National Shoreline Management Study
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
L.D. Leuck, A.S. Willis and K.L. Trott
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................. TBD
I.
Introduction......................................................................................................1
A. Background on 1971 National Shoreline Study...........................................1
B. Purpose and objectives of this study............................................................2
II.
General description..........................................................................................4
A. Geological features and habitats ..................................................................4
B. Description and division of North Atlantic shoreline ..................................5
C. Sediment sources and processes ..................................................................7
i. Sediment sources
ii. Processes moving sediment
iii. Sediment budget
D. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion.........................................11
E. Climate change and sea-level rise..............................................................15
F. Shoreline management practices................................................................20
i. Hardened structures
ii. Soft measures
iii. Planning, policy and regulatory measures
G. Agency roles and responsibilities ..............................................................27
H. Socio-economic and cultural trends...........................................................32
Part A – New England shoreline
III.
Maine and New Hampshire ..........................................................................39
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes..................................................40
i. Shoreline habitats
ii. Sediment sources and movement
iii. Coastal features
B. Erosion and accretion.................................................................................48
i. Area rates and trends
ii. Storm impacts
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion.........................................52
D. State and local shoreline management practices........................................54
IV.
Massachusetts shoreline, including Cape Cod Bay.....................................57
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes..................................................58
i. Shoreline habitats
ii. Sediment sources and movement
iii. Coastal features
B. Erosion and accretion.................................................................................64
i. Area rates and trends
ii. Storm impacts
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion.........................................67
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
i
D. State and local shoreline management practices........................................70
E. Project-specific examples of economic and cultural effects of erosion and
accretion.....................................................................................................73
V.
Long Island Sound shoreline – the shorelines of Rhode Island,
Connecticut, and part of New York .............................................................77
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes..................................................78
i. Shoreline habitats
ii. Sediment sources and movement
iii. Coastal features
B. Erosion and accretion.................................................................................84
i. Area rates and trends
ii. Storm impacts
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion.........................................85
D. State and local shoreline management practices........................................89
E. Project-specific example of economic and cultural effects of erosion and
accretion.....................................................................................................92
Part B – Northern Mid-Atlantic shoreline
VI.
New York’s Atlantic shoreline......................................................................93
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes..................................................94
i. Shoreline habitats
ii. Sediment sources and movement
iii. Coastal features
B. Erosion and accretion.................................................................................98
i. Area rates and trends
ii. Storm impacts
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion.......................................100
D. State and local shoreline management practices......................................104
E. Project-specific example of economic and cultural effects of erosion and
accretion...................................................................................................105
VII.
New Jersey ....................................................................................................107
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes................................................108
i. Shoreline habitats
ii. Sediment sources and movement
iii. Coastal features
B. Erosion and accretion...............................................................................114
i. Area rates and trends
ii. Storm impacts
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion.......................................117
D. State and local shoreline management practices......................................120
VIII. Delmarva – Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.........................................122
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes................................................123
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
ii
i. Shoreline habitats
ii. Sediment sources and movement
iii. Coastal features
B. Erosion and accretion...............................................................................131
i. Area rates and trends
ii. Storm impacts
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion...................................... 135
D. State and local shoreline management practices..................................... 139
E. Project-specific example of economic and cultural effects of erosion and
accretion...................................................................................................143
IX.
Conclusions...................................................................................................145
X.
Recommendations ..................................................................................... TBD
Acronyms ..................................................................................................................149
Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................152
References.................................................................................................................155
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
iii
This page intentionally left blank.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
iv
I. Introduction
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1999 authorized the
Secretary of the Army through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to study and
prepare a report for Congress on the condition of the shores of the United States. The
WRDA defined key areas of research to be included in this report specifically “a
description of the systematic movement of sand along the shore of the United States” and
“recommendations regarding – use of a systems approach to sand management.” The
Corps commenced the National Shoreline Management Study (NSMS) in 2000 to meet
the requirements of WRDA. Due to limited time and budget constraints, the draft
December 2010 report to Congress will encompass only the U.S. eastern shoreline. The
NSMS will include highlights of four regions: North Atlantic, South Atlantic, the Gulf of
Mexico, and the Great Lakes. This report, the North Atlantic Regional Pilot Study,
provides detailed information for the North Atlantic shoreline region to demonstrate the
level of detail that will be required of all U.S. regions to adequately provide a national
assessment of the shorelines. The North Atlantic shoreline region of the U.S. ranges from
the Canadian/Maine border to the mouth of Chesapeake Bay as shown in Figure 1.1.
The NSMS will be the first comprehensive report on the Nation’s coastline in
over thirty years. Congressional hearings held in the 1960’s recognized that the shores of
the U.S. were being threatened by erosion and that this concern must be addressed to
prevent further endangerment. Through the 1968 River and Harbors Act, Congress gave
the Corps the responsibility of studying, investigating, and appraising the nation’s
shorelines. The Corps was charged to develop suitable framework for managing,
protecting, restoring, and minimizing erosion-induced damages to the nation’s coasts. In
1971, the Corps published the National Shoreline Study with the intended purpose to
define shoreline problems through separate reports on the topics of shore erosion, shore
protection, and shore management.
A. Background on 1971 National Shoreline Study
At the time of the 1971 study, 20,500 miles of shoreline (approximately 10 times
the length of the U.S./Mexico border or four times the length of the U.S./Canada border)
of the U.S. were identified as undergoing significant erosion. Significant erosion was
based on criteria which consisted of the rate of erosion, navigational needs, ecological
impacts, industrial use, agricultural use, recreational use, economic factors, and
demographic distributions. In the North Atlantic region, 1,090 miles of coast were
categorized as areas of critical erosion. Critically eroding areas were defined in the study
using the impacts of previous and continued erosion on environmental values; the
projected land use and population demands on the shoreline to the year 2020; ownership
of the shoreline; and land use regulation constraints (USACE 1971). Due to heavy
development, the northeast U.S. had very high rates of critical erosion. The data and
criteria used in the 1971 study could be subject to interpretation, as it was applied in a
non-quantitative manner (Stauble 2004).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
1
The study resulted in the following conclusions:
• A coordinated collaboration amongst Federal, state, and local governments and
corporate and private owners is necessary to institute erosion mitigation practices;
• Use of the national shoreline should be coordinated through comprehensive
planning and management;
• There is a great necessity for increased research and investigation of the processes
that contribute to shore erosion and accretion and a need for consistent data
gathering methodologies; and
• The identification and development of technologies and methods for controlling
erosion are required to improve current erosion mitigation techniques (USACE
1971).
B. Purpose and objectives of this study
A review of the present and future status of U.S. shorelines is needed due to
continual disruption of natural sediment processes which chiefly cause undesired erosion
and accretion. Potential sea level rise and other climate change effects may further
exacerbate problems currently experienced. There is still a necessity for collaboration
among government agencies at all levels as well as the public, including private
landowners, to institute effective shoreline management practices. The NSMS provides
information to be used in the development of recommendations for improved shoreline
and sand management, including an identification of roles for participation of Federal and
non-Federal entities (Stauble 2004).
Since the 1971 study, significant research and examinations of the coastline have
been undertaken by states, academia, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Corps, and
other Federal agencies. Presently, there is a substantial amount of information about
sediment sources and movement. This report synthesizes much of this research for the
North Atlantic, highlights areas where information is still desired