area and before astronomic observations were made. In this case, the topographer constructed a rectangular coordinate system and plotted points by their distances from the x- and y-axes and the distance between points. Normally, a 1,000-m grid would then be drawn on the survey sheet to facilitate adding a projection at a later date. 14 ! I I I I The last crucial element of cartographic representation is map projection. A map projection is an ordered system of drawing parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude representing a round earth on a flat map. Many different projections exist, each having its own advantages and disadvantages for varying map scales and applications. The Polyconic projection was developed as an improvement on the Bonne projection shortly before 1820. Its use was promoted by Ferdinand Rudolph Hassler, head of the Survey of the Coast (Snyder, 1987). The Polyconic projection has been used for all topographic surveys of the USC&GS since publication of the first polyconic tables in 1853. Prior to this, maps were drawn either on a variation of the Polyconic projection or on the Bonne projection. On topographic surveys at scales of 1:10,000 or 1:20,000, the curvature of meridians and parallels is rarely perceptible. Thus, any difference in projection on these early maps makes little quantifiable difference in the positions of points. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.2.2. Data Preparation and Capture Once data sources were identified for compiling shoreline position change, a variety of factors related to accurate data capture were considered depending on the vintage of cartographic material. Although difficulties in preparing a shoreline map are numerous, comparing shoreline positions on successive maps and air photos is even more challenging. Shoreline maps should be corrected to reflect a common datum and brought to a common scale, projection, and coordinate system before data from successive maps can be accurately compared (Snyder, 1987; McBride, 1989). Manual cartographic techniques are very tedious and time consuming. Fortunately, electronic digitizers and computers with a variety of software have greatly facilitated the use of maps for quantifying shoreline change (Byrnes, McBride, and Hiland 1991; McBride et al. 1991). This section discusses the elements of data preparation in terms of transformation variables for ensuring consistent comparison among historical data at a common scale, datum, ellipsoid, and projection. Data capture procedures are described with reference to standard computer cartographic techniques needed for accurately superimposing metric quality maps. 3.2.2.1. General Considerations Cartographic parameters, such as map scale, protection, horizontal reference datum, and ellipsoid attributes are used for representing any portion of the earth's surface (non-linear and three-dimensional) on linear two-dimensional media. These parameters were discussed above with reference to updates since the early to middle 1800s. Datum shifts have resulted in the largest amount of change with historical maps, but ellipsoid (or spheroid, as it was originally referenced) parameters used to approximate the earth's shape also have changed. Although NOS T-sheets use a polyconic projection, large scale planimetric maps produced for localized areas may use state plane coordinates (Transverse Mercator or Lambert Conformal projection). Accurate comparison of temporal changes necessitates data transformation to a common surface of correlation at a common scale (Shalowitz, 1964; Ellis, 1978). In addition to considerations associated with coordinate representation, media distortion and incomplete map information present varying degrees of difficulty. Map paper distortion, or shrink and stretch, is recognized as being non-linear and can represent a 1 percent change with a 60 percent increase in humidity (Snyder, 1987). However, at large scale (greater than 1:24,000) and in a controlled work environment, this problem is rather minor. A manual procedure for evaluating and compensating for map distortion is presented in Shalowitz (1964); however, 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I computer cartographic procedures automatically make adjustments to alleviate this problem. Media destruction, such as folds and tears, can cause more serious problems. Each situation is unique and a number of techniques can be used to reduce the impact of potential problems. A more direct limitation is that associated with restricted horizontal control. The most accurate way to register mapped features to a grid is to use triangulation station positions (Crowell, Leatherman, and Buckley, 1991). If these data exist, they are located on maps very accurately (Shalowitz, 1964). Newer maps contain many control points, but older maps typically contain very few points. Often, the graticule on a map represents the only level of control. If triangulation stations and a graticule do not exist, the map is no longer metric and should not be used for quantitative data comparisons. 3.2.2.2. Application of Computer Cartography In recent years, the development and improvement of hardware and software for computer cartography has greatly reduced the time and effort required to alleviate the above- mentioned problems. Not long ago, accurate comparison of two maps from different years might have involved a trained cartographer to draw new projections at identical scales, a draftsman to redraw both maps, and at least several days for manual drafting of the maps. Now, with the aid of computers, one person can easily perform all of the corrections needed and produce a composite map in one day. When maps are electronically digitized, they are traced into the computer using a high- precision digitizing table and cursor. The computer converts the points on the table to real-world units (meters, feet, latitude-longitude, etc.) in a graphics file using a transformation unique to each map. Consequently, all maps are brought to the same scale (1:1) and actual ground distances and areas can be determined directly. In addition, because all data are in this format, it is easily output to a plotter at any scale desired by defining a simple ratio of plotter units to graphics file units. Each map may have a different map projection or different parameters for the same projection. Either way, two maps cannot be compared accurately unless they are drawn in the same projection with exactly the same parameters for that projection. Computer cartography software provides a list of several projections that may be used, and it allows the user to define the same set of parameters for a file as it exists on the map. Also included is the ability to convert any file defined with one projection and set of parameters to any other projection or set of parameters. Computer cartography software also provides the capability of defining and converting between a wide range of ellipsoids and datums. This allows all points on a map to be updated to the same horizontal control network and therefore the same coordinate system. Media distortion can be eliminated by using maps drawn on stable-base materials. However, if paper maps are used, and distortion from shrinking and swelling is significant, the digitizer setup provides some degree of correction by distributing error uniformly across the map. In addition, rubber-sheeting and least-squares fit programs allow the user to define certain control points and correct for distortion errors as much as possible. It is also important to remember that data in digital form acquires no new distortions, whereas even stable-base maps 16 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I can be torn, wrinkled, and folded, producing distortions on the map. Scale distortions from maps reproduced optically are also corrected by bringing all maps to a 1:1 scale. The final important application of computer cartography is the advantage of saving time. Expert cartographers and draftsmen are trained for years, whereas a person with basic computer skills can be trained to operate a workstation and software in a matter of months. Digitizing maps is faster than manually drafting them, and the time for reproduction, coordinate system conversion, modification, and change of scale is reduced significantly. Also, the time for learning the system is constantly decreasing with improvements in hardware and added software functions. All of the above capabilities are critical for accurately quantifying change, and results obtained without consideration of these points are likely to have serious errors. 3.2.2.3. Digitizing Cartographic Data In the past, map data capture for assessing shoreline change usually meant assembling available analog information and comparing shoreline position relative to a fixed reference point. The method was manual and was used mainly for reconnaissance purposes. Similarly, bathymetric change analysis was time intensive and of varying accuracy. With the advent of electronic digitizers and computer technology, the process of data capture has become much more accurate and less time consuming. The following section describes procedures used in this study to accurately establish a digitizer setup prior to capturing shoreline positions from NOS T- sheets, and the problems encountered with different vintage map sets. It is important to have a well-outlined and strictly followed procedure for digitizing maps to assure consistency in the quality and reliability of data. Generally, it can be assumed that the more recent a map, the more accurately it is drawn. This stems from the fact that surveying and map making technology have shown a steady increase over the years. For this reason, the more recent T-sheets from 1933 were digitized first, in order to create a better base with which to compare the older maps. This method enables users to catch large errors with older maps and can also help improve the control within which they are digitized. To compile accurate digital shoreline position data, a series of control points is necessary to place the shoreline in a coordinate system. This can be accomplished using triangulation station coordinates or the map graticule. The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) can compile an alphabetized list of triangulation stations by state or by geographic region. This list gives the name of each station, its latitude and longitude, state plane coordinates, and state plane zone. These represent coordinates that have been updated to the NAD 27. Many of these points can be located on NOS T-sheets, and these generally are considered the most accurate plotted points on the maps. The primary method for linking map data with a defined grid is the use of triangulation station coordinates provided by the NGS. Digitizer setup is performed using at least four well- spaced triangulation stations with known NAD 27 coordinates; generally, the more triangulation stations used, the better the digitizer setup. By well-spaced, it is meant that the points should surround a majority of the area being digitized. This gives the computer a known point in each 17 I I I I portion of the map and greatly reduces distortion, which becomes proportionately greater further from the known point. Often, there may be less than four triangulation stations on a particular map, or the stations on the map may be concentrated in one area. In this case, intersections of latitude and longitude lines are used as control points for digitizer setup in addition to triangulation station locations on the map. The graticule points used should compliment the triangulation station(s) to provide at least four well-spaced points for digitizer setup. Due to the appropriate number and spacing of triangulation points, latitude and longitude graticule points were not needed to register the 1933 NOS T-sheets on the digitizing tablet. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Occasionally, there are no triangulation stations on a T-sheet. In this case, several graticule points are used for digitizer setup. No noticeable difference has been found in the accuracy of graticule setup versus triangulation setup on recent maps (1932 to present). In other cases, there are triangulation stations drawn on NOS T-sheets that are not included on the list from NGS. Therefore, it may be helpful to review older maps to see if these stations are associated with older shorelines. If a very good digitizer setup is achieved on the newer map, and this is usually the case, the unlisted triangulation stations can be digitized to provide a control point for use on the older map. In some cases, U.S. Standard Datum maps for a particular study area contain less than four up-dated triangulation stations or graticule marks, or control points that are not well spaced. For this circumstance, two options can be pursued. First, the operator can physically measure the magnitude of the datum shift from an existing updated point. This shift can be applied to any other U.S. Standard Datum graticule point on the map (Shalowitz, 1964), and the updated point can be drawn. A drawback to this method is that it introduces errors associated with manually measured distances and subsequent drawing of updated lines. As an alternative, the Datum Differences publication should be consulted (US Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1985). If one of the triangulation stations found on the map or an adjacent map is listed in this publication, then that shift is applied to the points on the U.S. Standard Datum graticule, and new coordinates are supplied during the digitizer setup. Since the known shift of a point is applicable to any point on a large-scale map (Shalowitz, 1964), and a T-sheet at 1:10,000 scale generally covers less than ten minutes of longitude or latitude, the known shift of a station is used only if it is located within ten minutes of latitude or longitude of the point to be updated. The known shift of the triangulation station that is nearest the desired digitizer setup point is the adjustment applied to that point. This can mean different shifts on the same map, depending on the location of digitizer setup points and the location of the triangulation stations. With this known shift method of digitizer setup, inaccuracies resulting from manual measurement and drawing of lines are eliminated. This method was used to register the 1884/85 NOS T-sheets on the digitizing tablet. Most mapping software provides some sort of error calculation as part of digitizer setup. This error represents the difference between points recorded on the digitizer table and their relationship to corresponding points in the graphics file coordinate system. If the coordinate system setup is nearly identical to that represented on the map, this error is normally very small. Large errors can occur due to, for example, uneven shrink and swell of the original map (the older T-sheets on mylar are actually copies of original paper maps onto a stable base), inaccuracies in plotted positions on the map, and misplacement of points by the user. 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I On the equipment used for this study, the average error and the maximum error of the digitizer setup were expressed as percentages. A transformation matrix was used to convert input digitizer table coordinates to design file coordinates for each point digitized. Input coordinates from the digitizer table were multiplied by the transformation matrix to calculate the design file coordinates. Digitizer setup points maintain coordinates for both the digitizing tablet and the design file. By minimizing the sum of the squares of the distances between the design file coordinates given, and the design file coordinates calculated by the transformation, a set of matrix coefficients is calculated which provides the best fit. This matrix is general enough to deal with both rotation and stretching in all directions. The transformation is applied across the entire digitizer surface, making any distortion uniform throughout the map. A 0.01 percent digitizer setup error corresponds to 3.2 ft (1 m) of displacement over a distance of 32,800 ft (10,000 m) on the ground. NOS T-sheets are generally no longer than 3.9 ft (1.2 m). At a scale of 1:10,000, this corresponds to a distance of 39,360 ft (12,000) m on the ground. Thus, a 0.01 pement digitizer setup error would give a maximum error of 3.9 f~ (1.2 m) for this scale. However, error decreases with proximity to digitizer setup points, thus assuring that errors due to digitizer setup will be considerably less than this maximum. An error of 0.01 percent or less is usually attained for NAD 27 maps, and errors of greater than 0.03 pement are not allowed on NAD 27 maps. This is well within national map accuracy standards (Ellis, 1978). For U.S. Standard Datum maps, errors greater than 0.05 percent are not allowed. For pre-North American Datum maps, errors greater than 0.07 percent are not acceptable. The majority of maps used in this study had an average digitizer setup error of 0.03 percent or less. 3.2.2.4. General Digitizing Guidelines Shoreline digitizing guidelines developed by Byrnes, McBride, and Hiland (1991) were adopted for reducing errors associated with data capture from cartographic data sources such as NOS T-sheets. These include: All shorelines are digitized from stable-base materials. For NOS T-sheets, this means purchasing all maps on mylar, or on bromide if mylar is not available for a particular map. Cartographic source materials are stored flat or vertical if such storage space is available. For mylar and acetate, this is not as essential because the films do not retain curling as badly as bromides. If bromides are shipped in a map tube, they are flattened for several days before digitizing. When attaching a map to a digitizer table, the area being digitized is made as flat as possible. Any wrinkles can cause that portion of the map to move during digitizing, creating positional errors. High-quality drafting tape or masking tape is used to attach the map. One comer is taped first, then the map is smoothed diagonally and the opposite comer is taped securely; this procedure is repeated for the other two comers. Once the comers are secured, the map is smoothed from the center to the edges and taped along each edge. 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I High-precision equipment must be used for accurate shoreline change mapping. Digitizer tables with a precision of 0.004 in (0.1 mm) must be used. This means that the table can recognize differences in position on the table as small as 1/10 of a millimeter, or 3.2 ft (1 m) of ground distance at a scale of 1:10,000. The cursor used to trace shorelines from the map also possesses this level of precision. The center bead or crosshair of the cursor ideally should have the dimension of precision. The crosshair must be smaller than the width of the line being digitized; the smallest pen width generally available is 0.005 in (0.13 mm). The width of the crosshair of the high-precision cursor is approximately 0.004 in (0.1 mm). When digitizing, CAD/mapping computer software gives the user the choice of manual point input or stream input. Stream input places points at a specified distance as the user traces over the line being digitized. This procedure tends to make a very uniform and smooth line. However, it could miss some undulations in the line if the specified distance is too large; likewise, it could accept more points than are needed if the specified distance is too small, resulting in extremely large files, as well as storage and display problems. In addition, if the user's hand slips during the digitizing process, stream digitizing will continue to place points in the erroneous locations. These can present problems that are time-consuming to correct. Manual digitizing allows the user to place points at non- uniform distances from each other, and therefore allows the user to represent all variations in the shoreline. Also, a button must be pressed in order to place a point so the user can take care and time in the placement of each individual point. Manual digitizing was used for all aspects of the study. f. Finally, the seaward edge of the high-water shoreline is used as the reference position for data capture. 3.3. Data Compilation and Analysis Methods for Digital Imagery Technological advances in digital imagery and image processing have provided new tools for quantitative analysis of shoreline change. Integration of a digital image system with an aircraf~ using a kinematic Geographic Positioning System (GPS) and an inertial navigation system allows production of real-time geo-referenced digital imagery. This high-resolution digital imagery can be used to improve the compilation procedures and accuracy of traditional shoreline change analyses. Low-altitude, high-resolution digital photography, referenced to the earth surface using kinematic GPS and inertial navigation hardware, provide a highly accurate and cost-effective method for collecting recent aerial photography for comparison with historical data sets. The digital photography collected for this study was acquired at a resolution of± 2 ft and a horizontal positional accuracy of± 13 feet. This does not meet the accuracy of ground-based GPS shoreline surveys, but it far exceeds the accuracy of historical map data. In addition, the digital aerial survey is more synoptic than ground-based surveys, more cost-effective than traditional aerial photographic data collection, and the geo-referenced imagery can be used for rectifying previously collected, standard aerial photographs. The area of coverage for each image was 3,000 pixels across the frame and 2,000 pixels along the flightline. The digital imagery provided 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a non-distorted, fully geo-referenced photograph of a section of coast for immediate comparison with historical map data. Accuracy specifications for the digital imagery were verified by obtaining ground positions via differential GPS for control points visible on the digital imagery. The accuracy of the images was further improved by rectifying the digital imagery using the ground positions (control points) obtained in the field. A combination of polynomial and affine transformation algorithms was used to rectify the images; the technique giving the best fit with the surveyed control points was selected. The geo-referenced digital imagery can then be used to identify and digitize a modem day shoreline, and to rectify the older, standard aerial photographs. 3.4. Data Compilation and Analysis Methods for Photographic Data Near-vertical aerial photographs are not limited by the same temporal constraints as maps, and thus, are often more useful in understanding shoreline changes along complex stretches of coast such as those adjacent to inlets. For example, FitzGerald (1984) noted cyclical changes in shoreline configuration at Price Inlet, South Carolina, caused by periodic landward migration and welding of the ebb-tidal delta to the adjacent beach. Maps separated by intervals greater than the cycle of ebb shoal migration would not be able to represent this process or be used to estimate the short-term variability and magnitude of shoreline change in this region. Interpretation of air photos as a technique for measuring shoreline change began in the late 1960s (Moffitt, 1969; Langfelder et al., 1970; Stafford and Langfelder, 1971). Prior to this, air photos had been used qualitatively to assess changes in coastal landforms. Vertical black and white photography dates back to the 1920s, but reasonably good quality stereo air photos were not available until the late 1930s. Subsequent shoreline positions have been mapped using individual stereoscopic images or air photo mosaics that have been corrected for distortions. In recent decades, air photos have been obtained routinely by numerous Federal, state, and local government agencies, and private organizations. Consequently, data sets are available at a reasonable cost for most United States shorelines. 3.4.1. Distortions Most features on a photograph occupy positions other than their true relative map positions. A variety of distortions intrinsic to air photos must be eliminated or minimized to reduce measurement errors to an acceptable level (Anders and Byrnes, 1991). These include: 1) radial distortion due to topographic relief as represented on a two-dimensional photograph, 2) tilt and pitch of the aircraft at the time of exposure, and 3) scale variations caused by changes in altitude along a flight line (Anders and Leatherman, 1982; Wolf, 1983). Photographic distortions are a problem with older air photos, but are not a major consideration after the mid-1940s because of improved camera optics. However, the use of contact prints instead of negatives to annotate shoreline position could affect mapping accuracy due to shrink and stretch of old paper prints and distortion during printing. Currently, use of stable material for making standard prints, as well as improved photographic processing, reduces the impact of this problem. Relief or elevation distortions occur when features further from the lens at the moment of exposure, such as swales between large dunes, appear on the air photo at a scale smaller than that 21 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of features closer to the lens, such as dune crests. Displacement of points on an air photo, as a result of relief-produced scale variation, changes radially from the nadir point (the point vertically below the camera). For truly vertical aerial photographs, the nadir point and principal point (center of the photo) coincide. Displacement of an image due to radial distortion resulting from elevation changes (Dc) can be calculated as: where r is the distance on the photograph from the center of the image to the top of the object, h is the ground elevation of the object, and H is the flight altitude of the camera relative to the same datum as h (Wong, 1980). Most coastal features have low relief so radial distortion due to elevation differences is not a serious problem. However, measurement of shorelines backed by bluffs or cliffs with a relief of several meters could result in misrepresentation of shoreline position. The location of stable points on top of bluffs, relative to shorelines at the base, could be significantly distorted. Tilt distortion can result if an airplane (and camera) is not exactly parallel to the mean plane of the earth's surface at the instant of exposure. About half of near-vertical air photos taken for domestic mapping purposes are tilted less than 2 degrees, and few are tilted more than 3 degrees (Wong, 1980). For this reason, many coastal scientists have ignored the problem of point displacement due to tilt in imagery. However, up to 7 degrees of tilt can occur in air photos taken for non-mapping or reconnaissance purposes. Some correction for tilt distortion should be made on almost every air photo before mapping. Another possible source of measurement error with air photos is changing scale due to shifts in altitude along the photographic flight line. Especially with light aircraft, altitude of the airplane may change slightly as it follows the flight path. The result is that scale may vary slightly from one air photo to the next. Exact scale for each air photo should be determined so appropriate factors are used when digitizing or scaling data from the image. Photographic scale (S) can be calculated by: s = (H/0" where f is the focal length of the camera lens and H is the height of the camera above the mean elevation of the terrain (in similar units) (Wong, 1980). The result is a representative fraction corresponding to map scale. Scale may also be determined if the distance between two points or the size of an object is known in the field or on an accompanying map. 3.4.2. Methods for Geo-Referencing Photographic Data Although vertical aerial photographs provide a synoptic view of the coastline with desirable temporal coverage, they are not tied to a geographic coordinate system. Thus, before photographic data can be compared with historical cartographic data for quantitative studies of shoreline change, the photographs must be geo-referenced. This is typically accomplished by identifying a series of evenly-spaced control points on the photographs for which real world x,y coordinates are known. These points are manually digitized into the computer along with the 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I shoreline of interest, and the scale of the photograph. Using cartographic mapping software, vector data representing the shoreline are then rectified using a least-square, affine transformation, or projective algorithm. For areas where extensive shoreline mapping must be performed, such as the 7.5 mile portion of the Southold shoreline, a great number of control points must be identified and surveyed to rectify the entire set of photographs. This process typically results in increased field data collection costs for large project sites. To improve the accuracy of shoreline position determinations and to minimize costs, traditional aerial photographs can now be rectified using control point information from high- resolution, geo-referenced digital imagery. Coastal features, both natural and structural, can be identified as common points on the digital imagery and on the earlier photographic data sets; these common control points can be used to rectify the historical photographic data. To further improve accuracy, the 9x9 inch photographs can be scanned at a resolution consistent with the digital imagery. This provides for more accuracy in locating the control points as the imaging software can zoom in to important features to allow more precise placement of control point indicators. Additionally, the image contrast can be adjusted to refine the detail of specific features. Once the control points have been identified and placed on the scanned photographic images, the geographic x,y positions can be obtained from the geo-referenced digital imagery and used to rectify photographic data using an appropriate algorithm (least-squares, affine transformation, projective). Depending on the type of imaging software used and the product desired, the entire photograph can be rectified as a raster image, producing a fully geo-referenced image from a scanned photograph. Alternately, shoreline information can be digitized as vector data and rectified to produce a map showing shoreline position. For large study areas, such as the Southold project site, the use of geo-referenced digital imagery improves the compilation procedures and accuracy over traditional shoreline change analyses. 3.5. Annotating Shoreline Position Air photo interpretation along a shoreline is an art based on science, supported by familiarity with the area and its processes, and includes a certain amount of error and interpretative subjectivity. Delineation of the reference shoreline line is the most important and most subjective part of shoreline change analysis, particularly in areas where relief distortion can compound problems. The horizontal position of the high-water shoreline as recognized on the beach and on photography were determined using a hierarchy of criteria dependent on morphologic features present on the subaerial beach. The primary criterion was a well-marked limit of uprush by waves associated with high tide. This generally was recognized as a dune or beach scarp, marking the upper limit of the foreshore. Ifa scarp could not be identified, a debris line usually was identified. Sometimes a debris line exists landward and at a lower elevation than the berm crest. If this was encountered from air photo interpretation or ground surveys, the position of the berm crest was tracked as the high-water shoreline because different physical processes may affect the location of the debris line relative to those associated with a scarp or upper foreshore demarcation. The criteria utilized for this study were consistent with those used by field topographers and NOS photo interpreters (Shalowitz, 1964). A single interpreter familiar with the morphology of Southold's beaches was assigned to the aerial photo analysis so that all interpretations would remain relatively consistent. 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In some cases a secondary reference feature is desired for comparison with the high-water shoreline. For the Southold study area, the bluff edge was identified on the aerial photographs and digitized as the secondary reference feature. The bluff edge was delineated as an abrupt change in vegetation or by the appearance of a scarp or change in elevation. Unfortunately significant errors were discovered in the delineation of this line and the data were not used. These errors resulted from a number of factors including shadowing caused by abrupt elevation changes and dense vegetative cover that sometimes obscured the location of the bluff crest. Annotation of shoreline position on the NOS T-sheets was beyond the control of this study. Although the aforementioned criterion are routinely used by NOS photo interpreters, the potential for interpretation error is still present. Quality control analyses of the 1933 NOS T- sheet data for the Southold study site indicate potential shoreline annotation errors, which place the shoreline too far inland. Significant accretion between the 1933 and 1955 shorelines, throughout the study site, was attributed to this shoreline annotation error. As such, no further analyses have been conducted using the 1933 shoreline data. 3.6. Potential Error Analysis It is important that all available procedures be used to capture map data as carefully as possible; however, no matter how cautious the approach, a certain measure of error will be retained in all measurements of shoreline position. Potential errors in shoreline change rates are introduced in two ways. Accuracy refers to the degree to which a recorded value conforms to a known standard. In the case of mapping, this relates to how well a position on a map is represented relative to actual ground location (e.g., infrastructure, high-water shoreline). Precision, on the other hand, refers to how well a measurement taken from this map or an aerial photograph can be reproduced (Anders and Byrnes, 1991). Both types of error should be evaluated to gage the significance of calculated changes relative to inherent inaccuracies. The following discussion addresses these factors in terms of data sources, operator procedures, and equipment limitations. 3.6.1. Cartographic Sources Shoreline measurements obtained from historical maps can only be as reliable as the original maps themselves. Accuracy depends on the standards to which each original map was made, and on changes which may have occurred to a map since its initial publication. Field and aerial surveys provided the source data used to produce the shoreline maps. For T-sheets at a 1:10,000 scale, national standards allow up to 28 ft (8.5 m) of.error for a stable point (up to 33 fi [10.2 mi of error at 1:20,000), but the location of these points can be more accurate (Shalowitz, 1964; Anders and Byrnes, 1991; Crowell, Leatherman, and Buckley. 1991). Non-stable points are located with less accuracy; however, features critical to safe marine navigation are mapped to accuracy stricter than national standards (Ellis, 1978). The shoreline is mapped to within 0.5 mm (at map scale) of true position, which at 1:10,000 scale is 16 fi (5.0 m) on the ground. Potential error considerations related to field survey equipment and accurate mapping of high-water shoreline position also were addressed by Shalowitz (1964) as follows, 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "With the methods used, and assuming the normal control, it was possible to measure distances with an accuracy of 1 meter (Annual Report, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey 192, 1880) while the position of the plane table could be determined within 2 or 3 meters of its true position. To this must be added the error due to the identification of the actual mean high water line on the ground, which may approximate 3 to 4 meters. This is the accuracy of the actual rodded points along the shore and does not include errors resulting from sketching between points. The latter may, in some cases, amount to as much as 10 meters, particularly where small indentations are not visible to the topographer at the plane table." Measurement accuracy of the high-water shoreline on early surveys such as NOS T-sheets is thus dependent on a variety of factors, not the least of which was the ratio of actual rodded points to sketched data used by an individual surveyor. The more sketching used, the lower the overall accuracy. However, by triangulation control, a continuous check was applied to overall exactness of the work so that survey errors were not allowed to accumulate. In addition to survey limitations listed by Shalowitz (1964), line thickness and cartographic errors (relative location of control points on a map) can be evaluated to provide an estimate of potential inaccuracy for source information. Although it can be argued that surveys conducted after 1900 were of higher quality than original mapping operations in the 1840s, an absolute difference can not be quantified. Consequently, the parameters outlined above are assumed constant for all field surveys and provide a conservative estimate of potential errors. For the 1884/85 and 1933 T-sheets, digitizer setup recorded an average percent deviation of 0.02, or 7 ft (2 m) ground distance at a 1:10,000 scale. Line thickness, due to original production and photo-reproduction, was no greater than 0.3 mm, or 10 ft (3 m) ground distance for this same scale. 3.6.2. Aerial Surveys Most recent shoreline position data are compiled from aerial photography in two ways. Engineering quality planimetric maps are constructed using stereoplotters and field-tested against surveyed positions. This is the process used to create the most recent T-sheets (1933); it is very time consuming and costly. For the purposes of shoreline mapping, high-quality alternative approaches are available to rectify photographs for production of metric-quality photomaps (e.g., image processing/mapping software for geo-referencing photos with ground-based horizontal control). Interpretation of high-water shoreline position is again the primary factor influencing measurement accuracy. However, the method used for rectification involves linking photographs with control points common with the digital imagery. This means that all errors inherent with the digital imagery will be transferred to the assembled photomap. Fortunately, the accuracy of the 1998 digital imagery was high (_+10 ft), and errors were minimized. 3.6.3. Data Capture The final source of error relates to equipment and operator accuracy. As stated earlier, the absolute accuracy (accuracy and precision) of the digitizing tables used for this study is 0.003 25 I I I I I I I I I I in (0.1 mm). At a scale of 1:10,000, this converts to + 3 fi (1 m). Furthermore, the precision with which an operator can visualize and move the cursor along a line can lead to much greater errors (Tanner, 1978). Fortunately, improper tracking associated with shoreline digitizing generally is random and may be dampened when averaged over finite distances of shoreline. To evaluate the magnitude of operator error associated with digitizing shoreline position, at least three repetitive measurements should be compared (Byrnes et al., 1989). For this study, the average error incurred using this procedure for a 1:10,000 scale map was about + 3 ft (1 m). 3.6.4. Total Error When considering all the potential errors discussed above, it should be recognized that these apply to each individual map or air photo. When making comparisons of shoreline position, error is additive because separate maps and air photos are being used. Worst-case error estimates can be made by summing the maximum error values for each data source being compared. If it is assumed that individual errors represent standard deviations, a root-mean- square (rms) approach can be applied to provide a more realistic assessment of combined potential errors (Merchant, 1987; Crowell et al., 1991; Byrnes and Hiland, 1994). Table 2 summarizes estimates of potential positional error for the data sources used in this study. The rms errors for the 1884/85 and 1933 NOS T-sheets (1:10,000 scale) are about * 32 ft (9.7 m) and + 27 ft (8.2 m), respectively. Table 3 provides a summary of maximum rms errors for available shoreline change data for this study. The rms errors in Table 3 were calculated by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of all potential errors for data of a given source. Table 2. Estimates of Potential Error Associated with Shoreline Position Surveys Traditional Engineering Field Surveys (1884/85) Location ofrodded points ±3 1~ Location of plane table ±7 to 10 R Interpretation of high-water shoreline at rodded points ± 10 to 13 ft Error due to sketching between rodded points up to ±16 ft Map Scale Cartographic Errors (all maps for this study) 1:10,000 1:20,000 Inaccurate location of control points on map relative to tree field location up to 4-10 ft Up to ±20 ft Placement of shoreline on map ±16 ft ±33 ft Line width for representing shoreline ±10 t~ ±20 ft Digitizer error ±3 fl ±7 t~ Operator error ±3 f~ ±7 fl Map Scale Aerial Surveys (1933) 1:10,000 1:20,000 Delineating high-water shoreline position ± 16 R ±33 ft Aerial Photographs Georefereneed with GPS Control Points (1955, 1964, 1969, 1976, 1980, 1993, 1998) Delineating high-water shoreline position ± 10 ft Position of measured points ±10 ft Sources: Shalowitz, 1964; Ellis, 1978; Anders and Byrnes, 1991; Crowell et al., 1991 I I I I I I I 26 I I Table 3. Maximum Root-Mean-Square (rms) Potential Error for Shoreline Change Data, Horton Point to the west Southold Town Line, NY Date 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1884/85 ±41.7~ ±34.8 ±34.8 4-34.8 :t:34.8 4-34.8 ±34.8 ±34.$ (±0.9)2 (4-0.5) (4-0.4) (4-0.4) (±0.4) (4-0.4) (±0.3) (4-0.3) 1933 4-30.5 4-30.5 4-30.5 ±30.5 4-30.5 ±30.5 ±30.5 (±1.4) (±1.0) (±0.8) (4-0.7) (±0.6) (4-0.5) (4-0.5) 1955 ±20.0 ±20.0 4-20.0 ±20.0 4-20.0 4-20.0 (4-2.2) (±1.4) (4-1.0) (±0.8) (±0.5) (4-0.5) 1964 ±20.0 4-20.0 ±20.0 ±20.0 ±20.0 (±4.0) (±1.7) (4-1.3) (±0.7) (±0.6) 1969 ±20.0 4-20.0 ±20.0 4-20.0 (±2.9) (4-1.8) (±0.8) (4-0.7) 1976 ±20.0 4-20.0 ±20.0 (4-5.0) (±la) (4-0.9) 1980 4-20.0 ±20.0 (4-1.5) (±1.1) 1993 4-20.0 (4-4.0) I Magnitude of potential error associated with high-water shoreline position change (t~) 2 Rate of potential error associated with high-water shoreline position change (f~yr) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.7. Quantifying Shoreline Change Once shoreline position data are compiled accurately, spatial and temporal changes can be quantified using manual or automated procedures. The manual technique involves making measurements at regular intervals fi.om overlay maps or from the computer screen and tabulating this information for assessing trends. Not only is this approach time consuming, but, if analog map overlays are used, another level of inherent error is included in the measurements because the composite map is a second-generation product. Most current procedures applied for quantifying changes in shoreline position involve some method of digital data comparison. For the current study, a suite of programs, collectively referred to as the Automated Shoreline Analysis Program (ASAP), was used to quantify shoreline change at a 100 ft longshore interval. The first step of the procedure is to identify segments of the coast with similar shoreline orientations. Next, digital data stored in an Intergraph MicroStation design file are imported by a software routine that prepares the information for temporal comparison. Because digital shoreline position data are stored in a Microstation design file in the order in which shorelines were digitized, sorting of points by location (Universal Tranverse Mercator (UTM) x- and y-coordinates) must be done upon export from the design file to ensure spatial consistency for temporal comparisons. Once the points are in order, the average orientation angle of the shoreline is used as a reference for calculating discrete positions for a user-defined interval. 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Linear interpolation procedures are used to obtain these positions. This step organizes randomly spaced information for a systematic comparison of spatial and temporal changes. From this analysis, a matrix of average change rates for all or pan of the shoreline can be established, and/or individual rates-of-change can be plotted to evaluate spatial and temporal variability. The change rotes can be calculated using both the end point and linear regression methods. For the end point method, the rate of shoreline change is calculated as the distance over which the shoreline position changed (measured perpendicular to the shoreline orientation), divided by the number of years over which the change occurred. This method of calculating shoreline change rates is generally preferred, as it provides rates based on actual shoreline positions measured over discrete time intervals. The linear regression method calculates an average rate based on a best-fit line to a series of points representing shoreline positions over a period of time. Thus, the linear regression method provides an average rate of shoreline change, and tends to smooth major fluctuations in the data. 3.8. Synthesis of Regional Shoreline Change Trends Changes in shoreline position for the Southold coastline were computed at 537 shore- perpendicular transects stretching from Horton Point to the western town line. The locations of the transects are shown on the attached map entitled "Shoreline Change: 100 Feet Transects". Transect number 1 is located at Horton Point and transect 537 is located at the western town line; every tenth transect is labeled. Large format maps showing the historical shoreline position information from 1884 to 1998 are also attached. The shoreline data were separated into an early- and late-period to facilitate review of the maps. The map entitled "Shoreline Change: 1884 to 1998" (early-period) shows the shorelines from 1884/85, 1933, 1955, 1964, and 1998. The map entitled "Shoreline Change: 1969 to 1998" (late-period) includes the shorelines from 1969, 1976, 1980, 1993, and 1998. The most recent shoreline from 1998 was shown on both maps to allow comparison with existing conditions. To evaluate historical development of the Southold coastline, and to correlate the changes in shoreline position with natural coastal processes and human-induced activities, it is necessary to examine the response of the shoreline over a number of different time periods (Figures 5 through 14). The time periods were chosen carefully to represent important changes in human- induced activities and to represent the smallest time increments possible given the data sources used. Where shorelines covering shorter time intervals are compared (e.g., 1976 to 1980 or 1993 to 1998) the resultant rates of shoreline change are more variable. Conversely, rates of net shoreline change computed over long time intervals result in smoother trends in shoreline change, as the net movement in shoreline position has essentially been averaged over a greater period of time. RMS error bands have been plotted on Figures 5 through 14 to show the range in computed shoreline change rates (error bands shown for end-point method only). These error bands help to gauge the significance of the magnitude of shoreline change, especially in areas where the rates of change are low. Where the RMS error is greater than or equal to the rate of shoreline change, the uncertainty in the magnitude of shoreline change is high. While the error bands show the uncertainty in the magnitude of shoreline change, the trends in shoreline position change shown in Figures 5 through 14 are accurate. 28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I Figures 5 through 14 each include two plots that describe shoreline change during a specific time interval. The upper plot shows the actual shoreline positions for the two time periods, while the lower plot shows the rate of shoreline change over the specified time interval. The x-axes for the upper plots are referenced to the UTM coordinates for the shoreline data, whereas the x-axes for the lower plots represent distance alongshore from Horton Point. Shoreline positions on both plots are represented at the same scale, and therefore are directly comparable. A scale showing transect numbers is also shown on the lower plots. Shoreline change rates calculated using the end point and linear regression methods are shown on the lower plots. A summary of major shoreline change during each of the selected time periods is given below. 1884/85 to 1998: Figure 5 shows the regional trends in shoreline change for the study area between Horton Point and the western Southold town line for the period 1884 to 1998. The data show that, with the exception of areas immediately updrifi (west) of Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets, the remaining portions of the shoreline display a net erosional trend. The large shoreline movement adjacent to these inlets largely reflects the significance of human influences (structures). The rate of erosion during this time period was greatest (2.9 ft/yr) immediately to the east of Mattituck Inlet. The shoreline area between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet shows the lowest annual erosion rates as well as the least variability in rates. This section also shows the greatest discrepancy between rates computed using the end-point and linear regression methods. Along all other sections of the study area, the rates computed using these two methods were relatively close. This discrepancy results from the fact that the end-point method is more heavily weighted by the position of the 1998 (modem) shoreline, and is likely indicative of more recent human-induced impacts or natural processes. This will be discussed more completely in Section 8.0 Discussion. Cumulative and incremental rates of shoreline change were calculated for the period 1884/85 to 1998 for each transect, and are given in Appendix A-1. 1884/85 to 1955: Shoreline change during the period 1884/85 to 1955 was dominated by erosion throughout the study area, except for accretion on the updrift (west) side of Mattituck Inlet and the downdrift side of Duck Pond Point (Figure 6). The Mattituck accretion fillet extended approximately 2,900 ft to the west of the inlet, and accretion rates reached a maximum of 10.5 ft/yr immediately adjacent to the western jetty (Appendix A-I). The western end of the study area, between the Mattituck accretion fillet and the western town line, experienced average erosion rates of approximately 2.0 fi/yr. However, greatest erosion occurred downdrift of Mattituck Inlet in the vicinity of transects 406 to 408 where rates reached a maximum of 4.2 fffyr. The rate of erosion gradually decreased towards the east to Duck Pond Point, where a segment of net shoreline accretion occurred at transect 273 and extended east for 3,300 ft to transect 240. Between this point and transect 175, where shoreline orientation changes to a NNE direction west of the present Goldsmith Inlet, the rate of net shoreline change was approximately zero. The final stretch of shoreline from transect 175 (west of Goldsmith Inlet) to Horton Point experienced varying rates of erosion, with a maximum of 2.4 fl/yr occurring at transect 82 in the vicinity of Kenneys Road Beach. 29 Horton I 1884 Point Long/s/and Sound I ' I I et 'i O, ~Duck Pond >- / Point I ~ ! 1 I Mattituck Inlet I - Applied Coastal I Aubrey Consulting, Inc. Research and Engineering, Inc. 704000 706000 708000 710000 712000 714000 UTM X-Coordinate (m) I Transect No. 6 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50  1884-1998 (endipoint method) I ~ 4- -- ..... 1884-1998 (linear regression) u) vertical exageration = 1,000 I 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Distance from Horton Point, NY (ft) I Figure 5. Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1884 to 1998. I 30 1884 Long Island Sound Mattituck inlet  Aubrey Cons 706000 708000 VI X-CoordinatE ( Transect No. 500 450 400 350, 3100` !15 RMS Error :~ 0.5/~ Hor~on f Inlet Aubrey Consulting, Inc. 710000 UTM X-Coordinate (m) 250 Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. 712000 714000 200 150 100 50 1884-1955 (end-point method) vertical exageration = 625 . . . v. 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 Distance from Horton Point, NY (fl) I Shoreline and shoreline change rates for the period 1884 to 1955. Figure 6. positions I 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1955 to 1964: Net shoreline change during the period 1955 to 1964 is illustrated in Figure 7. Immediately updrift (west) of Mattituck Inlet the shoreline showed significant erosion up to 25 fl/yr. This zone of erosion extended approximately 3,700 ft to the west of the inlet. From this point to the western Southold town line, the shoreline experienced slight accretion or near zero change, with the exception of a 1,000 fi stretch between transects 494 and 504 where the shoreline eroded. East of Mattituck Inlet to a point approximately 3,900 ft east of Duck Pond Point, the shoreline retreated at an average rate of 2.5 fl/yr. The highest rates of erosion within this shoreline segment occurred at Duck Pond Point and immediately to the east. Following completion of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty in February 1964, sediment began to accumulate on the updrifi side of the inlet causing shoreline accretion. Immediately downdrift of the inlet, for approximately 3,000 fi, the shoreline also experienced a short-term net accretion. A zone of shoreline erosion occurred between transect 112 near the Bittner property, and transect 73 along the western end of Kenneys Road Beach. The eastern end of the study area to Horton Point showed a trend of increasing erosion. The overall trend of erosion seen during the period 1955 to 1964 was likely influenced by the March 1962 northeaster which caused widespread erosion throughout the northeast. Erosion in the vicinity of Mattituck Inlet during this period may also have been related to significant dredging within Mattituck Creek in 1955. 1964 to 1969: Shoreline change within the study area during the period 1964 to 1969 is shown in Figure 8. Shoreline change rates during this time interval have a relatively high RMS error of_+4.0 fi/yr due to the short period of time over which the rates have been computed. Shoreline change was dominated by accretion on the updrffi (west) side of Goldsmith Inlet and erosion downdrifi of the inlet. Accretion rates updrift of Goldsmith Inlet reached a maximum of 23 fi/yr while maximum downdfift retreat rates were 20 fi/yr. The zone of erosion downdrifi of Goldsmith extended approximately 3,100 fi east of the inlet to transect 103 located east of the Bittner property. Shoreline change from the Bittner property east to Horton Point showed variable rates of erosion and accretion. Between Goldsmith Inlet and Duck Pond Point, the dominant trend in shoreline change was one of retreat, with maximum rates of 15 ft/yr. Despite the high RMS errors for this time interval, erosion rates within this segment are significant and the trend of shoreline change varies considerably from that shown for other time intervals. To the west of Duck Pond Point the net change in shoreline position fluctuated between accretion and erosion. The shorelines to the east and west of Mattituck Inlet showed net erosion, while those areas further to the west of Mattituck showed a trend of increasing erosion. 1969 to 1976: Net shoreline change during the period 1969 to 1976 is illustrated in Figure 9. The shoreline west of Mattituck Inlet near the Southold town line accreted at an average rate of 7 fffyr. A small zone of net shoreline erosion occurred between transects 454 and 440, while immediately updrifi of Mattituck Inlet the shoreline accreted. A zone of erosion approximately 4,600 ft long extended east from Mattituck Inlet to the western end of Oregon Hills. The next 6,700 ft of shoreline in the Oregon Hills area experienced net accretion, with average rates of 5.6 fi/yr. High rates of shoreline erosion (7.7 fi/yr) occurred in the vicinity of Duck Pond Point, and then gradually decreased towards the western side of Goldsmith Inlet. A short section of shoreline accretion showing a maximum of 17.7 ft/yr occurred immediately updrift of Goldsmith Inlet. To the east of Goldsmith Inlet the primary trend of shoreline change was one of erosion, especially east of the Bittner property where maximum erosion rates reached 13.5 fi/yr. 32 I 1955 o ..... 1964 I I ~ - I I '' 1 I ~ 2o RMSError,2.2~r I~o~~ I ~,~o''' 1, Horton Point Long Island Sound et Duck Pond Point Mattituck Inlet 350 Aubrey Consulting, Inc. 708000 7100oo UTM X-Coordinate (m) Transect No. 300 250 -- 1955-1964 (end-point method) App#ed Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. 712000 714000 2O0 150 100 50 I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ vertical exageration = 200 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 Distance from Horton Point, NY (;1) I Figure 7. Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1955 to 1964. 33 1964 Hodon ~ oldsmith Inlet / ~ Aobrey con$.lting, Inc. Research and Engineering, Inc. 70400' ' ' ' 0 ' ' ' 7061000' ' ' 708~000 ' ' ' 710~)00 ' ' ' 712~000' ' ' 714~000 UTM X-Coordinate (m) Transect No. ~ I " I ' I ~ I ' I ~ I ~ I ~ I~, ' I ' I 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 15e 100 ' 50 RMS Error ± 4.0 ~ 20- ft/vr 1964-1969 (end-point method) tO- to -20 - vertical exageration = 200 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Distance from Herren Point, NY (ft) Figure 8. Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1964 to 1969. I 34 I 20- I 1969 1976 Long Island Sound Inlet ~ck Pond Point Mattituck Inlet 704000 706000 500 450 RMS Error ± 2.9 ~yr Aubrey Consulting, Inc. 708000 71 0000 UTM X-Coordinate (m) Transect No. App#ed Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. 712000 714000 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 I ' I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ' I ' 1969-1976 (end-point method) vertical exageration = 200 i ~ I '20~00 I 35000 30000 25000 15000 10000 5000 Distance from Horton Point, NY (ft) Figure 9. Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1969 to 1976. I 35 I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I 1976 to 1980: Net shoreline change during the period 1976 to 1980 is illustrated in Figure 10. Variability in the shoreline change rates and the high RMS errors of+5.0 ft/yr are a result of the short time interval (4 years) over which the data were analyzed. Despite these uncertainties, the trends in shoreline change are considered accurate, and show that the site was dominated by erosion at both ends of the study area. Significant shoreline retreat occurred near the western Southold town line; this erosion extended to within 400 fi of the western Mattituck Inlet jetty. A zone of erosion also extended approximately 2,800 fi to the east of Mattituck Inlet. The shoreline areas between Oregon Hills and the western side of Goldsmith Inlet showed a primary trend of accretion, but overall, no significant change relative to potential error estimates. The highest accretion rates occurred in the vicinity of transects 210 to 200, located approximately mid-way between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet. The shorelines to the east of Goldsmith showed a trend of increasing erosion which reached a maximum at transect 66 near the eastern end of Kenneys Road Beach. 1980 to 1993: Net shoreline change during the period 1980 to 1993 is illustrated in Figure 11. A zone of significant accretion occurred to the west of Mattituck Inlet, where maximum rates ranged from 4 to 6 R/yr over a distance of 3,400 ft. West of the Mattituck accretion fillet, the shoreline position remained fairly stationary, and the computed rates are less than the RMS error. The shoreline between the eastern side of Mattituck Inlet and Duck Pond Point showed a general trend of erosion that decreased in magnitude towards Duck Pond Point. The 5,700 ft shoreline segment between transects 254 and 197 experienced a small net accretion, while the shorelines further to the east to Goldsmith Inlet showed a trend of increasing erosion. From the eastern side of Goldsmith Inlet to Horton Point, the shoreline generally eroded with maximum rates of 6.8 R/yr found immediately downdrift of the inlet. 1993 to 1998: The trend in shoreline change between 1993 and 1998 is shown in Figure 12. Variability in the shoreline change rates and the high RMS errors of $4.0 ft/yr are a result of the short time interval (5 years) over which the data were analyzed. Although the data show large fluctuations between erosion and accretion, several trends are apparent. The shoreline segment to the east of Duck Pond Point shows significant erosion, on the order of 5 to 10 R/yr. The only other areas which show clear trends of shoreline change are in the vicinity of the tidal inlets. The shorelines on both sides of Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets experienced varying rates of accretion over this time interval. All other areas show rates of shoreline change less than the RMS error, and therefore cannot be used to describe changes in shoreline position. To aid in correlating the causes of shoreline change to specific activities, two additional time intervals were evaluated. The time interval between 1955 and 1998 represents a period when most of the hardened coastal engineering structures were installed in the study area. Comparison of shoreline changes during this time interval with those that occurred between 1884/85 and 1955 are discussed to evaluate the impacts of shore protection structures. Additionally, the period between 1964 and 1998 shows the net changes that have occurred since construction of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty. Comparison of these shoreline changes with those occurring between 1884/85 and 1955 are discussed help to identify potential impacts from construction of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty. 36 I g g o 20 I ~ ~ o I -20 4OOO0 I Goldsmith Inlet / Duck Pond /~~ Point MattituckApplied Coastal Inlet ..'" Aubrey Consulting, Inc. Research and Engineering, Inc. 704000 706000 708000 710000 712000 714000 UTM X-Coordinate (m) Transect No. 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 RMS Error + 5.0 ffJyr 1976-1980 (end-point method) ly ~V,r/~, . , vertical exageration = 250 ' ~'~" ' '30~00 .... 26~ .... 2&o .... ~8~00 .... ~0~00 .... 6~ .... Distance from Horton Point, NY (ft) Figure l 0. Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1976 to 1980. 37 I Horton 1980 Point/ I..... 1993 / ~ Long Island Sound ! I ~ ~'~ / Duck.Pond~ Point I I attituck Inlet I/ . ,.~'" , 70z~oo , , ' 70~000 , , 7o~(~re, y Co.nsult!n97,1 I(~ . Researc~lai(~ngineer, ing, Inc.714~000 .= 20 , 5,00 , 4?0 , 4,00 3~,0 3.00 , 2,~0 , 2,00 ,?0 , ,.00 I1 RMS Error ± 1.5 ff/yr 1980-1993 (end-point method) I -20 ~ 40000 35000 I Figure 1 I. vertical exageration = 250 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 Distance from Horton Point, NY ([1) Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1980 to 1993. I 38 I I I I Hot,on ~ 1993 Point/ ..... 1998 Long Island Sound // Goldsmith Inlet / ,~ Mattituck Inlet .~ Applied Coastal Aubrey Consulting, Inc. 704000 706000 708000 710000 UTM X-Coordinate (m) Transect No. 500 450 400 350 300 250 Research and Engineering, Inc. 712000 714000 200 150 100 50 20 RMS Error ± 4.0 ft/tr 1993-1998 (end-point method) vertical exageration = 250 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 Distance from Horton Point, NY (fi) Figure 12. Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1993 to 1998. I 39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1955 to 1998: The trends in shoreline change between 1955 and 1998 are shown in Figure 13. Net shoreline accretion updrift of Goldsmith Inlet dominates this time interval. Maximum accretion rates of 6.7 fi/yr were encountered immediately updfift of the western jetty where the accretion fillet extended approximately 1,000 ft to the west. The shoreline between the eastern side of Goldsmith Inlet and Horton Point showed a relatively constant rate of erosion, with the exception of a 2,900 ft stretch between transects 111 and 82 which showed an accelerated rate on the order of 4.0 fi/yr. This area is located immediately downdfift of the Bittner property. Most of the shoreline between the eastern side of Mattituck Inlet and the Goldsmith Inlet accretion fillet experienced net erosion; average erosion rates were 1.3 fi/yr. With the exception of the extreme western end of the study site, the areas to the west of Mattituck Inlet showed a trend of net erosion. 1964 to 1998: Net shoreline change during the period 1964 to 1998 is illustrated in Figure 14. These data show that most of the shoreline experienced net retreat, with the greatest area of erosion occurring at the eastern end of the study site, between Goldsmith Inlet and Horton Point. Maximum erosion rates of 3.9 fi/yr occurred downdfif~ of Goldsmith Inlet while slightly lower erosion rates of 3.3 ft/yr were encountered downdrift of the Bittner property. The entire shoreline segment between the eastern side of Mattituck Inlet and the Goldsmith Inlet accretion fillet showed net erosion, with slightly greater rates occurring between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet. Net shoreline accretion occurred updrift of Mattituck Inlet for approximately 2,600 ft. Further to the west the shoreline showed primarily erosion on the order of 2.0 fi/yr. Shoreline change rates at the extreme western end of the study site were nearly zero falling within the RMS error of_+0.6 fi/yr. Shoreline response downdrift (east) of Goldsmith Inlet following jetty construction can be examined by plotting long-term and incremental shoreline change rates from 1964 to the present. Figures 15 and 16 show the changes in long-term and incremental shoreline change rates respectively, for the shoreline area between Goldsmith Inlet and the western end of Kenneys Road Beach. In Figure 15, long-term shoreline change rates before and after jetty construction are shown. Additionally, average long-term shoreline change rates for the areas between Goldsmith Inlet and the Bitmer property, and the Bittner property and the western end of Kenneys Road Beach have been computed. The data show background erosion rates (1884 to 1955) west and east of the Bittner property of 1.0 and 1.4 fi/yr, respectively. During the initial period following jetty construction (1964 to 1969), average erosion rates of 11.9 fi/yr occurred west of the Bittner property. Impacts of the jetty were not felt east of the Bittner property by 1969, as the data show an average annual accretion of 1.5 fi/yr. Long-term average shoreline change west of the Bitmer property shows a gradual decrease in the rate of erosion from 11.9 fty/yr during the 1964 to 1969 time interval, to 2.9 fi/yr during the 1964 to 1998 time interval. Data east of the Bittner property show that cumulative impacts from jetty construction and coastal engineering at the Bittner property began to cause downdfift erosion between 1969 and 1976. The highest long-term average erosion rates east of the Bittner property (3.5 fi/yr) occurred during the 1964 to 1980 time interval. Since this time, the long-term average erosion rates have gradually decreased. 40 I I I I I I 955 Herren F Point/ 998 / Long Island Sound ~/ (~oldsmith Inlet x~' Duck Pond .~~ Point  Mat~ituck Inlet ~ Applied Coastal , , A~ubrey Consulting, I~nc. Research a:d Engineering, Inc. , 8 I cm 2- I 704000 706000 708000 710000 712000 714000 UTM X-Coordinate (m) Transect No. 350 300 250 200 1 ~) 1955-1998 (end-point method) ..... 1955-1998 (linear regression) 500 450 400 RMS Error ± 0.5 ft~r 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 Distance from Herren Point, NY (ft) 100 50 Figure 13. Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1955 to 1998. I 41 I -- 1964 o ..... 1998 I ~ I ~ I I ~ Horton Point Long Island Sound Inlet Duck Pond Point ,j i i t Mattituck Inlet I ~ Applied Coastal I J~ ~ .-,- Aubrey Consulting, In¢~ Research and Engineering~ Inc_~. 704000706000 7080007100007~i 2000 714000 I U TM TXr'aCn;°~:rdt i nNaot, e (m) 6 , 6.oo, 4,~o...oo` 3,~o, 3,oo, 2,~o , 2,o0 , ,.~o. ,.oo, ~,o, I i~ T' ,~ .~iii~811nd'p°intmeth°d) l i 4 RMS Error ~: 0 6 ft/yr 1964-1998 (end-point method) ] verticalexageration=t,ooo ~ ~' ' J ~.~oo'3s~' '3o~o .... 2s~o .... 2o~oo .... ~oo .... ~o~oo' ' W'~o~o .... Distance from Horton Point, NY (ft) I Figure 14. Shoreline positions and shoreline change rates for the period 1964 to 1998. I 42 v 20' 10. 0 -10 -20 8000 Avg. Shoreline Change (ft/yr) Goldsmith to Bittner Bittner to Lockman Goldsmith 1964-1969 -11.9 +1,5 Jetty 1964-1976 -6.8 -3.1 ---- 1964-1980 -4.6 -3,5 - 1964-1993 -3.9 -2.6 Bittner Property .... 1964-1998 -2.9 -2.0 ...~~~----1884-1955-1'0 L~lc~k4man  Property , / __ f 'x ~ /-"-,. / ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' 7500 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 Distance from Horton Point, NY (ft) Figure 15. Variations in long-term shoreline change rate between Goldsmith Inlet and the western end of Kenneys Road Beach. m m m m m m m m m m m. m m m m m m m m 20. Avg. Shoreline Change (ft/yr) Goldsmith to Bittner Bittner to Lockman Goldsmith 1964-1969 -11.9 +1.5 Jetty 1969-1976 -3.1 -6.5 -- 1976-1980 +2.2 -4.6 - 1980-1993 -3.1 -1.5 Bittner .. ------ 1993-1998 +3.0 +1.4 "2, vropeny ./, ,"---, , --- 1884-1955 -1 0 -1 4 , ..,...~ .. ,~ y'~ ~. \ ~. I~ · ' ' '~ ,' , , , " . Lockmar V ,~" ', ~',. / -, /1 ,", ,",.,/X/,,/',,.,~ /', Property /V ',.-',~' ", I ,,, ,;~,r~, y.,,- \ ,, ',, / ._' \ ,,,, /.../ '.,-..:Z v',,/~ ',.__._.._,., ~, _,~.~. ,_~ ..._.,../,, , -- \ ~ ._~ '~-"~-~-~" ~ -,~ / .... · / "- 7.-'~ / ~/-'..'%!, \ · --"'--<-- · Y'T'-~- ~ ~ /~-' -, >~.~ ,,---vi/: ~. \ ,, ! \ /L ' ,~ >~ 115 / ""-~'" ' / ;~ I I "-'",/ \J ?, I \~--J! ' ~~,,.. V - ,-'-----..~,\ ~'~ / \/ -10' -20 I I I I ' I ' I ' I ' I 8000 7500 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 Distance from Horton Point, NY (ft) Figure 16. Variations in incremental shoreline change rate between Goldsmith Inlet and the western end of Kenneys Road Beach. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In Figure 16 incremental rates of shoreline change downdrift of Goldsmith Inlet are shown. Average incremental shoreline change rates for the areas west and east of the Bittner property have also been computed. As in Figure 15, the data show background erosion rates (1884 to 1955) west and east of the Bittner property of 1.0 and 1.4 ft/yr, respectively. The data also show the greatest average erosion rates west of the Bitmer property of 11.9 flJyr during the time interval immediately following jetty construction (1964 to 1969). Average erosion rates decreased considerably to 3.1 ff/yr during the time interval 1969 to 1976. From 1976 to the present, the trends in incremental shoreline change fluctuated between erosion and accretion. These fluctuations were likely due to variations in storm frequency and intensity during the different time intervals. Incremental shoreline change east of the Bittner property shows the highest rates of erosion (6.5 ff/yr) during the time period 1969 to 1976. From 1976 to the present, the incremental average rates of erosion east of the Bittner property have gradually decreased. The most recent time interval from 1993 to 1998 shows an accretion rate of 1.4 ftJyr for this area. 45 I I I I ! i 4.History of Shoreline I I I 1 ! I i I I I I I I Protection and Human Trends I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. History of Shoreline Protection/Human Impacts 4.1. Data Sources A detailed inventory of shore protection structures and dredging activity along the Southold shoreline from Horton Point to the western town line has been prepared using a variety of data sources. Historical information on the presence of coastal engineering structures was obtained from the NOS T-sheets from 1884/85 and 1933. This information was supplemented using more recent aerial photographs and digital imagery obtained in April 1998. Additionally, field investigations conducted during February and June 1998 provided site-specific information on the type and location of existing coastal engineering structures. Each of these data sources yields a snap shot of the coastline for a specific period of time, and when viewed in chronological order, can be used to determine the presence or absence of coastal engineering structures since the preceding data source. Thus, the following inventory of shore protection structures generally shows a range for the installation/removal period of a given structure. Where possible the Town of Southold Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits were reviewed to provide more specific information regarding shore protection structures. Dredging within the study site occurs exclusively at Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets. Records compiled by the New York State Department of State, Suffolk County, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Town of Southold were reviewed to identify the frequency and volume of dredging, and the method and location for disposal from these sites. 4.2. Coastal Engineering Structures Tables 4 through 6 show the inventory of coastal engineering structures for the following shoreline segments: Horton Point to eastern side of Goldsmith Inlet (Table 4), western side of Goldsmith Inlet to Duck Pond Point (Table 5), Duck Pond Point to the western Southold Town Line (Table 6). The structures have also been identified on copies of the April 1998 digital imagery and are shown in Figures 17-27. 4.2.1. Horton Point to Eastern Side of Goldsmith Inlet The shoreline segment between Horton Point and the eastem side of Goldsmith Inlet consists of low-lying coastal beaches backed in many places by an extensive coastal dune system. The only area showing an exposed glacial bluff is the section between Hot,on Point and the eastern end of Horton Lane Beach. The oldest coastal engineering structure along this segment is the concrete seawall on the existing Lockman property, which was installed sometime between 1933 and 1955 (Table 4, Figure 18). This structure was originally installed with a series of low-lying, perpendicular, concrete footings, which still exist today. Development on the Bittner property occurred next, where sometime between 1955 and 1964, a timber bulkhead was installed to protect a residence located within the coastal dunes (Figure 19). The bulkhead was constructed at the interface between coastal beach and coastal dune, and was augmented with a single timber groin on the eastern side of the property sometime before 1969. The April 1969 photographs show an accumulation of sand on the updrift side of the groin, forming a wider beach on the western side of the groin than on the eastern (downdrift) side. A similar offset in the shoreline at the Bittner property was not obvious in the 1964 photographs, following construction of the bulkhead. 46 I I Table 4. Coastal Engineering Structures Between Horton Point and eastern side of Goldsmith Inlet, Southold, New York Location Type of Period of Installation Comments Structure Horton Point Timber bulkhead 1969-1976 Figure 17; Transect 11 Kenneys Road Beach Concrete seawall 1933-1955 Figure 18; Transects 68-70 (Leeton Drive, Lockman property) Kenneys Road Beach Aluminum groin 1978-1980 Figure 18; Transect 67 (Leeton Drive, Lockman properW) Kenneys Road Beach Timber bulkhead 1969-1972 Figure 18; Transects 74 to 81 (west end of Leeton Drive) Kenneys Road Beach Aluminum groins 1978-1980 ! Figure 18;Transects 74 to 81 (west end of Leeton (7) Drive) Soundview Rd. (Bitmer Timber groins (2) 1966-1969 (east groin) Figure 19; Transects 108-109 property) 1969-1972 (west groin) Soundview Rd. (Bittner Timber bulkhead 1962-1964 Figure 19; Transects 108-109 property) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Additional shore protection within this segment was constructed between 1969 and 1976 when a second timber groin was installed on the western side of the Bittner property (Figure 19), a timber bulkhead was installed to protect multiple properties on the west end of Leeton Drive at Kenneys Road Beach (Figure 18), and a timber bulkhead was constructed to protect a single- family residence at Horton Point (Figure 17). The most recent installation of shore protection structures within this segment occurred between 1976 and 1980, when a series of 7 aluminum groins were constructed between the Leeton Drive and Lockman bulkheads (Figure 18). 4.2.2. Western Side of Goldsmith Inlet to Duck Pond Point The shoreline segment between the western side of Goldsmith Inlet and Duck Pond Point is characterized by sand, gravel, and cobble coastal beaches backed by an extensive coastal bank. The history of shore protection structures along this portion of coastline is summarized in Table 5. The stone jetty protecting the western side of Goldsmith Inlet was constructed during the period Nov. 1963 to Feb. 1964 (Figure 20). Jetty construction was a joint project between New York State and Suffolk County, and was intended to provide safe passage to a new marina. The marina was never constructed and the inlet is not navigable. The jetty created a large area for sand to accumulate on the updrift (western) side. The oldest shore protection structure along this segment is a small timber bulkhead located just east of Duck Pond Point at the end of Digman's Road (Figure 23). This structure was built sometime between 1933 and 1955. In the following years, between 1980 and 1993, large extensions were added to both ends of the earlier bulkhead (Figure 23). During the period 1955 and 1964, two small stone groins were constructed along the shoreline at the end of Cabots View Road (Figure 21). These groins are currently of low elevation and are not sand tight. Consequently, they offer little to no barrier for sediment moving in the longshore transport system. 47 Figure 17. Coastal engineering structures at Horton Point, Southold, New York. 48 Figure 18. Coastal engineering structures at Kenneys Road Beach, Southold, New York. 49 Figure 19. Coastal engineering structures at Bittner property (between Kermeys Road Beach and Goldsmith Beach), Southold, New York. 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5. Coastal Engineering Structures Between Western Side of Goldsmith Inlet and Duck Pond Point, Southold, New York Location Type of Period of Installation Comments Structure Goldsmith Inlet Stone jetty 1964 Figure 20; Transect 145 West of Goldsmith Inlet Sheet pile 1996-1998 Figure 21; Transects 172-173 (Blue Horizons Bluff) bulkhead Cabots View Road Stone groins 1962-1964 Figure 21; Transect 183 (near Southold - Cutchogue line) Baxters R.O.W. (end of Timber bulkhead 1980-1993 Figure 22; Transect 225 Bridge Lane) Off eastern end of Timber bulkhead 1976-1980 (east end) Figure 22; Transects 228-237 Oregon Road 1980-1993 (center) 1993-1998 (west end) Offeastern end of Timber bulkhead 1993-1996 Figures 22-23; Transects 255-256 , Oregon Road (east of Digman's Road) Digman's Road (east of Timber bulkheads 1980-1993 (east end) Figure 23; Transects 266-274 ' Duck Pond Point) (2) 1933-1955 (center) 1980-1993 (west end) Duck Pond Point (end Rock revetment 1980-1993 Figures 23-24; Transect 275-276 of Digman's Road) Duck Pond Point (end Timber bulkhead 1980-1993 Figures 23-24; Transect 280 of Digman's Road) During the period 1976 to 1980, a timber bulkhead was constructed to protect a single dwelling located off the eastern end of Oregon Road (Figure 22). This bulkhead was later extended to the west a significant distance during the period 1980 to 1993 and a second time during the period 1993 to 1998 (Figure 22). A number of structures were installed during the period 1980 to 1993, including a low rock revetment and timber bulkhead at Duck Pond Point (Figure 23). With thc addition of these structures, Duck Pond Point was completely armored by 1993. Another timber bulkhead was constructed off the end of Bridge Lane on Baxters R.O.W. during the period 1980 to 1993 to protect a single residence (Figure 22). A lengthy timber bulkhead was constructed during the period 1993 to 1996 off the eastern end of Oregon Road east of Digman's Road (Figures 22 8: 23). The most recent phase of shore protection installation occurred during the period 1993 to 1998, when a sheet pile bulkhead was installed to protect a residence located west of Goldsmith Inlet on Blue Horizons Bluff (Figure 21). 4.2.3. Duck Pond Point to the western Southoid Town Line The shoreline between Duck Pond Point and the western Southold Town Line is composed primarily of sand, gravel, and cobble coastal beaches backed by a high glacial bluff. The Mattituck Inlet area contains coastal dunes and a fairly extensive salt marsh system. The history of shore protection structures along this segment of coastline is summarized in Table 6. The jetties at Mattituck Inlet have existed since the early 1900s; the east jetty was completed in 1906 and the west jetty was completed in 1914 (Figure 27). A 250 ft extension was added to the west jetty in 1938, and repairs to the west jetty were completed in 1937 and 1993. Additional repairs to the east jetty were completed in 1973. 51 Figure 20. Coastal engineering structures at Goldsmith Inlet, Southold, New York. 52 m m m m m mm mm m mm m m m m m m m m Figure 21. Coastal engineering structures west of Goldsmith Inlet, Southold, New York. 53 Figure 22. Coastal engineering structures east of Duck Pond Point, Southold, New York. 54 Figure 23. Coastal engineering structures at Duck Pond Point, Southold, New York. 55 I I Table 6. Coastal Engineering Structures Between Duck Pond Point and the Western Southoid Town Line Location Type of Period of Installation Comments Structure Duck Pond Road (motel Concrete 1955-1964 Figures 23-24; Transect 283-285 at Duck Pond Point) seawall/retaining wall Glenn Court (west of Timber bulkheads 1993-1998 (east end) Figures 23-24; Transect 289-295 motel at Duck Pond (2) 1969-1976 (central) Point) 1993-1998 (west end) Soundview Rd. Timber bulkhead 1993-1998 Figure 25; Transect 361 (eastern end) Soundview Rd. Timber bulkhead 1993-1998 Figure 25; Transect 364 (eastern end) with wire gabbions Soundview Rd. Timber bulkheads 1969-1993 (various Figures 25-26; Transects 374-385 (western end) stages) Bailie Beach Road (east Timber bulkhead 1976-1980 Figure 26; Transects 397-400 of Mattituck Inlet) Mattituck Inlet Stone jetties (2) 1906 (east jetty) Figure 27; Transects 419-423 1914 (west jetty) 1937 (west jetty ext.) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A concrete seawall/retaining wall was built sometime during the period 1955 to 1964 to protect the motel located just west of Duck Pond Point (Figure 24). To the west of the motel property a timber bulkhead was constructed during the period 1969 to 1976 to protect a single residence located on Glenn Court (Figures 23 & 24). Subsequent to this, additional timber bulkheads were constructed between 1993 and 1998 to protect adjacent properties on Glenn Court (Figure 23 & 24). The timber bulkheads protecting properties located at the western end of Sonndview Road were built in various stages during the interval 1969 to 1993 (Figures 25 & 26); The Bailie Beach Road area to the east of Mattituck Inlet was protected by a timber bulkhead, installed sometime between 1976 and 1980 (Figure 26). The most recent phase of development, between 1993 and 1998, occurred in the Oregon Hills area along the eastern end of Sonndview Road. A number of timber bulkheads were installed, as well as some wire gabbions. Two small groins are located just beyond the western Southold town line; however, these structures are outside the boundaries of the study area. 56 Figure 24. Coastal engineenng structures west of Duck Pond Point, Southold, New York. 57 Figure 25. Coastal engineering structures at Oregon Hills (between Duck Pond Point and Mattituck Inlet), Southold, New York. 58 Figure 26. Coastal engineering structures east of Mattituck Inlet, Southold, New York. 59 Figure 27. Coastal engineering structures at Mattituck Inlet, Southold, New York. 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.3. Dredging Activity Sediment transport at tidal inlets is a function of hydrodynamic forces created by local waves and tides, sediment availability, and the presence of inlet stabilization structures. Tidal inlets interrupt the natural longshore transport of sediment. This sediment can be captured by tidal currents and deposited in the inlet, transported to flood and ebb shoals, or allowed to migrate beyond the inlet to downdrift beaches. The natural migration of sand to downdrift beaches can occur in two ways. Material can be transported offshore by ebb currents to the ebb- tidal shoal, and then back to the downdrift beach by wave action, or the material can be transported directly to downdrifi beaches by longshore currents. It is common for beaches downdrift of inlets to erode because the inlet traps sediment that would otherwise be transported to the downdrift beaches. This process is especially true at structured inlets, where the effects of sediment trapping can be enhanced by the construction of jetties. Dredging is one of the most common management practices at both natural and stabilized inlets. Where channel shoaling and safe navigation is a concern, dredging is often conducted to remove sediment not scoured from the channel by the natural tidal currents. In other cases, dredging is often performed on the ebb- or flood-tidal shoals, and mechanically placed on the adjacent beach to mitigate downdrift beach erosion. Sand by-passing plants are also commonly used management techniques to move sediment accumulated on the updrift side of tidal inlets to the eroding downdrift beaches. Stabilization of Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets has influenced sediment transport patterns in the area, primarily causing accretion on the western (updrift) sides of the inlets, and erosion on the eastern (downdrift) sides. Historical records maintained by the New York State Department of State, Suffolk County, and the Town of Southold indicate that dredging has been performed at both inlets in an effort to provide safe navigation, improve tidal flow, and augment the natural sediment by-passing process. The history of dredging activities at Goldsmith Inlet is shown in Table 7. Sediment dredged from Goldsmith was taken primarily from the entrance channel and deposited on eroding beaches to the east. The data show that since 1977, approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material has been removed every 2-3 years. Table 8 summarizes records kept for dredging at Mattituck Inlet. Average annual shoaling rates computed from the quantity of material dredged during the period 1921 to 1965 were fairly constant at approximately 8,000 cubic yards per year. During the period from 1965 to 1990 a large reduction in the dredged volumes occurred, likely due to sand removal activities immediately to the west of the Mattituck Inlet jetties. Table 9 shows a period of 15 years from 1960 to 1975 during which significant volumes of sand were removed from west of the jetties. Data are not available to show where this sand was deposited; however, the most probable spot is an upland location off site. Dredging records from the inlet (Table 8) suggest that these sand removal practices reduced the average annual shoaling rate to approximately 1,500 cubic yards per year. 61 1 I Table 7. History of Dredging Activity at Goldsmith Inlet, Southold, New York Date Volume (cu yds) Disposal Location 1977 4,000 Goldsmith Inlet Beach, immediately cast of inlet July 1980 3,720 Goldsmith Inlet Beach, immediately east of inlet June 1982 6,000 Stockpiled west of inlet, removed off-site July 1985 2,640 Goldsmith Inlet Beach, immediately east of inlet June 1987 4,800 Stockpiled and trucked to Kenncys Road Beach June 1989 4,320 Stockpiled and trucked to Kenneys Road Beach June 1990 NA Stockpiled and trucked to Kenncys Road Beach (Detailed records not available at~er 1990; approximately 5,000 cu yds removed annually and placed on Kenneys Road Beach) Table 8. History of Dredging Activity at Mattituek Inlet, Southold, New York Date Volume (eu yds) Disposal Location 1921 13,468 Unknown 1928 49,186 1936 50,785 1938 18,312 1946 53,893 1950 22,913 1955 51,552 1961 43,550 1965 47,265 1980 24,137 1990 13,241 Beach immediately east of inlet US Army Corps of Engineers (1996) Table 9. History of Sand Removal West of Mattituck Inlet Jetties, Southold, New York Date Volume (eu yds) Disposal Location 1960 23,214 Unknown 1961 17,694 " 1962 14,734 " 1963 36,098 " 1964 20,032 " 1965 26,534 1966 25,808 1967 24,914 1968 15,914 1969 6,482 1970 7,208 1971 8,532 1972 9,502 1973 3,356 1974 364 1975 3,965 From Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. (1995) I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 62 History of Storm Activity I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5. History of Storm Activity The coastline responds to various foming mechanisms that provide the energy to drive littoral process. Waves, currents, winds, storms, and tides are all "short-term" forces that shape the coastline over a period of minutes, hours, days, and years. Weather records were collected and reviewed in order to characterize the relationship between severe weather events and shoreline change at the study area. Both wind and tide records were collected from the closest available stations and then utilized to determine historical weather conditions. Through detailed analysis of both wind and tide records, many of the gaps commonly found in weather observations can be "filled" by utilization of both of the data sets. Examination of weather records provides information about storm frequency, intensity, and duration as well as estimated probability of recurrence. Correlation between tides, storm surge, and wind observations indicate the severity of each storm (e.g., damage to a shoreline is much greater if a storm event occurs during a high spring tide). The purpose of this section is to present historical weather observations to assess potential correlation with shoreline change. 5.1. Data Sources- Winds Wind plays an important role in the coastal region and is responsible for a variety of coastal processes (i.e., wind stress tide, wind-induced storm surges, aeolian sediment transport, wind-generated waves, etc.). Strong, sustained winds can have a significant impact on the shape and modification of the coastline. Analysis of historical wind observations can provide a vast amount of information about the behavior of storms, wave generation, and to some extent, sediment transport. Long-period wind records were obtained from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) located in Brookhaven, New York. Although the wind data are not measured directly in the Southold region, the BNL data set is considered representative for identifying storms. The wind observations, which consist of wind speed and direction values at discrete height levels, were collected from 1960-1993. More recent data subsequent to 1993 were not available at the time this report was prepared. Table 10 presents a summary of the BNL observations, including the height level(s) where wind data was recorded. Despite some significant gaps in speed and direction values, the wind record from BNL is the most complete in the Southold vicinity. Both the wind speed and direction are sampled at one-hour intervals throughout the entire measurement period. 5.2. Wind Statistics In order to characterize the relationship between historical wind records and shoreline change, wind data were subdivided into discrete time intervals corresponding to shoreline records. The primary goal was to classify the statistics of each interval, as well as to determine how energetic each interval was in terms of storm frequency and intensity. Table 11 presents the historical mean and standard deviation of the wind speed observed at BNL. 63 ! I Table 10. Wind Observations at Brookhaven National Laborator~ YEAR Ii ~. height 37 ~. height 88 ~. height 150 R. height 355 R. height 1960 X X 1961 X X 1962 X X 1963 X X X 1964 X X X 1965 X X X 1966 X 1967 1968 X X X 1969 X X X 1970 X X X 1971 X X 1972 X X 1973 X X 1974 X X 1975 X X 1976 X X 1977 X X 1978 X X 1979 X X 1980 X X 1981 X X 1982 X X 1983 X X 1984 X X 1985 X X 1986 X X 1987 X X 1988 X X 1989 X X 1990 X X 1991 X X 1992 X X 1993 X X 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 Table 11. Historical Statistics of Wind Observations at Brookhaven National Laborator),. Years Covered Height Historical Historical Level (ft) Mean Velocity (ft/s) Std. Dev. Velocity (ft/s) 1990-1993 11 6.9 4.3 1960-1965; 1968-1989 37 7.5 5.9 1990-1993 88 18.7 7.9 1963-1965; 1968-1970 150 12.5 8.9 1990-1993 355 20.3 8.9 1 I I I I 64 I I I I I I I The exact definition of a storm or storm event is difficult to quantify. Storms can be defined by the amount of damage caused to the coastline, the duration or peak intensity of winds, or by the type of storm (hurricane or extratropical). Rather than try to attach a specific definition to a storm, this analysis utilizes a standard statistical approach in order to quantify the behavior of the weather. Having identified the historical mean wind velocity and standard deviation, the number of observations that lie "outside" of the typical weather conditions can be computed. In this manner, the energetic nature or "storminess" of discrete time intervals (i.e., individual years, time periods between shoreline change maps, etc.) can be evaluated. The distribution of wind data is based on the number of standard deviations each observation is removed from the historical mean. Table 12 presents the distribution of wind observations, subdivided into time intervals corresponding to the available shoreline data, greater than one (1) standard deviation from the historical mean. The statistics shown in Table 12 use the 37-foot height level for the time period from 1960 to 1989 and the 88-foot height level for the time period from 1990 to 1993. The analysis at other height levels yielded similar results. Table 12. Distribution of wind observations greater than one (1) standard deviation away from the historical mean. Time Interval 1-2 Std. Dev. 2-3 Std. Dev. 3-4 Std. Dev. 4-5 Std. Dev. 5+ Std. Dev. (13.4-19.4 fffs) (19.4-25.3 fl/s) (25.3-31.2 ft/s) (31.2-37.0 ft/s) (37.0+ ft/s) Jan 1, 1960-Apr 3,755 988 186 34 20 1, 1964 883 / year* 232 / year* 44 / year* 8 / year* 5 / year* Apr 2, 1964-Apr 1,887 368 62 5 6 1, 1969 629 / year* 123 / year* 21 / year* 2 / year* 2 / year* Apr2, 1969oApr 6,818 2,341 660 118 19 6, 1976 973 / year* 334 / year* 94 / year* 17 / year* 3 / year* Apr 7, 1976- 3,677 1,252 309 52 4 Mar 24, 1980 929 / year* 316 / year* 78 / year* 13 / year* l/year* Mar 25, 1980- 8,922 2,003 319 53 21 Apr 5, 1993 684 / year* 154 / year* 24 / year* 4 / year* 2 / year* I I I I I I I I I I I * Average per year calculations do not account for gaps in the data, except for years which are completely missing (i.e., 1966 at 37-foot height level, 1967) The values presented in Table 12 represent an initial look at the energy associated with each time interval. The time period between April 2, 1969 and April 6, 1976 appears to be slightly more energetic than the other time intervals. It is likely that the observations registering four (4) or more standard deviations away have the most influence on shoreline erosion. A more detailed investigation, including identification of extreme observations, is presented in Section 5.5. However, the effect of individual extreme observations and/or events on the coastline is difficult to quantify due to the sparse temporal resolution available for shoreline position data. 5.3. Documented Storm Activity Historical accounts of storm activity provide an excellent resource to identify significant events which may have caused shoreline erosion. Table 13 provides a history of tropical (hurricane) and extratropical (northeaster) storms that have impacted the Southold area since the early 1900s. 65 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 13. Summary of documented storm activity impacting coastal areas of Southold, New York. Date of Storm Type of Storm Sept. 14, 1904 Hurricane Mar. 3, 1931 Extratropical Sept. 8, 1934 Hurricane Jan. 25, 1933 Extratropical Nov. 17, 1935 Extratropical Sept. 21, 1938 Hurricane Sept. 14-15, 1944 Hurricane Nov. 28-30, 1945 Extratropical Nov. 25, 1950 Extratropical Nov. 5, 1953 Extratropical Aug 3 l-Sept. 1, 1954 Hurricane Carol Sept. 11, 1954 Hurricane Edna Aug. 18-19, 1955 Hurricane Diane Sept. 12o13, 1960 Hurricane Donna Mar. 6, 1962 Extratropical Jan. 12, t964 Exixatropical Jan. 22, 1966 Extratropical Jun. 22,1972 Hurricane Agnes Nov. 30, 1974 Extrarropical Aug. 6, 1976 Hurricane Belle Oct. 13, 1977 Extratropical Feb. 6-7, 1978 Extratropical Mar. 28, 1984 Extratropical Sept. 27, 1985 Hurricane Gloria Aug. 19, 1991 Hurricane Bob Oct. 30, 1991 Extratropical Dec. 10-11, 1992 Extratropical 5.4. Extremal Wind Analysis 5.4.1. General Approach Observations of non-deterministic phenomenon (e.g. storms) can be achieved only for a limited period of time. In order to estimate the conditions for a specified time period, a method must be used to derive a probability distribution for the available data. Then, from the probability analysis, a return period or recurrence interval can be estimated. In general, these techniques are known as "extremal analysis" estimation and are useful for ordering data that are not deterministic. Tides do not require such probabilistic analysis, because the fundamental laws governing tidal dynamics are well understood, and therefore the tides are deterministic. Extreme winds and/or storms, to the contrary, may not be deterministic in the sense that only general statistics of the current state can be determined. In this section, extreme wind events were examined using probabilistic analysis to estimate return periods. Many distribution functions have been used to estimate extremal values 66 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I normal, log-Pearson III, exponential, modified Weibull, and the Generalized Extreme Value method (which includes the Gumbel and Fisher-Tippett distributions). In general, a probabilistic model is used that will fit the data being examined. Once the appropriate model is selected, the estimation of extreme values is relatively simple. For instance, the Normal Distribution is a common model for many types of data, partly because of its simplicity and partly for theoretical reasons. The distribution of a normal variate is completely stated by the first two moments (mean and standard deviation) of the distribution. For a normal distribution, about 68% of all observations will fall within one standard deviation of the mean value, and about 95% will fall within two standard deviations. Thus, the extremal analysis is fairly simple for the normal distribution. The extremes of other distributions are generally more complex and cannot be stated simply in terms of the standard deviation. Instead, higher order moments must be calculated to determine the proper form for the distribution. For some purposes, the distribution to be used is unclear, in other cases use of one distribution for one variable may indicate the distribution for a related variable. For example, sea-surface elevation under a random wave field is normally distributed; this distribution mandates that the probability for the corresponding wave height be Rayleigh distributed. For many situations, however, we cannot assign a priori the proper distribution function. In these cases, the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) method is most appropriate. This GEV has been shown to be a useful model for extremal analysis for many types of geophysical flows (e.g., Jenkinson, 1969; Borgman, 1975; Wallis and Wood, 1985). For extremal analysis purposes, it is assumed that the data set consists of a set of maximum events drawn from a large sample. The use of maxima assures independent data, as opposed to correlated data drawn from time series of continuous recordings such as rainfall, streamflow, current measurements, etc. For a set ofn independent observations drawn from a set of maximum events, the probability F(x) that the largest event is less than x is: where z/n is the probability that a particular value exceeds x. For large n, the probability can be approximated by the exponential: F(x) = e If we transform the data as y = - In z, the probability becomes: F(x) = exp ( -e-y) It is expected that an event at least as large as x will be encountered once in every T samples, where T is the recurrence interval (return period) defined as: 67 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1- F(x) These probabilities often are determined graphically by arranging the data set ofn largest values in ascending order: x~, x2 ..... , x~. The extremes determined graphically depend on the selection of plotting position for each of the samples (e.g., Barnett, 1975) and on the parent distribution for those samples, especially for small n. To resolve the issue of parent distribution, a common practice is to use asymptotic methods to match sampled maximum values to the tail of various distributions. Three general asymptotes arise from a theoretical consideration of this generalized extremal approach. These three asymptotes can be simplified to a common form: X =X0 The Gumbel or Fisher-Tippett type I distribution is given by k=0, whereas the Frechet or Fisher- Tippett type II distribution is given ifk is negative. A Weibull or Fisher-Tippett type III distribution arises ilk is positive. The type of distribution most appropriate depends on the data, which determine the value for "k" as well as the offset (Xo) and gain (ct). The term "y" is a function of the return period: For y > 10, this last equation can be approximated as y = In (T-0.5). For this analysis, complete time series were not utilized. Instead, maximum wind velocities during the given time interval were identified. In such a case (where maximum events are utilized), the GEV methodology can be reshaped in the form of a compound Poisson Extremal Value (PEV) distribution. The results are identical to those of an extremal distribution with an average sample interval equal to the number of years covered by the sample divided by the number of data points in the sample. The confidence limits for the GEV are provided by Jenkinson (1969). The implementation of these analyses checks for "outliers", or data points well outside the distribution. If such an outlier is found, the analysis can be done without the outlier to improve the model, or the outlier can remain. Generally, the data series in the present analysis were free ofoutliers. Retum periods can span various lengths of time. Generally, retum values are presented for 10, 25, 50, and 100 years, although any arbitrary return period can be calculated. The return period can be thought of as the average period of waiting between events exceeding some specified value. For instance, a 20-year return value of 32.8 ftys (10 m/s) means that for any given year, there is a 1/20 chance that a wind velocity of 32.8 ft/s (10 m/s) will be reached. However, the return period is not the same as the probability that an event of a specific size will 68 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I occur within an interval of time. Nor is the return period the frequency of occurrence of events of a given intensity. A related concept used in risk analysis is the probability that the largest intensity encountered during some time interval will be less than or equal to a specified value. This quantity is known as the nonencounter probability. The encounter or nonencounter frequency determines the exposure of the shoreline to an event of a certain size. If a variable has a value with a return period oft years, then the probability that the variable will have a value larger than this is (l/T). The probability that the variable will attain that value is (l-l/T). The probability that this does not occur for "n" successive years is (1-l/T)n, and the probability that the variable will have a value exceeding this limit every "n" years is 1-(1-l/T)n. 5.4.2. Extremal Wind Velocities A GEV extremal analysis was performed on the distribution of wind velocities lying at least four (4) standard deviations away from the historical mean for each subdivided time interval of shoreline change. The distributions were utilized, independent of direction, as input into the extremal analysis. Figure 28 shows the return periods and wind velocities for each time interval produced from the GEV. The final time interval had to be calculated in two distinct intervals (1980 to 1989 and 1990 to 1993) due to measurement changes in height level (37 ft and 88 ft height, respectively). The results indicate extremal wind conditions ranging from 36.0 to 98.4 flys (11 to 30 m/s). When using available wind observations from 1960 to 1964, the 200-year wind extreme is approximately 98.4 flys (30 m/s). On the other hand, when utilizing wind observations from 1976 to 1980, the 200-year wind extreme is approximately 49.2 flys (15 m/s). The time interval from 1960 to 1964 contained more extreme wind events (and in-mm more storms), which likely had a greater impact on the shoreline change. Table 14 presents the results (wind velocity in flys and return period in years), including confidence limits (ftYs) for each return period. For example, a 3.6 flys (1.1 m/s) confidence interval for a 54.8 flys (16.7 m/s) extreme wind represents a 51.2 flys (15.6 m/s) lower bound and a 58.3 flys (17.8 m/s) upper bound. 69 I I I I I I GEV Extremal Analysis Results BNL Wind Observations 111160-411/64 412164-4/1/69 4/2/69-4/6/76 4/7/76-3/24/80 3/25/80-12/31/89 1/1/90-4/5/93 50 100 150 200 Return Period (years) I I I I I I I Figure 26. Extremal results from application of a GEV analysis on observed wind velocities from Brookhaven National Laboratory. 70 Table 14. GEV extremal results from BNL wind observations. Return Jan 1, 1960- Apr2, 1964- Apr2, 1969- Apr7, 1976- Mar 25, 1980- Jan 1, 1990- Period Apr 1, 1964 Apr 1, 1969 Apr6, 1976 Mar 24, 1980 Dec 31, 1989 Apr5, 1993 Vek C.I. Vel. C.I. Vel. C.I. Vel. C.I. Vel. C.I. Vel. C.I. Ft/s ~s Ft/s l~s Ft/s ftys ~s fUs f'ds lYs fl/s frs I 54.8 3.6 41.7 2.6 38.7 0.7 37.7 1.0 36.1 1.3 66.3 2.0 5 68.2 5.6 51.2 5.6 41.7 1.0 41.3 1.3 49.5 4.6 73.1 3.0 10 73.8 6.2 55.1 6.9 43.0 1.0 42.6 1.6 54.4 5.9 76.1 3.3 20 79.7 7.2 59.0 8.2 44.3 1.0 44.0 1.6 59.7 6.9 79.0 3.9 25 81.3 7.5 60.0 8.5 44.6 1.0 44.6 2.0 61.0 7.5 80.0 3.9 50 87.2 8.5 64.0 9.8 45.9 1.3 45.9 2.0 66.3 8.5 83.0 4.6 75 90.5 8.9 66.3 10.5 46.6 1.3 46.9 2.3 69.2 9.2 84.6 4.6 100 92.8 9.2 67.6 10.8 47.2 1.3 47.2 2.3 71.2 9.8 85.9 4.9 t50 96.1 9.8 69.9 11.5 47.9 1.3 48.2 2.3 74.1 10.5 87.6 5.2 200 98.7 10.2 71.5 12.1 48.5 1.6 48.9 2.6 76.1 11.2 88.9 5.2 I I I I I I I I I I 5.5. Data Sources- Water Elevations The daily rise and fall of the tide, caused by the gravitational attractions of the moon and sun acting on water particles on the surface of the earth, plays an important role in the configuration of a coastline. A tidal record is made up of a multitude of tidal components, each with a distinctive forcing mechanism, period, and amplitude. Extreme tides (coincidence of various tidal components to create extremely large tides), called perigean spring tides, in and of themselves are not dangerous, but their occurrence simultaneous with storms can lead to catastrophic effects. Some of the measured tidal signal is not astronomically-induced (i.e., storms, atmospheric pressure disturbances, etc.) and can lead to short-term changes in water levels. Storms consist of large wind fields that create elevated storm surges by forcing ocean water up against the coastline. A storm surge can create high water levels lasting for several days. The destructiveness of a storm surge depends on its magnitude and duration, as well as the wind- driven waves and correlation with astronomical tides. I I I I Tidal records were obtained from National Ocean Service (NOS) station 8510560 located at Montauk Point in Fort Pond Bay (see Figure 29). Although not always comparable to storm generated water levels at Southold, data from this station represent the closest long-term water levels. Data from 1960 to 1993, sampled at one-hour intervals, were used for comparison with wind records. The water level observations are of high quality, although there are some gaps in the long-period records. For example, Hurricane Bob rendered the gage inoperable for approximately two months in 1991 (see Appendix B4). In addition, certain years were not included in the analysis due to the excessive number of gaps in the time series (i.e., 1972, 1973, etc.). I 71 Figure 27. Location of the NOS tide station in Fort Pond Bay. I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.5.1. Tide Analysis The first step in the analysis of the tidal time series is to remove the astronomically- lnduced water surface fluctuations (known tides). By using a harmonic analysis, the deterministic tidal constituents can be extracted from the time series. The remaining signal (or tidal residual) can be examined for other processes (e.g., storm surges). This analysis was performed on the original NOS time series with one-hour sampling intervals. The harmonic analysis calculated the amplitude and (Greenwich) phase of 25 individual tidal constituents, using a least squares fit of the constituent sinusoid to the raw data signal. The analysis results in a time series containing all 25 constituents and a time series of 'residual' water surface fluctuations. The residual time series is generated by subtracting the reconstructed tidal series from the original signal. Figure 30 shows the results of the tidal analysis for 1960. The top panel presents the raw measured signal. The vertical axis, amplitude, is in units of meters above mean low water and the horizontal axis is in Julian Days. The middle panel presents the reconstructed, predicted tidal signal and the bottom panel shows the residual signal. In 1960, and predominately throughout the years, higher residual signals are evident in the fall through spring seasons. In addition, storm surges can be identified in the residual signal. For example, the peak that appears at Julian Day 254 (September 12, 1960) is associated with Hurricane Donna. Similar plots for the remaining years are presented in Appendix B-1. 5.6. Correlation of Historical Storm Data The occurrence of a hurricane or extratropical storm can have a significant impact on the coastline, and if coincident with a cycle of the spring high tide, the results can be disastrous. In order to take a more detailed look at the extreme storm events within the shoreline change time intervals, extreme winds, residual tidal signals and high tides were plotted on a similar time scale. The plots serve as an historic "time-clock" of weather that provide information related to the severity of individual storm events and allow for comparison between the winds and storm surge. In addition, they provide some indication of how the storms relate to shoreline adjustments. Figure 31 shows historical wind and water elevation records for 1960 and 1961. The left- hand panel shows the time of the highest tide during each month (indicated by the +'s), the residual tidal signal (indicated by the line), and times of high winds greater than 4+ the standard deviation (indicated by the o's). As expected, high winds appear at the peak identified in the tidal residual record as the storm surge associated with Hurricane Donna (September 12, 1960, Julian Day 254). The right-hand panels show wind directions, if available, associated with high wind velocities. The lines extending from the center of each observation indicate the direction from which the wind is coming. For example, as Hurricane Donna passed the BNL, the wind direction changes in 4 consecutive measurements, indicating passage of the counterclockwise rotating hurricane system. In another case, the storm evident around Julian Day 350, 1960, shows steady strong winds from the northeast. These directional wind data are useful in identifying NW and NE storm events potentially impacting the study site. Similar plots for the remaining years are presented in Appendix B-2. 73 i I I I I I ! I I I I I 1.5 0.5 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1960 0 50 1 oo 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 1.5 Predicted Tidal Signal 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 1,5, Residual Signal i I ! I I I ! Figure 28. 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Results of the tidal analysis performed on the 1960 data observations in Fort Pond Bay. 74 I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I Based on the aforementioned analyses, the following conclusions can be drawn from the historical weather data. Results presented in Table 12 show that on average, the periods 1969 to 1976, and 1976 to 1980 were the most energetic, having the most number of wind observations greater than the historical mean. In addition, severe wind observations (5+ std. dev.) occurred most frequently during the period 1960 to 1964. Results from the GEV extremal analysis shown in Figure 26 illustrate which time intervals contained the highest velocity winds. The periods 1960 to 1964 and 1990 to 1993 contained the strongest winds, while the periods 1969 to 1976 and 1976 to 1980 contained the lowest velocity winds. Finally, by combining the historical water level data with the wind information (Figure 31, Appendix B-2), it is possible to summarize the specific time intervals used for shoreline change in terms of direction and intensity of storm winds. Review of the data in Appendix B-2 suggest that the greatest number of storms occurred during the periods 1969 to 1976 and 1976 to 1980, and that these storms were predominantly from the NW. The times prior to 1964 and from 1980 to 1993 contained fewer numbers of storms; however, more of the storms were northeasters. The time interval from 1964 to 1969 was relatively quiet, with few storms occurring with the potential to impact the Southold shoreline. Where possible these "storminess" characteristics will be used to correlate shoreline change with natural storm processes. Although the weather records provide some indication of general "storminess", due to the lack of temporal resolution in shoreline change plots, it is difficult to determine the exact effect a specific storm has on the coastline. 75 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1960 + :+ + i+ +'. + ~: +: + :~ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) N High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1960 Humcane 5O 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time (Julian Days) 400 0 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1961 High Wind Directions (Comin ~ From): 1961 'O 5O + + + + 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) 300 350 400 Figure 29. Historical wind and water elevation records for 1960 and 1961. I I I I I i 6. Anal}~sis of Longshore Transport Rates I I I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. Analysis of Longshore Transport Rates In response to concerns regarding erosion along the Town of Southold shoreline, a number of remedial actions have been developed. These actions include modifications to existing shore protection structures, installation of new coastal engineering structures, sand bypassing, and beach nourishment. However, prior to the design and implementation of any remedial action, detailed information must be gathered to quantify the response of the shoreline to dominant coastal processes and to describe existing coastal resources. From a management standpoint, one of the more important issues to quantify is the rate of longshore sediment transport, or the rate at which littoral drift is moved parallel to the shoreline. Longshore sediment transport rates are typically expressed as the volume of sand transported on an annual basis. When the volume is calculated as the sum of littoral drift transported in both directions along the shoreline, it is referred to as a gross longshore transport rate. When the volume is calculated as the difference between the amounts of littoral drift transported in either direction, it is referred to as a net longshore transport rate. Proper design for any of the remedial actions to address the Town of Southold coastal erosion will require quantification of the net longshore sediment transport rate. The analysis of shoreline change conducted as part of this study provides useful information for quantifying the longshore sediment transport rate. A more thorough examination of sediment budget, also required for the design of remedial action, is being conducted as part of the shoreline monitoring task. One of the most common methods utilized to quantify the rate of longshore transport is to examine data showing historical changes in the topography of the littoral zone. Some common indicators of the transport rate are the growth of a spit, shoaling patterns and deposition rates at an inlet, and/or the growth of a fillet adjacent to a jetty or groin. In areas where significant sediment bypassing can be expected to occur, these indicators will typically underestimate the longshore transport rate. Sediment impoundment at the Goldsmith Inlet jetties provides the best place at the Southold study site to estimate longshore transport rates. A large fillet accumulated on the updrift (west) side of this inlet following jetty construction. Using a combination of information on shoreline position and nearshore profile elevation, it is possible to calculate a volume of sediment trapped for a given time interval. The annual transport rate can then be determined by dividing by the period of time over which the sediment accumulated. Table 15 summarizes the sediment accumulation rates at Goldsmith Inlet for a number of time increments during the period 1964 to 1976. The time intervals chosen for analysis were based on the dates of available aerial photography and the dates of jetty construction. Historical records indicate that jetty construction began in November 1963 and was completed by February 1964. The closest representation of pre-jetty conditions is from the May 1955 aerial photography, while the April 1964 photography most closely represents post-jetty conditions. As such, the April 1964 data set was used as the initial survey for quantifying impoundment at the jetty. 77 I I I Table 15. Sediment Accumulation Rates at Goldsmith Inlet. Time Interval Area of Fillet Volume of Fillet Elapsed Time Measured (sq. ft) (cu. yds) (yrs) Accumulation Rate (cu. yds/yr) Apr. 1964- Apr. 1969 61,551 41,125 5 8,225 Apr. 1969 - Apr. 1976 77,787 51,973 7 7,424 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Shoreline position data from the analysis of historical shoreline change were used to determine the square area of the fillet immediately updrift of the jetty for each time interval. The size of the fillet was determined by measuring the area of accreted shoreline from the jetty, to a point where the two shorelines overlapped. The volume of sediment accumulated was computed by multiplying the fillet area by the average depth of sediment in the zone of active littoral transport. The depth of sediment was estimated to be 18 ft, from a berm crest elevation of +5 ft NAVD to a closure depth of -13 ft NAVD. Profile data collected as part of the shoreline monitoring task were used to determine the berm crest elevation and the Hallermeier (1981) method was utilized to estimate the depth of closure. The volume of the fillet was then divided by the total elapsed time to calculate the accumulation rate. The data in Table 15 show that the Goldsmith Inlet fillet grew from the time of jetty construction through 1969, and approached capacity by 1976. Following 1976 the size of the fillet remained fairly stable, fluctuating with the annual wave conditions. Sediment moving in the littoral drift system likely bypassed the inlet, or became trapped within the tidal inlet system. The average rate of sediment accumulation measured from the shoreline position data was approximately 8,000 cu yds per year (Table 15). This rate is consistent with dredging records from Goldsmith Inlet (Table 7) and annual shoaling rates calculated for Mattituck Inlet (Table 8) during the period 1921 to 1965. Correlation of sediment accumulation rates to longshore transport rates must consider the assumptions used, the potential errors involved in calculating the accumulation rates, and the likely impacts on the range of longshore transport rates. The sediment accumulation volumes are based on shoreline positions interpreted and digitized from aerial photography. Thus, the errors inherent in this type of analysis must also be considered when shoreline position data are used to develop longshore transport rates. For the Goldsmith Inlet area, during the period 1964 to 1976, the maximum sediment volume associated with potential errors in shoreline position is on the order of + 32,000 cu yds. This translates to error pementages for the annual rate of longshore transport of_+ 35%, or a range in annual longshore transport from 8,000 to 10,800 cu yds. The average measured rate of sediment accumulation of 8,000 cu yds/yr based on the data shown in Table 15, likely represents a minimum longshore transport rate for the study area since some sediment can be expected to be transported through and around the end of the jetty. It must also be considered that this value represents a minimum net longshore transport rate to the east, and that during certain portions of the year sediment is also moved in a westerly direction. 78 I I I ! I I 7. Comparison of Results with Existing Studies I ! I I ! I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 7. Comparison of Results with Existing Studies A number of existing studies are available on coastal processes and historical shoreline change along the north shore of Long Island in the Town of Southold, New York. These studies have been reviewed and evaluated for accuracy of data sources, methods, and final results. Where rates of shoreline change are reported, the results have been compared with those developed during this study. A brief description of the previous shoreline change reports is given below, along with a discussion of variations in shoreline change rates between the various different studies. The earliest report to quantify erosion along the north shore of Long Island was prepared by the Marine Sciences Research Center of the State University of New York (Davies et al., 1971). This report gives bluff recession rates for locations at Horton Point and Oregon Hills, and shoreline change rates at fourteen (14) stations between Mattituck Hills to Horton Point (Table 13). Data sources used to calculate the bluff recession rates were 1933 series (approximate scale of 1:7,200) and 1960 to 1970 series (approximate scale of 1:4,800) aerial photographs from the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. Shore perpendicular bluff transects were located on the photography and recession rates were scaled directly from the photographs, taking into account variations in scale. Shoreline change rates were calculated by comparing the position of the high water shoreline found on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts surveyed in 1885 to 1886 with those of 1965 base maps compiled by the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC). By superimposing the two shorelines, the areas of accretion or erosion between stations were determined. This area was then divided by the length of shoreline between the stations to determine the average rate of shoreline change between stations. Annual rates of change were computed by dividing by the number of years between data sets (80 years from 1886 to 1965). Aside from the brief methodologies described above, the Davies et al. (1971) report gives no detail on whether the cartographic data soumes were corrected to reflect common dams, scales, projections, and coordinate systems. Without consideration for these parameters, accurate comparison of shoreline position changes between 1885 and 1965 is not possible. Consequently, the resultant shoreline change rates must be considered as estimates only. The bluff recession rates must also be considered as estimates, since corrections were not made for photo distortion, and the methodology used can introduce significant measurement errors. However, assuming that general trends in shoreline change are represented accurately by the Davies et al. (1971) data, it is possible to make some comparisons with the shoreline change rates computed as part of this study. The most directly comparable rates are those computed using the end-point method from 1884/85 to 1964. These rates reflect net shoreline change during a period of record nearly identical to the Davies et al. (1971) report. Table 16 compares shoreline change rates between 1884/85 and 1964 computed for this study, with those presented in the Davies et al. (1971) report. With few exceptions both the magnitude and trend of shoreline change compares well between the two studies, despite the different methods used and the slightly different time periods analyzed. The greatest residuals are found in the vicinity of the tidal inlets where large annual changes can commonly occur. 79 I I Table 16. Comparison of Shoreline Change Rates Computed for this Study with Rates Computed by Davies et al. (1971). Davies et al. (1971) ; Current Study (1998) Change Change Shoreline Time Sra. Rate Time Tram Rate Residual Indicator Location Period No. (fffyr) Period No. (ft/yr) (ft/yr) Coastal Horton Point 1933-1966 -0.5 Bank Horton Point 1933-1960 -1.6 Oregon Hills 1933-1966 -1.6 High Mattituck Hills 1885-1965 126 -1.0 1884-1964 510 -1.0 0 Water 127 - 1.4 470 - 1.5 -0.1 Shoreline West side Mattituck Inlet 128 +3.2 430 +4.1 0.9 East side Mattituck Inlet 129 -0.3 400 -3.1 -2.8 Soundview Road 130 -1.2 360 -1.9 -0.7 Oregon Hills 131 -1.0 315 -0.9 0.1 Duck Pond Point 132 -0.8 275 -1.2 -0.4 East end Oregon Road 133 -0.4 240 -0.3 0.1 Blue Horizon Bluffs 134 -0.8 185 -0.1 0.7 West side Goldsmith 135 -2.0 148 -0.4 1.6 Inlet East side Goldsmith 136 -1.6 140 0.0 1.6 Inlet Kenneys Road Beach 137 -1.9 75 -2.1 -0.2 Horton Lane Beach 138 -1.9 35 -1.1 0.8 Horton Point 139 -0.7 5 -0.5 0.2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In 1981, the Greenman-Pedersen, Associates prepared a report for Suffolk County entitled "Goldsmith Inlet Jetty Shoreline Impact Study". The report presents the results and a discussion of shoreline analyses conducted to determine the possible relationship between the stone jetty at Goldsmith Inlet and the erosion of Kenneys Road Beach. The study area extended from a point 2,000 ft west of the inlet to Horton Point. A time series of vertical aerial photography was obtained covering the following dates: May 1955, June 1959, March 1962, May 1966, May 1972, and March 1978. Using measurements to shoreline cultural features, the photographs were enlarged to a scale of 1"=400', and a transparent topographic base map was overlain on the photography. A shore parallel baseline was established, from which perpendicular transects were drown at 300 ft intervals. The position of high water from each of the photographic data sets was then marked on the transects, and compared to calculate changes I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I in shoreline position, rates of shoreline change. For each transect, the mean rate of erosion/accretion and the standard deviation of this mean were calculated. The results were presented in a series of figures and tables showing incremental shoreline change (e.g., May 1955 to June 1959; June 1959 to March 1962) as well as long-term shoreline change (May 1955 to March 1978). The methodologies used to prepare the Greenman-Pedersen (1981) report followed standard techniques used at the time for the analysis of shoreline position data from aerial photographs. These techniques concentrated on bringing the data sources to a common scale so that successive shoreline positions could be compared. This procedure does not include adjustments for distortions common to aerial photos such as radial distortion and tilt and pitch of the aircraft. To reduce measurement error to acceptable levels, these types of distortions should be eliminated or minimized. Additionally, scale adjustments made using manual measurements from the photographs will introduce errors, even at scales of 1"=400'. Finally, review of the statistical information presented shows that for most of the incremental time periods analyzed, the standard deviation of the mean shoreline change rate exceeds or equals the mean rate. This indicates a high level of uncertainty for most of the shoreline change rates The most directly comparable shoreline change rates from the Greenman-Pedersen (1981) study to those in the current study are those computed using the end-point method from 1955 to 1976. These rates reflect net shoreline change during a period of record two years shorter than the Greenman-Pedersen (1981) report. Table 17 compares shoreline change rates between 1955 and 1976 computed for this study, with those presented in the Greenman-Pedersen (1981) report for the period 1955 to 1978. The RMS error for the 1955 to 1976 data from this report is +1.0 ft./yr (Table 3), while the standard deviation of the mean shoreline change rate from the Greenman-Pedersen (1981) 1955 to 1978 data ranges from 2.8 to 5.7 fi/yr. The data in Table 17 show that the Greenman-Pedersen (1981) shoreline change rates are consistently higher than the rates computed for this study. Residual shoreline change rates between the two studies range from 0.6 to 2.5 ft/yr. Given the uncertainties in the Greenman-Pedersen (1981) data, and the consistently higher change rates, the value of these data are questionable. The Greenman-Pedersen (1981) report indicates that the Goldsmith Inlet jetty reached impoundment capacity by 1972, and was likely bypassing sediment. However, they also note an increase in the rate of erosion downdrift of the inlet following 1972 (1972 to 1978) despite the assumption that the inlet was bypassing sediment. These results are roughly comparable with those of this study, in that the highest rates of erosion downdrift of the inlet and the Bitmer property occurred during the period 1969 to 1980. Additional information provided through this study, and not available in the Greenman-Pedersen (1981) study, show that after 1980 the rates of erosion downdrift of Goldsmith Inlet and the Bittner property have declined continuously. 81 I I Table 17. Comparison of Shoreline Change Rates Computed for this Study with Rates Computed by Greenman-Pedersen (1981). Greenman-Pedersen (1981) Current Study (1998) Change Change Time Tran. Rate Time Tran. Rate Residual Location Period Nos. (ft/yr) Period No. (ft/yr) (ft/yr) 1,200 fc west of Goldsmith 1955-1978 1955-1976 Inlet to west side of inlet 103-115 3.8 147-159 6.3 2.5 East side of Goldsmith Inlet to Bittner property 118-148 -5.1 112-142 -2.7 2.4 East side of Goldsmith Inlet to west end of Kenneys 118-196 -5.1 64-142 -3.1 2.0 Road public beach Bittner property to west end of Kenneys Road public 15 l- 196 -5.1 64-109 -3.6 1.5 beach Bittner property to Horton Point 151-244 -3.4 16-109 -2.2 1.2 Beach at west end of Leeton Drive to west end of 178-196 -2.5 64-82 -1.0 1.5 Kenneys Road public beach Beach at west end of Leeton Drive to Horton Point 178-226 -1.6 16-82 -1.0 0.6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 82 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 8. Discussion The rates and extent of shoreline change from Horton Point to the western Southold town line have been determined using historical maps and aerial photographs. The analysis covers the period from 1884/85 to 1998. The cartographic and photographic data soumes were geo- referenced using landmarks with known coordinates, and the position of high water was used as a reference to determine changes in shoreline position and rates of shoreline change for incremental and long-term time periods. A complete error analysis was performed to show the significance of the computed shoreline change rates. Inventories of shore protection structures and significant storm events were compiled and, where possible, have been correlated with the shoreline change information. 8.1. Synthesis of Regional Shoreline Change Trends The highest rates of shoreline change within the study area are associated with the two tidal inlet systems. Long-term trends of shoreline change between 1884/85 and 1998 show accretion on the updrift (west) sides of the structured inlets and erosion on the downdrift (east) sides (Figure 5). When viewed over shorter time intervals (e.g., 1955 to 1964; 1964 to 1969) shoreline position changes in the vicinity of the inlets vary from the long-term trends. These variations reflect the random temporal nature of storm-induced coastal processes and their impacts on shoreline change. Thus, for any given year the shoreline position in the vicinity of the tidal inlets may be landward or seaward of its location the previous year; however, when viewed over long time periods (30 to 100 years) the shorelines show accretion updrift of the structured inlets and erosion downdrift of the inlets. In areas outside the influence of the tidal inlets, the average long-term shoreline position change is net erosional (Figure 5). Average rates of erosion on the order of 1.3 ftYyr occur at the extreme ends of the study site. Rates of erosion gradually decrease from the eastern side of Mattituck Inlet to Duck Pond Point, and from Duck Pond Point to Goldsmith Inlet, the erosion rates are relatively constant at 0.5 ft/yr. These long-term trends in shoreline change are the result of a combination of natural coastal processes and human-induced activities. To correlate the impacts of natural and man- induced activities on shoreline response, it is necessary to examine shoreline change over successive time increments. For example, impacts from construction of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty can be determined by looking at shoreline change prior to construction, and comparing with incremental shoreline change post construction. Likewise, the impacts of storm activity can be evaluated by examining shoreline change computed over temporal scales equal to the storm duration (e.g., daily or seasonally). Commonly, as for this study, shoreline position data are not available at closely spaced time intervals required for detailed correlation of shoreline change with storm data. However, the analysis of storm data has been separated into time increments equal to the shortest time periods represented by the shoreline data to facilitate their correlation. 83 I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I i 8.2. Correlation of Shoreline Change With Shore Protection Structures As described above, long-term impacts from stabilization of Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets include accretion on thc updrift sides of thc inlets, and erosion on the downdrift sides. Due to the coarse spacing of shoreline position data around the time of jetty construction at Mattituck Inlet (early 1900s), it is not possible to determine the short-term impacts from stabilization. However, review of thc incremental shoreline change data suggest that the jetty is filled to capacity, showing only minor changes in annual shoreline position as a function of fluctuations in natural coastal processes. The updrift accretion fillet extends approximately 2,000 ft to the west (transect 451), while the downdrift zone of erosion affects approximately 2,700 ft of shoreline to thc east (transect 383; Figure 5). Comparison of pre- and post-1955 shoreline change rates downdrift of Mattituck Inlet show an increase in thc variability of change as well as a slight decrease in the rate of erosion. Thus, the installation of shore parallel coastal engineering structures along this shoreline segment between 1955 and 1988 does not appear to have adversely impacted thc overall rate of recession between Mattituck Inlet and Duck Pond Point. Examination of site-specific shoreline data may show more localized downdrifr effects from these structures; however such analyses were beyond the scope of this study. Impacts from jetty construction at Goldsmith Inlet can be tracked more closely since shoreline position data are available both before and after jetty construction. Long-term shoreline change rates between 1884 and 1955, prior to stabilization of Goldsmith Inlet, show shoreline retreat to the east and west of the inlet (Figure 6). The average rate of naturally occurring erosion downdrift of the inlet, prior to stabilization, was 1.0 ft/yr (Figures 15-16). This zone of erosion extended from the eastem side of the inlet approximately 2,480 ft to the east (transect 104), in the vicinity of the Bittner property. Between the Bittner property and the Lockman property, background erosion rates between 1884 and 1955 were slightly higher at 1.4 ftJyr. Examination of the incremental shoreline change data from 1955 through 1976 (Figures 7, 8, and 9), show continual shoreline accretion immediately updrift of the western jetty from the time of construction through 1976. Subsequent data from 1976 through 1998 (Figures 10, 11, and 12) show little change in shoreline position west of the jetty. This suggests that the jetty had filled to capacity by 1976, and that littoral drift was no longer being trapped by the jetty. The updrifi accretion fillet extends approximately 600 ft to the west (transect 157; Figure 14). Rates of shoreline erosion increased downdrift of Goldsmith Inlet following jetty construction in 1964. The highest erosion rates of 11.9 ft/yr occurred during the 5 year period following jetty construction (1964 to 1969; Figures 15-16). By 1969 the zone of erosional influence extended 2,480 ft to the east (transect 104) near the Bittner property. Long-term rates of erosion for the area between the inlet and the Bittner property gradually decreased following 1969 (Figures 15-16). Impacts from jetty construction were not felt east of the Bittner property prior to 1969. However, starting in 1969, and continuing through 1980, areas east of the Bittner property experienced increased rates of erosion, on the order of 3.1 to 3.5 ft/yr (1964 to 1980; Figure 15). Thus, the greatest effects from shore protection structures were felt east of the Bittner property between 1969 and 1980. Following 1980, the rates of erosion for this area gradually decreased, indicating that the inlet started by by-pass sediment sometime after 1980 (Figures 15-16). The increased rates of erosion downdrift of Goldsmith Inlet during the post- 84 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I stabilization period, reflect the cumulative effects of shore protection structures at Goldsmith Inlet, the Bittner property, and along Kenneys Road Beach. Long-term shoreline change between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet for the period 1884/85 to 1998 shows a nearly constant level of erosion averaging 0.4 ft/yr. Figure 5 shows a higher rate of erosion for the end-point method than for the linear regression method. This suggests that shoreline erosion in this area has been more heavily influenced by recent events, than by long-term processes. The data from 1884/85 to 1955, shown in Figure 6 shows an average shoreline change rote of 0.1 ft/yr in this area, also indicating that the long-term end point erosion has been influenced by more recent processes. Shorter-term incremental shoreline change data indicate two primary periods of erosion between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet; 1964 to 1969 and 1993 to 1998 (Figures 8 and 12). The earlier period of erosion cannot be linked to the installation of updrift shore protection structures (Tables 5 and 6), and therefore must be the result of natural processes. The later period from 1993 to 1998; however, follows a time when a number of bulkheads were installed along the shoreline to the west (Table 5). By 1993 Duck Pond Point was completely armored, and three additional bulkheads had been installed between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet. It is likely that the recent increased erosion rates along this section of shoreline are in part due to the installation of these coastal engineering structures. 8.3. Correlation of Shoreline Change With Storms Due to the coarse temporal spacing of the shoreline position data, direct correlation of shoreline change with storms is difficult. However, to facilitate this correlation, the analysis of storm data was conducted for time interval bins equal to the available shoreline data. Each of the time intervals was characterized according the frequency and intensity of winds likely to impact the Southold shoreline. The storm data indicate two periods during which storms occurred more frequently; 1969 to 1976 and 1976 to 1980. Of these storms, the highest velocity winds occurred from the NW and NNW. Time periods of slightly lower storm frequency, but stronger wind velocities occurred during the intervals 1960 to 1964 and 1980 to 1993. Nor'easter type storms were most common during these time periods. Review of the water level data also indicated that NW storms were commonly associated with lower than average tides, while northeasters were associated with higher than average tides. Thus, although NE storms occurred less frequently than storms from the NW, the greater water levels increased the likelihood for beach and coastal bluff erosion. The time interval from 1964 to 1969 was relatively quiet, with few storms having the potential to impact the Southold shoreline. Given this summary of storm information, correlations were sought between trends in shoreline erosion during the stormy periods, and shoreline accretion during the more quiet periods. With few exceptions, little correlation was found between trends in shoreline change and storm patterns. The period 1955 to 1964 shows shoreline change in the vicinity of the tidal inlets that differs from the long-term trend; specifically erosion to the west of Mattituck Inlet and accretion on the east side of the inlet. In addition, shoreline accretion is shown for the downdrift 85 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I side of Goldsmith Inlet. It is possible that wave approach from the NE during storms could cause a reversal in longshore drift, and an accumulation of sediment on the eastern side of these inlets. Significant erosion on the west side of Mattimck Inlet is likely not caused by NE storms, and may be related to human activities. The remaining incremental shoreline change data do not provide any basis for correlation with the historical storm information. 86 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Conclusions Analysis of long-term shoreline change from 1884 to 1998 for the Town of Southold, New York support the following conclusions: The greatest rates of shoreline change within the study area are associated with the two tidal inlet systems. Long-term trends of shoreline change between 1884/85 and 1998 show accretion on the updrift (west) sides of the structured inlets and erosion on the downdrift (east) sides. In areas outside the influence of the tidal inlets, the average long-term trend in shoreline change is erosional. Average rates of erosion of 1.3 fi/yr occur at the extreme ends of the study site. Rates of erosion gradually decrease from the eastern side of Mattituck Inlet to Duck Pond Point. From Duck Pond Point to Goldsmith Inlet, the erosion rates are relatively constant at 0.5 ft/yr. At Mattituck inlet, long-term (1884/85 to 1998) updrift accretion impacts extend approximately 2,000 feet to the west of the inlet, while downdrift erosion impacts extend approximately 2,700 ft to the east of the inlet. The installation of shore parallel coastal engineering structures between Mattituck Inlet and Duck Pond Point following 1955 does not appear to have increased the rate of shoreline recession. Between Goldsmith Inlet and the Bittner property, the average rate of long-term erosion during the period 1884 to 1955 was 1.0 fi/yr. Erosion rates for this area rose to a maximum of 11.9 fi/yr for the five year period following jetty construction (1964 to 1969). Since 1969 the rates of long-term erosion have gradually decreased. The rate of long-term erosion from the time of jetty construction to the present (1964 to 1998) is 2.9 fi/yr. This represents an increase of 1.9 fi/yr from the pre-jetty conditions. Between the Bittner property and the eastern edge of the Lockman property, the average rate of long-term erosion during the period 1884 to 1955 was 1.4 ft/yr. Effects of jetty construction at Goldsmith Inlet were not felt along this stretch until after 1969. The highest rates of long-term erosion (3.1 to 3.5 fi/yr) downdrift of the Bittner property occurred during the period 1969 to 1980. This erosion resulted from the combined effects of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty, and Bittner and Leeton Drive coastal engineering structures. Since 1980 rates of long-term erosion have gradually decreased. The rate of long-term erosion between 1964 and 1998 along this section of coast is 2.0 fi/yr. This represents an increase of 0.6 fi/yr from the pre-structured conditions. 87 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Post-stabilization at Goldsmith Inlet, long-term (1964 to 1998) updrift accretion impacts extend approximately 600 feet to the west of the inlet, while downdrift erosion impacts extend approximately 2,480 ft to the east of the inlet. Downdrift erosion further to the east is the combined result of shore protection structures at the Bittner property and Leeton Drive. The installation of shore parallel coastal engineering structures between Duck Pond Point and Goldsmith Inlet between 1976 and the present appears to have increased the rate of shoreline recession. Direct correlations between periods of increased storm activity and shoreline erosion were not identified. Although storm activity undoubtedly causes dramatic changes in shoreline position, the effects of individual storms cannot be identified without shoreline data collected following each storm. Analysis of shoreline data spaced at 5 to 10 year time intervals tends to average out the effects of individual storms. The direction of net longshore sediment transport within the study area is from west to east at a rate of 8,000 (+35%) cu yds per year. 88 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. References Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc., 1995. Town of Southold Erosion Management Plan. Report prepared for the Town of Southold, Nov. 1995. Revised by the NYS Dept. of State, Div. of Coastal Resources, Jan. 1996. Anders, F.J. and Byrnes, M.R., 1991. Accuracy of shoreline change rates as determined from maps and aerial photographs. Shore Beach, 59(1): 17-26. Anders, F.J. and S.P. Leatherman, 1982. Mapping techniques and historical shoreline analysis - Nauset Spit, Massachusetts. In: O.C. Farquhar (Editor), Geotechnology in Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, pp. 501-510. Aubrey, D. G., 1986. Hydrodynamic controls on sediment transport in well-mixed bays and estuaries. In: J. Van de Kreeke (Editor), Physics of Shallow Estuaries: Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 245-258. Aubrey, D. G. and K. O. Emery, 1983. Eigenanalysis of recent United States sea levels. Continental Shelf Research, v. 2, p. 21-33. Barnett, V., 1975. Probability plotting methods and order statistics. Appl. Statistics, 24: 95-108. Borgman, L. E., 1975. Extremal Statistics in Ocean Engineering. Proc. ASCE, Civil Engineering in the Oceans, v. III. Braatz, B. V. and D. G. Aubrey, 1987. Recent relative sea levels along the eastem coastline of North America. In: D. Nummedal, O.H. Pilkey and J.D. Howard (Editors), Sea-Level Fluctuation and Coastal Evloution: Society of Economic Pleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication 4 I, p. 29-46. Byrnes, M.R., Gingerich, K.J., Kimball, S.M., and Thomas, G.R., 1989, Temporal and spatial variations in shoreline migration rates, Metompkin Island, Virginia. In: D.K. Stauble and Magoon, O.T. (Editors), Barrier Islands: Process and Management, Proceedings Coastal Zone '89, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 78-92. Byrnes, M.R. and Hiland, M.W., 1994. Compilation and analysis of shoreline and bathymetry data (Appendix B). In: N.C. Draus, L.T. Gorman and J. Pope (Editors), Kings Bay Coastal and Estuarine Monitoring and Evaluation Program: Coastal Studies. Tech. Rep. CERC-94-09, Coastal Eng. Res. Cent., Vicksburg, MS, pp. B 1-B89. Byrnes, M.R., McBride, R.A. and Hiland, M.W., 1991. Accuracy standards and development of a national shoreline change database. In: N.C. Kraus, K.J. Gingerich and D.L. Kriebel (Editors), Coastal Sediments '91. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., New York, NY, pp. 1027-1042. 89 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Crowell, M., Leatherman, S.P. and Buckley, M.K., 1991. Historical shoreline change: error analysis and mapping accuracy. J. Coastal Res., 7(3): 839-852. Davies, D.S., E.W. Axelrod, and J.S. O'Conner, 1971. Erosion of the North Shore of Long Island. Technical Report Series #18, State University of New York, Marine Sciences Research Center, I01 pp. Ellis, M.Y., 1978. Coastal Mapping Handbook. U.S. Dep. Interior, Geol. Surv. U.S. Dep. Comm., Natl. Ocean Service. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D.C., 199 pp. Emery, K. O. and D. G. Aubrey, 1991. Sea levels, land levels, and tide gauges. Springer-Verlag, New York, 237 pp. FitzGerald, D.M., 1984. Interactions between the ebb-tidal delta and landward shorelines: Price Inlet, South Carolina. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 54(4): 1303-1318. Gordon, R.G., 1980. The sedimentary system of Long Island Sound. In: B. Saltzman (Editor), Advances in Geophysics, Vol. 22, Estuarine Physics and Chemistry: Studies in Long Island Sound. Academic Press, NY, pp. 1-35. Greenman-Pedersen, Associates, P.C., 1981. Goldsmith Inlet Jetty Shoreline Impact Study. Prepared for Suffolk County, New York, 9 pp. Hallermeier, R.J., 1981. Seaward Limit of Significant Sand Transport by Waves: An Annual Zonation for Seasonal Profiles. Coastal Engineering Technical Aid No. 81-2, Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Jenkinson, A. F., 1969. Statistics of extremes. Estimation of Maximum Floods, Tech. Note 98, (WMOoNo. 223, PT. 126), Chapter 5, World Meteor. Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 183-227. Kaye, C. A., 1964. Outline of Pleistocene geology of Martha's Vineyard, MA. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 50 l-C, p. 134-139. Langfelder, L.J., D.B. Stafford, and M. Amein, 1970. Coastal erosion in North Carolina. Journal Waterways and Harbors Division. American Society Civil Engineers, New York. 96(WW2): 531-545. Oldale, R. N., 1982. Pleistocene stratigraphy of Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, the Elizabeth Islands and Cape Cod, Massachusetts. In: G.J. Larson and B.D. Stone (Editors), Late Wisconsinan of New England. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa, p. 1-34. 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I McBride, R.A., 1989. Accurate Computer Mapping of Coastal Change: Bayou Lafourche Shoreline, Louisiana, USA. In: O.T. Magoon (Editor), Coastal Zone '89. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 707-719. McBride, R.A., Hiland, M.H., Penland, S., Williams, S.J., Bymes, M.R., Westphal, K.A., Jaffe, B. and Sallenger, A.H., 1991. Mapping barrier island changes in Louisiana: techniques, accuracy, and results. In: N.C. Kraus, K.J. Gingerich and D.L. Kriebel (Editors), Coastal Sediments '91. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., New York, pp. 1011-1026. Merchant, D.C., 1987. Spatial accuracy specification for large scale topographic maps. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing, 53: 958-961. Moffitt, F.H., 1969. History of shore growth from aerial photographs. Shore and Beach, 4: 23- 27. Shalowitz, A.L., 1964. Shoreline and Sea Boundaries, 2. U.S. Dep. Comm. Publ., 10-1. U.S. coast Geod. Surv., U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, DC, 420 pp. Snyder, J.P., 1987. Map Projections - A Working Manual. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1395, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 383 p. Speer, P. E. and D. G. Aubrey, 1985. A study of non-linear tidal propagation in shallow inlet/estuarine systems. Part II: Theory: Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science, v. 21, p. 207- 224. Stafford, D.G. and Langfelder, J., 1971. Air photo survey of coastal erosion. Photogramm. Eng., 37: 565-575. Strahler, A. N., 1966. A geologist's view of Cape Cod. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York, 115 pp. Tanner, W.F. (Editor), 1978. Standards for Measuring Shoreline Changes: A Study of the Precision Obtainable and Needed in Making Measurements of Changes (Erosion and Accretion). Proceedings of a Workshop. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 89 p. US Army Corps of Engineers, 1969. North Shore of Long Island Suffolk County, New York, Beach Erosion Control and Interim Hurricane Study, New York District, New York, New York. US Army Corps of Engineers, 1996. Fact Sheet - Mattituck Harbor, New York. District Engineer, New York District, New York. US Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1985. Datum Differences -- Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts, United States. Washington, DC, 104 p. 91 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U.S. Department of Commerce, 1998. Tide Tables 1998, High and low water predictions, east coast of North and South America: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 300 pp. Wade, E.B., 1986. Impact of North American Datum of 1983. Journal of Surveying Engineering. 112(1): 49-62. Wallis, J. R. and E. F. Wood, 1985. Relative accuracy of log-Pearson III procedures. ASCE J. of Hydraulic Engineering, 111, No. 7: 1043-1056. Wolf, P.R., 1983. Elements of Photogrammetry, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 628 p. Wong, K.W., 1980. Basic mathematics ofphotogrammetry. In: C.C. Slama (editor), Manual of Photogrammetry, 4th Edition, American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, VA, 1056p. 92 I I I I I i APPENDIX A-l: I Shoreline Change Rates for Southold, New York, 1884-85 to 1998 1 1 Appendix A-1. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1884-85 to 1998 188~85 to 1884-85 to (regression (using end point method) method) Transect 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 2 0.1 0.0 -0.4 ~' ~ -0.1 -0.5 -0.6 ~ ~ 3 0.3 -0.1 -0.2 ~ ~ ~ 0.1 -0.6 -0.4 ~:~" -0.4 4 0.5 -0.1 -0.3 0.0 '0.5 -0.5 ~ ~ -0.5 5 0.3 -0.2 -0.5 !~ii!:! ~;i!i~i~;i~ i -0.2 -0,6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 6 -0.2 -0.5 -0.7 ~ ~'~ ~' -0.4 -1.0 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 7 -0.8 -0,6 -0,7 -1.1 -0.6 -1,1 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 8 -0.7 -0.4 -0.5 -1.0 -0.5 -1.0 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 9 -0.9 -0.4 -0.6 -1.0 -0.5 -1.0 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 10 -1.6 -0,7 -0.8 -1.3 -0.9 -1.2 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 11 -1.8 -0.5 -0.6 -1.2 -0.9 -1.1 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 12 -1.8 -0.4 -0.4 -1.2 -1.0 -1.0 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8 13 -1.8 -0.4 -0.4 -1.0 -0.9 -1.0 -0.9 -0.7 -0.6 14 -1.9 -0.4 -0.4 -0.8 -0.9 -1.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.7 15 -2.2 -0,4 -0.5 -0.6 -1.0 -1.1 -1.1 -0.8 -0.8 16 -2.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.0 -1.1 -1.0 -0.8 -0.7 17 -2.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.5 -0.9 -1.0 -0.9 -0.7 -0.7 18 -2.1 -0,5 -1,0 -0.6 -1.0 -1,3 -1,1 -0.9 -0.8 19 -2.0 -0.4 -1.0 -0.4 -0.9 -1.1 -1,0 -0.9 -0,8 20 -1.8 -0,3 -0.6 -0.3 -0.8 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 21 -1.6 -0,3 -0.4 -0.2 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 22 -1.6 -0.3 -0.4 -0.2 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.7 23 -1.5 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.8 -1.0 -0.9 -0,9 -0.8 24 -1.8 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.8 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9 -0.7 25 -1.9 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.8 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9 -0.7 26 -2.2 -0.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.8 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9 -0.7 27 -2.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.4 -0.9 -0.8 -1.0 -1.0 -0.7 28 -2.7 -0.6 -0,6 -0.5 -1.0 -0.9 -1.0 -1.1 -0.8 29 -2.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -1.1 -0.9 -1.0 -1.1 -0.8 30 -2.6 -0.9 -0.9 -0.7 -1.1 -0.8 -1.1 -1.1 -0.8 31 -2.5 -0.9 -0.8 -0.8 -1.1 -0.7 -1.1 -1.0 -0.8 32 -2.5 -1.1 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 -0.8 -1.1 -1.0 -0.8 33 -2.5 -1.0 -0.7 -0,8 -0.9 -0.8 -1.0 -0.9 -0.7 34 -2.9 -1.2 -1.0 -0.9 -1.0 -0,9 -1.0 -1.0 -0.7 35 -3.0 -1.3 -1,1 -0.9 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -1.0 -0.7 36 -3.1 -1.3 -1,2 -0.8 -1.1 -1.0 -0,9 -1.0 -0.7 37 -3.2 -1,3 -1.3 -0.9 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 -0.7 38 -3.5 -1.3 -1,3 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2 -1.0 -1.1 -0.7 39 -3.4 -1.4 -1.3 -1.1 -1.1 -1.2 -1.1 -1.1 -0,8 40 -3.3 -1.5 -1.3 -1.1 -1.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.2 -0.7 41 -3.3 -1.6 -1.5 -1.3 -1.1 -0.9 -1.0 -1.2 -0.8 42 -3.7 -1.8 -1.7 -1.3 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 -1.4 -0.8 43 -4.1 -2.0 -1.9 -1.5 -1.2 -1.3 -1.1 -1.5 -0.9 44 -4.4 -2.1 -1.9 -1.5 -1.2 -1.4 -1.2 -1.6 -0.9 45 -4.5 -2.2 -2.0 -1.4 -1.2 -1.5 -1.3 -1.7 -1.0 46 -4.6 -2.2 -1.9 -1.4 -1,2 -1.6 -1.4 -1.6 -1.0 47 -4.4 -2.1 -1.7 -1.2 -1.3 -1.6 -1.5 -1,6 -1.0 48 -4.4 -2.1 -1.5 -1.1 -1.3 -1.5 -1.4 -1.5 -1,0 49 -4,4 -1.9 -1.3 -1.1 -1.4 -1.5 -1,3 -1.5 -1.0 I ! AppendixA-1. ShorelineChangeRates(~yr}forSouthold, NewYork, 1884-85to1998(cont.) 1884-85to 1884-85to [regression (using end point method} m~hod} Transect 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 50 -4.3 -2.0 -1.4 -1.1 -1.5 -1.5 -1.4 -1.6 -1.0 51 -4.3 -1.9 -1.4 -1.2 -1.5 -1.6 -1.4 -1.6 -1.1 52 -4.0 -1.7 -1.4 -1.3 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.1 53 -4.0 -1.5 -1.2 -1.3 -1.3 -1.4 -1.5 -1.4 -1.0 54 -3.8 -1.3 -1.1 -1.2 -1.2 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.0 55 -3.6 -1.1 -1.0 -1.3 -1.1 -1.5 -1.5 -1.3 -1.1 56 -3,8 -1.1 -1.0 -1,3 -1.2 -1,4 -1.5 -1.4 -1.1 57 -3.9 -0.9 -1.0 -1.2 -1.1 -1.3 -1.5 -1.4 -1.0 58 -3.7 -0.9 -1.0 -1,1 -1.0 -1,1 -1.5 -1.2 -0,9 59 -3.6 -1.0 -1.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1,1 -1,5 -1.2 -0.9 60 -3.4 -1.2 -1.2 -1.1 -t.1 -1.1 -1.6 -1.3 -1,0 61 -3.4 -1.3 -1.3 -1.2 -1.2 -1.1 -1,7 -1.3 -1.1 62 -3.3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.1 -1.2 -1.3 -1.7 -1.4 -1.2 63 -3.1 -1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -1.1 -1.4 -1.7 -1.5 -1.2 64 -3.1 -1,5 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.6 -1,8 -1.6 -1.3 65 -3.1 -1.7 -1,1 -1.1 -1.2 -1.7 -1.8 -1.7 -1.4 66 -3,0 -1,8 -1.3 -1.1 -1.2 -1.8 -1.9 -1.8 -1.5 67 -3.0 -1.9 -1.3 -1.1 -1.2 -1.8 -2.0 -1.9 -1.6 68 -3.1 -2.1 -1.4 -1.3 -1.4 -1.8 -2.2 -2.0 -1.7 69 -3,0 -2,2 -1.5 -1.3 -1.4 -1.9 -2.1 -2.0 -1,7 70 -2.9 -2.2 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.8 -1.5 -1.5 -1.3 71 -3.0 -2.1 -1,5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.8 -1.5 -1.5 -1.3 72 -2.8 -1.9 -1.6 -1,5 -1.6 -1.7 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 73 -3.0 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.7 -2.1 -1.6 -1.7 -1,6 74 -3.0 -1.7 -1.9 -1.7 -1.9 -2.2 -1.7 -1.8 -1,7 75 -2.9 -1.7 -2.1 -1.8 -2.0 -2.2 -1.8 -1.9 -1.8 76 -2.7 -1.8 -2.2 -1.8 -2.1 -2.4 -2.0 -1.9 -1.9 77 -2.5 -1.9 -2.1 -1.6 -2.1 -2,2 -1.9 -1.7 -1.8 78 -2.6 -2.1 -2.2 -1.6 -2.1 -2.2 -1.9 -1.7 -1.8 79 -2.5 -2.2 -2.2 -1.7 -2.2 -2.2 -1.9 -1.8 -1.8 80 -2,5 -2.3 -2.3 -1.8 -2,3 -2.3 -2.0 -1.8 -1.9 81 -2.5 -2.4 -2.3 -1.9 -2.3 -2.3 -2,0 -1.9 -1.9 82 -2.7 -2.5 -2.5 -2.0 -2.4 -2.4 -2.0 -1,9 -2.0 83 -2.9 -2.4 -2.5 -2.0 -2.4 -2.4 -2,1 -2.0 -2.0 84 -3.2 -2.4 -2.5 -2.0 -2.5 -2.5 -2.1 -2.0 -2.0 85 -3.2 -2.2 -2.4 -2.0 -2.4 -2.4 -2.1 -1.9 -2.0 86 -3.2 -2.1 -2.4 -1.9 -2.4 -2.4 -2.3 -2.0 -2.0 87 -3.2 -2.0 -2.3 -1.8 -2.4 -2.4 -2.2 -2.0 -2.0 88 -3.0 -2.0 -2.2 -1.8 -2.4 -2.3 -2.2 -1.9 -2.0 89 -3.0 -1.9 -2.0 -1.8 -2.4 -2.3 -2.3 -1.9 -2.0 90 -2.9 -1.7 -1.9 -1.6 -2.3 -2.2 -2.3 -1.9 -2.0 91 -2.5 -1.3 -1.6 -1.4 -2.1 -2.1 -2.2 -1.9 -1.9 92 -2.2 -1.0 -1.6 -1.3 -2.0 -2.1 -2.1 -1.9 -2.0 93 -2.1 -0.7 -1.4 -1.2 -1.9 -2.1 -2.1 -2.0 -2.0 94 -2.0 -0.6 -1.5 -1.1 -1.9 -2.1 -2.1 -2.0 ~.0 95 -1.9 -0.6 -1.5 -1.1 -1.9 -2.1 -2,1 ~,0 -2.0 96 -1.7 -0.7 -1.5 -1.2 -2.0 -2.2 -2.2 -2.0 -2.1 97 -1.4 -0.6 -1.4 -1.0 -2,0 -2.1 -2.0 -1,9 -2.0 98 -1,0 -0.5 -1.3 -1.0 -1.9 -2.1 -2.0 -1.7 -2.0 I I Appendix A-1. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York. 1884-85 to 1998 (cont.) 188~85 to 1884-85 to [regression (using end point m~hod) m~hod) Transect 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 99 -0.7 -0.3 -1.2 -0.9 -1.8 -2.1 -1.9 -1.6 -1.9 100 -0.5 -0.3 -1.1 -0.9 -1.8 -1,9 -1.8 -1.4 -1.8 101 -0,4 -0.2 -1.0 -0.8 -1.7 -1.8 -1.7 -1.4 -1.7 102 -0.6 0.0 -0.8 -0.7 -1.7 -1.6 -1.6 -1,4 -1.7 103 -0.6 0.1 -0.7 -0.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.5 -1.4 -1.6 104 -0.9 0.0 -0.6 -0.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.6 105 -1.2 *0.2 -0.7 -0.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 106 -1.1 -0.3 -0.8 -0.9 -1.5 -1.4 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 107 -1.2 -0.4 -0.9 -1.0 -1.6 -1.4 -1.6 -1.5 -1.6 108 -1.2 -0.4 -0.8 -0.9 -1.5 -1.5 -1.4 -1.5 -1.5 109 -1.3 -0,5 -0.8 -0.7 -1,4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.3 -1.3 110 -1.3 -0.4 -0.7 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 *0.5 -0.7 -0.4 111 -1,2 -0.4 -0.5 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 112 -1.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0~5 *0.7 -0.9 -0.6 113 -1.1 -0.6 -0.4 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.9 -1.0 -0.8 114 -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 -1.1 -1.1 -1.0 115 -1.4 -1.0 -0.4 -0.9 -0.9 -1.1 -1.2 -1.2 -1.1 116 -1.6 -1.0 -0.3 -1.0 -1.1 -1.3 -1.4 -1.3 -1,2 117 -1.5 -1.0 -0.3 -1.1 -1.3 -1,5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.3 118 -1.5 -1.0 -0.4 -1,2 -1.4 -1.5 -1.5 -1.4 -1.4 119 -1.8 -1.2 -0.5 -1,4 -1.6 -1.5 -1.6 -1.4 -1.5 120 -2.0 -1.3 -0,7 -1.5 -1.7 -1.7 -1.8 -1,5 -1,5 121 -2.2 -1,4 -0.8 -1.6 -1.8 -1.7 -1.9 -1.5 -1.6 122 -2.4 -1,5 -0.9 -1.6 -1.9 -1.9 -2.0 -1,5 -1,7 123 -2.7 -1,6 -0.9 -1,7 -2.1 -2.0 -2.1 -1,7 -1.8 124 -2.9 -1.6 -0.9 -1.9 -2.2 -2,1 -2.1 -1.8 -1.8 125 -3.0 -1,6 -0,9 -2.0 -2.3 -2.1 -2.1 -1,8 -1.9 126 -3.2 -1.7 -0.9 -2.0 -2.3 -2.1 -2.0 -1.8 -1.8 127 -3,4 -1.7 -1.0 -2.1 -2,3 -2.0 -2.0 -1.8 -1.7 128 -3.8 -1.6 -1.0 -2,0 -2,2 -1.9 -1.9 -1.7 -1.6 129 -3.8 -1.5 -1.0 -1.8 -2.1 -1.7 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 130 -3.6 -1.5 -1,0 -1.7 -2,0 -1.6 -1.8 -1.5 -1.4 131 -3.3 -1.4 -0.8 -1.5 -1.8 -1.3 -1.7 -1.3 -1,2 132 -3,2 -1.5 -1.0 -1,6 -1.8 -1.4 -1.8 -1,3 -1.3 133 -3.1 -1.5 -1.0 -1.7 -1.8 -1.3 -1.8 -1.4 -1.3 134 -2.5 -1.4 -0.8 -1,6 -1.7 -1,2 -1.7 -1.3 -1.3 135 -2.1 -1.4 -0.7 -1.6 -1.6 -1.2 -1.8 -1.4 -1.4 136 -1.8 -1.2 -0.5 -1.3 -1.4 -1.1 -1.7 -1.4 -1,4 137 -1.4 -0.9 -0,3 -1.2 -1.2 -0.9 -1.6 -1.2 -1,3 138 -0,9 -0.6 -0.1 -1.0 -1.0 -0.7 -1.4 -1,0 -1.1 139 -0.6 -0.6 0.0 -0,9 -0,9 -0.7 -1.4 -1,0 -1,1 140 -0,3 -0.5 0.0 -0.8 -0.9 -0.7 -1.2 -0.9 -1.0 141 -0.1 -0.4 0.1 -0,6 -0.8 -0,5 -1.0 -0.8 -0.9 142 -0.1 -0,3 0,1 -0.6 -0,7 -0.4 -0.8 -0,7 -0,7 143 -0.3 -0.3 0.2 -0,6 -0,5 -0.2 -0.5 -0,4 -0.4 144 -0.7 -0,4 0,1 -0,8 -0.8 -0.4 -0,8 -0.7 -0.1 Goldsmithlnl~ 146 -2.5 -1.1 0.3 1.6 2,8 2.5 1.8 1,7 2.3 I I I I I Appendix A-1. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York, 1884-85 to 1998 (cont. 188~85 to 1884-85 to (regression (using end point method) method} Transec 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 147 -2.9 -1.5 -0.1 0.9 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.9 148 -3.1 -1.7 -0.4 0.5 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.6 149 -3.3 -1.7 -0.6 0.2 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.8 1.3 150 -3.5 -1.5 -0.6 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.7 1.0 151 -3.9 -1.4 -0.7 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 152 -3.9 -1.2 -0.7 -0.2 0.3 0.2 -0.1 0.2 0.4 153 -3.9 -1.0 -0.8 -0.5 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 154 -3.9 -0.9 -1.0 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 155 -3.9 -0.9 -1.0 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.4 -0.2 156 -3,9 -0.8 ~1.1 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.5 -0.4 157 43.4 -0,8 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 -0.6 40.5 158 -3.3 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 159 -3.0 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.7 -0.6 160 -3.1 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0 -0.8 -0.5 161 -2.9 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.9 -0.8 -0.9 -0.8 -0.5 162 -2.8 -0.7 ~0.5 -0.6 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.7 -0.4 163 -2.6 -0.6 -0.3 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.7 -0.4 164 -2.8 -0.6 -0.2 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.7 -0.4 165 -2.7 -0.6 -0.3 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.4 166 -2.5 -0.6 -0.3 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.5 167 -2.8 -0.5 -0.4 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.4 168 -2.7 -0.5 -0.4 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.4 169 -2.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.8 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8 -0.7 -0.4 170 -2.8 -0.7 -0.4 -0.8 -0.8 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.2 171 -2.4 -0.6 -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.1 172 -1.9 -0.5 -0.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.4 -0.1 173 -1.7 -0.4 0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 -0.1 174 41.5 -0.4 0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 0.0 175 -1.4 -0.2 0.1 .0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 40.1 176 -1.2 0.3 0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2 177 -1.3 0.3 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 178 -1.4 0.1 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2 -0.5 -0.4 -0.2 179 -1.5 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 ~0.3 -0.5 -0.3 180 -1.2 0.3 -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.5 -0.3 181 -1.5 0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 40.5 -0.1 182 -1.3 0.2 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 -0.2 183 -1.2 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 0.0 184 -1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 185 -1.3 0.4 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.1 186 -1.6 0.4 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.2 187 -1.9 0.4 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0.2 188 -2.4 0.3 -0.1 -0.3 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.6 0.0 189 -2.8 0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5 0.1 190 -3,3 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 0.0 191 -3.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 0.0 192 -3.1 0.1 -0.2 -0,4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 0.1 193 -2.7 0.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 0.2 194 -2.8 0.3 0.3 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 195 -2.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 40.2 0.0 -0.2 ~0.2 0.2 I I ! I I I I I I I Appendix A-1. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York, 1884-85 to 1998 (cont./ 188~85 to 188~85 to (regression (using end point method) method) Transect 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 196 -2.7 0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 197 -2.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 *0.1 0.0 0.0 *0.2 0.2 198 -2.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.2 199 -1.8 0.2 0.3 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.1 200 -1.8 0.2 0.3 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.2 201 -1.8 0.3 0.4 0.0 *0.2 0.0 0.2 -0.2 0.2 202 -1.9 0.2 0.4 0.0 -0.3 0.0 0.1 -0.2 0.3 203 -2.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 *0.3 0.0 0.3 -0.2 0.3 204 -2.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 -0.3 0,1 0.2 -0,2 0.4 205 -2.0 0.5 0.6 0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.4 -0.1 0.3 206 -2.3 0.2 0.4 -0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.3 -0.1 0.2 207 -2.5 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 -0.3 0.1 208 -2.7 0.0 0.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 -0.4 0.1 209 -2.5 0.1 0.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 -0.4 0.0 210 -2.7 0.1 0.2 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 0.0 -0.5 0.0 211 -2.9 -0.2 -0.1 -0.5 *0.6 -0.3 0.0 -0.5 0.0 212 -3.1 -0.3 -0.2 -0.6 -0.7 -0.4 -0.1 -0.6 -0.1 213 -3.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.8 -0.8 -0.4 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 214 -3.5 -0.4 -0.5 -1.0 -0.8 -0.5 -0.3 -0.7 -0.2 215 -3.9 -0.5 -0.5 -1.1 -0.8 -0.5 -0.3 -0.7 -0.3 216 -4.1 -0.6 -0.4 -1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.4 -0.9 -0.3 217 -4.2 -0.6 -0.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.7 -0.6 -0.9 -0.4 218 -4.2 -0.6 -0.6 -1.4 -1.1 -0.8 -0.7 -1.0 -0.4 219 -4.1 -0.5 -0.5 -1.4 -1.0 -0.8 -0.7 -1.0 -0.4 220 -3.9 -0.4 -0.4 -1.2 -0.9 -0.7 -0.6 -0.9 -0.4 221 -3.9 -0.4 -0.5 -1.2 -1.0 -0.7 -0.6 -0.9 -0.3 222 -4.0 -0.4 -0.5 -1.2 -1.0 -0.7 -0.6 -0.9 -0.3 223 -3.9 -0.4 -0.3 -1.2 -0.9 -0.7 -0.6 -0.9 -0.3 224 -3.7 -0.4 -0.3 -1.1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.5 -0.8 -0.2 225 -3.6 -0.3 -0.2 -1.1 -0.7 -0.5 -0.5 -0.8 -0.3 226 -3.1 -0.3 -0.2 -1.0 -0.7 -0.5 -0.4 -0.7 -0.2 227 -2.8 -0.2 -0.1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.3 -0.6 -0.1 228 -2.9 -0.2 0.0 -0.8 -0.5 -0.4 -0.2 -0.6 -0.2 229 -2.8 -0.2 0.0 -0.8 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.7 -0.2 230 -3.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.5 -0.3 -0.7 -0.3 231 -3.8 -0.2 -0.3 -0.9 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.8 -0.3 232 -3.6 -0.3 -0.4 -1.0 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.8 -0.4 233 -3.4 -0.3 -0.3 -1.0 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.8 -0.4 234 -3.4 -0.3 -0.2 -1.0 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 -0.8 -0.4 235 -3.7 -0.4 -0.3 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.6 -0.9 -0.4 236 -3.9 -0.4 -0.4 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 -0.4 -0.9 -0.3 237 -3.7 -0.4 -0.5 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 -0.3 -0.9 -0.4 238 -3.8 -0.4 -0.5 -0.9 -1.0 -0.9 -0.5 -1.0 -0.3 239 -3.7 -0.3 -0.3 -0.9 -0.9 -0.8 -0.3 -0.9 -0.3 240 -3.7 -0.2 -0.3 -0.8 -0.9 -0.7 -0.4 -0.8 -0.1 241 -3.5 0.1 -0.1 -0.6 -0.7 -0.5 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 242 -3.2 0.1 0.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 243 -3.0 0.2 0.1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.2 -0.5 0.0 244 -2.7 0.4 0.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 0.0 I I Appendix A-1. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1884-85 to 1998 (cont.) 1884-85 to 1884-85 to Iregression (using end point method) method) Transect 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 245 -2.5 0.4 0.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.2 -0,2 -0.4 0.0 246 -2.3 0.5 0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 0.0 247 -2.0 0.7 0.4 -0.2 -0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 0.0 248 -2.2 0.8 0.3 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 0.1 249 -2.2 1.0 0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0,3 0.1 250 -2.2 1.0 0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 0.1 251 -2.2 1.0 0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 -0.3 0.1 252 -2.2 1.2 0.4 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 -0.3 0.1 253 -2.1 1.2 0.3 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 0.1 254 -1.9 1.3 0.5 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.2 0.1 255 -2,0 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.1 256 -2.2 1.1 0.2 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 0.0 257 -2.5 0.9 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 0.0 258 -2.7 0.8 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 0.0 259 -2.8 0.7 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 0.0 260 -3.0 0.5 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0.1 261 -3.1 0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0,3 -0.3 -0.6 -0.2 262 -3.2 0.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 263 -3.0 0.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.4 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 264 -3.0 0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.7 -0.6 -0.2 265 -2.5 0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 -0.5 -0.2 266 -2.2 0.2 -0.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 267 -1.8 0,3 -0.2 -0.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.1 268 -1.6 0.5 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0,1 269 -1.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -0,1 270 -1.7 0.6 0.0 0,0 -0,2 -0.2 *0.3 -0.4 -0.1 271 -1.3 0.7 -0,1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -0.1 272 -1.3 0.6 -0.3 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 273 -1.8 0.4 -0.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0,9 274 -2,4 -0.4 -1.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 -1.1 -1.0 275 -2.1 -0.7 -1.2 -1.1 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -1.2 -0.8 276 -1.5 -0.5 -1,0 -0.8 -1.0 -0.9 -0.7 -1.0 -0.8 277 -1.1 -0.4 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.7 -0.9 -0.9 278 -1.7 -0.7 -1.0 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 -0.8 -1.2 -0.9 279 -2.2 -1.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -0,8 -1.2 -0.9 280 -1.8 -1.0 -1.2 -0.9 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -1.2 -1.1 281 ~ii~!tii~i! -0.9 -1.3 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.1 -1.3 -1.4 282 i:i~i!~i~ -1.0 -1.3 -1.5 -1.5 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 283 i!~iiii~i~ -1.1 -1.4 -1.5 -1.5 -1.4 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 284 !~:~ -0.9 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.0 285 ~i~ -0.7 -1.1 -1.1 -1.2 -1.1 -0.9 -1.0 -0.9 286 -0.6 -0.8 -0.8 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 287 ~ -0.6 -0~8 -0.7 -0.9 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.7 288 i -0.4 -0.6 -0.6 -0.8 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 289 ! -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 290 ~ -0.4 -0.6 -0.6 -0.8 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 291 ~i~ ~ ~ ~ -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.9 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 292 ~i~i~! -0.9 -0.9 -0.7 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.9 -0,9 293 ~ -0.9 -1.0 -0.6 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 ! ! ! ! Appendix A-1. Shoreline Change Rates (ft/yr) for Southold, New York, 1884-85 to 1998 (cont.) 1884-85 to 1884-85 to (regression (usin~l end point method) method) Transect 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 294 -0.9 -1.0 -0.6 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 295 -0.8 -0.9 -0.5 -1.0 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 -0.8 296 -0.8 -0.8 -0.5 -1.0 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8 -0.7 297 ~ ~ -0.7 -0.8 -0.4 -0.9 -0.7 -0.6 -0.7 -0.6 298 -0.4 -0.7 -0,3 -0.8 -0.6 -0.5 -0.6 -0.4 299 -0.3 -0.4 -0.1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 300 -0.3 -0.4 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 301 -0.4 -0.3 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 -0,3 -0.4 -0.5 302 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 303 -0.8 -1.0 -0.5 -0.8 -0.8 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 304 ; :~ :~,? -0.7 -0,9 -0.5 -0.8 -0,7 -0.6 -0.8 -0.7 305 -0.7 -0.8 -0.5 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0,8 -0.5 306 -0.5 -0.6 -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 307 ~, -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 °0.6 -0.8 308 -'~ -0.4 -0.7 -0.7 -0.5 -0.6 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 309 -0.5 -0.8 -0.8 -0.5 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 310 -0.7 -1.0 -1.1 -0.8 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.1 311 -1.0 -1.2 -1.2 -1,1 -1.2 -1.1 -1.1 -1.2 312 -1.0 -1.2 -1.2 -0.9 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1,1 313 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2 -0.9 -1.1 -1.2 -1.2 -1.0 314 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 315 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 316 -0.8 -0.7 -0.9 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 317 -0.7 -0.5 -0.9 -0.6 -0.7 -0.9 -1.0 -0.9 318 -0.6 -0.4 -0.8 -0.6 -0.7 -0.9 -0.9 -0.8 319 -0.6 -0.4 -0.8 -0.5 -0.6 -0.8 -0.9 -0.7 320 -0.5 -0.3 -0.7 -0.4 -0.5 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 321 -0.6 -0.5 -0.7 -0.4 -0.7 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 322 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.5 -0.7 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9 323 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8 -0.7 -0.7 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 324 a0m8 '0.8 '019 '0.7 '0m8 '019 '1,1 '1.0 325 '0.8 '0.9 '1.0 '0'8 '0.9 '1.0 '1.1 '1.1 326 '1 .0 '1 '0 '1.1 '1 .0 '0.9 '1 .0 '1 .2 '1 .2 327 '1 .1 --1 .2 '1 .2 '1 .0 '1 ,1 --1 .1 --1.3 --1 .3 328 '1.2 '1.4 '1.3 '1.2 '1.2 '1.2 '1.4 '1.4 329 '1 '3 '1 .5 '1 '5 '1 .3 '1 '3 '1 '3 '1 .5 '1 '5 330 '1.6 --1 .5 '1 .6 '1 .4 '1 .4 '1 '5 '1.5 '1 .4 331 '1.6 '1.6 '1.6 '1.3 '1,3 --1.5 '1.4 '1.3 332 '1 .6 '1 .4 '1 ,4 '1 .3 '1 .2 '1 .4 '1 '3 '1 .3 333 ~' '~ --1.6 '1.5 '1.4 '1.3 '1.2 '1.5 '1.3 '1.4 334 '1.8 '1.7 '1.6 '1.4 '1.3 '1.6 --1.4 '1.6 335 '2.1 '2.0 '1 .8 '1 .7 '1 '5 --1 .7 '1 .6 '1 .4 336 ¢;~ '1 '9 '1 .7 '1 '6 '1 .4 '1 .4 '1 .5 '1 .4 '1 .4 337 '1 .8 --1 .7 '1 .6 '1 .4 --1 ,3 '1 .5 '1 .5 '1 .3 338 ~ ~!~ -1.6 -1.5 -1.5 -1.2 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4 -1.3 339 ~ -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.2 -1.3 -1.3 -1.4 -1.3 340 · -1.7 -t.7 -1,7 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.4 -1.4 341 ;; ~; -1.9 -1.8 -1.8 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.6 -1.5 342 -2.0 -1.9 -2.1 -1.5 -1.4 -1.5 -1.6 -1.5 ! ! ! ! ! ! Appendix A-1. Shoreline Change Rates (ft/yr) for Southold, New York, 1884-85 to 1998 (cont.I 1884-85 to 1884-85 to (regression (using end point method) method) Transect 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 343 -1.8 -1.9 -2.0 -1.5 -1.4 -1.4 -1.6 -1.3 344 -1.6 -1.8 -1.8 -1.2 -1.1 -1.2 -1.5 -1.3 345 -1.6 -1.9 -1.8 -1.3 -1.2 -1.3 -1.5 -1.4 346 -1.6 -1.7 -1.7 -1.2 -1.2 -1.4 -1.5 -1.4 347 -1.8 -1.8 -1.7 -1.3 -1.3 -1.4 -1.5 -1.5 348 -2.1 -2.1 -1.9 -1.5 -1.4 -1.5 -1.6 -1.5 349 -2.1 -2.1 -1.9 -1.6 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 350 -2.1 -2.0 -2.0 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -1.5 351 -2.1 -2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.4 -1.5 -1.6 -1.3 352 I -1.7 -1.7 -1.8 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.4 -1.3 353 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.2 -1.1 -1.3 -1.3 -1.2 354 -1.4 -1.6 -1.5 -1.1 -1.0 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 355 -1.4 -1.7 -1.7 -1.1 -1.1 -1.3 -1.4 -1.4 356 -1.6 -1.9 -1.8 -1.3 -1.3 -1.4 -1.5 -1.5 357 -2.0 -2.1 -2.0 -1.6 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 358 -2.1 -2.2 -2.2 -1.9 -1.6 -1.6 -1.7 -1.5 359 -2.2 -2.2 -2.1 -1.8 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.4 360 -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 -1.5 -1.2 -1.4 -1.5 -1.3 361 -1.6 -1.7 -1.7 -1,4 -1.1 -1.3 -1.4 -1.2 362 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1,2 -1.0 -1.3 -1.3 -1.2 363 -1.5 -1.5 -1.6 -1.3 -1.0 -1,3 -1,2 -1,1 364 -1.4 -1.5 -1.6 -1.1 -1.0 -1,3 -1.2 -1.2 365 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.2 -1,0 -1.3 -1.2 -1,2 366 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.2 -1.0 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 367 -1,6 -1.7 -1.7 -1.4 -1.1 -1.4 -1,3 -1.3 368 ~ -1.5 -1,7 -1.7 -1.3 -1,0 -1.4 -1.3 -1.3 369 -1.6 -1.8 -1.8 -1.4 -1,1 -1.4 -1.4 -1,3 370 -1.5 -1.7 -1.7 -1.3 -1.1 -1.5 -1.3 -1.5 371 -1,5 -1.7 -1.7 -1.2 -1.2 -1,7 -1.5 -1.6 372 -1.7 -1.9 -1.6 -1.3 -1.4 -1.9 -1.6 -1.6 373 -1.7 -1.9 -1.6 -1.4 -1.4 -1.8 -1.6 -1.6 374 -1.6 -1.9 -1.6 -1.5 -1.5 -1.8 -1.6 -1.7 375 -1.7 -1.9 -1.6 -1.7 -1.6 -1.8 -1.6 -1.7 376 -2.0 -2.0 -1.7 -1.8 -1.7 -1.8 -1.6 -1.6 377 -2.1 -2.0 -1.6 -1.9 -1.7 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 378 -1.9 -1.8 -1.4 -1.6 -1.5 -1,6 -1.5 -1,4 379 ~ -1.7 -1.6 -1,1 -1.4 -1.3 -1.5 -1,4 -1.4 380 +~ -1.8 -1.7 -1.2 -1.4 -1.4 -1.5 -1.5 -1.4 381 -1.9 -1.6 -1,2 -1.4 -1.4 -1.5 -1,5 -1.3 382 +~ -1.8 -1.6 -1.2 -1.3 -1.3 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 383 ~ :~;:-~ -1.8 -1.7 -1.3 -1.3 -1.4 -1.6 -1.5 -1.6 384 ;~¢'~ -1,9 -1.9 -1.5 -1.6 -1.5 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 385 ~ -2.0 -1.9 -1.6 -1.6 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 386 -2.1 -1.9 -1.6 -1.7 -1.6 -1.6 -1.7 -1.5 387 ~[~ -2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.5 -1.4 -1.6 -1.7 -1.7 388 · ~ ,. ~,~ -1.8 -2.2 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.7 -1.8 -1.9 389 -2.2 -2.6 -2.1 -2.0 -1.8 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 390 . -2.3 -2.6 -2.2 -2.0 -1.9 -2.1 -2.0 -2.1 391 -2.5 -2.7 -2.3 -2.2 -2.1 -2.2 -2.1 -2.2 I I I I I I I I Appendix A-1. Shoreline Change Rates (ft/yr) for Southold. New York, 1884-85 to 1998 (cont.) 1884-85 to 1884-85 to (regression (using end point method) method) Transect 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 392 -2.6 -2.8 -2.4 -2.2 -2.3 -2.3 -2.2 -2.3 393 -2.6 -2.8 -2.4 -2.2 -2.4 -2.5 -2.3 -2.5 394 -2.5 -2.9 -2.6 -2.5 -2.6 -2.6 -2.5 -2.6 395 -2.7 -2.9 -2.8 -2.7 -2.9 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 396 -2.8 -3.0 -2.8 -2.8 -3.0 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 397 -3.0 -3.0 -2.8 -2.8 -2.9 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 398 -3.1 -3,0 -2.8 -2.5 -2.7 -2.7 -2.6 -2.6 399 -3.1 -3.0 -2,9 -2.6 -2.7 -2.7 -2.7 -2.7 400 -3.3 -3.1 -3.0 -2.8 -2.8 -2.8 -2.8 -2.8 401 -3.4 -3.2 -3.0 -2.9 -3.0 -2.8 -2.8 -2.8 402 -3.4 -3,4 -3.0 -3.0 -3.1 -2.8 -2.8 -2.7 403 '- -3.5 -3.4 -3.2 -3,1 -3.1 -2.9 -2.5 -2.8 404 ~ -4.0 -3.6 -3.4 -3.4 -3.4 -3.1 -2.5 -2.9 405 -4.1 -3.6 -3.4 -3.4 -3.4 -3.2 -2.6 -2,9 406 -4.2 -3.5 -3.3 -3.4 -3.4 -3.1 -2.7 -3.0 407 -4.2 -3.4 -3.3 -3.5 -3.6 -3.2 -2.7 -2.9 408 - -4.2 -3.4 -3.2 -3.4 -3.6 -3.2 -2.6 -2.8 409 -4.1 -3.2 -3.0 -3.3 -3.2 -3.0 -2.5 -2.7 410 -4.1 -3.2 -3.0 -3.2 -3.1 -3.0 -2.5 -2.5 411 -3.9 -2.9 -2.9 -3.0 -2.9 -2.7 -2.4 -2.3 412 -3.9 -2.6 -2.8 -2.8 -2.7 -2.5 -2.2 -2.2 413 -3.8 -2.5 -2.7 -2.7 -2.6 -2.4 -2.1 -2.1 414 -3.5 -2.2 -2.5 -2.5 -2.4 -2.2 -1.9 -1.9 415 -3.2 -2,1 -2.2 -2.3 -2.2 -2.1 -1.8 -1.8 416 -3.1 -2.0 -2.1 -2.2 -2.1 -2.0 -1.6 -1.6 417 -2.9 -1.8 -2.1 -2.0 -2.0 -1.8 -1.5 -1.3 418 -2.4 -1.3 -1.8 -1.6 -1.7 -1.4 -1.1 -1.0 419 -1.9 -0.9 -1.6 -1.4 -1.6 -1.1 -0.8 0.1 Mattituck Inlet 424 10,6 7.6 6.8 6.2 5.9 4.8 5.7 4.8 425 9.7 6.7 5.9 5.5 5.4 4.9 5.2 3.8 426 8.1 5.2 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.2 3.8 427 7.8 5.0 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.8 428 7.5 4.9 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.6 429 7.1 4.6 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.2 430 6.3 4.1 3.6 3,6 3.3 3.4 3,6 2.9 431 ~ 5.6 3.8 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.7 432 ~, 5.1 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.4 433 4.6 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.2 434 ./~ .~ ;~ ~ ~:~ 4.1 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.3 2.2 435 ~ i~ 3.9 2.4 2.3 2,3 2,0 2.5 2.3 2.0 436 ~' -~ ;~ 3.6 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.8 2.3 2.1 1.8 3.4 1.9 2.1 2,1 1.7 2,0 2.0 1.7 438 ~ ~ ~: 3.2 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.6 439 2.9 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.7 1,4 440 2.5 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-1. Shoreline Change Rates (ft/yr) for Southold, New York, 1884-85 to 1998 (cont.) 1884-85 to 1884-85 to (regression (using end point method) method) Transect 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 444 2.0 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.9 447 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.5 448 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.3 449 0.9 0.5 0.5 -0.1 -0.3 0.4 0.7 0.1 450 0.7 0.5 0.3 -0.2 -0.5 0.3 0.5 0.0 451 452 0.3 0.3 -0.2 -0.5 -0.9 -0.2 0.0 -0.5 453 454 456 460 472 473 , 479 ~, 480 481 I I I I I '1 ! I I Appendix A-1. Shoreline Change Rates (ft/yr) for Southold. New York, 1884-85 to 1998 (cont.) 1884-85 to 1884-85 to (regression (using end point method) method) Transect 1933 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 490 -2.9 -2.3 -1.8 -2.0 -2.0 -1.8 -2.0 491 -3.1 -2.6 -2.0 -2.3 -2.1 -1.9 -2.0 492 -3.0 -2.5 -1.9 -2.4 -2.1 -2.0 -2.1 493 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -2.6 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 494 -2.8 -2.5 -1.9 -2.7 -2.1 -2.1 -2,1 495 ~, -2.5 -2.4 I -2.0 -2,7 -1.9 -2.1 -2.0 496 '~, -2.2 -2.4 -2.0 -2.6 -1.8 -2.0 -2.1 497 -1.9 -2.4 -2.1 -2.6 -1.9 -2.0 -2.1 498 -1.9 -2.4 -2.1 -2.4 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 499 -1.8 -2.3 -2.0 -2.3 -2.0 -1.9 -1.9 500 -1.8 -2.1 -1.9 -2.2 -2.0 -1.8 -1.8 501 -1.8 -2.0 -1.7 -2.0 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 502 -1.8 -1.8 -1.4 -1.8 -1.6 -1.6 -1.5 503 ~ ~ -1.7 -1.7 -1.3 -1.7 -1.6 -1.6 -1.4 504 -1.6 -1.6 -1.3 -1.5 -1.4 -1.6 -1.2 505 -1.6 -1.4 -1.0 -1.2 -1.2 -1.4 -1.0 506 ' -1.6 -1.3 , , -0.7 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2 -0.9 507 -1.4 -1.1 0.9 -1.0 -1.1 -1.0 508 -1.3 -0.9 : -0.9 -1,0 -1.1 -1,1 509 ' -1.4 -0.9 , -1.1 -1.2 -1.2 -1.1 510 -1.3 -1.0 -~- -1.0 -1.3 -1.1 -1.1 511 -1.4 -1.1 -1.1 -1.2 -1.1 -1.1 512 1.5 -1.4 : -1.2 -1.2 -1.1 -1.2 513 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 514 -1.7 -1.6 ^: -1.5 -1.1 -1,2 -1.3 515 -1.8 -1.7 -1.5 -1.2 -1.3 -1.3 516 -2.0 -1.8 ' -1.5 -1.2 -1.4 -1.3 517 2.2 -1.9 -1.5 -1.2 -1,3 -1.3 518 -2.2 -2.0 -1.6 -1.4 -1.3 -1.4 519 -2.3 -2.1 -1.7 -1.4 -1.3 -1.3 520 -2.3 -2.1 -1.6 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 521 -2.3 -2.0 -1.5 -1.2 -1.3 -1.1 522 -2.1 -1,8 , : i' -1.3 -1.1 -1.2 -1.0 523 ~ -1.9 -1.6 -1.2 -0.9 -1.1 -0.9 ~ 524 1.6 -1.4 ' ~ -, '~ -0.8 -0.9 -0.8 525 f -1.5 -1.5 ~ ~ ~ -0.8 -0.9 -0.8 526 - -1.4 -1.3 ,, ,,~ ~ ~, -0.7 -0.8 -0.6 527 -1.2 -1.0 ,~' -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 · ' :,:,~ ,~: ~ !~:~ -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 528 -1.3 -1.0 529 : ,';?;~ -1.4 -1.2 :~' ~'~ ~'~' ~'~ ~, ~ ,~, ~ ,,,~,~ -1.0 -0.7 -0.8 530 ¢:u, -1.4 -1.2 ..... ~ ~/~t::~ ~t, -0.9 -0.8 -0.9 531 :~ -1.5 -1.3 ..... , ,~.,~:~ i~!~ -0.9 -0.8 -0,9 532 '~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~'~!'~ : : ~¥~ -0.9 -1.0 533 ;~, -1.6 -1.3 ¢: , ~,,~-~-¢:~:~ ~ -0.9 -1.1 534 , :~4~ -1.6 -1.4 ,e:~ ~:~'~ -1.0 -1.1 535 - -; ~'~, -1.7 -1.4 ~ , ~ ,,, ~ -1.0 -1.1 536 ' ~;~ -1.8 -1.5 , ~ ~,~!~,~ ~, ~ -0.9 -1.1 537 ~ - -2.1 -1.7 :'~' :,~I~ "~ ;~,~,,: -1.0 -1.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A-2: I Shoreline Change Rates for Southold, New York, 1933 to 1998 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I Appendix A~2. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York, 1933 to 1998 1933 to (using end point method) Transect 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 2 -0.2 -1.1 ~i~i ~ -0.4 -1.2 -1.1 3 -1.0 -1.0 :~i;ii!i~ ~ ~ ~i -0.1 -1.4 -1.0 4 -1.5 -1.5 -0.6 -1.5 -1.3 5 -1.3 -1.8 ;i~!i!:;~; ~ i;~ -0.7 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 6 -1,0 -1,5 !!! -0.6 -1.7 -1.2 -1.3 7 -0.1 -0.7 -1.6 -0.4 -1.5 -0.8 -1.0 8 0.3 -0.3 -1.3 -0.3 -1.3 -0.5 -0.7 9 0.7 0.1 -1.2 -0.1 -1,1 -0,4 -0.5 10 1.3 0,2 -0.9 -0.2 -0.9 -0.2 -0.3 11 2.3 1.2 -0.5 0.0 -0.4 0.0~ 0.¢ 12 2.~ 1.~ -0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.¢ 0.2 13 3.1 2.1 -0.1~ 0,¢ -0.1 -0.1 0.3 14 3.5 2.~ 0.7 0.2 O.C -0.2 0.3 15 3.3 2,2 1.6 0.~ 0.¢ -0.2 0.2 16 3.7 2.3 2.1 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.4 17 3.5 1,5 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 18 3.2 0.9 1.5 0.3 -0.3 -0.2 0.1 19 3.3 0.7 1.7 0.4 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 20 3.1 1.3 1.7 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0,0 21 2.6 1.6 1.7 0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 22 2.4 1,6 1.6 0.1 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 23 2.3 1.4 1.3 -0.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 24 3.4 2.0 1.8 0.3 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 25 3.5 2.4 1.9 0,5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 26 4.1 2.4 2.1 0.7 0,2 0.1 0.0 27 3.8 2.1 2.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 28 4.1 2.5 2.4 0.8 1.0 0,3 0.1 29 3.5 2.2 2.0 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.0 30 2,9 1,8 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.0 31 2.5 1.7 1.4 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 32 2.0 1,8 1,2 0.6 1.0 0.1 0.1 33 2.1 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.3 34 2.5 2.0 1.9 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.5~ 35 2.6 1.8 2.0 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.5 36 2.9 1.9 2.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.5 37 2,8 1.8 2.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.5 38 3.5 2.2 2.3 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.7 39 2.9 2.0 1.9 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.5 40 2.5 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.3 0.9i 0.4 41 2.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.6 0.~ 0.3 42 2.1 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.¢ 0.3 43 2.7 1.5 2.0i 2.1 1.5 1.3 0.5 44 2.~ 1.~ 2.4 2.~ 1.7 1.4 0.5 45 3.¢ 1.~ 2.7 2.~ 1.6; 1.3 0.4 46 2.~ 2.1 2.S 2.5 1.5 1.2 0.6 47 2,S 2.5 3.2 2.3 1.5 0.9 0.6 48 3.C 3.1 3,4 2.1 1.5 1.0 0.7 49 3.5 3.5 3.3 2,0 1.4 1.1 0.6 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I Appendix A-2. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold. New York, 1933 to 1998 (cont.) 1933 to (usin~ end point method) Transect 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 50 3.2 3.1 3.3 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.4 51 3.3 3.0 2.9 1.6 1,2 0.9 0.4 52 3.3 2,7 2.4 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 53 3.9 3.0 2.3 1.6 1.2 0.5 0.5 54 4.1 3.0 2.1 1.8 1,1 0.5 0.4 55 4.2 3.1 1.9 1.6 0.7 0,2 0.3 56 5.0 3.4 2.1 1.9 1.0 0.3 0.4 57 5.5 3.5 2.2 2.0 1.3 0.5 0.5 58 5.3 3.3 2.4 2.0 1.4 0.3 0.6 59 4.8 2.8 2.5 1.8 1.5 0.2 0.5 60 3.7 2.2 2,0 1.4 1.3 -0.2 0.3 61 3.3 2.0 1.9 1.3 1.3 -0.3 0.3 62 2.9 1.8 1.7 1.2 0.8 -0.4 -0.1 63 2.3 1.7 1.6 1.1 0.3 -0.6 -0.3 64 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.0 0,0 -0.7 -0.5 65 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 -0.2 -0.8 -0.7 66 0.9 1.4 1.4 0.8 -0.5 -1.1 -0.9 67 0.4 1.3 1.3 0.7 -0.6 -1.3 -1.1 68 0,0 1.2 1.2 0.6 -0.6 -1.4 -1.3 69 -0,5 0.9 0.8 0.3 -0.8 -1.5 -1.3 70 -0.6 0.9 0.6 0.2 -0.7 -0.5 -0.4 71 -0.3 0.9 0.4 0.1 -0,6 -0.4 -0.4 72 0.1 0.3 0.2 -0.1 -0.6 -0.4 -0,4 73 0,6 0.2 0.3 -0.3 -1.3~ -0.5 -0.8 74 1.1 -0.2 0,0 -0,7i -1.4 -0.7 -1.0 75 1.¢ -1.¢ -0.3i -1.¢ ~1.5 -1.C -1.1 76 0.1 -1.5 -0.6 -1.5 -2.¢ -1.5 -1.3 77 -0,4 -1.5 -0.4 -1.5 -1.§ -1.4 -1.1 78 -1.0 -1.5 -0,4 -1.7 -1.8 -1.3 -1.1 79 -1.5 -1.7 -0.6 -1.8 -1.§ -1.4 -1.2 80 -1.9 -2.0 -0.§ -2.0 -2.1 -1.6 -1.4 81 -2.0 -2.1 -1.0 -2.1 -2.1 -1.6 -1.4 82 -1.9 -2.0 -0.§ -2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.3 83 -1.3 -1.8 -0.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.4 -1.2 84 ~0.7 -1.5 -0.5 -1.6 -1.7 -1.3 -1.1 85 0.0 -1.2 -0.4 -1.5 -1.6 -1.2 -1.0 86 0.3 -1.1 -0.1 -1.6 -1.6 -1.5 -1.1 87 0.4 -0,9 -0.1 -1.6 -1.7 -1.5 -1.1 88 0.2 -0.9 -0.2 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.1 89 0.6 -0.5 -0.1 -1.6 -1,5 -1.6 -1.0 90 0.9 -0.3 0.1 -1.6 -1.4 -1.7 -1.2 91 1.4 -0.3 0.1 -1.7 -1.6 -1.9 -1.4 92 1.8 -0.6 0.0 -1.8 -2.0 -2.1 -1.6 93 2.3 -0.4 0.1 -1.7 -2.2 -2.1 -1.9 94 2.5 -0.6 0.1 -1.9 -2.2 -2.1 -2.0 95 2.2 -0.8 0.0 -2.0 -2.3 -2.3 -2.¢ 96 1.5 -1.1 -0.4 -2.4 -2.7 -2.6 -2.5 97 1.3 -1.4 -0.5 -2.6 -2.7 -2.5 -2.2 98 0,6 -1.8 -1.0 -2.9 -3.3 -2,8 -2.3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-2. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York. 1933 to 1998 (cont.) 1933 to (usin9 end point method) Transect 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 99 0.4 -2.0 -1.2 -3.1 -3.5 -2.9 -2.3, 100 0.3~ -2.0! -1.3 -3.2 -3.4 -2.8 ~.1; 101 0.4 -1.~ -1.4 -3.2 -3.1! -2.7 -2.1' 102 1.1 -1.3 -1.0 -3.0 -2,7 -2.5 -2.¢ 103 1.5 -0.8 -0.9 -2.8 -2.5 -2.3 -2.£ 104 1.~ -0.3 -0.6 -2.4 -2.2 -2.1 -1.~ 105 2.1 0.C -0.4 -2.0 -1.7 -1.8 -1.7 106 1.8 -0.3 -0.6! -2.0 -1.8 -1.9~ -1.8 107 1.4 -0.3 -0.8 -2.0i -1.7 -1.~ -1,8 108 1.1 -0.3 -0.7 -2.¢ -1.8 -1.7 -1.7 109 1.3 -0.1 -0.1 -1.5 -1.4 -1.1 -1.3 110 1.5 0.~ 1.5 1.1 0.6 0.2 -0.3 111 1.4 0.6 0.S 0.8 0.5 0.C 0.0 112 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.0 -0.3 -0.7 113 0.6 0.7 0.C 0.¢ -0.3 -0.7 -0.9 114 -0.3 0.7 -0.4 -0.4 -0.7 -1.1 -1.2 115 -0.3 1.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.7 -1.1 -1.1 116 0.1 1.5 -0.4 -0.7 -1.0 -1.2 -1.1 117 0.1 1.5 -0.5 -1.1 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 118 0.1 1.4 -0.7 -1,3 -1.5 -1.5 -1.2 119 0.1 1.5 -0.8 -1.3 -1.3 -1.5 -1.2 120 0.1 1.4 -0.9 -1.3 -1.3 -1.6 -1.1 121 0.3 1.3 -0.9 -1.3 -1.3 -1.6 -1.0 122 0.5 1.5 -0.5 -1.3 -1.4 -1.6 -0.9 123 0.7 1.8 -0.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.6 -1.0 124 1.3 2.0 -0.6 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.0 125 1.5 2.3 -0.7 -1.5 -1.2 -1.3 -0.9 126 1.6 2.6 -0.5 -1.4 -0.9 -1.1 -0.8 127 1.9 2.8 -0.3 -1.1 -0.6 -0.9 -0.6 128 3.4 3.4 0.6 -0.4 0.1 -0.4 -0.1 129 3.5 3,3 0.8 -0.2 0.4 -0.2 0.1 130 3.0 3.1 0.7 -0.2 0.5 -0.3 0.0 131 2.6 2.9 0.8 -0,1 0.6 -0.4 0.1 132 2.2 2.4 0.4 -0.3 0.5 -0.7 0.0 133 1.9 2.3 0.1 -0.4 0.5 -0.8 -0.1 134 0.8 1.7 -0.4 -0.8 0.1 -1.1 -0.5 135 0.3 1.6 -0.8 -0.9 -0.3 -1.5 -0.9i 136 0.2 1.5 -0.7 -0.9 -0.5 -1.8 -1.1 137 0.0 1.3 -0.9 -1.1 -0.5 -1.8 -1.1 138 -0.1 1.1 -1.2 -1.1 -0.5 -1.9 -1.2 139 -0.6 0.9 -1.4 -1.2 -0.9 -2.0 -1.3 140 -1.1 0.4 -1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -1.9 -1.4 141 -1.0 0.4 -1,4 -1.7 -0.9 -1.7 -1.3 142 -0.7 0.4 -1.2 -1.4 -0.7 -1.3 -1.1 143 -0.2 1.0 -1.0 -0.8 -0,1 -0.7 -0,5 144 -0.1 1.5 -0.8 -0.7 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 Goldsmithlnl~ 145 I 2.3 6.0 8.4 9.2 8.4 5.7 5.2 146I 2.0 4.7 7.0 8.8 7.7 5.2 4.8 I I i I I I I I I I I I I ! I Appendix A-2. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York, 1933 to 1998 (cont.) 1933 to (usin~ end point m~hod) Transect 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 147 1.~ 4.3 6.¢ 7.~ 7.1 5.1 4.5 148 1.3 3.7 5.3 7.¢ 6.4 4,6 4.2 149 1,8 3.6 4,§ 6.5 5,§ 4.1 3,§ 150 2.7 3,9 4.7 6.1 5.4 3,7 3.7 151 3.9 4,4 5.1 5.7 4.8 3.4 3.6 152 4,5 4.2 4.6 5.¢ 4.3 2.9 3.1 153 5.3 4.1 4.1 4.3 3,§ 2.6 2.7 154 5,4 3.5 4,C 3,6 3.3 2.2 2.3 155 5.4 3.4 3.6 3.¢ 2.8 1.9 2.1 156 5.9 3.3 3.4 2.7 2.4 1.7 2.0 157 5.C 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.~ 1.2 1,6 158 4.7 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.0 1,3 159 4,3 2.8 2.2 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.1 160 4.4 2.9 2,3 1.5 1.3 0.7 1.0 161 4.2 2.9 2.5 1.5 1.3 0.7 0.9 162 4.1 3.2 2.3 1.5 1,4 0.8 0.9 163 3.7 3.3 1.§ 1.5 1.3 0.7 0.7 164 4.1 3.7 2.0 1.6 1,3 0.8 0.8 165 3,8 3.4 1.§ 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.7 166 3.7 3.3 1.8 1.5 1.4 0.8 0.7 167 4,5 3.3 2.2 1.7 1.4 0.9 0.7 168 4.3 3.2 2.0 1.6 1.5 0.9 0.8 169 4,1 3.3 1.9 1.5 1,5 0.8 0.8 170 3.9 3,2 2.0 1,5 1,7 1.0 0,9 171 3.2 3.0 2,0 1.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 172 2.6 2.7 1.7 1.3 1.4 1,1 0.7 173 2.4 2.8 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.0 0.6 174 2.2 2.6 1,5 1,1 1.3 1,0 0.4 175 2.4 2.5 1.7 1.6 1.2 0.7 0.5 176 3.6 2.4 1.4 1.2 1.3 0,5 0.3 177 3.8 2.6 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.3 0.4 178 3.4 2.2 1.5 1,0 1.0 0.3 0.3 179 3.8 2.2 1,4 0.9 1.0 0,7 0.3 180 3.5 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.7 0,4 0.1 181 3.5 1.4 0,9 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.1 182 3.7 2.0 1,5 1,5 1.1 0.6 0.4 183 3.4 1.9 1,2 0.9 1,1 0.4 0.3 184 4.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.7 0,4 185 4.2 1.9 1.6 1.2 1,0 0.6 0.3 186 4.9 2.6 2.0 1,6 1.3 0,8 0.5 187 5.4 3,0 2,1 1.8 1,5 0.9 0.6 188 6.0 3.5 2,5 2,2 1.8 1,1 0,8 189 6.9 4.2 3.4 2.9 2,4 1.5 1,2 190 7.8 4.9 4,2 3.4 2.8 2.0 1.7 191 7.5 4,7 3,4 3.0 2,6 2.1 1,7 192 7,0 4.4 3.3 2,8 2,5 1,8 1.5 193 6.7 4,6 3.3 2.7 2.6 1.7 1.5 194 7.1 5.0 3,6 2.8 2.8 1.9 1.7 195 6,8 4,6 3.6 2.6 2.8 1.8 1,7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-2. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1933 to 1998 (cont.I 1933 to (using end point method) Transect 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 196 6.9 4.4 3,4 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.7 197 6.5 4.5 3,2 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.5 198 5.8 4.2 2.9 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.5 199 4,7 3.5 2.5 1.6 1.9 1.4 1.2 200 4.5 3.6 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.4 t.0 201 4.7 3.7 2,5 1.5 1.8 1.7 0.9 202 4.8 3.9 2.6 1,5 1.9 1.7 1.0 203 5.4 4.1 2.9 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.1 204 5.5 4.5 3.0 1,9 2.4 2.1 1.2 205 5.8 4.5 2.8 1.9 2.5 2.4 1.3 206 5.7 4.6 2.9 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.5 207 5.8 4.4 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.3 1.3 208 5.7 4.3 2.7 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.3 209 5.9 4.4 2.4 1.9 2.3 2.1 1.2 210 5.9 4.5 2.5 1.9 2.3 2.1 1.2 211 5,6 4.3 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.4 1.2 212 5,7 4.4 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.3 1.3 213 5.9 4.1 2.4 1.9 2.4 2.2 1.3 214 6,4 4.2 2.5 2,2 2.7 2.3 1.5 215 6.8 4.6 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.5 1.6 216 7.1 5.2 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.5 1.5 217 7.3 5,3 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.3 1.5 218 7.2 5.0 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.2 1.4 219 7.3 5.0 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.0 1.3 220 7.4 4.9 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.0 1.3 221 7.3 4.8 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.1 1.3 222 7.4 5.0 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.2 1.5 223 7.2 5.2 2.4 2.5 2,7 2.0 1.4 224 6.7 4.8 2.3 2,4 2.6 2.0 1.3 225 6.8 5,1 2,3 2.5 2.6 2.0 1.3 226 5.8 4.2 1.9 2.0 2.3 1,8 1.0 227 5.4 4.1 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.0 228 5.6 4.4 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.0 229 5.4 4.2 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.7 0.~ 230 6.2 4.5 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.£ 231 7.5 5.2 2.9 2.8 2.6 2,1 1.4 232 7.0 4.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 1.9 1.3 233 6.6 4.6 2.3 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.1 234 6.5 4.6 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.1 235 6.8 4.9 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.2 236 7.0 4.9 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.4 1.2i 237 6.8 4.5 2.7 2.1 2.1 2.4 1.1' 238 7.0 4.7 2.9 2.2 2.1 2.2 1.1 239 6.9 4.8 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.3 1.2 240 7,2 4.8 3.1 2.3 2.4 2.1 1.2 241 7.7 5.1 3.2 2.4 2.5 2.3 1.~ 242 7.3 5.0 2.9 2.4 2.5 2.1 1.4 243 7.2 4,8 2.7 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.2 244 7.2 4.8 2.7 2.1 2.3 1.8 1.2 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I Appendix A-2. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1933 to 1998 (cont.) 1933 to (usinc end point method) Transect 1955 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 245 6.6 4.4 2.3 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.1 246 6.5 4.3 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.~ 1.0 247 6.4 4.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.5 0.9 248 7.2 4.1 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.5 1.0 249 7.9 4.4 2.4 2.0 2.1 1.7 1.1 250 7.9 4.2 2.5 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.1 251 8.0 4.2 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.1 252 8.4 4.2 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.1 253 8.3 4.1 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.1 254 8.1 4.0 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.0 255 8.2 4.2 2.7 2.1 2.1 1.5 1.1 256 8.3 3.9 2.9 2.2 2.2 1.5 1.1 257 8.4 3.9 3.0 2.3 2.3 1.6 1.1 258 8.3 4.t 3.1 2.4 2.4 1.7 1.2 259 8.1 4.0 3.2 2.6 2.4 1.8 1.3 260 8.0 4.3 3.4 2.8 2.6 1.8 1.4 261 7.5 4.1 3.4 2.7 2.5 2.0 1.3 262 7.2 3.9 3.4 2.6 2.6 1.5 t.3 263 6.7 3.6 3.1 2.4 2.2 1.3 1.2 264 6.7 3.7 3.2 2.4 2.2 1.2 1.2 265 5.9 3.3 2.6 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 266 5.6 3.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.8 267 4.9 2.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.7 268 5.1 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.3 0.7 0.7 269 5.4 2.8 2.2 1.5 1.4 0.7 0.7 270 5.8 2.7 2.4 1.6 1.5 0.8 0.7 271 5.1 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.4 272 4.7 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.5 273 5.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.3 274 4.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 -0.1 275 2.4 0.1 0.4 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.5, 276 1.7 -0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 -0.2 -0.7 277 1.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5 -0.4 -0.? 278 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -O.E 279 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 -0.5 280 1.7 0.4 0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I APPENDIX A-3: I Shoreline Change Rates for Southoid, New York, 1955 to 1998 1 Appendix A-3. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1955 to 1998 1955 to 1955 to (regression (usin9 end point method) method) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 1 -1.8 ii~ -0.4 ~ i~i i~!~i :~!~ -1.4 2 -3.2 ;i~!!i!!:: -0.6 -2.1 -1.7 -1.0 3 -0.8 i~ii;i!i~i! :~ 0.8 -1.8 -1.0 :~!~ ~ii.~!~!;~ -1.1 4 -1.5 :;;~!! ,~ 0.4 -1.5 -1.2 ~;' ~ ~ -1.2 5 -3.0 ~;~!;;; , -0.1 -1.8 -1.4 -1.3 -1.3 6 -2.6"~' 0.2 -2.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.2 7 -2.2 -4.0 -0.7 -2.7 -1.2 -1.4 -1.0 8 -1.9 -4.0 -1.0 -2.7 -1.0 -1.3 -1.0 9 -1.5 -4.1 -0.9 -2.8 -1.1 -1.1 -0.9 10 -2.4 -4.5 -1.7 -2.9 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 11 -1.7 -5.1 -2.5 -2.8 -1.4 -1.2 -1.3 12 -0.7 -5.5 -3.2 -2.8 -1.7 -1.2 -1.4 13 -0.3 -4.3 -3.2 -2.9 -2.0 -1.2 -1.7 14 -0.1 -3.7 -3.3 -3.1 -2.3 -1.3 -1.~ 15 -0.7 -1.1 -2.7 -3.0 -2.3 -1.3 -1.~ 16 -1.0 -0.4 -2.9 -2.8 -2.1 -1.3 -1.5 17 -3.6 -1.4 -2.8 -2.9 -2.1 -1.3 -1.7 18 -4.9 -1.2 -2.7 -35i -2.2 -1.6 -1.7 19 -5.5 -0.6 -2.7 -3.2 -2.1 -1.7 -1.8 20 -3.2 -0.6 -2.6 -3.¢ -2.1 -1.6 -1.9 21 -1.¢ 0.2 -2.5 -2.7 -1.9 -1.6 -1.9 22 -0.4 0.4 -2.4, -2.2 -1.6 -1.6 -2.1 23 -1.¢ -0.3 -2.8 -2.8 -2.1 -1.8 -2.3 24 -1.3 -0.6 -2.~ -3.1 -2.2 -1.S -2.4 25 -0.4 -0.7 -2.7 -3.3 -2.2 -2.6 -2.3 26 -1.7 -1.1 -2.S -3.2 -2.2 -2.1 -2.2 27 -1.9 -0.7 -2.6 -2.0 -2.2 -2.0 -2.1 28 -1.3 -0.2 -2.6 -1.7 -1.9 -2.0 -1.9 29 -1.1 -0.3 -2.4 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -1.6 30 -0.8 0.0 -2.0 -0.7 -1.4 -1.5 -1.4 31 -0.4 -0.3 -1.7 -0.3 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 32 1.3 -0.1 -0.9 0.1 -1.1 -0.9 -1.0 33 1.6 0.7 -0.6 0.0 -0.9 -0.6 -0.8 34 0.9 0.9 -0.3 0.0 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 35 0.0 1.1 -0.4 -0.1 -0.3 -0.6 -0.6 36 -0.6 1.4 -0.6 -0.4 -0.3 -0.7 -0.7 37 -0.7 1.1 -0.6 -0.5 -0.3 -0.7 -0.7 38 -1.0 0.4 -0.5 -0.8 -0.5 -0.7 -0.6 39 -0.2 0.2 -0.2 -0.5 -0.4 -0.7 -0.5 40 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.0 -0.7 -0.3 41 -0.6 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.0 -0.6 -0.2 42 -0.7 1.3 1.1 1.3 0.3 -0.7 -0.2 43 -1.5 1.0 1.4 0.5 0.4 -0.7 -0.3 44 -0.5 1.6 2.0 0.6 0.5 -0.8 -OZ 45 -1.0 2.3 2.0 0.4 0.2 -0.9 -0.~ 46 0.3 3.0 2.1 0.3 0.2 -0.7 -0.~ 47 1.7 3.8 1.6 0.2 -0.2 -0.6 -0.~ 48 3.4 4.0 1.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -1.3 49 3.6 3.0 0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.9 -1.3 I I I I II I I ! ! I I I I I Appendix A-3. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold. New York. 1955 to 1998 =ont.) 1955 to 1955 to (regressior (usinc end point method) m~hod) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 50 2.§ 3.4 0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -1.£ -1.3 51 2,1 2.2 -0.2 -0.~ -0.6 -1.1 -1.4 52 1.3 1.1 ~0.5 -0.~ -1.01 -1.1 -1.6 53 0.8 -0.2 -0.S -1.2 -1.~ -1.3 -1.7 54 0.3 -1.C -0,7 -1.~ -1.7 -1,5 -2.1 55 0.4 -1.S -1.1 -2.5 -2.2 -1.7 -2.3 56 -0.4 -2.4 -1.4 -2.5 -2.4 -1.§ -2.3 57 -1.4 -2.§ -1.7 -2.5 -2.~ -2.1 -2.2 58 -1.7 -2.3 -1.4 -2.C -2,~ -1.§ -2.6 59 -2.0 -1.2 -1.3 -1,5 -2.5 -1.7 -1.9 60 -1.6 -0.6 -0.§ -0.§ -2.5 -1.4 -1.8 61 -1.2 -0.4 -0.8 -0.4 -2.4 -1.3 -2.1 62 -1.6 -0.2 -0.7 -1.2 -2.4 -1.6 -2.2 63 0.2 0.6 -0.2 -1.5 -2.2 -1.7 -2.4 64 1.7 0.4 0.0 -1.7 -2.2 -1,7 -2.6 65 3.4 1.6 0.5 -1.7 -2.1 -1.7 -2.7 66 2,7 2.2 0,7 -1.8 -2.3 -1.9 -2.8 67 3.7 2.8 1.0 -1.4 -2~2 -1.9 -2.9 68 4.1 3.0 1.1 -1.1 -2.3 -1.9 -2.6 69 4.3 2.9 1.3 -1.0 -2.6 -1.7 -1.0 70 4.4 2.5 0.9 -0,8 -0.4 -0.4 -1.0 71 3.7 1.5 0.4 -0.9 -0.5 -0.5 -0.9 72 0.8 0.3 -0.4 -1.2 -0.6 -0.7 -1.7 73 -1.3 -0.6 -1.4 -3.1 -1.3 -1.7 -1.9 74 -3.5 -1.7 -2.5 -3.7 -1.8 -2.0 -1.9 75 -5.7 -2.2 -3.0 -3.6 -2.1 -2.1 -2.0 76 -5.2 -1.7 -3.1 -3.9 -2.4 -1.9 -1.7 77 -4.4 -0.5 -2.8 -3,2 -2.0 -1.6 -1.4 78 -2.8 0.7 -2.3 -2.5 -1.5 -1.2 -1.3 79 -2.3 0.8 -2.2 -2.3 -1.3 -1.1 -1.3 80 -2,1 0.7 -2.2 -2.2 -1.4 -1.1 -1.3 81 -2.2 0.5 -2.1 -2.2 -1.3 -1.1 -1.2 82 -2.4 0.6 -2,1 -2.1 -1.2 -1,0 -1.3 83 -3.0 0.0 -2,4 -2.4 -1.4 -1.2 -1.4~ 84 -3.7 -0,3 -2,7 -2.7 -1.6 -1.3 -I.E 85 -4.3 -0.9 -3.1 -3.1 -1.9 -1.5 -2.1 86 -4.4 -0.7 -3.5 -3.3 -2.6 -1.8 -2.1 87 -4.3 -0.8 -3.7 -3.5 -2.5 -1.8 -2.1 88 -3.6 -0.8 -3.7 -3.2 -2.5 -1.8 -2.3 89 -3.0 -1.1 -3.9 -3.3 -2.9 -1.8 -2.7 90 -3.0 -1.1 -4,2 -3.5 -3.2 -2.2 -3.3 91 -4.3 -1.9 -4.9 -4.2 -3.8 -2.8 -3.7 92 -6.4 -2.7 -5.5 -5.3 -4.3 -3.4 4.2 93 -7.1 -3.3 -6.0 -6.1 -4.7 -4.0 4.3 94 -8.5 -3.8 -6.5 -6.3 -4.7 -4.3 4.4 95 -8.3 -3.6 -6.5 -6.4 -5.0 -4.2 4.5 96 -7.6 -3.5 -6.6 -6.5 -5.1 -4.2 -4.2 97 -8.0 -3.4 -6.8 -6.3 -4.7 -4.0 -4.1 98 -7.6 -3.5 -6.6 -6.8 -4.8 -3.8 -4,0 I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A~. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1955 to 1998 cont.) 1955 to 1955 to (regression~ (usin~ end point method) method) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 99 -8.1 -3.8 -6.5 -7.1 -4.8 -3.7 -3.7 100 -7.8 -4.0 -7.¢ -6.6 -4.6 -3.3 -3.7 101 -7.6 -4.2 -7.¢ -6.2 -4.6 -3.4 -3.8 102 -7.1 -4.3 -7.3 -6.1 -4.5 -3.6 -4.0 103 -6.5 -4.7 -7.3 -6.1 -4.6 -3.8 -4.0 104 -5.6 -4.4 -7.0 -5.7 -4.4 -3.8 -3.7 105 -5.1 -4.2 -6.3 -5.0 -4.0 -3.6 -3.6 106 -4.8 -3.9 -5.7 -4.4 -3.8 -3.5 -3.5 107 -4.4 -3.8 -5.6 -4.4 -3.7 -3.4 -3.2 108 -4.0 -3.5 -5.2 -4.4 -3.3 -3.2 -2.6 109 -3.4 -2.2 -4.5 -3.7 -2.5 -2.6 -1.0 110 -2.7 1.3 0.6 -0.3 -0.6 -1.3 -0.8 111 -1.6 0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.8 -0.7 -1.6 112 -1.0 -0.9 -0.7 -1.1 -1.3 -1.7 -1.8 113 1.0 -0.9 -0.6 -1.0 -1.4 -1.7 -2.0 114 3.0 -0.7 -0.6 -1.1 -1.5 -1.6 -2.1 115 5.0 -0.5 -0.5 -1.1 -1.6 -1.5 -2.4 116 5.0 -1.1 -1.5 -2.0 -2,0 -1.7 -2.6 117 5.2 -1.4 -2.3 -2.7 -2.1 -1.9 -2.7 118 4.7 -2.0 -2.8 -3.0 -2.4 -1.9 -2.6 119 5.1 -2.2 -2.8 -2.5 -2.4 -1.8 2.6 120 4.5 -2.6 -2.9 -2.6 -2.6 -1.7 -2.5 121 3.8 -2,7 -3.0 -2.7 -2.7 -1.7 -2.7 122 3.9 -2.1 -3.2 -3.0 -2.8 -1.7 -2.9 123 4.3 -2.3 -3.6 -3.3 -3.0 -1.9 -3.0 124 3.9 -3.5 -4.2 -3.7 -3.0 -2.1 -3.¢ 125 4.3i -4.3 -4.7 -3.7 -2.9 -2.2 -2.8 126 4.~ -3.8 -4.5 -3.2 -2.7 -2.£ -2.7 127 5.¢ -3.7 -4.2 -2.8 -2.5 -1.~ -2.5 128 3.4 -4.¢ -4.5 -2.~ -2.6 -2.¢ -2.2 129 2.8 -3.5 -4.1; -2.3 -2.3 -1.7 -2.1 130 3.3 -2.8 -3.8 -1.7 -2.6 -1.5 -2.0 131 3.7 -2.1 -2.~ -1.1 -2.5 -1.2 -1.8 132 2.9 -2.4 -2.§ -1.C -2.4 -1.1 -1.9 133 3.4 -2.7 -2.8 -0.8 -2.4 -1.1 -2.0 134 4.1 -2.4 -2.4 -0.6 -2.3 -1.2 -2.4 135 4.7 -2.6 -2.2 -0.8 -2.5 -1.6 -2.6 136 4.6 -2.1 -2.1 -1.1 -2.7 -1.8 -2.6 137 4.4 2.3 -2.2 -0.9 -2.9 -1.7 -2.6 138 4.1 -2.8 -2.2 -0.9 -3.0 -1.7 -2.5 139 4.7 -2.6 -1.7 -1.1 -2.8 -1.6 -2,2 140 4.1 -2.1 -2.0 -1.0 -2.3 -1.5 -2,1 141 4.0 -1.9 -2.4 -0.8 -2,0 -1.5 -1.7 142 3.1 -2.0 -2.1 -0.7 -1.7 -1.3 -1.0 143 3.9 -2.3 -1.4 0.0 -1.0 -0.7 -0.1 Goldsmith Inl~ 145 15.0 17.9 16.7 13.7 7.6 6.7 5.9, 146 11.2 15.0 15.9 12.7 7.1 6.2 5.~ I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-3. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York, 1955 to 1998 =ont.) 1955 to 1955 to (regressior (usin~ end point method) method) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 147 11.2 13.1 14.7 12.1 7.1 6.1 5.5 148 9.8 11.7 13.1 10.§ 6.5 5.7 4.8 149 8.1 9.8 11.3 9.5 5.4 4.9 3.9 150 7.0 8.0 9.6 7.7 4.2 4.2 2.9 151 5.4 6.9 7.5 5.7 3.1 3.4 2.1 152 3.6 4.7 5.6 4.1 2.0 2.4 1.3 153 1.1 2.1 3.4 2.7 1.0 1.4 0.7 154 -1.0 1.7 1.7 1.5 0.4 0.8 0.3 155 -1.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 -0.2 0.4 -0.1 156 -3.3 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.1 -0.3 157 -2.9 -1.5 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 -0.2 *0.7 158 -1.9 -1.4 -1.3 -1.3 -1.2 -0.5 -0.9 159 -0.9 -1.2 -1.4 -1.3 -1.3 -0.6 -1.1 160 -0.6 -1.0 -1.4 -1.5 -1.4 -0.7 -1.2 161 -0.2 -0.3 -1.4 -1.3 -1.3 -0.9 -1.1 162 1.0 -0.5 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 -0.8 -1.1 163 2.3 -0.9 -0.9 -0.8 -1.0 -0.8 -1.3 164 2.7 -1.3 -1.0 -1.2 -1.2 -0.9 -1.1 165 2.5 -1.1 -0.8 -1.0 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 166 2.3 -1.2 -0.7 -0.7 -0.9 -0.8 -1.4 167 0.4 -1.6 -1.3 -1.3 -1.2 -1.3 -1.1 168 0.6 -1.5 -1.2 -1.0 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 169 1.2 -1.6 -1.3 -0.8 -1.1 -0.9 -0.7 170 1.7 -1.1 -1.0 -0.3 -0.6 -0.6 -0.3 171 2.7 0.1 -0.3 0.3 0.1 -0.2 -0.4 172 3.1 0.3 -0.1 0.3 0.2 -0.3 -0.4 173 3.9 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.2 -0.3 -0.5 174 3.7 0.5 -0.1 0.5 0.2 -0.5 -0.7 175 2.7 0.4i 0.8 0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -1.3 176 -0.4 -2.1 -1.3 -0.8 -1.3 -1.4 -1.5 177 -0.4 -2.C -1.6 -1.1 -1.6 -1.4 -1.4 178 -0.7 -1.5 -1.51 -1.0 -1.5 -1.3 -1.3 179 -1.S -2.4 -2.2 -1.6 -1.2 -1.6 -1.4 180 -2.§ -3.1 -2.6 -1.S -1.4 -1.7 -1.2 181 -3.7 -3.2 -2.3 -1.6 -1.5 -1.6 -1.1 182 2.1 -2.0 -0.9 -1.3 -1.1 -1.3 -1.2 183 -2.1 -2.4 -1.7 -1.C -1.4 -1.3 -1.1 184 -3.3 -2.1 -1.2 -1.6 -1.2 -1.4 -1.4 185 -3.7 -2.5 -1.9 -1.9 -1.6 -1.6 -1.5 186 -3.3 -2.8 -2.0 -1.9 -1.7 -1.8 -1.6 187 -2.7 -3.1 -2.0 -1.9 -1.7 -1.9 -1.7 188 -2.7 -2.9 -1.9 -1.9 -1.7 -1.9 -1.6 189 -2.5 -2.3 -1.4 -1.6 -1.7 -1.7 -1.3 190 -2.3 -1.5 -1.3 -1.7 -1.3 -1.4 -1.0 191 -2.1 -2.9 -1.8 -1.8 -1.0 -1.3 -1.2 192 -2.1 -2.4 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1.3 -1.1 193 -0.7 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -1.2 -1.2 -1.1 194 -0.4 -2.0 -1.7 -1.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 195 -0.7 -1.5 -1.8 -0.8 -1.2 -1.0 -0.9 I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A~. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York, 1955 to 1998 cont.) 1955 to 1955 to (regression (using end point m~hod) method) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 196 -1.6 -2.1 -1.7 -1.0i -1.¢ -1.¢ 197 -0.4 -1.~ -1.5 -1.¢ -0,6 -1.C -0.7 198 0.4 -1,6 -1,9 -1.¢ -0.6 -0.7 -0.6 199 0,4 -1.1 -1.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.6 -0.8 200 1.4 -0.§ -1,7 -0.6 -0.4 -0.8 -0.7 201 1.3 -1.0 -1.8 -0.6 0.0 -1.0 -0.8 202 1.7 -0.8 -1.9 -0.7 0.0 -1,0 -0.7 203 1.1 -0.9 -2,2 -0.7 0.2 -1.0 -0.7 204 1.9 -1.1 -2.0 -0.4 0,1 -1.0 -0.5 205 1.5 -1.9 -2.1 -0,4 0.4 -1.0 -0.4 206 1.9 -1.6 -1,8 -0.2 0.3 -0.7 -0.5 207 0.9 -1.5 -1.2 -0.2 0.3 -1.0 -0.5 208 0.8 -2,1 -1.8 -0.4 0.2 -1.0 -0.7 209 0.6 -3.2 -2.4 -0.9 -0.1 -1.2 -0.8 210 1.0 -3.1 -2.4 -0.9 -0.1 -1,3 -0.4 211 1.0 -2.0 -1.9 -0.6 0.5 -1.0 -0.5 212 1.1 -1.9 -1.9 -0.6 0,2 -1.0 -0,5 213 -0.2 -3.0 -2,2 -0.7 0.0 -1,1 -0.4 214 -1.5 -3.8 -2.2 -0.7 0.0 -1.1 -0.4 215 -0.8 -4.1 -1.9 -0.5 0.0 -1.1 -0.8 216 0.6 -4.3 -1.9 -0.7 -0.2 -1.4 -1.0 217 0.4 -4.7 -2.3 -1.1 -0.6 -1.5 -1.0 218 -0,6 -5.2 -2.6 -1.3 -0.7 -1.6 -1,2 219 -0.6 -5,6 -2.7 -1.6 -1.0 -1.7 -1.2 220 -1.1 -5.6 -2.7 -1.6 -1.1 -1.8; -1.1 221 -1.5 -5.4 -3.1, -1.5 -0.9 -1.7 -1,1 222 -1.1 -5.3 -2.~ -1.3 -0.9 -1.6 -1.2 223 0.4 -5,2 -2.6 -1.3 -1.¢ -1.6 -1.0 224 0.2 -4.6 -2.2 -1.1 -0.6 -1.4 -1.1 225 0.6 -4.6 -2.1 -1.¢ -0.6 -1.5 -0.9 226 0.4 -4,4 -1.§ -0.~ -0.6 -1.4 -0.8 227 0.8 -4.1 -1.9 -O.S -0,4 -1.3 -0.8 228 1.5 -3.9 -1.7 -0.§ -0,2 -1.3 -1,1 229 1.3 -4.0 -1.7 -1.G -0.5 -1.5 -1.2 230 0.4 -4.0 -1.8 -1.4 -0.6 -1.6 -1.4 231 -0,6 -4.4 -2.1 -1.7 -1.1 -1.6 -1.3 232 -1.1 -4.4 -2,3 -1.7 -1.1 -1.7 -1,4 233 -0.4 -4.7 -2.7 -1,8 -1.2 -1.7 -1.3 234 0.0 -4.7 -2.8 -2.0 -1,0 -1.7 -1,3 235 0,4 -4.1 -2.7 -2.1 -0.9 -1.7 -1.0 236 -0.4 -4.1 -2.9 -2,2 -0.2 -1.8 -1,0 237 -1,2 -3,9 -2.8 -2.2 -0.2 -1,8 -1.3 238 -1.1 -3.6 -3,0 -2,2 -0.7 -1,9 -1,2 239 -0,4 -3.6 -2.9 -2.1 -0,4 -1,8 -1.2 240 -1,0 -3.5 -2,9 -1,9 -0.8 -1.7 -1.2 241 -1,2 -3,9 -3.2 -2,1 -0,8 -1,7 -1.21 242 -0,6 -4,0 -2.8 -1.8 -0.9 -1.6 -1.4 243 -1.0 -4.4 -3.1 -2.0 -1.1 -1.8 -1.4 244 -1.3 -4.4 -3.3 -2,0 -1.3 -1.8 -1.4 I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-3. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1955 to 1998 cont.) 1955 to 1955 to (regression (using end point method) method) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 245 -1.0 -4.5 -3.1 -1.9 -1.1 -1.8 -1.5 246 -1.3 -4.5 -3.1 -1.8 -1.4 -1.8 -1.5 247 -1.7 -4.5 -3.4 -1.9 -1.4 -1.9 -1.7 248 -3.5 -5.5 -4.1 -2.7 -1.8 -2.2 -1.8 249 -4.4 -6.3 -4.2 -3.1 -1.9 -2.4 -1.8 250 -5.0 -6.1 -4.3 -3.1 -1.9 -2.5 -1.7 251 -5.2 -6.3 -4.4 -3.3 -1.7 -2.5 -1.8 252 -6.0 -6.6 -4.7 -3.7 -1.9 -2.7 -1.9 253 -6.2 -6.4 -4.7 -3.6 -2.1 -2.7 -1.9 254 -6.0 -6.4 -4.6 -3.6 -2.1 -2.7 -2.1 255 -5.6 -6.0 -4.3 -3.4 -2.3 -2.6 -1.9 256 -6.9 -5.7 -4.2 -3.3 -2.4 -2.5 -1.9 257 -7.2 -5.6 -4.1 -3.1 -2.3 -2.6 -1.8 258 -6.4 -5.2 -3.7 -2.9 -2.1 -2.5 -1.~ 259 -6.0 -4.5 -3.2 -2.7 -1.9 -2.2 -1.~ 260 -5.0 -3.9 -2.7 -2.2 -1.8 -2.0 -1.3 261 -4.4 -3.1 -2.5 -1.9 -1.3 -1.9 -1.5 262 -4.2 -2.7 -2.2 -1.6 -1.8 -1.7 -1.5 263 -4.2 -2.5 -2.2 -1.8 -1.8 -1.7 -1.5 264 -3.7 -2.4~ -2.1 -1,8 -2.0 -1.6; -1.5 265 -2.9 -2.~ -2.2 -1.7 -1.9 -1.6 -1.5 266 -3.5i -3.7 -2.5 -1.9 -1.91 -1.7 -1.4 267 -3.? -3,~ -2,4 -1.8~ -1.~ -1.~ -1.4 268 -4.4 -3,2 -2.E' -2.£ -1.~ -1.~ -1.7 269 -3.~ -2,§ -2.7 -2.1 -2.¢ -1.8 -1.7 270 -5.C -3,1 -2,~ -2,4 -2,1 -2.C -1.6 271 -6.~ -3.4 -2.S -2.5 -2.1 -2.C -1.1 272 -6.6 -3.5 -2,5 -2.2 -1.6 -1.6 -1.4 273 -8,5 -4,8 -3.5 -2.7 -2.1 -2.1 -1.7 274 -7.3 -4.4 -3.3 -2.6 -2,0 -2~3 -1,5 275 -5.4 -2.8 -2.7 -2.1 -1,5 -2.6 -1.3 276 -5,0 -2.7 -2.6 -2.2 -1.2 -1.9 -1.3 277 -3.8 -2.3 -2.1 -1.9 -1.4 -1.7 -1.4 278 -3.3 -1,6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.1 -1,9 -1.1 279 -2.5 -1.5 -1,3 -1.3 -0.5 -1.7 -1,4 280 -2,9 -2.3 -2.1 -1.5 -0.9 -1.9 -1.5 281 -3~2 -3.0 -2.8 -2.0 -1.5 -1.9 -1.8 282 -3.9 -4.1 -3,3 -2.4 -2.2 -2,0 -1.6 283 -3.6 -3.7 -3,1 -2.3 -1.9 -1,7 -1,5 284 -3.4 -3.3 -3.1 -2.2 -1.7 -1.7 -1.2 285 -4.1 -2,9 -3,0 -2.0 -1,4 -1.6 -1,1 286 -2.9 -2.1 -2,5 -1,7 -1.1 -1.3 -1,0 287 -2,2 -1.5 -1.9 -1.1 -1.0 -1,2 -1.1 288 -2.1 -1.7 -2,0 -1.4 -1.1 -1.3 -1,2 289 -2,2 -1.6 -2.2 -1,3 -1,2 -1.4 -1.2 290 -1,9 -1,4 -2.1 -1.4 -1,1 -1.4 -1,0 291 -0.5 -0.8 -1,5 -0.9 -0.8 -1.0 -1.0 292 -0.7 0.3 -1.3 -0,8 -0,7 -1,0 -0.~ 293 -1.9 0.6 -1.4 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 -1.¢ ! ! ! ! Appendix A~. Shoreline Change Rates (~y~ for Southold. New York, 1955 to 1998 'cont.) 1955 to 1955 to [regression (usin! end point method) method) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 294 -2.2 0.5 -1.3 -1.1 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0 295 -1.7 0.8 -1.9 -1.0 -0.9 -1.0 -0.9 296 -1.2 1,2 -1.6 -0.8 -0.6 -0.9 -0.7 297 -1.7 1.3 -1,7 -0,8 -0.4 -0.8 -0.7 298 -2.2 0.4 -1.9 -1.2 -0.5 -0.9 -0.7 299 -1.3 0.6 -1.4 -1.0 -0.5 -0.7 -0.6 300 -0.9 1.4 -0.8 -0.8 -0.4 *0.6 -0.6 301 0.5 2.0 -0.4 -0.4 -0.1 -0.5 -0.6 302 -0.9 1.9 -0.5 -0.6 -0.2 -0.6 -0.4 303 -1.9 1,1 -0.7 -0.8 -0.1 -0.6 -0.6 304 -2.4 0.9 -0.8 -0.5 -0.3 -0.8 -0.7 305 -1.9 0.6 -0.8 -0.4 -0.5 -0.8 -0.7 306 -1.1 0.7 -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1.1 307 -1.9 -1.4 -0.6 -1,0 -1.2 -1.1 -1.3 308 -2.6 -2.5 -0.9 -1.3 -1.5 -1.4 -1.4 309 -2.9 -2.6 -0.7 -1.8 -1.5 -1.6 -1.3 310 -3.2 -3.0 -1.0 -1.9 -1.5 -1.6 -1.2 311 -3.2 -2.5 -1.5 -1.7 -1.4 -1.4 -1.3 312 -2,8 -2.0 -0.6 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.4 313 -1.7 -1.7 -0.4 -1.4 -1.5 -1.4 -1.0 314 -1.0 -1.3 -0,1 -0.9 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2 315 -0.7 -1.2 0.5 -0.6 -1.1 -1.2 -1.4 316 -0.2 -1.3 0.0 -1.0 -1.3 -1,3 -1.5~ 317 1.0 -1.7 -0.2 -0.8 -1.3 -1.3 -1.5 318 1.4 -1.7 -0.5 -0.8 -1.3 -1.4 -1.4 319 1.7 -1.9 -0.2 -0.5 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4 320 1.0 -1.5 -0,1 -0.5 -1.2 -1.3 -1.6 321 0.0 -1.5 -0.1 -1.0i -1.5~ -1.5, -1.7 322 -0.~ -1.4 -0.1 -1.C -1.7 -1.~ -1.5 323 -0.2 -1.3 -0.3 -0.7 -1.3 -1.~ -1.4 324 -0.2 -1.4 -0.4 -0.~ -1.1 -1.4 -1.5 325 -1.7 -1.S -0.~ -1.1 -1.3 -1,~ -1.3 326 -0.~ -1.5 -0.~ -0.4 -1.1 -1,5 -1.4 327 -1,7 -1.7 -0.7 -1.~ -1.2 -1.6 -1.4 328 -2.4 -1.S -0,~ -1.3 -1.2 -1.7 -1,4 329 -2.7 -2.2 -1.1 -1.2 -1.3 -1.7 -1.4 330 -1.3 -1.5 -0.7 -0,8 -1.4 -1.4 -1.1 331 -1.4 -1.3 -0.4 -0.4 -1.2 -1.1 -1.1 332 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 -0.1 -1.1 -0.9 -0.9 333 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 -1.1 -0.7 -0.9 334 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.2 -1.1 -0.6 -0.8 335 -0,7 -0.3 -0.2 0.2 -1.0 -0.7 -0.8 336 -0.3 -0.2 0.1 0.1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.9 337 -0.5 -0.5 0.1 0.0 -0.8 -1.0 -0.9 338 -0.7 -0.8 0.2 -0.1 -0.7 -1.0 -0.8 339 -0.7 -0.9 0.2 -0.2 -0.6 -1.0 -0.7 340 -1.2 -1.4 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 -1.0 -0.7 341 -1.0 -1.2 0.1 0.0 -0.4 -1.1 -0.7 342 -1.7 -2.6 -0,1 0.1 -0.6 -1.1 -0,7 I I i I I I I I I I I Appendix A-3. Shoreline Change Rates (Wyr) for Southold, New York, 1955 to 1998 cont.) 1955 to 1955 to (regressior (usin! end point method) m~hod) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 343 -2.8 -3.0 -0.4 -0.2 -0.7 -1.3 -0.7 344 -3.4 -2.8 0.6 0.1 -0,6 -1.3 -0.7 345 -3.7 -2.8 0.6 0.0 -0.7 -1.3 -0.9 346 -2.7 -2.3 0.1 0.1 -0.9 -1.3 -0.6 347 -2,2 -1,4 0.5 0.2 -0.6 -1.0 -0.5 348 -1.9 -0.8 0.5 0.3 -0.5 -0.8 -0.6 349 -1.5 -1.0 0.3 0.3 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 350 -1.5 -1.2 0.1 0.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 351 -1.2 -1.5 0.4 0.4 -0.4 -0.7 -0.5 352 -2.2 -2.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.7 -0.9 -0.8 353 -2.1 -2.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.9 -1.1 -0.8 354 -2.8 -2.1 0.1 0.2 -1.1 -1.1 -0.8 355 -3.8 -2.9 0.2 -0,2 -1.1 -1.3 -0.7 356 -3,9 -2.8 -0.2 -0.3 -0.9 -1.2 -0.6 357 -3.3 -2.4 -0.4 -0.2 -0.9 -1.0 -0.4 358 -3.1 -2.5 -0.9 0.1 -0.6 -0.9 -0.2 359 -2.2 -2.0 -0.4 0.5 -0.4 -0.6 -0.4 360 -1.7 -1.9 -0.2 0.6 -0.4 -0.7 -0.6 361 -2,4 -2.3 -0.6 0.4 -0.8 -1.0 -0.6 362 -2.7 -2.3 -0,3 0.3 -0.8 -1.0 -0.5 363 -1.7 -2.0 -0.4 0.5 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 364 -2.4 -2.4 -0.2 0.2 -1,0 -0.8 -0.7 365 -2.2 -2.2 -0.2 0,3 -1.1 -0.8 -0.7 366 -2.0 -2.2 -0.1 0.3 -1.0 -0.9 -0.7 367 -2.4 -2.5 -0.8 0.3 -1.1 -0.9 -0.6 368 -3.4 -3.1 -0.7 0.2 -1.2 -1.0 -0.5~ 369 -2.9 -2.5 -0.6 0.4 -0,9 -0.9 -0.~ 370 -2.9 -2,3 -0.4 0.1 -1.4 -1.0 -1.3 371 -3.2 -2.8 -0.3 -0.3 -1.9 -1.4 -1.6 372 -3.4 -1.4 0.0 -0.4 -2.3 -1.5 -I.E 373 -3.6 -0.~ -0.6 -0.5 -2,1 -1.5 -1.5 374 -3.91 -1.4 -1.1 -1.0 -2.0 -1.4 -1.5 375 -3.4 -1.2 -1.4 -1,2 -1.~ -1.4 -1.1 376 -2.4 -0.3 -1.3 -0.~ -1.4 -1.£ -0.§ 377 -1.7 O.S -1.2= -O.E -1.1 -0.~ -1.1 378 -1.5 1.2 -0.7 -0.5 -1.1 -0.~ -1.2 379 -0.~ 1.7 -0.~ -0.1 -1.2 -1.¢ -1.1 380 -0.2 1.8 0.1 -0.1 -0.§ -0.6 -1.0 381 0.5 2.2 0.1 0.0 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 382 0.1 1.8 0.2 0.2 -0.8 -0.9 -1.2 383 -0.4 1.1 0.3 0.0 o1.1 -1.0 -1,2 384 -1.7 0.6 -0.3 -0.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.0 385 -1.2 0.4 -0.5 -0.4 -0.8 -1,1 -1.1 386 0.2 0.9 -0.4 -0.1 -0.7 -1.1 -1.1 387 -1.7 1.2 0.1 0.2 -0.8 -1.1 -1,3 388 -5.3 -1.3 -0.9 -0.6 -1.5 -1.7 -1.4 389 -5.6 -1.5 -1.3 -0.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.3 390 -5.1 -1.7 -1.2 -1.0 -1.8 -1.5 -1.3 391 -4.5 -1.7 -1.2 -1.1 -1.8 -1.5 -1.5 I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-3. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold. New York. 1955 to 1998 cont.) 1955 to 1955 to (regression (using end point method) method) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 392 -4.6 -1.6 -1.0 -1.6 -1.9 -1.6 -1.9 393 -4.6 -1.7 -1.0 -2.1 -2.3 -1.9 -2.3 394 -5,2 -2.6 -2.1 -2.8 -2.7 -2.3 -2.2 395 -4.8 -3,0 -2.7 -3,3 -2.3 -2.5 -2.1 396 -4.1 -2.8 -2.6 -3.4 -2.2 -2.3 -2.0 397 -3.3 -2.0 -2.1 -2.7 -2.0 -2.0 -1.9 398 -2.7 -1.6 -0.6 -1.7 -2.1 -2.0 -1.9 399 -2.1 -1.7 -0.9 -1.4 -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 400 -1.5 -1.2 -1.1 -1.3 -1.8 -1.9 -1.9 401 -1.5 -0.7 -1.1 -1.8 -1.6 -1.8 -1.7 402 -2.9 -1.0 -1.5 -2.2 -1.7 -1.7 -1.1 403 -2.6 -1.4 -1.6 -1.9 -1.7 -0.9 -0.7 404 -0.3 -0.3 -1.2 -1.5 -1.4 0.0 -1.0 405 0.5 0.3 -1.0 -1.6 -1.4 -0.3 -1.1= 406 2.2 1.0! -0.9 -1.2 -1.2 -0.3 -1.2 407 2.6 1.2 -1.1 -2.0 -1.4 -0.2 -1.1 408 3.1: 1,5 -0.8 -1.8 -1.4 -0.1 -0.~ 409 3,~ 2.1 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 0.0 -0.~ 410 4.1 2.~ -0.2 -0.3 -0.9 0.1 -0.~ 411 5.~ 2.5 0.2 0.2 -0.61 0.2 -0.5 412 7.2 2,g 0.~ 0,8 -0,1 0.4 -0.3 413 7.4 2.g 1.£ 0.8 0.1 0.~ -0.3 414 7.7 2.5 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.5 -0.2 415 6.5 2.8 0.8 O.E' 0.1 0.~ -0.1 416 6.3 2.§ 1.C 0.8 0.1 0.8 417 7.~ 2,0 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 0,2 418 7,7 1,2 0.3 0.2 0,4 1.2 0.4 419 7.~ 0.4 0.4 -0.5 0.5 1.2 0.9 Ma~ituck Inlet 423 -25.0 -22,4 -6.4 - 10,5 -9.1 -2.0 -2.2 424 -15.6 -12.3 -8.6 -7.3 -5.7 -2.1 -1.2 425 -16.9 -13.4 -8.6 -6.7 -3.9 -2,2 -1.0 426 -17,6 - 13.9 -8.4 -6.5 -3.6 -2.2 -0.6 427 -16.6 - 13.3 -7.8 -6.2 -2.8 -1.9 -0.3 428 -16.2 -t 2.5 -7.4 -5.9 -2.4 -1.6 0.1 429 -15.5 -11.6 -6.6 -5.7 -1.9 -1.2 0.0 430 -13.8 -9.9 -5.7 -5.2 -1,9 -1.0 -0.1 431 -11.1 -8.0 -4.5 -4.2 -1.8 -0.8 0.1 432 -10.1 -7.0 4.1 -3.8 -1.1 -0.7 0.2 433 -9.6 -6.4 -3.7 -3.8 -0.7 -0.8 0.4 434 -8.7 -6.1 -3.2 -3.7 -0.2 -0.6 0.7 435 -9.2 -5.4 -2.8 -3,3 0.0 -0.3 0.7 436 -9.6 -4.8 -2.5 -3.3 -0.1 -0.3 0.5 437 -9.6 -4.3 ~.4 -3.1 -0.4 -0.3 0.4 438 -8.7 -3.2 -1.9 -2.8 -0.3 -0,3 0.4 439 -7.5 -2.5 -1.5 -2.3 -0.2 -0.3 0.3 440 -6,0 -2.0 -1.6 -2.6 -0.3 0.0 0.2 I I I I I I I I Appendix A-3. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold. New York. 1955 to 1998, cont.) 1955 to 1955 to (regression (using end point method) method) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 441 -5.3 -2.0 -1.9 -3,0 -0.3 0.0 0.0 442 -4.8 -2.3 -2.3 -3.4 -0.6 -0.1 0.0 443 -4.1 -2.5 -2,7 -3.5 -0.4 -0,2 0,0 444 -3.~ -2.6 -3.0 -3.5 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 445 -3.~ -3,1 -3.8 -3.5 -0,5 -0.3 -0.1 446 -3.8 -2.8 -3,6 -3.3 -0.6 -0.2 -0.3 447 -3.~ -2.E' -3.4, -3.2 -1.0 -0.2 0.2; 448 -2.S -1.~ -3.2 -3.5 -0.7 0,4 0.2 449 -2.1 -1,4 -3,3 -3.6 -0.5 0.~ -0.2 450 -0.7 -1.~ -3.3 -3.8 -0.5~ 0.1 -0.~ 451 -0.2 -2.3 -3.4 -4.0 -1,¢~ -0.2 -0.§ 452 0.2 -2.6 -3.2 -4.1; -1.1 -0.5 -0.~ 453 -1.0 -3.0 -3.1 -4.2 -1.3 -0.7 -1.0 454 -1.7 -3.4 -2.S -4.2 -1.2 -0.~ -1.0 455 -2.4 -3.6 -2,3 -4.1 -1.3 -1.0 -1.1 456 -3.8 -3,7 -1.6 -3.~ -1.6 -1.1 -1.1 457 -2.6 -3,1 -1.3 -3.3 -1.6 -1.0 -1.4 458 -1.9 -2.7 -1.7 -2,§ -1.8 -1.1 -1.3 459 -1,7 -3.1 -1.0 -2.8 -1.8 -1.1 -1.4 460 -0.9 -3.3 -0.4 -2.5 -1.8 -1.1 -1.5 461 0.3 -2.7 0.2 -2.0 -1.8 -1.1 -1.5 462 1.7 -1.8 1.0 -1.4 -1.6 -1.1 -1.5 463 3.2 -1.0 1,5 -1.1 -1.5 -1.0 -1.5 464 3.6 -1.4 1.6 -1.2 -1.2 -1.0 -1,4 465 4.1 -1.5 1.7 -1.3 -1.1 -0.9 -1.3 466 2,9 -2.4 1.7 -1,5 -1.3 -0.9 -1.1 467 2.4 -2,5 2.0 -1.2 -1.0 -0,9 -1.0 468 2.3 -3.1 1.4 -1.5 -1.2 -0.7 -1.4 469 0.9 -4,0 0,2 -2.1 -1.9 -1.0 -1.7 470 0.0 -4.3 -0.2 -2.4 -2.2 -1.3 -1.4 471 0.5 -4.4 0,1 -2.5 -1.5 -1.3 -1.2 472 1.7 -4.0 0.6 -2.0 -1.0 -1.2 -0.91 473 3.0 -3.2 0.6 -1.2 -0.6 -0.9 -0.~ 474 3.4 -2.8 1.1 -1.4 -0.6 -0,8 -0.7 475 3.0 -2.7 1.2 -0.9 -0.5 -0.7 -0.4 476 2.0 -2.7 0.8 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 477 1.3 -2.4 0.9 -0.8 -0.5 -0,3 -0.2 478 1.5 -2.~ 0.9 -0.9 -0.4 -0.2 -0.3 479 1,7 -2.3 1.1 -0.9 -0.4 -0.1 -0.6 480 2.~ -2.1 1.¢ -0.8 -0.5 -0.4 -0.6 481 2.~ -2.3 0.~ -1.1 -0.3 -0.6 -0.8 482 4.3 -2.3 0,7 -0.9 -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 483 4.3 -2.1 1.2 -0.3 -0.2 -0.6 -0.7 484 3.S -2.6 1.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.7 -0.4 485 3.1 ~.8 1.5 -0.2 0,C -0.5 -0.1 486 2.4 ~ 2.2 -0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.4 487 2.4 ~ !?~ 2.5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.4 488 2.6 ;~:,~ ~i~ 2.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 489 2.4 !~?i~i ~!~ 1.8 0.2 0.~ -0.1 -0.3 I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-3. Shoreline Change Rates (ft/yr) for Southold, New York, 1955 to 1998 cont.) 1955 to 1955 to (regression (usin~l end point method) method) Transect 1964 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1998 490 2.4 1.9 0.5 -0.2 0.0 -0.4 491 1.7 1.7 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 -0.6 492 1.7 1.9 -0.7 -0.3 -0.3 -0.9 493 1.2 1.3 -1 ~4 -0.6 -0.6 -1.1 494 -0.2 0.8, -2.4 -0.8, -1.0 -1.2 495 -1.7 -0.2 -3.4 -0.~c -1.4 -1 496 -3.7 -1.4 -3,7 -1 .¢ -1.7 -1.7 497 -6.0 -2.8 -4.3 -1 .§ -2.¢ -1.8 498 -6.5 -3.1 -4.0 -2.3 -2.1 -2,0 499 -6.0 -2,6 -4.0 -2.5 -2.2 -1.8 500 -4.9 -2.3 -3.5 -2.3 -1.8 -1 501 -3,8 -1.3 -2,7 -1.9 -1.7 - -1.4 502 -1.7 ' 0.1 -1.6 -1.4 -1.3 -1.5 503 -1.2 0.1 -1.5 -1.3 -1.5 -1.3 504 -1.4 -0.1 -1.1 -1.0 -1.6 -1.0 505 -0.5 ' 0.7 -0.1 -0.6 -1.2 -0.5 506 1.2, - 2.2 0.5 -0.1 -0.5 -0.6 507 1.6 : ~ : 0.7 -0.1 -0.6 -0.8 508 2.7 ~ 0.4 -0.3 -0.7 -1.1 509 2.9 -0.3 -0.7 -0.8 -1.2 510 1.7 -: -0.1 -1.1 -0.8 -0.9 511 0.9 ::' -0.3 -0.9 -0.6 -0.5 512 0.0 -: -0.4 -0.6 -0.3 -0.5 513 -0.2 -0.9 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 514 -0.7 ' : -1.¢ -0.2 -0.5 -0.3 515 -1 .¢ -0.6 0.0~ -0.6 -0.1 516 -0.6 :: -0.1 0.3 -0.4 0.2 517 0.2 0.2 0.6 O.C 0.3 518 -0.6L 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 519 -0.7 , -0.1 O. 1 0.3 0.4 520 -0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 521 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.5 0,6 522 1.2 ~' 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.5 523 0.6 ,~::, 0,8 0.8 0.3 0.4 524 0.0 ~, ~ 0.6 0.2 0.4 525 -1.5 ¢ ..... ~ 0.5 0.1 0.4 526 -0.7 ' : 0.5 0.1 0.2 527 0.9 ,~*-'" ~ ,,'~ 0.4 0.2 0.2 528 0.9 ,,~' * ;3 0.3 0.2 0.C 529 0.1 '*, *, ,~,~,~ *~- , '~*,:¢,~'~ -0.3 0.2 0.2 .......... 0.2 0.3 0.1 531 0.4 533 1.7 ;~ 0.2 O.O 534 0.5 0.2 0.1 ~ 0.2 0.4 535 0.5 536 0.2 ~, ~,;,~';~ ~,~ ~;~ 0.4 0.9 537 0.8 -¢~,¢ ~ ~;~ '~"~' 0.9 1.2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A-4: Shoreline Change Rates for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-4. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 1964 to 1969 to (end point method) (end point method) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 1.4 -1.5 -1.2 ..... ~ 7 -7,2 0.3 -3.0 -0.9 -1.2 5.7 -1,1 0.5 -0.2 8 -7,6 -0.3 -3.1 -0,7 -1,1 4.9 -1.1 0.7 0.1 9 -8.8 -0.5 -3.5 -0.9 -1.0 5.5 -1.C 0.7 0.4 10 -8,4 -1.3 -3.1 -0.7 -0,8 3.8 -0.7 0.9 0.5 11 -11.1 -3.2 -3.5 -1.3 -1.1 2.5 O.C 0.7 0.6 12 -14.1 -5.1 -4.0 -2.0 -1.3 1.4 0.7 0,5 0.9 13 -11.8 -5.2 -4.4 -2.5 -1.4 -0.3 -1.C -0.7 0.3 14 -10.2 -5.7 -4.8 -3,0 -1.6~ -2.6 -2.4 -1.5 -0,1 15 -1.8 -4.2 -4.3 -2.8 -1.5 -6.0: -5.5 -3,0 -1.5 16 0.8 -4.3 -3,8 -2.4 -1.4 -7,~ -5.8 -3.1 -1.8 17 2.6 -2.3 -2.4 -1,6 -0,7 -5.7 -4.7 -2.5 -1.2 18 5.4 -1.0 -2.7 -1.3 -0.7 -5.5 -6,4 -2.7 -1.7 19 7.7 -0.6 -2.1 -1.1 -0.5 -6.5 -6,6 -2.9 -2.1 20 4.2 -2.0 -2.9 -1,7 -1.1 -6,5 -6.1 -2.9 -2.0 21 2,4 -3,6 -3.6 -2.2 -1.~ -7,S -6.3 -3.1 -2.3 22 1.7 -3.8 -3.2 -2,2 -1.g -7.6 -5.5 -3.0 -2.5 23 0.9 -3,8 -3,8 -2.4 -2.C -7.1 -5,9 -3.1 -2.5 24 0.5 -4,1 -4,2 -2.5 -2.1 -7.4 -6.3 -3,1 -2,6 25 -1.3 -4.4 -5.0 -2.7 -2.4 -6,6 -6.7 -3.0 -2.6 26 0.1 -3,8 -4.0 -2.4 -2.2 -6.6 -5.9 -2.9 -2,6i 27 1.5 -3.2 -2.0 -2.3 -2,~ -6,5 -3.6 -3.1 28 1.6 -3.6 -2.0 -2.1 -2.2 -7,3 -3.6 -2.8 -2.~' 29 1.1 -3,4 -1,5 -1.7 -2.0 -6.5 -2.7 -2.3 -2.~ 30 1.4 -2.9 -0.7 -1.6! -1.7 -6,~ -1,6 -2,3 -2.3 31 -0.1 -2.7 -0,2 -1.7 -1.5 -4.6 -0.3 -2,0 -1.7 32 -2.7 -2.5 -0,7 -1.~ -1,5 -2.3 0.3 -1.7 33 -0,9 -2.3 -0.9 -1.7 -1.2 -3.2 -0,9 -1,9 -1.3 34 0.8 -1,2 -0.6 -1.2 -1.0 -2.7 -1.2 -1.6 -1.3 35 3,1 -0,8 -0.2 -0.4 -0.8 -3,5 -1,6 -1.1i -1.5 36 4.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 -0.7 -4,5 -2.8 -1.3 -1.6 37 4,3 -0.5 -0.4 -0.1 -0.7 -4.0 -2,5 -1,1 -1.6 38 2.8 -0.2 -0.7 -0,3 -0,6 -2.2 -2.2 -1.¢ -1,2 39 1.0 -0.3 -0,6 -0,4 -0.8 -1.1 -1.3 -0.7 -1.1 40 1.5 0.1 0,2i -0.1 -1.0 -1.0 -0.3 -0.4 -1,4 41 1.9 1.5 1.~ 0,2 -0.6 1.2 1.9 -0.2 -1.1 42 4,9 2.5 2.4 0.7 -0.7 0.8 1,2 -0.2 -1,6 43 5.4 3.( 1,7 1,C -0.5 2.2 0.0 0.1 -1.5 44 5.3 3.~ 1.2 0.8 -0.8 2.8 -0.6 -0.1 -1.9 45 8.4 4,2 1,2 0,6 -0.8 1.3 -2,1 -1.C -2.4 46 7.8 3.5 0.3 0,1 -0,9 0,4 -3.1 -1.5 -2,4 47 7.4 1.5 -0.6 -0,8 -1,2 -2.6 -4,3 -2.5 -2,7 48 5,1 -0.4 -1.6 -1.2 -1,5 -4.3 -5.0 -2.5 -2.7 49 1.8 -2.C -2.7 -1.5 -2,2 -4.8 -4.8 -2,2 -2,8 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I Appendix A~. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 (cont./ 1964 to 1969 to (end point m~hod) (end point m~hod) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 50 4.2 -1.8 -2.0 -1.3 -2.¢ -6.2 -4.9 -2.4 -3.1 51 2.4 -1.9 -2.2 -1.4 -1.8 -4.9 -4.3 -2.2 -2.6 52 0,6 -1.9 -2.2 -1.~ -1.8 -3.7 -3.5 -2.3 -2.2 53 -2.0 -2.1 -2.4 -2.2 -1.8 -2.2 -2.5 -2.3 -1.8 54 -3.4 -1.5 -2.7' -2.3 -2.0 -0.2 -2.3 -2.0 -1.7 55 -6.0 -2.3 -4.1 -3.C -2.2 0.4 -3.3 -2.3 -1.~ 56 -6.0 -2.2 -3.7 -3.0 -2.3 0.4 -2.6 -2.4 -1.7 57 -5.8 -2.¢ -3,1 -2.8 -2.3 0.7 -1.9 -2.2 -1.7 58 -3.2 -1.2 -2.1 -2.8 -1.9 0.2 -1.6 -2.7 -1.7 59 0.1 -0.7 -1.2 -2.6 -1.6 -1.3 -1.7 -3.2 -1.8 60 0.7' -0.4 -0.5 -2.7 -1.4 -1.3 -1.1 -3.5 -1.7 61 1.C -0.5 0.0 -2.7 -1.3 -1.6 -0.5 -3.5 -1.7 62 1.3 -0.6 -1.3 -2.8 -1.8 -1.9 -2,5 -3.7 -2.3 63 1.3 -0.5 -2.4 -2.9 -2.2 -1.7 -4.0 -3.~ -2.8 64 -1.8 -1.3 -3.6 -3,4 -2.6 -0.9 -4.4 -3.7 -2.7 65 -1.6 -1.7 -4,6 -3.8 -3.1 -1.8 -5.~ -4.3 -3.4 66 1,3 -0.7 -4.2 -3.8 -3.0 -2.2 -6.~ -4.8 -3.8 67 1.2 -1.0 -4.3 -4.1 -3.3 -2.E -6.8 -5.2 -4.1 68 1.1 -1.1 -4.0 -4.2 -3.5 -2.~ -6.3 -5.4 -4.3 69 0.5 -1.0 -4.0 -4.0 -3.3 -2.C -6.0 -4.9 -3.9 70 -0.8 -1.7 -3.7 -1,9 -1.6 -2.2 -5.1 -2.1 -1.8 71 -2.4 -2,0 -3.4 -1.8 -1,( -1.8 -3.9 -1.7 -1.4 72 -0.6 -1.3 -2.3 -1.3 -1.1 -1.8 -3.1 -1.4 -1.1 73 0.8 -1.5 ~4,0 -1.3 -1.7 -3.2 -6.3 -1,7 -2,2 74 1.4 -1.7 -3.8 -1.3 -1.7 -4.0 -6.1 -1.8 -2.2 75 4.0 -1.1 -2.5 -1.C -1.2 -4.7 -5.5 -2.0 -2.1 76 4.6 -1.6 -3.1 -1.5 -1.1 -6.0 -6.7 -2.8 -2.1 77 6.5 -1.6 -2,5 -1.3 -0.8 -7.4 -6.7 -2.9 -2.1 78 6.8 -2.0 -2.3 -1.1 -0.8 -8.2 -6.5 -2.8 -2.1 79 6.3 -2.£ -2.3 -1,0 -0.8 -8.0 -6.2 -2.E -2.0 80 5.6 -2.2 -2.3 -1.1 -0.8 -7,8 -5.9 -2.~ -1.9 81 5.4 -2.1 -2.1 -1.0 -0.8 -7.4 -5.6 -2.4 -1.8 82 6.0 -1.8 -1.9 -0.9 -0.7 -7.4 -5.5 -2.3 -1.8 83 5.3 -2.0 -2.1 -1.0 -0.7 -7.2 -5.5 -2.3 -1.8 84 5,~ -1.8 -2.1 -1.0 -0.7 -7,5 -5.8 -2.4 -1.9 85 5.¢ -2.2 -2.5 -1.1 -0.8 -7.4 -5.~ -2.4 -1.8 86 6.1 -2.9 -2.7 -2.0 -1.1 -9,2 -6.7 -3.7 -2.3 87 5.4 -3.3 -3.1 -2.0 -1.2 -9.5 -7.0 -3.5 -2,3 88 4.3 -3.8 -3.0 -2.2 -1,3 -9.E -6.3 -3.5 -2.3 89 2.3 -4.6 -3.5 -2.9 -1.4 -9.( -6.1 -4.0 -2,1 90 2,4 -5,1 -3.7 -3.3 -2.0 -10.4 -6.5 -4.4 2.7 91 2.3 -5.3 -4.2 -3.6 -2.4 -10.7 -7,2 -4.9 -3.5 92 3.7 -4.9 -4.8 -3.6 -2.6i -11.1 -8.7 -5.2 -3.7 93 3.4 -5.1 -5.6 -3.9 -3.2 -11.2 -9.7 -5.4 -4.3 94 4.6 -5.0 -5.1 -3.6 -3.2 -11.9 -9.6 -5.3 4.5 95 4.8 -5.1 -5.3 -4.0 -3.1 -12.2 -10.0 -5.9 -4.5 96 3.8 -5.8 -5.8 -4.~ -3.3 -12.6 -10.2 -6.0 -4.5 97 4.9 -5.9 -5.4 -3.7 -3.0 -13,5 -10.1 -5.4 -4.3 98 3.7 -5.9 -6.3 -3.~ -2.7 -12.7 -10.9 -5.~ -3.9 I I I ! I I I ! I I I I Appendix A~. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold. New York, 1964 ~ 1998 (cont.) 1964 to 1969 to (end point method) (end point method) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 99 3.7 -5.9 -6,5 -3.8 -2.6 -12.7 -11.1 -5.4 -3.7 100 3.0 -6.3 -6.0 -3.7 -2.2 -13,£ -10.1 -5.G -3.1 101 2.0 -6.6 -5.5 -3.6 -2.2 -12.7 -8.g -4.8 -3.0 102 0.8 -7.5 -5.5 -3.8 -2.7 -13.4 -8.4 -4.6 -3.3 103 -1.6 -7.8 -5.8 -4.0 -3.1 -12.3 -7.8 -4.4 -3,4 104 -2.3 -8.0 -5.8 -4.0 -3.4 -12.1 -7.4 -4.3 -3.5 105 -2,5 -7.1 -5.0 -3.7 -3,2 -10.4 -6.1 -3.9 -3.3 106 -2.4 -6.4 -4.2 -3.6 -3,1 -9.3 -5.0 -3.8 -3.3 107 -2.8 -6,5 -4.3 -3.5 -3.1 -9.1 -5.0 -3.7 -3,2 108 -2.6 -6.2 -4.7 -3.1 -2.~ -8.7 -5.6 -3.2 -3.0 109 0.0 -5.3 -3.9 -2.3 -2.4 -9.1 -5.6 -2.8 -2.8 110 8.6 3.0 1.0 0.C -0.§ -1.0 -2.4 -1.7 -2,5 111 3.3 0.6 0.~ -0.8 -0.5 -1.3 -0.8 -1.4 -1.2 112 -0.5 -0.5 -1.1 -1.4 -1.§ -0.6 -1.4 -1,6 -2.1 113 -4.2 -1.8 -2.1 -2.2 -2.4 -0.2 -1.2 -1.8 -2.1 114 -7.4 -3,3 -3.4 -2.§ -2.8 -0.4 -1.6 -2.0 -2.G 115 -10.3 -4.6 -4.5 -3.6 -3.2 -0,6 -1.9 -2.2 -2.~ 116 -12.1 -6.3 -5.S -4.2 -3.4 -2.2 -3.1 -2.5 -1.~ 117 -13.2 -7.8 -7.2 -4.4 -3.7 -4.0 -4,4 -2.5 -2.1 118 -14.1 -8.4 -7.3 -4.6 -3.7 -4.4 -4.2 -2.6 -1.9 119 -15.2: -8.6 -6.7 -4.7 -3.6 -3.9 -2.9 -2.5 -1.6 120 -15.1 -8.3 -6.5 -4.8 -3.3 -3.5 -2,6 -2.7 -1.3 121 -14.~ -8.1 -6.4 -4.7 -3.1 -3.6 -2.7 -2.7 -1.1 122 -12.8 -8.4 -6,9 -4.9 -3.1 -5.3 -4.2 -3.2 -1.4 123 -14.1 -9.5 -7.6 -5.2 -3.6 -6.2 -4.7 -3.4 -1.7 124 -16.5 -10.3 -8.0 -5.1 -3.7 -5.6 -4.8 -2,7 -1.5 125 -19.5 -11.3 -8.1 -5,2 -3.9 -5.5 -2.~ -2,2 -1.2 126 -19,3 -11.6 -7.7 -5.1 -3.8 -6,0 -2.4 -2.1 -1.1 127 -19.2 -11.1 -7.2 -4.9 -3.7 -5.2 -1.7 -1.9 -1.1 128 -17.2 -10.4 -6.5 -4.4 -3.4 -5.5 -1.6 -1.8 -1.0 129 -14.6 -9.2 -5,2 -3.9 -2.9 -5.3 -0.9 -1.6 -0.9 130 -13.8 -8.7 -4.5 -4.0 -2.7 -5.¢ -0.2 -1.9 -0.8 131 -12.( -7.8 -3.8 -4.0 -2.5 -4.5 0.2 -2.3 -0.8 132 -11.9 -7.2 -3.2 -4.0 -2.1 -3,8 0.9 -2.3 -0.4 133 -13.6 -7.5 -3.1 -4.2 -2.3 -3.1 1.7 -2.3 -0.3 134 -13.8 -7.3 -3.2 -4.2 -2.6 -2.6 1.7 -2.2 -0.7 135 -15.7 -7.4 -4.0 -4.7~ -3.2 -1.5 1.4 -2.4 -1.1 136 -14.1 -7.1 -4.2 -5.¢ -3.4 -2.1 0.3 -3.1 -1.8 137 -14.2 -7.1 -3.9 -5.2 -3.3 -2.1 0.8 -3.3 -1.4 138 -15.2 -6.9 -3.7 -5.1 -3.2 -1.0 1.6 -3.0 -1.2 139 -15.7 -6.6 4.3 -5.1 -3.3 0.0 0.9 -2.9 -1.1 140 -13.3 -6.5 -3~ -4.3 -3.~ -1.6 0.5 -2.4 -1.2 141 -12.5 -7.1 -3.8 -3.§ -2.9 -3.3 0.5 ~.1 -1.3 142 -11.0 -6.£ -2.8 -3.1 -2.5 -2.5 0.9 -1.5 -1.0 143 -13.4 -5.3 -2.2 -2.5 -1.9 0.4 2.9 -0.2 0.1 Goldsmith Inl~ 145 23.3 20.0 13.0 5.4 4.6 17.7 8,3 1.6 1.3 146 21.8 19.4 13,6 5.9 4.8 17.7 9.8 2.5 1.9 I ! I ! I I I Appendix A~. Shoreline Change Rates (Wyr) for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 (cont.) 1964 to 1969 to (end point m~hod) (end point method) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 147 16.7 17.3 12.7 5.9 4.7 17.7 10.8 3.E' 2.7 148 15.2 15.5 11.5 5.5 4.6 15,8 9.6 3.~ 2,7 149 12.9 13,7 10.3 4.6 4.1 14.3 9.2 2.S 2.5 150 9,6 11.6 8.1 3.4 3.5 13.0 7.5 2.1 2.4 151 9.6 9.1 5.8 2.4 2.8 8.7 4.1 0.§ 1.7 152 6.6 7.1 4.4 1.5 2.1 7.4 3.4 0,5 1,3 153 4.0 5.1 3.6 1,0 1.5 5,6 3.4 0.3 1.1 154 6.6 3.7 2,9 0.8 1.3 1,6 1.2 -0,4 0,3 155 4.4 2.0 1.5 0.3 0.~ 0.2 0.2 -0.6 0~3 156 4.1 1.2 0.6 0.0: 0.6 -0.8 -1.0 -0.8 0,2 157 1,1 0.3 0.0~ -0.~ 0.5 -0.2 -0,5 -0.8 0,4 158 -0.7 -0.9 -0.~ -1,¢ -0.1 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 0.0 159 -1,8 -1.8 -1.~ -1.4 -0.5 -1.8 -1.4 -1.3 -0.3 160 -1.5 -2.0 -2,C -1.6 -0.8 -2.3 -2.2 -1.6 -0.6 161 -0.4 -2.3 -1.§ -1.6 -1.0 -3.7 -2.5 -1.9 -1.1 162 -3.3 -2.6 -2.2 -1.7 -1.3 -2.4 -1.7 -1.4 -1,0 163 -6,6 -3.2 -2.6 -2.0 -1.6 -0,8 -0.7 -1,0 -0.7 164 -8.E -3.7 -3.4 -2.4 -1,8 -0.3 -1,0 -1.1 -0.7 165 -7.4 -3.2 -2.9 -1,9 -1.7 -0.2 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8 166 -7.4 -2.9 -2.3 -1.8 -1.6 0.2 0.0 -0,7 -O.R 167 -5.2 -2.6 -2.3 -1,7 -1,7 -0.8 -1.¢ -1.0 -1.1 168 -5,2 -2.6 -1,9 -1.7 -1.4 -0.8 -0.3 -0.9 -0.7 169 -6,6 -3,2 -2.0 -1.8 -1,4 -0,8 0.2 -0.8 -0.5 170 -5.9 -2.9 -1.4 -1,3 -1.1 -0.8 0,7 -0,4 -0.3 171 -4,5 -2~5 -1.0 -0.7 -1,0 -1.¢ 0,5 0.1 -0,4 172 -4.8 -2.5 -1.3 -0,7 -1.3 -0.8 0.4 0,2 -0,6 173 -6.0 -2.9 -1.4 -0.9 -1.4 -0.8 0.7 0.2 -0.6 174 -5.1 -2.9 -1.3 -0,8 -1.6 -1.4 0.5 0.1 -1.0 175 -3.7 -0.6 -1.3 -1.2~ -1.3 1.6 -0,2 -0.7 -0.9 176 -5.2 -2,0 -1.01 -1.6 -1.6 0.2 0.9 -0.9 -1.¢ 177 -4.8 -2.5 -1.~ -2.2 -1.6 -0.8 0.0 -1,6 -1.1 178 -2.9 -2.1 -1.3 -1,6 -1.5 -1.6 -0.5 -1.5 -1.2 179 -3.3 -2.5 -1.4 -1.~ -1.5 -1.9 -0.5 -0.5 -1.2 180 -3.3 -2.3 -1.3 -0.9 -1.4 -1.5 -0.3 -0.4 -1.1 181 -2.2 -1.2 -0.4 -0.8 -1.0 -0.5 0,5 -0,6 -0.8 182 -1.9 0,¢ -0.8 -0.8 -1.1 1,3 -0.3 -0~ -1.0 183 -3,0 -1,4 -0.5 -1.1 -1,1 -0.3 0.7 -0.6 -0.8 184 0.¢ 0.3 -0.6 -0.6 -0.9 0,5 -0.~ -0.7 -1.1 185 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8 -0.9 -1.1 -0.5 -1.¢ -1.~ -17 186 -1,8 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 -1.4 -0.5 -0.7 -1.0 -1.3 187 -3.7 -1.6 -1.4 -1,3 -1.7 0.0 -0,3 -0,9 -1.3 188 -3.3 -1,2 -1.4 -1.4 -1.7 0.2 -0,5 -1,0 -1.4 189 -1.8 -0,6 -1.2 -1.4 -1.5 0.3 -0.9 -1.3 -1.5 190 0.0 -0.6 -1.4 -1.0 -1.1 -1.¢ -2.0 -1.2 -1.3 191 -4.4 -1.5 -1.6 -0.7 -1.1 0.5 -0.3 0.1 ~.5 192 -3.0 -1.2 -1.0 -1.0 -1.1 0.0 -0.2 -0.5 -0.6 193 -4.5 -2.1 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 -0.5 0.2 -0.7 -0.8 194 -4.8 -2.6 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.1 0.3 -0.6 -0.6 195 -2.9 -2.6 -0.~ -1.3 -1.1 -2.4 0.0 -1.0 -0.8 I I I I I I '! I I I I I I Appendix A~. Shoreline Change Rates (Wyr) for Southold. New York. 1964 to 1998 (cont.) 1964 to 1969 to (end point method) (end point method) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 196 -3.6 -1.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 0.3 -0.4 -0.4 197 -4.5 -2.3 -1.4 -0.6 -1.1 -0.8 0.1 0.2 -0,6 198 -5.2 -3.5 -1.7 -0,9 -1.0 -2.4 -0.2 0.0 -0.3 199 -3.7 -3.2 -1.2 -0.8 -0.9 -2.9 0.0, -0.1 -0.4 200 -5.2 -4.0 -1.7 -1.0 -1.4 -3.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.8 201 -5.2 -4.2 -2.0 -0.4 -1.6 -3.4 -0.~ 0.6 -1.0 202 -5.2 -4.6 -2.1 -0.6 -1.7 -4.2 -0.7 0.4 -1.1 203 -4.4 -4.6 -1.7 -0.1 -1.6 -4.7 -0.~ 0.8 -1.t 204 -6.3 -4.9 -1,6 -0.4 -1.7 -4.0 0.5 0.8 -1.0 205 -7.8 -4.8 -1.5 0.1 -1.6 -2.6 1.4 1.7 -0.6 206 -7.7 -4.4 -1.3 -0.1 -1.4 -2.1 1.7 1.5 -0.3 207 -5.6 -2.8 -0.8 0.1 -1.5 -0.8= 1.4 1.3 -0.8 208 -7,4 -3.7 -1.2 0.1 -1.4 -1.1~ 1.7 1.6 -0.4 209 -9.9 -4.6 -1.7 -0.3 -1.7 -0.~ 2.0 1.7 -0.3 210 -10.4 -4.9 -2.0 -0.4 -1.9 -1.C %§ 1.6 -0.4 211 -7.4 -4.2 -1,5 0,3 -1.6 -1.~ 1.2 1.9 -0.6 212 -7.0 -4.0 -1.5 0.0 -1.5~ -1.8 1.0 1,5 -0.6 213 -8.1 -3.7 -1.0 0.1 -1.4 -0.5 2.2 1.8 -0.2 214 -8.1 -2,8 -0.2 0.4 -1.0 1.1 3.4 2.2 0.2 215 -10.0 -2.8 -0.4 0.3 -1.2 2.4 4.0 2.5 0.3 216 -12.9 -3.8 -1.5 -0.4 -1.S 2.7 3.7 2.2 -0.1 217 -13.7 -4.3 -2.0 -0,9 -2,0 2.4 3.4 1.8 0.1 218 -13.3 -4.0 -1.7 -0.8~ -1.S 2.6 3,6 1.8 0.1 219 -14.4 -4.2 -2.1 -1.1 -2.C 3.1 3.6 1.6 0.1 220 -13.7 -4.0 -1,8 -1.1 -1 .§ 2.9 3.6 1.5 0.1 221 -12.5 -4.3 -1.5 -0.~ -1.8 1.6 3.5 1.7 0.1 222 -12.9 -4,3 -1.5 -0.8 -1.7 1.8 3.7 1.7 0.2 223 -15.1 -4.8 -2.3~ -1.4 -2.1 2.6 3.6 1.5 0.2 224 -13.8 -4.0 -1.~ -1.1 -1.9 2.9 3.6 1.6 0.2 225 -14.8 -4.3 -2.1 -1.3 -2.1 3.2 3.7 1.5i 0.1 226 -12.9 -3.7 -1.~ -0.9 -1.9 2.9 3.6 1.E 0.0 227 -13.0 -3,8 -1.~ -0.8 -1.8 2.7 3.2 1.7 0.1 228 -13.4 -4.¢ -2.2 -0.7 -2.1 2.7 2.9 1.~ -0.1 229 -13.4 -3.~ -2.3 -1.0 -2.3 2.9 2.7 1.5 -0.4 230 -11.8 -3.4 -2.5 -1.0 -2,2 2,6 1.8 1.3 -0.5 231 -11.1 -3.2 -2.3 -1,2 42.1 2,4 1.7 0.8 -0.5 232 -10.3 -3.2 -2.1 -1,1 -1.8 1.8 1.7 0.8 -0.4 233 -12.2 -4.3 -2.6 -1.4 -2.1 1.3 1.8 0.8 -0.3 234 -13.0 -4.9 -3.0 -1.3 -2.1 0.8 1.5 1.2 -0.3 235 -12.2 -5.1 -3.5 -1.3 -2.3 0.0 0,5 1.0 -0,6 236 -10.8 -4.8 -3.3 -0.2 -2.1 -0.5 0.2 2.6 -0.6 237 -8.6' -4.0 -2.7 0.1 -2.0 -0.8 0.0 1.9 -0.8 238 -8.1 -4.4 -2.9 -0.6 -2,2 -1.8 -0.5 1.0 -1.1 239 -9.2 -4.8 -3.0 -0.4 -2.2 -1.6 -0.2 1.5 -1.0 240 -7.8 -4.3 ~.3 -0.8 -1.9 -1.8 0.2~ 0.7 -0.8 241 -8.8 -4.6 -2.6 -0.7 -1.9 -1.8 0.2 1.0 -0.7 242 -10.1 -4.5 -2,5 -1.0 -1.9 -0.5 1.¢ 0.9 -0.5 243 -10.4 -4,6 -2.6 -1.1 -2.0 -0.5 1.¢ 0.8 -0.6 244 -10.0 -4.8 -2,4 -1.3 -1.9 -1.0 1.¢ 0.5 -0,5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-4. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 (cont.) 1964 to 1969 to (end point method) (end point method) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 245 -10.7 -4.6 -2,3 -1.2 -2,0 -0.3 1.5 0.8 -0.5 246 -10.3 -4,5 -2.1 -1.4 -2.0 -0,3 1,7 0.5 -0.5 247 -9,6 -4.6 -2.0 -1,3 -1,9 -1.1 1.5 0.4 -0,6 248 -8,~ -4,4 -2.2 -1.3 -1.9 -1.3 0,9 0.3 -0.7 249 -9.~ -4.2 -2.3 -1.1 -1.9 -0.2 1.0 0.7 -0.6 250 -8.1 -3.8 -2,1 -0,9 -1.8 -0.8 0.7 0.~ -0,7 251 -8,2 -3.9 -2.2 -0.6 -1.9 -0.8 0,5 1,¢ -0.8 252 -7.8 -3.7 -2.3 -0.6 -1,9 -0.8 0,2 0,S -0.8 253 -6.5 -3.5 -2,1 -0.8 -1.7 -1.3 0.0 0,5 -0.9 254 -7.0 -3.5 -2.2 -0,9 -1.8 -1.0 0,0 0.3 -0,9 255 -6.7 -3.3 -2.2 -1.3 -1,8 -0.8 -0.2 -0.2 -1,0 256 -3.7 -2.2 -1.3 -1.0 -1,4 -1,1 -0.2 -0,5 -1.0 257 -2.6 -1.7 -0,8 -0,8 -1.4 -1.1 0.¢ -0.5 -1.1 258 -3.0 -1.7 -0.9 -0.8 -1,4 -0.8 0.¢ -0.3 -1.1 259 -1.8 -1.1 -0.8 -0.6 -1.3 -0,5 -0.3 -0.3 -1,1 260 -1,9 -1.1 -0.7 -0.8 -1,3 -0,~ -0.2 -0.5 -1.1 261 -0.7 -1.1 -0.6 -0.3 -1.2 -1.3 -0.5 -0,2 -1.3 262 0.0 -0,8 -0.1 -1,1 -1.1 -1.3 -0.2 -1,3 -1.3 263 0.4 -0,8 -0,5 -1,1 -1.0 -1.6 -0,8 -1,4 -1.3 264 0.0 -0,9 -0.7 -1.5 -1.0 -1.6 -1.0 -1.8 -1.2 265 -2.2 -1,7 -1.0 -1.5 -1.2 -1.3 -0.5 -1.4 -1,0 266 -4.0 -1.7 -0.9 -1.5 -1.2 -0.1 0.5 -0,9 -0,7 267 -3.3 -1.4 -0.7 -1.2 -1.0 -0.1 0.5 -0.8 -0.6 268 -1,5 -1.2 -0,? -1.1 -0.8 -1,1 -0.3 -1,0 -0.7 269 -1,9 -2.¢ -1.3 -1.5 -1.3 -2.1 -1.0 -1.5 -1.2 270 0.3 -1.2 -0.~ -1.2 -1.2 -2.4 -%5 -1.5~ -1,5 271 2.6 0.C -0.1 -0.7 -0,8 -1.9 -1.4 -1.4 -1,3 272 2.2 0,1 0.2 ~0.1 -0.3 -1,3 -0.7 -0,5 -0.7 273 1.9 0.1 0,6 -0,1 -0.4 -1.1 -0.1 -0,5 -0.8 274 0.7 -0.3 0,0 -0,4 -1.0 -1,1 -0.4 -0.6 -1.3 275 1.8 -0,6 -0,2 -0,3 -1.1 -2,4 -1.2 -0,7 -1.7 276 1.~ -0.8 -0.6 -0.1 -1,1 -2.4 -1.5 -0.4 -1,5 277 0,4 -0.9 -0.9 -0,6 -1.1 -1,9 -1.5 -0.8 -1.4 278 1.5 -0.1 -0,3 -0.4 -1.6 -1.3 -1.2 -0.8 -2.1 279 0,4 -0,5 -0.6 0.1 -1.5 -1,1 -1.0 0.0 -1,8 280 -1.1 -1,5 -0,7 -0,3 -1.7 -1.8 -0.~ -0,2 -1.8 281 -3.1 -2.1 -1.2 -0.9 -1,6 -1.8 -0,4 -0.7 -1.4 282 -4.4 -2.9 -1.6 -1.7 -1,5 -1.8 -0.3 -1.1 -0,9 283 -3,9 -2.7 -1,6 -1,3 -1.3 -1,9 -0.6 -0.8 -0,8 284 -3.1 -2.9 -1.5 -1.2 -1.2 -2,7~ -0.6 -0.8 -0,9 285 -0.9 -2.2 -0.8 -0.5 -0.9 -3.1 -0,6 -0.4 -0.9 286 -0,8 -2.2 -1.0 -0,6 -0.~ -3.1 -1.1 -0,6 -0.8 287 -0.4 -1.8 -0.6 -0.7 -0.~ -2.7 -0.6 -0,7 -1,¢ 288 -0,9 -2.0 -0,9 -0,8 -1,1 -2,7 -1,0 -0,8 -1,1 289 -0.5 -2.1 -0,8 -0,9 -1,1 -3,3 -1.0 -1.0 -1.2 290 -0.5 -2.4 -1.1 -0.8 -1.2 -3,7 -1,4 -0,9 -1,3 291 -1,4 -2,3 -1,2 -1,¢ -1,2 -3.0 -1.1 -0,9 -1.1 292 2.1 -1.8 -O.E ~0.? -1,0 -4.6 -2.2 -1.3 -1,6 293 5.1 -1.11 -0.1 -0.~ -0.8 -5.6 -2.5 -1.7 -1.8 I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-4. Shoreline Chan~e Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 (cont.) 1964 to 1969 to (end point method) (end point m~hod) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 294 5.2 -0.7 -0.4 -0,5 -0,6 -4.9 -3,0 -1,7 -1.6 295 5.2 -2.0 -0.6 -0,7 -0.6 -7.1 -3,2 -1,9 -1.9 296 5.6 -2.0 -0.5 -0,4 -0.6 -7.3 -3.3 -1.6 -1.9 297 6.5 -1.8 -0,3 -0,1 -0.6 -7.7 -3.3 -1,4 -1.8 298 5.2 -1.6 -0.5 0,1 -0.6 -6,5 -3.2 -1.0 -1.6 299 3.9 -1.4 -0,9 -0.3 -0,6 -5.2 -3.1 -1.2 -1.3 300 5.6 -0.7 -0,7 -0,3 -0.~ -5,2 -3.6 -1.5 -1.5 301 4.7 -1.1 -1.0 -0.3 -0.6 -5.2 -3.6 -1.3 -1.7 302 6.9 -0,2 -0.4 0.1 -0,~ -5.2 -3,8 -1.4 -1,8 303 6.5 0,2 -0.1 0,5 -0.2 -4.3 -3.1 -0.7 -1,4 304 6,8 0.3 0.5 0,4 -0,4 -4,4 -2.4 -1.0 -1.7 305 5.1 0.0 0.4 -0,1 -0,6 -3.6 -1.8 -1.2 -1.5 306 3.8 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.8 -2.4 -1,8 -1.3 -1.6 307 -0,5 0.3 -0,6 -1.0 -0.9 0.9 -0.6 -1,1 -1,0 308 -2.3 0.4 -0.5 -1.2 -1.C 2.2 0,3 -1.0 -0,8 309 -2.1 0.9 -1.2 -1.1 -1.3 3.0 -0,8 -0.9 -1.1 310 -2.6 0.6 -1.2 -1.0 -1.1 2.9 -0.6 -0,7 -0.91 311 -1.3 -0,2 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 0,6 -0.6 .0,8 -0.8I 312 -0,5 1.0 -1,2 -1.2 -1.C 2,1 -1.6 -1,4 -1.1 I 313 -1,7 0.5 -1,2 -1,41 -1.3 2.2 -0.9 -1,3 -1.2 314 -1.8 0.5 -0,8 -1,0i -1.1 2.1 -0.4 -0,8 -1.C 315 -2.2 1.4 -0,6 -1,2 -1.4 3.9 0.2 -1.0 -1.3 316 -3.1 0,2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.6 2.5 -0,5 -1.3 -1.3 317 -6,4 -1,1 -1.8 -2.¢ -2.0 2.7 0.4 -1.1 -1.2 318 -7,3 -1.9 -2.0 -2,1 -2.1 1,9 0.4 -1.1 -1.2 319 -8.1 -1.6 -1.8 -2,1 -2,0 3.0 1.1 -0.8 -1.C 320 -6.1 -0.9 -1.4 -1.~ -2,0 2.7 0.7 -1.0 -1.3 321 -4.3 -0.1 -1.6i -1.~ -1.9 2.9 -0.4 -1,4 -1.6 322 -2,9 0,2 -1,3 -2.1 -1.8 2.3 -0.6 -1,9 -1.6 323 -3.1 -0.4 -1,¢ -1.6 -1.8 1,6 0.0 -1.3 -1.5 324 -3.5 -0.6 -1.2 -1.4 -1,8 1.5 -0.2 -1.0i -1.5 325 -2.2 -0.3 -0,8 -1.2 -1.6 1.0 -0.2 -1~1 -1.5 326 -2.5 -0.91 -0.1 -1.1 -1.6 0.3 1.0 -0,6 -1,4 327 -1.7 0.01 -0.7 -1,C -1.6 1.2 -0.3 -0.~ -1.6 328 -0.9 0.2 -0.7 -0.8 -1.5 1.0 -0.6 -0.8 -1.6 329 -1.3 0.2 -0.4 -0.9 -1.4 1.2 0.0 -0.8 -1,4 330 -2.0 -0.3 -0.5 -1.4 -1,4 0,9 0.2 -1.3 -1,3 331 -1.2 0,4 0.1 -1.2 -1.0 1.5 0.7 -1.2 -1.0 332 -1.4 -0.1 -0.1 -1.4 -1~1 0,9 0.4 -1,4 -1.1 333 -0,5 -0.1 0.2 -1.4 -0,8 0.3 0,6 -1,6 -0.9 334 0.0 0.3 0.4 -1,3 -0.7 0.5 0.6 -1,6 -0.8 335 0.4 0.2 0,7 -1,1 -0,7 0.1 0.8 -1.4 -0,9 336 -0,2 0~3 0.3 -1.0 -0~9 0,6 0.5 -1.2 -1.0 337 -0.4 0.5 0.2 -0.9 -1.1 1.1 0.6 -1.C -1,2 338 -0,9 0,9 0.3 -0.7 -1,1 2,2 0.8 -0.7 -1,2 339 -1,3 0.9 0,2 -0.8 -1.1 2.4 0,8 -0.4 -1,0 340 -1.7 0.9 0.5 -0.2 -0.9 2.7 1,6 0,1 -0.8 341 -1,T 0.9 0.6 -0,2 -1,1 2.7 1.6 0,1 -1,0 342 -4.2 1.1 1.1 -0.3 -0.9 4.8 3,5 0,5 -0.4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-4. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 (cont.) 1964 to 1969 to (end point method) (end point method) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 343 -3.4 1.5 1.3 -0.1 -0.9 4.9 3.50.6 -0.4 344 -1.7 2.5 2.0 0.2 -0.7 5.6 3.6 0.6 -0.5 345 -1.3 2.7 2.0 0.2 -0.6 5.5 3.6 0.4 -0.5 346 -1.7 2.2 1.6 -0.4 -0.9 4.~ 3.2 -0.1 -0.8 347 -0.1 2.5 1.5 -0.1 -0.7 4.4 2.2 -0.1 -0.8 348 1.2 2.3 1.6 -0.1 -0.5 3.C 1.8 -0.3 -0.8 349 -0.2 1.6 1.4 -0.5 -0.5 2.§ 2.0 -0.6 -0.6 350 -0.8 1.3 0.8 -0.4 -0.6 2.7 1.5 -0.3 -0.6 351 -2.1 1.6 1.3 -0.1 -0.6 4.2 2.8 0.3 -0.4 352 -2.5 1.4 1.1 -0.2 -0.6 4.2 2.7 0.3 -0.2 353 -2.1 1.4 1.1 -0.5 -0.8 3.9 2.5 -0.2 -0.6 354 -0.9 2.3 1.9 -0.6 -0.6 4.6 3.1 -0.5 -0.~ 355 -1.2 3.2 1.~ -0.3 -0.6 6.4 3.3 -0.1 -0.5 356 -0.8 2.5 1.8 0.0 -0.5 4.8 2.9 0.2 -0.4 357 -0.9 1.8 1.5 -0.1 -0.4 3.7 2.5 0.1 -0.3 358 -1.3 0.7 1.6 0.1 -0.3 2.1 3.3 0.4 -0.1 359 -1.6 0.9 2.1 0.2 -0.2 2.7 3.7 0.5 0.0 360 -2.2 0.9 1.9 0.0 -0.5 3.1 3.8 0.5 -0.2 361 -2.2 0.7 1.9 -0.3 -0.7 2.7 3.8 0.1 -0.4 362 -1.7 1.5 2.0 -0.2 -0.6 3.8 3.8, 0.1 -0.4 363 -2.6 0.6 1.7 -0.5 -0.4 2.8 3.7 -0.1 -0.1 364 -2.6 1.4 1.6 -0.6 -0.4 4.3 3.5 -0.2 0.0 365 -2.2 1.2 1.7 -0.7 -0.5 3.6 3.5 -0.4 -0.2 366 -2.6 1.3 1.6 -0.7 -0.6 4.1 3.6 -0.3 -0.2 367 -2.6 0.3 1.7 -0.7 -0.5 2.4 3.7 -0.4 -0.1 368 -2.6 1.3 2.2 -0.5 -0.3 4.0, 4.4 -0.1 0.1 369 -1.7 1.1 2.2 -0.3 -0.4 3.1 3.9 0.0 -0.1 370 -1.3 1.4 1.7 -0.9 -0.6 3.4 3.1 -0.8 -0.4 371 -2.1 1.9 1.4 -1.5 -0.9 4.7 2.9 -1.3 -0.7 372 2.2 2.5 1.2 -1.9 -0.~ 2.7 0.8 -2.8 -1.5 373 3.9 1.6 1.2 -1.~ -0.~ -0.1 0.0 -2.8 -1.7 374 3.0 0.9 0.7 -1.5 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -2.4 -1.5 375 2.6 0.1 0.1 -1.4 -0.9 -1.8 -1.2 -2.2 -1.6 376 3.6 -0.5 -0.1 -1.1 -0.7 -3.4 -1.8 -2.1 -1.4 377 5.6 -0.9 0.1 -0.9 -0.5 -5.5 -2.4 -2.2 -1.6 378 6.0 -0.2 0.1 -1.0 -0.8 -4.7 -2.6 -2.4 -1.9 379 6.5 -0.4 0.4 -1.3 -1.1 -5.3 -2.4 -2.~ ~.4 380 5.5 0.4 -0.1 -1.0 -1.0 -3.3 -2.6 -2.4 -2.1 381 5.0 -0.2 -0.3 -1.0 -1.1 -4.0 -2.7 -2.2 -2.1 382 5.0 0.3 0.2 -1.0 -1.1 -3.0 -1.9 -2.3 -2.2 383 3.~ 0.§ 0.3 -1.2 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4 -2.3 -2.1 384 4.7 0.7 0.7 -1.0 -1.0 -2.1 -1.2 -2.2 -2.0 385 3.3 0.0 0.1 -0.7 -1.1 -2.4 -1.4 -1.5 -1.8 386 2.2 -0.9 -0.2 -1.0 -1.4 -3.0 -1.3 -1.7 ~.0 387 6.4 1.4 1.2 -0.6 -1.0 -2.2 -1.2 ~.0 -2.3 388 5.9 2.3 2.0 -0.4 -0.7 -0.3 0.2 -1.7 -1.9 389 5.7 2.0 1.8 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 0.0 -1.9 -1.7 390 4.4 1.6 1.3 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 -1.9 -1.4 391 3.3 1.2 0.8 -0.9 -0.7 -0.4 -0.4 -1.8 -1.4 I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A~. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 (cont.) 1964 to 1969 to (end point method) (end point method) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 392 3.8 1.8 0.1 -1.1 -0.E 0.3 -1.6 -2.1 -1.6 393 3.4 1.6 -0.7 -1.6 -1.2 0.4 -2.6 -2.7 -2.0 394 2.1 0.1 -1.5 -1.9 -1.~ -1.3 -3.2 -2.8 -2,2 395 0.2 -1,2 -2.5 -1.6 -1.~ -2.2 -3.7 -1.9 -2.2 396 -0.4 -1.4 -2.9 -1.6 -1.8 -2,2 -4.1 -1.9 -2.1 397 0.3 -1,3 -2,3 -1,6 -1.7 -2.4 -3.6 -2.0 -2.0 398 0.4 0.9 -1.1 -1.8 -1.6 1.3 -1.7 -2.3 -2.1 399 -0.8 0,0 -1.1 -1.8, -1,6 0,6 -1.2 -2.0 -2.0 400 -0.8 -0.9 -1.2 -1.9i -2.C -0.9 -1.4 -2.1 -2.2 401 0.5 -0,9 -2.0 -1.6 -1.9 -1.8 -3.2 -2.1 -2.4 402 2.2 -0.6 -1.8 -1.5 -1.5 -2.5 -3.6 -2.1 -2.1 403 0.9 -0.9 -1.5 -1.4 -0.5 -2.2 -2.6 -1.9 -0.7 404 -0.4 -1.9 -2.2 -1.7 0.0 -3.0 -3.0 -2.0 0.1 405 -0.1 -2.1 -2.7 -2.£ -0.5 -3.6 -3.9 -2.4 -0.6 406 -1.0 -3.1 -3.1 -2.2 -1.0 -4.6 -4.1 -2.5 -1.01 407 -1.3 -3.8 -4.6 -2.7 -0.9 -5.5 -6.1 -3.0 -O,E 408 -1.3 -3,8 -4.6 -2.7 -0.§ -5.5 -6.1 -3.0 -0.8 409 -0.9 -4,1 -3.5 -2.5 -0.9 -6.5 -4.7 -2.8 -1.0 410 -0.9 -3,4 -2.8 -2.4 -1.0 -5,2 -3.7 -2.8 -1.0 411 -3.0 -3.8 -2.8 -2.5 -1.3 -4.4 -2.7 -2.3 -1.0 412 -4.7 -3.9 -2.9 -2.3 -1.3 -3.4 -2.0 -1.8 -0.7 413 -5.1 -3,8 -2.9 -2.1 -1.3 -2.9 -2.0 -1.5 -0.6 414 -6.9 -4.3 -3.4 -2,2 -1.3 -2.4 -1.8 -1.2 -0.4 415 -3.8 -3.4 -2,71 -1.9 -0.9 -3.1 -2.2 -1.5 -0.4 416 -3.0 -3.0 -2.61 -1.8 -0,6 -3.0 -2.3 -1.6! -0.2 417 -6.9 -3.6 -3.1' -1.8 -0.9 -1.2 -1.3 -0.7 0.2 418 ~ii~'!~i~ii!; -4.0 -4.¢ -1,8 -0.6 0.4 -1.2 -0.1 1.1 419 -4,4 -4.7 -1.5 -0.4 0.6 -1.5 0.5 1.5 Maffitucklnlet 423 -2.4 -4.2~'~*~'~;~'~ 4.5 -1.3~;~*~ 424 -6.4 -3.5 -2.6 -2.7 1.4 -1.3 -0.9 -1.9 2.7 425 -7.2 -2.5 -1.6 0.1 1.7 0.9 1.8 1.6 3,2 426 -7.3 -1.6 -0,3 0.7 1.8 2.4 2.9 2.3 3.4 427 -7.4 -1.6 -0.3 1.5 1.9 3.1 3,0 3.3 3.6 428 -6.0 -0.9 -0.1 1.8 2,2 2.8 2.6 3.4 3.6 429 -4.7 0.0 -0.2 2.3 2.5 3.4 1.8 3.8 3.8 430 -3.0 0,4 -0.4 1.7 2.4 2.8 0.8 2.7 3.3 431 -2.6i 0.3 -0.3 1.0 1.9 2.4 0.8 1.8 2.7 432 -1.61 0.4 -0.3 1.6 1.7 1.8 0.3 2.3 2.3 433 -0.~ 0.7 -0.6 2.0 1.5 1.8 -0.5 2.6 1.9 434 -1.7 0.§ -0.9 2.4 1.5 2.8 -0.~ 3.2 2.0 435 1.6 1.9 -0.1 2.8 2.0 2.4 -0.6 3.1 2.2 436 4.6 2.7 0.3 2.8 2.2 1.9 -1.4 2.6 1.8 437 5.1 3.0 0.5 2.4 2.1 1.5 -1.6 1.8 1.6 438 6.5 3.2 0.5 2.3 1.9 0.8 -2.2 1.4 1.1 439 6.5 2,9 0.6 2.0 1.6 0.3 -2.1 1.1 0.8 440 5.2 1.6 -0.6 1.4 1.6 -0.9 -3.3 0.6 1.0 ! I I I I I I I I Appendix A-4. Shoreline Change Rates (~¥r) for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 (cont.1 1964 to 1969 to (end point method) (end point method) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 441 3.9 0.7 -1.8 1.2 1.4 -1.6 -4.4 0.6 1.0 442 2.2 -0.4 -2.6 0.7 1.1 -2.3 -4.7 0.4 0.9 443 0.4 -1.6 -3.2 0.7 0.9 -3.1 -4.8 0.8 1.0 444 -0,4 -2.3 -3.2 0.8 0.7 -3.E -4.5 1.1 0.9 445 -1.6 -3.7 -3,2 0.5 0.8 -5.2 -4,0 1.0 1.0 446 -0.9 -3.5 -3.0 0.4 0.8 -5.3 -4.0 0.6 1.0 447 -1,0 -3.3 -3.0 -0.2 0.7 -4.§ -3.9 -0.1 1.0 448 0.0 -3.4 -3.9 0.0 1.3 -5.8 -5.7 0.0 1.6 449 0.0 -4.1 -4.5 O.C 1.3 -7.1 -6.5 0.0 1.5 450 -3.9 -5.2 -5.5 -0.4 0.3 -6.1 -6,3 0.4 1.0 451 -5.9 -5.8~ -6.2 -1.2 -0.2 -5.6 -6.3 -0.2 0.7 452 -7.7 -5.7 -6.4 -1.6 -0.7 -4.3 -5.9 -0.3 0.5 453 -6.6 -4.7 -5.~ -1.3 -0.6 -3.4 -5.7 -0.3 0.£ 454 -6.5 -3,8 -5,6 -1.0 -0.7 -1.9 -5.1 0.2 0.3 455 -5.6 -2.1 -5.0 -1.0 -0.6 0.3 -4.8 0.0, 0.2 456 -3.5i 0.0 -3.8 -0.9 -0.4 2,5 -4.0 -0.4 0.1 457 -3.8 -0.3 -3.6 -1.3 -0.6 2.2 -3.5 -0.8 -0.1 458 -4.¢ -1.6 -3.5 -1.8 -0.9 0.1 -3.3 -1.3 -0,4 459 -5.8 -0.6 -3.4 -1.8 -1,0 3.1 -2.4 -1.0 -0.2 460 -7.4 0.0 -3.4 -2.1 -1.1 5.2 -1.8 -1.0 -0.1 461 -8.1 0.2 -3.3 -2.5 -1.4 6.0 -1.1 -1.3 -0.3 462 -8.2 0.5 -3.1 -2.7 -1.8 6.7 -0,8 -1.5 -0.7 463 -8.6 0,2 -3.5 -2.9 -2.1 6,4 -1.2 -1.7 -1.0 464 -10.2 0.2 -3.9 -2.7 -2.2 7.7 -1,0 -1.2 -0.8 465 -11.( 0.0 -4.3 -2.7 -2.2; 8.3 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 466 -12.0 0,7 -3.9 -2.6 -1.8 9.8 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 467 -11.1 1.8 -3.2 -2.1 -1.7 11.C 0,4 -0.2 -0.1 468 -12.7 0.7 -3.6 -2.3 -1.4 10.3 0.6 -0.1 0.5 469 -12.8 -0.3 -3.7 -2.7 -1.5 8.7 0.4 -0.6 0.5 470 -12.1 -0.4 -3.8 -2.8 -1.6 8.0 -0.1 -0.9 0.2 471 -13.0 -0.2 -4.1~ -2.2 -1.8 8.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 472 -14.3 -0.2 -4.1 -1.9 -2.0 9.9 0.6 0.7 0,1 473 -14.2 -1.1 -3,6 -1.7 -1.9 8.2 1.3 0.~ 0.2 474 -13.8 -0.6 -4.~ -1.9 -1.9 8.9 0.4 0.8 0.2 475 -12.9 -0.1 -3.6 -1.6 -1.6 9,2 1.5 0.6 0.3 476 -10.~ -0.1 -1.6 -1.0 -1.0 7.7 2.6 1.6 0.7 477 -9.1 0.7 -2.0 -1.0 -0,7 7.6 1.2 0.7 0.7 478 -10.7 0.6 -2.2 -1.0 -0.6 8.6 1.~ 1.1 12 479 -9.4 0.7 -2.4 -1.0 -0.6 8.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 480 -10.7 -0.3 -2.8 -1.5 -1.2 7.1 0.8 0.4 0.5 481 -11.6 -0.9 -3.1 -1.2 -1.4 6.4 0.5 0.9 02 482 -14.( -1.9 -3.8 -1.9 -1.9 6.7 1.6 0.6 0.1 483 -13.4 -1.1 -2,9 -1,7 -1.8 7.8 2.0 0.8 0.2 484 -14.1 -1,1 -2.6 -1.4 -1.~ 8.2 2.8 1.3 0,2 485 -13.3 0.2 -2,1 -1.0 -1.8 9.9 3.0 1.6 0.~ 486 ~ 2.0 -1.5 -0.5 -0.§ 487 ~;~: ~i~ 2.5 -1.6 -1.~ -0.8 488 i~i~i~ 1,9 -1.4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-4. Shoreline Change Rates (ft/¥r) for Southold, New York, 1964 to 1998 (cont.) 1964 to 1969 to (end point method) (end point method) Transect 1969 1976 1980 1993 1998 1976 1980 1993 1998 490 1.5 -0.5 -1.0 -0.6 491 1 .E -1.1 -0.§ -0.5 ' 492 2.1 -2.0 -1.0 -0.8 493 1.4 -2.8 -1.1 -1.1 494 1 .(~ -3.6 -1.0 -1.2 495 O.C~ -4.3 -0.6 -1.3 496 0.2 -3.8 -0.2 -1.1 497 -0.~ -3.4 -0.6 -1.0 498 -0.6 -2.6 -1.0 -1.0 499 0.~ -2.8 -1.4 -1.2 500 ;: -0.~ -2.7 -1.5 -1.0 501 ' 0.7 -2.C -1.3 -1.1 502 1.5 -1.6 -1.3 -1.2 503 504 0.8 -1.0 -0.8 -1.6 505 1.6 0.1 -0.7 -1.4 506 2.~ 0.2 -0.5 -1.0 507 ' 0.2 -0.7 -1.1 508 -0.8 -1.2 -1.6 509 , -2,0 -1.8 -1.8 510 ' -1.1 -2.0 -1.5 511 -1.0 -1.5 -1.0 512 : ~ -0.5 -0.8 -0.4 513 -1.2 -0.5 -0.4 514 -, ~- -1.1 0.0 -0.4 515 -0.4 0.3 -0.4 516 0.2 0.6 -0.4 517 0.2 0.7 -0.1 , ::;: ~(~' ~; 518 0.5 0.4 0.4 519 0.2 0.3 0.5 520 0.8 0.7 0.6 521 ~ 0.9 1.1 0.5 522 ~ 0.9 0.7 0.3 523 :':~ 0.9 0.9 0.2, 524 : ~ ~ ,~ 0.8 0.2 525 ~ 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.3 526 ~ 527 ~ 0.2 0.1 528 ~ <~ ,~ ~:~ ~ 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 - 531 F ~: I I I I I I I Shoreline Change Rates for I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I APPENDIX A-5: Southold, New York, 1976 to 1998 AppendixA-5. ShorelineChan~eRates(~yr)forSouthold. NewYork, 1976to1998 1993 1976 1980 (end pt. (end point method) (end point method) method) Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 5 -10.7 -3.0 -2.4 -0.7 -0.7 -0.4 6 -14.1 -2.8 -2.5 0.6 0.0 -1.6 7 -13.2 -1.7 -2.1 1.7 0.3 *3.4 8 -11.7 -1.C -1.5 2.2 0.7 -3.1 9 -12.7 -1.2 -1.2 2.2 1.3 -1.2 10 -8,8 -0.3 -0.5 2.2 1.5 -1.2 11 -4.5 0.C 0.0 1,3 1.C 0.2 12 -0.5 0.1 0.7 0.3 1.C 2.7 13 -1.6 -0.7 0,7 -0.5 1.1 3.9 14 -2.1 -1,1 0.7 -0.8 1.3 6.7 15 -4.6 -1.7 0.0 -0.9 1.0 5.8 16 -2,2 -1.1 0.2 -0.7 0,7 4.4 17 -3.0 -1.2 0.2 -0.6 0.9 4.~ 18 -7.8 -1.5 -0.5 0.3 1.1 3.C 19 -6.8 -1,5 -0,7 0.2 0,7 1.§ 20 -5.5 -1.4 -0.6 -0.2 0.5 2.2 21 -3.5 -1.2 -0.5 -0.5 0.1 1.6 22 -1.5 -1.0 -0.8 -0.9 -0.6 0.1 23 -3.E -1.4 -1.1 -0.7 -0.5 0.2 24 -4.3 -1.3 -1.0 -0.5 -0.3 0.1 25 -6,8 -1,6 -1,3 0.0 -0.2 -0.6 26 -4.8 -1.4 -1.3 -0.4 -0.6 -1.1 27 1.5 -1.6 -1.4 -2.6 -2,0 -0.5 28 3.a -1,0 -1.4 -2.2 -2.4 -2.7 29 4.1 -0.6 -1.3 -2,c .2,5 -3.9 30 6.3 -0.7 -1.1 -2.6 -2.7 -2.3 31 7.5 -0,9 -0,8 -3.4 -2.6 -0.5 32 5.0 -1.4 -0.9 -3.3 -2,2 0.7 33 3.2 -1.4 -0.7 -2,7 -1,5 1.6 34 1.5 -1.2 -0,8 -2.0 -1.3 0.4 35 1.7 -0,2 -0.8 -0,7 -1.4 -3.c 36 0.4 0.1 -0.7 0.0 -0.§ -3.~ 37 0.1 0.1 -0.9 0.1 -1.1 -4.2 38 -2.3 -0.5 -0.9 0.0 -0.6 -2.2 39 -1.7 -0.6 -1.1 -0.2 -1.0 -2.9 40 0.8 -0.2 -1.5 -0.5 -2.0 -6.1 41 3.1 -0.7 -1.~ -1.9 -2.8 -5.3 42 2.0 -0.6 -2.4 -1.4 -3.4 -8.5 43 -4.0 -0.7 -2.7 0.2 -2.4 -9.2 44 -6.8 -1.4 -3.4 0.3 -2.6 -10.2 45 -8.1, -1.9 -3.6 -0.1 ~.6 -9.3 46 -9.3 -2.2 -3.3 -0.1 -2.0 -6.8 47 -7.3 -2.5 -2.7 -1.1 -1.7 -3.6 48 -6.1 -1.8 -2.1 -0.5 -1.3 -3.3 49 -4.7 -1.2 -2.2 -0.1 -1.7 -5.8 I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I Appendix A-5. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold, New York, 1976 to 1998 (cont.) 1993 1976 1980 (endpt. (end point method) end point method) method) Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 50 -2.E~ -0,9 -2.1 -0.4 -2.0 -6.1 51 -3.2 -1.1 -1.9 -0.4 -1.7 -4.6 52 -3.1 -1.6 -1.7 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 53 -3,2 -2.3 -1.7 -2.0 -1.3 0.6 54 -6.2 -2.8 -2.2 -1.8 -1.3 -0.2 55 -9.6 -3.4 -2.2 -1.5 -0.6 2.1 56 -8.1 -3.6 -2.4 -2.2 -1.2 1.6 57 -6.5 -3.4 -2.4 -2.4 -1.5 0.9 58 -4.6 -3.9 -2.3 -3.7 -1.7 3.4 59 -2.5 -3.9 -2.1 -4.4 -2.0 4.3 60 -0.8 -4.4 -1.9 -5.4 -2.1 6.7 61 1.6 -4.3 -1.8 -6.¢ -2.5 6.7 62 -3.6 -4.4 -2.4 -4.7 -2.2 4.3 63 -8.2 -4.7 -3.1 -3.7 -2.0 2.3 64 -10.8 -4.9 -3.3 -3.1 -1.7 2.1 65 -13.3 -5.4 -3.9 -3.C -1.8 1.2 66 -15.0 -5.9 -4.3 -3.2 -2.0 1.3 67 -14.6 -6.2 -4.6 -3.7 -2.4 1.1 68 -12.9 -6.5; -4.9 -4.5 -3.1 0.6 69 - 13.2 -6.1 -4.5 -4.6 -2.6 0.8 70 -10.1 -2.¢ -1.6 0.4 0.2 -0.2 71 -7.7 -1.~ -1.3 0.2 0.1 -0.4 72 -5.3 -1.2 -0.9 0.0 0.¢ 0.1 73 -11.8 -1.1 -1.9 2.1 0.5 -4.5 74 -10.0 -1.C -1.6 1.8 0.2 -3.~ 75 -6.9 -0.9 -1.3 0.9 -0.1 -2.4 76 -7.9 -1.5 -0.8 0.5 0.7 1.4 77 -5.4 -1.0 -0.4 0.3 0.7 1.~ 78 -3.2 -0.5 -0.2 0.3 0.5 1.1 79 -3.0 -0.3 -0.1 0.5 0.5 0.E 80 -2.4 -0.4 -0.1~ 0.3 0.5 1.1 81 -2.4 -0.3 -0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 82 -2.2 -0,2 0.¢ 0.4 0.5 0.6 83 -2,4 -0.2 0.¢ 0.4 0,5 0,7 84 -2.8 -0.3 -0.1 0.5 0.5 0.7 85 -3.2 -0.4 0.C 0.5 0.7 1.2 '86 -2.1 -1.4 -0.2 -1.2 0.3 4.0 87 -2.4 -1.1 -0.1 -0.7 0.5 3.5 88 -0.6 -1.1 0.6 -1.2 0.2 3.7 89 0.11 -1.7 0.3 -2.2 0.4 7.2 90 0.5i -2.0 -0.3 2.7 -0.4 5.6 91 -0.~ -2.5 -0.9 -3.0 -0.9 4.6 92 -4.3 -2.7 -1.4 -2.3 -0.7 3.3 93 -7.C -3.1 -2.1 -1.9 -1.0 1.2 94 -5.5 -2.6 2.1 -1.7 -1.4 -0.6 95 -6.0 -3.2 -2.0 -2.4 -1.2 2.0 96 -6.0 -3.2 -1.9 -2.4 -1.0 2.8 97 -4.1 -2.1 -1.4 -1.5 -0.8 1.1 98 -7.7 -2.5 -1.1 -1.¢ 0.4 3.9 ! I I I I I I AppendixA-5. ShorelineChangeRates(~yr)forSouthold, NewYork, 1976to1998(cont.) 1993 1976 1980 (endpt. (end point method) (end point method) method) Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 99 -8.4 -2.4 -0.8 -0.6 0.8 4.5 100 -4.8 -1.8 0,1 -0.9 1.2 6.5 101 -2.0 -1.5 0.1 -1.4 0.6 5.5 102 0.6 -1.3 -0.1 -1.8 -0.2 4.C 103 0.4 -1.2 -0,5 -1.7 -0.7 1.5 104 0.9 -1.1 -0.8 -1.7 -1.2 0.3 105 1.6 -1.3 -1.1 -2.1 -1.7 -0.5 106 2.7 -1.5 -1.4 -2.8 -2.2 -0,7 107 2.3 -1.5 -1,3 -2.6 -2.1 -0,7 108 -0.1 -0.9 -1.2 -1.1 -1.4 -2.3 109 0.6 -0.2 -0.9 -0.4 -1.2 -3.2 110 -4.9 -2.0 -3.0, -1.2 -2.6 -6.2 111 0.1 -1.4 -1.1~ -1.9 -1.4 -0.2 t 12 -2.9 -2,0 -2.6~ -1.7 -2,5 -4.7 113 -3.0 -2.5 -2.7~ -2,3 -2,6 -3.6 114 -3.8 -2.7 -2,6i -2.4 -2.3 -2.1 115 -4.3 -2,8 -2.5i -2.4 -2.1 -1,3 116 -4.6 -2.6 -1.8~ -2,0 -1,2 1 .C 117 -5.3 -2.0 -1.51 -1.0 -0,7 -0,1 118 -3,9 -1.9 -1,1 -1,3 -0.5 1.7 119 -1.0 -1.9 -0,9i -2.2 -0.9 2.7 120 -1.1 -2.3 -0,5 -2.7 -0.4 5.5 121 -1.1 -2.3 -0,4 -2,7 -0,2 6.4 122 -2.3 -2.4 -0,2 -2.4 0,2 7.2 123 -1.9 -2.2 -0.5 -2.3 0.0 6.1 124 -0,9 -1,5 -0.1 -1.7 0,0 4.5 125 1.6 -0.8 0.1 -1,6 -0.2 3.4 126 4.2 -0.5 0,4 -1,8 -0.4 3.6 127 4.5 -0.5 0,2 -2.0 -0.7 2.8 128 5.4 -0.2 0.4 -1.9 -0.6 2.7 129 7.0 -0.1 0.5 -2.2 -0.8 2.9 130 8.4 -0,6 0.5 -3,4 -1.2 4.4 131 8.6 -1,4 0,4 -4.3 -1.3 6.5 132 9,2 -1.7 0.7 -4,9 -1,2 8.7 133 10.2 -1,9 0.5 -5.6 -1.5 9,0 134 9.3 -2,0 0.¢ -5.4 -2.1 6,7 135 6.6 -2.8 -0,9 -5.6 -2.6 5.4 136 4.5 -3.5 -1,4 -5.9 -2.7 5.4 137 6.0 -3.7 -1,2 -6.6 -2,7 7.5 138 6.3 -3,8 -1,2 -6.9 -2,9 7.6 139 2.6 -4.1 -1,5 -6,0 -2.4 7.2 140 4.3 -2.8 -1.1 -4.9 -2.3 4,7 141 7.4 -1.6 -0.6 -4,3 -2.3 2.8 142 7,0 -1,0 -0.6 -3.4 -2.2 1,0 143 7.3 -0,5 O,C -2,9 -1.5 1.9 144 ~ ~ ~,~' i~ Goldsmith Inlet 146 -4.2 -3.7 -3.1 -1.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-5. Shoreline Change Rates (~yr) for Southold. New York, 1978 to 1998 (cont.) 1993 1976 1980 (end pt. (end point method) (end point method) method) Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 147 -1.4 -2.2 -2.1 -2.4 -2.2 -1.6 148 -0.9 -1.6 -1.4 -1.9 -1.5 -0.7 149 0.0 -1.9 -1.2 -2.4 -1.4 1.1 150 -2.4 -2.4 -0.§ -2.4 -0.6 4.1 151 -4.2 -2.3 -0.8 -1.7 0.2 5.2 152 -3.? -2.4 -0.6 -2.0 0.1 5.8 153 -0,~ -1.9 -0,4 -2.3 -0.3 4,8 154 0.4 -1,2 -0.1 -1.7 -0,2 3.7 155 0.1 -1.0 0.3 -1.3 0.4 4,8 156 -1.4 -0.9 0,5 -0,7 0.9 5,1 157 -1.C -1.1 0.6 -1.1 0.9 6.3 158 -1.C -1.1 0.3 -1.1 0.6 5.2 159 -0.6 -1.1 0.2 -1,3 0.3 4.5 160 -1.9 -1.3 -0.1 -1.1 0.3 4.0 161 -0.5 -1.1 -0.3 -1.3 -0.3 2.3 162 -0.4 -1.0 -0.5 -1.1 -0.5 1.1 163 -0.5 -1.1 -0.7 -1.3; -0.7 0.7 164 -2.4 -1.4 -0.8 -1.1 -0.5 1.1 165 -1.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.6 -0.7 -1.1 166 -0.5 -1.1 -0.8 -1.3 -0.9 -0.1 167 -1.4 -1.1 -1.2 -1,¢ -1.1 -1.5 168 0.5 -1.0 -0,7 -1.4 -0.9 0.4 169 1,9 -0.8 -0.4 -1.5 -0.9 0.7 170 3,3 -0.2 -0.2 -1.3 -0.9 0.0 171 3.4 0.5 °0.2 -0.3 -0.9 -2.6 172 2.4 0.6 -0.6 0.0 -1.2 -4.5 173 3.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.3 -1.4 -4.4 174 3.8 0.7i -0.8 -0.3 -1.8 -5.9 175 -3.3 -1.6 -1.7 -1.2 -1.3 -1.8 176 2.0 -1.2 -1.4 -2.3 -2.2 -1.8 177 1.4 -2.C -1.2 -3.0 -1.7 1.5 178 1.4 -1.5 -1.1 -2,4 -1.6 0.4 179 1.9 0.1 -1.0 -0.4 -1.6 -4.8 180 1.9 0.C -0.9 -0.6 -1.5 -4.1 181 2.4 -0.4 -0.9 -1.3 -1.6 -2.5 182 -3.3 -1.4 -1.8 -0.9 -1.4 -2,9 183 2.4 -1.0 -0.9 -2.0 -1.6 -0.6 184 -3.3 -1.2 -1.8 -0.6 -1.2 -2.~ 185 -1.9 -1.2 -1.4 -1.0 -1.3 -2.2 186 -0.9 -1.2 -1.6 -1.3 -1.7 -3.¢ 187 -0.9 -1.2 -1.8 -1.3 -1.9 -3.7 188 -1.9 -1.5 -1.9 -1.4 -1.9 -3.8 189 -2.9 -2.0 -2.0 -1,7 -1.8 -2.2 190 -3.8 -1.3 -1.4; -0.6 -0.9 -1.8 191 -1.9 -0.1 -0.6 0.4 -0.6 -3.4 192 -0.4 -0.8 -1.1 -0.9 -1.2 -2.2 193 1.4 -0.8 -0.~ -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 194 2.9 -0.4 -0.5 -1.4 -1.2 -0.7 195 4.2 -0.4 -0.2 -1.8 -1.2 0.4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Appendix A-5. Shoreline Change Rates (ft/yr) for Southold, New York, 1976 to 1998 (cont.) 1993 1976 1980 (end pt. (end point method) (end point method) method) Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 196 2.3 -0.2 -0.3 -1.01 -0.9 -0.8 197 1.5 0.5 -0.5 0.3 -0.9 -4.1 198 3.8 1.0 0.3 0.1 -0.4 -1.9 199 5.1 1.0 0.4 -0.3 -0.6 -1.5 200 5.2 1.2 0.0 0.(: -1.1 -4.0 201 4.7 2.3 -0.2 1.5 -1.2 -8.4 202 5.7 2.3 -0.1 1.3 -1.3 -8.1 203 7.1 3.0 0.1 1.5 -1.4 -10.( 204 8.5 2.8 0.0 1.1 -1.8 -9.6 205 8.5 3.5 0.1 2.C -1.7 -11.5 206 8.5 2.9 0.2 1.3 -1.5 -8.9 207 5.2 2.2 -0.8 1.3 -2.0 -10.7 208 6.7 2.7 -0.2 1.5 -1.7 -10.0 209 7.0 2.7 -0.1 1.4 -1.6 -9.6 210 7.6 2.7 -0.3 1.4 -1.8 -10.4 211 6.5 3.5 -0.2 2.6 -1.6 -12.6 212 6.1 2.5 -0.2 1.9 -1.5 -10.4 213 7.1 2.7 -0.1 1.4 -1.6 -9.6 214 7.5 2.5 -0.1 1.1 -1.7 -9.3 215 7.1 2.5 -0.3 1.1 -1.9 -10.0 216 5.6 2.C -0.9 0.9 -2.3 -10.7 217 5.2 1.5 -0.7 0.4 -1.c~ -8.1 218 5.2 1.5 -0.7 0.4 -2.(: -8.5 219 4.3 1 .G -0.8 0.0 -2.(: -7.1 220 4.8 0.§ -0.8 -0.3 -2.(: -6.6 221 7.0 1.7 -0.4 0.1 -2.¢ -7.7 222 7.1 1.6 -0.3 0.0 -1 .g -7.0 223 5.3 1.0 -0.6 -0.3 -1.8 -5.9 224 4.8 1 .~ -0.7 -0.1 -1 .g -6.3 225 4.7 0.9 -0.9 -0.3 -2.1 -7.0 226 4.7 1.1 -0.9 0.0 -2.1 -7.7 227 4.2 1.3 -0.7 0.4 -1.7 -7.4 228 3.3 1.6 -1.0 1.1 -1.9 -10.(: 229 2.4 1.0 -1.4 0.5 -2.3 -9.8 230 0.5 0.8 -1.5 0.9 -1.9 -9.2 231 0.4 0.2 -1.4 0.1 -1.8 -7.C 232 1.5 0.3 -1.1 0.0 -1.6 -5.~ 233 2.8 0.6 -0.5 0.0 -1.6 -5.§ 234 2.8 1.3 -0.8 0.9 -1.3 -7.(~ 235 1.4 1.4 -0.5 1.4 -1.2 -8.1 236 1.5 3.1 -0.7 3.5 -1.1 -13.3 237 1.4 3.0 -0.8 3.5 -1.3 -14.1 238 1.9 2.2 -0.~ 2.3 -1.5 -11.5 239 2.3 2.7 -0.8 2.8 -1.4 -12.6 240 3.7 1.7 -0.5 1.1 -1.4 -8.2 241 3.8 2.2 -0.3 1.7 -1.2 -8.9 242 3.8 1.5 -0.5 0.9 -1.4 -7.5 243 3.8 1.3 -0.6 0.6 -1.5 -7.0 244 4.7 1.2 -0.4 0.1 -1.4 -5.6 I I I ! I i I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-5. Shoreline Change Rates (Wyr) for Southold, New York, 1976 to 1998 (cont.I 1993 1976 1980 (end pt. (end point method) (end point method) method) Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 245 4.8 1.3 -0.5 0,3 -1.6 -6.7 246 5.2 0.8 -0.~ -0.6 -1.8 -5.2~ 247 6.1 1,0 -0.4 -0.6 -1.8 -5.2 248 4.7 1.0 -0.5 -0.1 -1.6 -5.5 249 3.3 1.1 -0.7 0.4 -1.5 -6.7 250 3.3 1.2 -0.7 0.6 -1.5 -7.C 251 2.E 1.7 -0.8 1.4 -1.5 -9.2 252 t.E 1.6 -0.8 1.6 -1.4 -9.2 253 2.4 1.2 -0.8 0.8 -1.4 -7.4 254 1.8 0.9 -0.8 0.6 -1.4 -6.7 255 %0 0.0 -1.0 -0.~ -1.5 -4.5 256 1,5 -0.2 -1.0 -0.7 -1.5 -3.7 257 1.9 -0.2 -1.2 -0.8 -1.8 -4.5 258 1.4 -0.1 -1.3 -0.6 -1,8 -5.2 259 0.1 -0.2 -1.3 -0.3 -1.6 -5.2 260 0.4 -0,5 -1.4 -0.8 -1.7' -4.1 261 0.9 0.2 -1,4 0.0 -1.~ -6.7 262 1.9 -1.3 -1.3 -2.3 -t.9 -1.1 263 0.5 -1.3 -1,2 -1.8 -1.8 -0.8 264 -0.1 -1.9 -1.1 -2.4 -1.3 1.5 265 0.9 -1.4 -0.9 -2.1 -1.3 0.8 266 1.5 -1.3 -0.9 -2.1 -1.4 0.4 267 1.5 -1.1 -0.7 -1.8 -1.2 0.4 268 1.0 -1.0 -0.6 -1.6 -0.9 0.~ 269 0.9 -1.2 -0,~ -1.8 -1.3 -0.1 270 0.1 -1.2 -1.2 -1.6 -1.4 -1.1 271 -0.4 -1,2 -1.2 -1.4 -1.3 -1.1 272 0.6 -0.2 -0.5 -0,4 -0.7 -1,5 273 1.9 -0.3 -0,7 -1.0 -1.2 -1.9 274 0.~ -0,4 -1.4 -0.9 -1.9 -4.8 275 1.C 0.0 -1.4 -0,3 -2.0 -6.3 276 -0,1 0.4 -1.3 0.6 -1,5 -7.0 277 -0.9 -0.4 -1.2 -0.3 -1.3 -4,1 278 -1.0 -0.6 -2.4 -0.4i -2.7 -8.6 279 -0.9 0.4 -2.0 0.5 -2.3 -10.3 280 1.9 0.5 -1.8 0.1 2.6 -9.6 281 2.0 -0.3 -1,1 -0.8 -2.£ -4.6 282 2.2 -0.~ -0.7 -1.8 -1.~ 0.1 283 1.7 -0.4 -0.5 -1.0 -0.§ -0.8 284 2.6 0.¢ -0.3 *0.8 -0.9 -1.4 285 3.4 0.7 -0.2 -0.2 -1.C -3.1, 286 2.6 0.5 -0.1 -0.2 -0.7 .2.2~ 287 3.1 0.1 -0.4 -0.8 -1.2 -2.3 288 2.3 0.0 -0.6 -0.7 -1.2 -2.5 289 3.2 0.0 -0.6 -0.9 -1.4 -2.6 290 2.7 0.3 -O.E -0.4 -1.3 -3.6 291 2.2 0.0 -0.5 -0.7 -1.1 -2.3 292 2.2 0.1 -0.5 -0.5 -1.2 -3.0 293 2.9 -0.1 -0.6 -1.0 -1.3 -2.1 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AppendixA-5. ShorelineChan~eRates(~¥r)forSouthold, NewYork, 1976to1998{cont,) 1993 1976 1980 (end pt. lend point method) end point method) method) Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 294 0.5 -0.4 -O.E -0.7 -0.8 -1,2 295 3.8 0.3 -0.2 -0.8 -1.1 -1.7 296 3.8 0.8 -0.2 -0.1 -1.1 -3.E 297 4.5 1.1 0.1 0.1 -0.9 -3.~ 298 2.8 1.3 0.¢ 0.8 -0.6 -4.3 299 0.6 0.5 -0.1 0.5 -0.3 -2.2 300 -0.7 0.0 -0.4 0.2 -0.3 -1.7 301 -0.6 0,3 -0.~ 0.5 -0.6 -3.5 302 -1.2 0,2 -0.7 0.7 -0.6 -4.¢ 303 -1.0 0.7 -0.~ 1.3 -0.4 -4.7 304 1.2 0.4 -0.~ 0.1 -1.3 -5.1 305 1.5 -0.1 -0.~ -0.6 -1.4 -3.4 306 -0.6 -0,8 -1.3 -0.8 -1.4 -3,C 307 -3.4 -1.9 -1.~ -1.4 -1.2 -0.~ 308 -3.3 -2.3 -1.~ -2.0 -1.5 -0~2 309 -7.6 -2.5 -2.4 -1.0 -1.3 -2.2 310 -6.7 -2.2 -2.1 -0.8 -1.1 -1.7 311 -2.8 -1.4 -1.3 -0.9 -0.9 -0.~ 312 -8.1 -2.8 -2.1 -1.2 -0,8 0.2 313 -6.5 -2.7 -2.2 -1.6 -1,3 -0.5 314 -4.8 -2.0 -1.~ -1.2 -1.3 -1.7 315 -6.7 -3.1 -2.~ -2.0 -2.1 -2,4 316 -6.0 -2.8 -2.E -1.9 -1.8 -1.6 317 -3.8 -2.6 -2.4 -2.3 -2.1 -1.7 318 -2.1 -2.3 -2.2 -2.3 -2.2 -1.7 319 -2.2 -2.4 -2.2 -2.4 -2.3 -1.8 320 -2.8 -2.5 -2.~ -2.4 -2,5 -2,6 321 -6,1 -3,2 -2.E -2,3 -2.1 -1.7 322 °5.9 -3.6 -2.8 -3.0 -2.2 -0.1 323 -2.8 -2.5 -2.~ -2,4 -2.5 -2.6 324 -3.2 -2,0 -2.4 -1.6 -2.2 -3.8 325 -2.2 -1.9 -2.3 -1.8 -2.4 -3.9 326 2.2 -1.3 -2.C -2.3 -2.9 -4.3 327 -2,8 -1.7 -2,4 -1.4 -2.4 -4.8 328 -3,3 -1.5 -2.4 -1.0 -2.3 -5.5 329 -2,2 -1.7 -2,2 -1,5 -2.3 -4.2 330 -1,2 -2.2 -2.C -2,4 -2.2 -1.u 331 -0.6 2.3 -1.~ -2.8 -2.0 0.0 332 -0.4 -2.4 -1.7 -3.0 -2,0 O.u 333 1.1 -2.4 -1.2 -3.4 -1.7 2.~ 3~ 0.8 2.5 -1,3 -3.5 -1,7 3.0 335 2.2 -2.0 -1.2 -3.3 -1.9 l.u 336 0.2 -2.0 -1.5 -2,6 -1.9 O,u 337 -0.5 -1.9 -1.9 -2.3 -2.3 -2.1 338 -1.8 -1.9 -2.2 -1,9 -2.4 -3.4 339 -2.1 -1.5 -2.1 -1.3 -2.1 -4.2 340 -0.5 -1.0 -2.C -1.2 -2.3 -5.z 341 -0.5 -1,0 -2.1 -1.2 -2.5 -6.u 342 1.1 -1.2 -2,0 -1.9 -2.7 -4.8 AppendixA-5. ShorelineChangeRates(~yr)forSouthold, NewYork, 1976to1998(cont.) 1993 1976 1980 (endpt. (end point method) (end point method) m~hod) Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 343 1.¢ -1.2 -2.2 -1.8 -2.8 -5.5 344 0.5 -1.4 -2.5 -2.0 -3.1 -6.1 345 0.2 -1.6 -2.4 -2.2 -3.0 -5.2 346 0.1 -2.2 -2.6 -2,8 -3.1 -3.9 347 -1.7 -1.9 -2.4 -2.0 -2.6 -4.2 348 -0.5 -1,7 -2.0 -2.1 -2.4 -3.0 349 0,5 -2.0 -1.7 -2.8: -2.2 -0.6 350 -0.6 -1.5 -1.7 -1.8i -1.9 -2.2 351 0.3 -1.4 -1.8 -1 .~ -2.3 -3.5 352 0.1 -1.4 -1.6 -1.~ -2,0 -2.6 353 0.2 -1.9 -2.0 -2.5 -2,5 -2.6 354 0.6 -2.6 -2.2 -3.~ -2.9 -1.0 355 -2.2 -2,8 -2.7 -2.~ -2.9 -2.7 356 -0.5 -1.8 -2.1 -2,1 -2.5 -3.3 357 0.5 -1.4 -1.6 -2.6 -2.1 -2.2 358 5.4 -0.3 -0.8 -2.C -2.1 -2.5 359 5.5 -0.4 -0.9 -2.2 -2.3 -2.5 360 5.1 -0.6 -1.3 -2.3 -2,6 -3.5 361 5.6 -1.0 -1.4 -2.§ -3.0 -3.1 362 3.8 -1.4 -1.7 -3.6 -3.0 -2.9 363 5.4 -1.3 -1.0 -3.3 -2.4 0.0 364 2.2 -2.0 -1.4 -3.3 -2.1 0.9 365 3.3 -2.1i -1.4 -3.7 -2.4 1.2 366 2.7 -2.1 -1.6 -3.6 -2.5 0.4 367 6.1 -1.5 -0.9 -3.8 -2.5 0.9 368 4.9 -1.~ -1.2 -3.8 -2,5 0.8 369 5.5 -1.2 -1.2 -3.3 -2.6i -0.9 370 2.7 -2.5 -1.6 -4.1 -2.~ 1.3 371 -0.3 -3.~ -2.3 -4.9 -2.~ 2.6 372 -2.6 -5.¢ -2.8 -5.8 -2.~ 4.8 373 0.0 -3.9 -2.2 -5.1 -2.7 3.4 374 -0.2 -3.2 -1.7 -4.1 -2.1 3.1 375 -0.1 -2.4 -1.5 -3.1 -1.~ 1.7 376 1,0 -1.5 -0.8 -2.3 -1.2 1.7 377 3.2 -0.9 -0.3 -2.1 -1.1 1.~ 378 1.0 -1.5 -1.1 -2.3 -1.5 0.5 379 2.8 -1.9 -1.4 -3.3 -2.4 0.C 380 -1.3 -2.0 -1.8 -2.3 -1.9 -0.6 381 -0.5 -1.5 -1.6 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 382 -0.1 -2.0 -1.9 -2.6 -2.3 -1.6 383 -1,6 -2.7 -2.3 -3.1 -2.5 -0.9 384 0.5 -2.3 -2.0i -3.1 -2.5 -0.9 385 0.4 -1.2 -1.7 -1.6 -2.1 -3.4 386 1.7 -1.1 -1.7 -2.0 -2.4 -3.5 387 0.6 -2.0 -2.3 -2.8 -3.0 -3.5 388 1.1 -2.3 -2.4 -3.3 -3,1 -2.6 389 1.3 -2.4 -2.C -3.5 -2.8 -0.8 390 0,2 -2.5 -1.7 -3.3 -2.1 0.9 391 -0.4 -2.4 -1.7 -3,0 -2.0 0.6 I I ! I I I I I I I I ! I AppendixA-5. ShorelineChan~eRates(Wyr)forSouthold, New York, 1976to1998(cont.) 1993 1976 1980 (end pt. (end point method) (end point method) method) Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 392 -4.9 -3.1 -2.2 -2.6 -1.8 0.9 393 -7.9 -3.§ -2.7 -2.8 -1.8 1.3 394 -6.6 -3.4 -2.5 -2.5 -1.7 0.5 395 -6.5 -1.8 -2.2 -0.4 -1.2 -3.4 396 -7.6 -1.8 -2.0 0.0 -0.8 -2.~ 397 -5.7 -1.8 -1.9 -0.7 -1.1 -2.1 398 -7.2 -3.8 -3.2 -2.8 -2.4 -1.2 399 -4.3 -3.0 -2.8i -2.7 -2.5 -2.1 400 -2.3 -2.6 -2.7 -2.6 -2.7 -3.C 401 -5.7 -2.2 -2.8 -1.2 -1.9 -3.7 402 -5.4 -1.9 -1.~ -0.8 -1.2 -2.2 403 -3.2 -1.8 -0.3 -1.3 0.4 4.8 404 -2.9 -1.5 1.1 -1.1 1.9 10.0 405 -4.8 -1.9 0.4 -1.2 1.4 8.3 406 -3.1 -1.6 0.2 -1.2 0.9 6.4 407 -7.2 -1.9 0.7 -0.3 2.4 9.5 408 -7.¢ -2.0 0.7 -0.51 2.3 9.8 409 -1.5 -1.3 0.8 -1.2 1.3 7.8 410 -1.C -1.8 0.3 -2.¢ 0.6 7.4 411 0.3 -1.5 0.1 -2.¢ 0.1 5.6 412 0.4 -1.1 0.1 -1.8 0.0 4.3 413 -0.4 -1.0 0.1 -1.2 0.2 3.9 414 -0.7 -0.7 0.3 -0.8 0.5 3.4 415 -0.7 -0.9 0.5 -1.0 0.7 5.1 416 -1.3 -1.0 0.7 -0.9 1.1 6.3 417 -1.6 -0.5 0.6 -0.2 1.1 4.2 418 -4.1 -0.3 1.4 0.8 2.5 6.9 419 -5.5 0.8 1.8 2.3 3.4 6.3 Maffitucklnlet 424 -0.1 -2.1 4.0 -2.8 4.9 ~ili;!ii!;~~ 425 3.4 1.9 3.9 1.5 4.0 10.6 426 3.9 2.3 3.7 1.8 3.7 8.7 427 2.7 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.9 4.8 428 2.3 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.6 429 -1.0 3.9 3.9 5.4 5.0 3.8 430 -2.7 2.7 3.EI4.3 4.9 6.4 431 -2.1 1.5 2.8 2.6 3.8 7.0 432 -2.3 2.5 2.4 3.9 3.5 2.2 433 -4.4 2.9 1.9 5.1 3.3 -1.6 434 -6.6 3.4 1,8 6.4 3.6 -3.7 435 -6.1~ 3.4 2.1 6.3 3.8 -2.6 436 -7.3 2.9 1.8 5.9 3.8 -1.7 437 -7.1 1,9 1.6 4.6 3.5 0.4 438 -7.6 1.7 1.2 4.4 3.1 -0,5 439 -6,5 1.4 1,0 3.6 2.6 -0.5 440 -7.6 1.3 1.5 3,9 3.5 2.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-5. Shoreline Change Rates (ftJyr) for Southold, New York, 1976 to 1998 (cont,) 1993 1976 1980 (end pt. (end point method) (end point method) method) Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 441 -9.4 1.5 1.8 4.8 4.2 2.5 442 -9.2 1.6 1.9 4.8 4,3 3.6 443 -7.E 2.4 2.3 5.4 4.4 1.8 444 -6.2 3.0 2.3 5.8 4.2 O. 1 445 -1.8 3.5 3.0 5.1 4,0 1.3 446 -1.7 3.1 3.1 4.5 4.1 3.6 447 -2.21 1.9 2.9 3.1 4.0 6.4 448 -5.4i 2.4 3.9 4.7 5.9 9.6 449 -5.6, 2.9 4.2 5.4 6.3 8.5 450 -6.5 3.0 3.3 5.9 5.5 4.3 451 -7.5 2.0 2.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 452 -8.6 1.4 2,1 4.4 4.4 4.3 453 -9,7 1.0 1.7 4.2 4.1 3.9 454 -11.0 1.0 1.0 4.6 3.6 0.9 455 -13.8 -0.1 0.2 4.0 3.2 1.2 456 -15.5 -1.6 -0.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 457 -13.8 -2.0 -0,8 1.5 2.0 3.4 458 -9.3 -1.9 -0.6 0.3 1.3 3.9 459 -12.1 -2.6 -1.2 0,2 1.2 3.8 460 -13.7 -3.5 -1.7 -0.5 0.8 4.4 461 -13.7 -4.3 -2.3 -1.5 0.2 4.4 462 -14.1 -4.9 -3.0 -2.1 -0.6 3.3 463 -14.9 -5.0 -3.3 -2.1 -0.8 2.6 464 -16.6 -4.8 -3.4 -1.3 -0.6 1.2 465 -17.7 -4.6 -3.4 -0.6 -0.3 0.4 466 -18.1 -4.9 -3.2 -1.0 0.0 2.5 467 -18.6 -4.8 -3.6 -0.7 -0.3 0.5 468 -16.9 -4.4 -2.6 -0.7 0.5 3.5 469 -14.3 -4.4 -2.1 -1.5 0.5 5.6 470 -14.4 -4.6 -2.3 -1.6 0.3 5.3 471 -15.9 -3.5 -2.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 472 -16.0 -3.0 -3.C 0.8 -0.2 -3.0 473 -11.1 -2.1 -2.4 0.5 -0.5 -3.1 474 -14.8 -2.8 -2.6 0.8 0.0 -2.1 475 -12.0 -2.6 -2.6 0.2 -0.4 -2.1 476 -6.6 -1.8 -1.6 -0.3 -0.5 -1.0 477 -10.3 -2.1 -1.6 0.3 0.5 0.9 478 -10.5 -2.1 -1.2 0.5 0.8 1.7 479 -12.0 -2.2 -1.4 0.8 0.9 1.4 480 -10.4 -2.4 -1.6 0.0 0.3 0.9 481 -9.9 -1.4 -1.6 1.2 0.0 -3.1 482 -9.4 -1.9 -2.C 0.4 -0.3 -2.2 483 -8.3 -2.1 -2.3 -0.2 -1.0 -3.0 484 -7.0 -1.6 -2.4 0.0 -1.4 -5.1 485 -9.4 -1.8 -2.4 0.4 -0.9 -4.6 486 -12.2 -2.3 -2.5 0.7 -0.4 -3.1 487 -14.2 -3.5 -2.6 -0.3 -0.1 0.5 488 -11.6 -2.8 -2.1 -0.2 0.0 0.4 489 -7.8 -2.1 -1.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-5. Shoreline Chan~le Rates (ft/yr) for Southold, New York, 1976 to 1998 (cont.) 1993 1976 1980 (end pt. (end point method) (end point method) method Transect 1980 1993 1998 1993 1996 1998 490 -6.6 -2,7 -1.7 -1.5 -0,6 1.7 491 -9.9 -2.8 -1.8 -0.6 0.0 1,7 492 -14.8 -3.2 -2.4 0.3 0.3 O. 1 493 -15.9 -2.9 -2.5 1,0 0,5 -0.§ 494 -19.6 -2.9 -2.7 2,1 0.9 -2,1 495 -20,4 -1.7 -2.5 3.9 1.4 -5.2 496 -16,1 -0,5 -1.9 4,1 1.2 -6.4 497 -12.6 -0.7 -1.4 2.8 1.1 -3.4 498 -8.7 -1.3 -1,2 1.0 0,5 -0.8 499 -11.5 -2.4 -1.9 0.3 0.2 0,0 500 -9,E -2.4 -1.3 -0,1 0.6 2.4 501 -10.,~ -2.6 -2.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0,1 502 -11.1 -3.2 -2,7 -0,8 -0.8 -0.8 503 -IOA -2,9 -3,0 -0.7 -1.4 -3.4 504 -6.5 -2.0 -2,9 -0.7 -2,1 -5.9 505 -4.5 -2.3 -3.0 -1.6 -2,7 -5.6 506 -8,2 -2.9 -3.1 -1,3 -2.0 -3.9 507 -1.6i -2.3 -4,0 508 : ...... 1.7 -2.3 -3.9 509 -1.5 -1.6 -1.7 510 -3.1 -1.9 1.3 511 I .' -2.1 -1.0 1.8 512 :" ~ ~ , - -1.1 -0.; 2.1 513 0.3 0.2 0.0 514 ~ 1,3 0,1 -3.0 515 ~' ~ ~ ~ 1.1 -0.5 -4,7 516 ~:~ 1.1 -O.S -6.4 517 ~ ::: 1.4 -0.3 -5.0 518 ~ ~: , 0.2 0.3 0A 519 ~;' 0.4 0.7 1.7 520 ' ~'' 0.5 0.4 0A 521 1.4 0.1 -3.1 522 : ~ 0.4 -0.3 -2.2 523 ~ .. ~ 0.8 -0.5 -3.S : ~,, ~,~, ;~,~ ~, ~ ~,~ -3.1 526 ~ ~:~ ~ -0,1 529 530 '~ '-~ ~'~:' ; ' %" ' ~ ~.~ ~,,, , :~-;~ ~.~.. ~: ~ ~ ~, ~;~",~ ,~;~ 2.5 531 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B-l: I I I I I I I ! I I I I I Tidal Harmonic Analysis I I 1.5 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1961 I I I I I I 0.5 Julian Days 1.5 Predicted Tidal Signal I I I I I I I I I I -0.5 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal 1.5j I [ I I I I I I 1,5 .1L Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1962 I I I I I I -0. 1.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days -1 Predicted Tidal Signal I I I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal / 0 Julian Days I I Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1963 , t I ~ o r-~T' '"-!~ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 I Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal I - I 0 50 1 O0 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I Residual Signal 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1964 I I I I I I I ! I i I I I I I I 0.5 -0.5 -1 1.5 0.5 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 0 Predicted Tidal Signal 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I 1.5 0.5 0 -0.5 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1965 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 1.5 1 Predicted Tidal Signal ~: 0 -0.5 -1 0 50 1 oo 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal 1.5 ~ ~ ,, ~ ,, 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days ! I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1968 1.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal -1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 0 Residual Signal 50 1 oo 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I 1.5 1 0.5 0 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1969 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 1,5 Predicted Tidal Signal -0. -1 0 0.5 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal Julian Days I I I I I I ! I I I I I Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1970 1.5 -0. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal I I I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I 1.5, e 0,5 E '( 0 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1973 1.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days o~ Residual Si ]nal 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I ! I I I I 1.5 -0,5 -1' Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1974 '3 I I I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Predicted Tidat Signal e 05 I I I I I -1 i r 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal 1.5 I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I I i 1.5¸ Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1975 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal I I I I I -0. 1.5j 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal I I ! I I -0.5.i'" .... " ................... ' ........................ ' 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1976 : ~o ' 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 1.5[ i ~o. i '10 50 100 150 200 5 0 350 Julian Days Residual Signal 1~ ........ ...... i ...... . ......... ....... . .... ; ........ - -- 0 50 100 150 Julian Days 350 1.5 Measure~ Signal- Mo~tauk Pt. 1978! -0,51ILi................... '~-- 50 100 150 Julian Da~s® -- 250 300 350 1.5 , r P~edicted Tidal ,Signal , , , '10 50 100 150 Julian Da~0 250 300 350 ResiduaJ Signal 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I 1.5 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1979 I I I I I I 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 I I I I I I Julian Days Residual Signal 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 :- Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1980 I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 1.5 Predicted Tidal Signal 0.5 -0. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal E '< 0 25O , I 50 100 150 200 300 350 Julian Days I I 1,5 r Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1981 I I I I 0.5 0 I I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal I I I I I I I I I 0.5 -0.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal -o. -1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I 1,5¸ E '~ 0 -0.5 .1I Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1982 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.5 0.5 -0. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 0.5 0 0 50 Predicted Tidal Signal 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal -0.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.5 0 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1985 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal -0.5 -1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I 1.5 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1986 i I I I I I i I I ! I i I I I I 0.5 -0. 1.5 · O. -0. -1 0 1,5 0.5 0 -0.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal 50 1 O0 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal ' 't 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I ~: 0 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1987 I I ! I I I 1.5 0.5 -1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days -0. Predicted Tidal Signal I I I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal / 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I 1.5 0.5 0 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1988 I I I ! I I I i I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 1.5I 1 Predicted Tidal Signal -0.5 ~- .... ' ............................................... I i .1I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal -0.5 -1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I 1.5 0.5 -0.5 1,5¸ 0.5 0 0,5 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1989 -0, 50 100 150 200 250 Julian Days 300 350 Predicted Tidal Signal 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal 1.51 ~ ,' I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Julian Days 35O I i 1.5 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1990 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.5 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal e o. -o. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days Residual Signal < 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I 1.5 Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1991 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I 0.5 0 0,5 0 50 1 O0 150 200 250 300 Julian Days Predicted Tidal Signal -0.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 Julian Days Residual Si nal · 3OO 350 350 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days I I I I I I I I Measured Signal - Montauk Pt. 1992 · 0.5 "~ 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 1,5 Predicted Tidal Signal I I I I I I I I I I 0.5 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Days 1.5: Residual Signal 50 100 250 300 150 200 Julian Days 350 I I I I I I APPENDIX B-2: I I I I I I I I I I i I I Historical Weather Records Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1962 High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1962 + + 0 ~; + + +: +:+ O' + + +i 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time (Julian Days) 400 0 N Extralro ,~ 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) 300 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1963 High Wind Directions (Comin! From): 1963 + + O + + O' +:+ ; + ~ + + O' 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time (Julian Days) 4O0 N 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) 3OO 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1964 + ~ + ++:++, +: + ~ 5O 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) 3O0 35O 4O0 N High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1964 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Sur ©© 5O 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) + -F 300 350 400 High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1965 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Julian Days) 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1968 :+ +:+ +', + + ~: 5O High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1968 N 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) 300 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Sur 3:1969 +',+ ~: + ; + High Wind Directions (Comin! i From): 1969 N 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1970 + I- + ,+ + ,© 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Julian Days) High Wind Directions (Comin N From): 1970 '0 0 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1971 High Wind Directions (Comin From): 1971 C) ©' 5O 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) 300 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1972 O0 O0 O 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time (Julian Days) High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1972 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time (Julian Days) 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (a and Storm Sur + +:' +', + ~: + i+ + ++ :+ 1973 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) N 5O High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1973 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Julian Days) 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1974 , + +i + N High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1974 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1975 -H ,+ -- , + +, + + + + + ,+ o 350 N High Wind Directions (Comin, I From): 1975 50 100 150 200 250 300 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) 300 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1976 + + ®o: o o o o~ 5O 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1976 N 5O 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) 300 350 400 Record o1 High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1977 OO High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1977 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1978 -H + , + +', + ~- + ',+ +'. + N High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1978 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) 300 350 4OO Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Sur~ +, + +i+ +', + ;~ + i+ 00' 0 0 e:1979 N High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1979 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1980 + +: + :+ + + +: +', + ~ + 4O Time (Julian Days) 50 100 High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1980 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) 300 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1981 High Wind Directions (Comin I From): 1981 + + O' ~ + +'.+ + N 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1982 -I +, -H +, + + 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time (Julian Days) 4O0 N 5O High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1982 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Julian Days) 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1982 + ',+ +', ++ 0 50 100 + +', + ; + ',+ N High Wind Direction~ (Coming From): 1983 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1984 + + + ~ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time (Julian Days) 4OO High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1984 N Extralropical 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) 300 350 4O0 0 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1985 ++ + +: + ~ + + + 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) 300 35O High Wind Directions (Comin From): 1985 N 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) 300 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1988 + ~ + i+ + + :+ +i + ; + i+ High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1988 N 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1989 +++++++ ++'+.+ 0 N Hi 3 Wind Directions (Comi~ From): 1989 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) 300 350 400 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1986 +; + :+ +',+ + © N High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1986 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1987 + ',+ + ',+ + + +'. + + + N High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1987 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 300 360 400 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1990 I+ i+ + + +i + ¢ + ¢ + ',+ © 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time (Julian Days) 400 0 High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1990 N 5O 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1991 + ',+ + ',+ + 0 50 O High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1991 N Humcane Bob, 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o), and Storm Surge: 1992 + ; +'.++ ; + O 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (Julian Days) N 300 350 400 0 50 High Wind Directions (Comir From): 1992 100 150 20O 25O Time (Julian Days) 300 350 400 50 Record of High Tides (+), High Winds (o). and Storm Surge: 1993 O0 ,0 High Wind Directions (Coming From): 1993 N 100 150 200 250 300 350 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Julian Days) Time (Julian Days) I I I I I I APPENDIX C: i Correspondence for Goldsmith Inlet I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I NOU-02-1998 15:2] COASTAL RESOURCES GREFNFaO~T, L. I.. N. Hr. J, Butch Hc~lorran, Superintendent Ne~ York State Department of Publlc ~ork~ 1220 ~ashington Avenue Albany, N~w York January 30, Dear Hr. ~c~orran: The County of Suffolk has acquired cons;datable land for park purposes whlch includes Goldsmith's Inlet, from Long island Sound, in the vicinity of Peconic, Long Island. Through Scale and County cooperation so~e years ago, a jetty was constructed, projecting out ~nto Long Island Sound, and procect~n9 the west: side of the inlet, It is the intention of the County Board of Supervisors to open Go]dsmith~s In~t as a harbor of refuge off Long Island Sound, and it i$ necessary at this time to construct a jetty on the eas~ side of the inlet, as well as providing for beach st:abil;zat~on on the east s;de. The County of Suffolk has funds available for eros;on ~ork, and I fee] sure that the Countyls share of thc cost of such project will be made available. Therefore I would request the cooperation of your office in obtaining State funds for thls necessarY/ work. This ~hole area is now suffering from extensive erosion, and I feel the matter is of great urgency. Thank you for your ass/stance. YouG~-'lfery tru ' Letter M. Albert:son Superv i sot cc: County Dept. Pubi~c t~orks Yaphank, N.Y. 19(C-CUTN JAN3 i 1967; NOU-02-1998 15:2] COASTAL RESOURCES 518 4?3 2464 P.06 I I, I ~ew York State Depart.ant of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 1~ I I March 4, 1994 I I Mr. Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Vice President, Board of Town Trustees Town of $outhold Town Hall 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Krupski: I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your September 8, 1993 letter. We encountered some problems in finding the original project file. Upon review of the file I was able to trace the history of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty. The primary reason the jetty was constructed was to maintain the opening at the inlet to allow for futUre development of the Town's recreational facilities. The files also indicate that a secondary purpose was to create a recreational beach west of the jetty. This is really~nconfirmed but several documents do mention the creation of a recreational beach. The reqUest to construct the jetty was made by the county. The New York State Department of Public Works developed plans and let a contract to construct the jetty. The project which was completed in February 1964 was cost shared 50/50 between the State of New York and the County of Suffolk. Documents within the file indicate the length of the jetty and its do~ndrift impact have bee-~ the ~abject of controversy over the years. Speeiflca~ly, residents Justeast oft he jetty and Kenney's Beach claim that the shadow effect of the jetty has been the cause I of be~ch erosion at the two si~es. I find some validity to the claim ~mmediatel~ east of the Jetty but no evidence at Kenney's Beach, which is located 1.5 miles east of the inlet. Kenney~s I Beach is simply too far east to be effected to any measurable degree. Thomas C. Jofl;ng Comml.~oner I U25 NOU-02-1998 15:25 COASTAL RESOURCES I ] Shol-tening the jetty will certainly have an imgact. More sand will bypass the inlet and may ultimately nourish the area east of the inlet. However, the width of the beach and the protection I afforded the resident~ west of the jetty will d~nish. Therefore, the Town must evaluate the situation very carefully and notify the State whether or not the Town wants to taper or rel:ove the jetty. I I I I I If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 518-457-3158. Sr. coastal Engineer Coastal Erosion Management RGR/tc I TOTAL P. 07 188000D ft 1390000 ft 1400000 ft 1410000 ff 1414404 ff ~ Shoreline Change Transect Locations Transect Interval: 100 Feet Transects 1884 Roads 370 Mattituck Inlet 38O 43O 470 440 45O \ , \ \ 340 35O 13B0000 ft 330 8O Horton Point 0 3O 5O Goldsmith Inlet 150 180 ' 190 \ ~° ~ ~ 100 Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Aubrey Consulting, inc. Peconic Bay 4000 2000 02000 Feet State Plane Coordinate System 1983 North American Datum 1983 Scale 1:24,000 July 1998 8OOO 139000~ ff 1410000 ff 1415338 1380000 ft 1390000 ff 1400000 ft 1410000 f{ ~4~4404 ff 4% Shoreline Change: 1 884 to 1998 April 1884 May 1955 Apri~ 1984 April 1998 ROads )hic Feature Mattituck Inlet Goldsmith Inlet 4000 2000 0 2000 Horton Point - / [ N, Peconic Bay Feet State Plane Coordinate System 1983 North American Datum 1983 Scale 1:24,000 July 1998 8OOO 1370490 fi 1380000 1400000 1410000 ft 1414494 ft Shoreline Change: 1 969 to 1998 Horton Point © Apri~ 1969 March 1980 April 1993 Aprif t998 Roads H' ;raphic Feature Mattituck Inlet Goldsmith Inlet Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc Aubrey Consulting, Inc. 4000 2000 1400000 0 2000 Feet Peconic Bay State Plane Coordinate System 1983 North American Datum 1983 Scale t :24,000 July 1998 8OOO © © © 1371328 ff 1380000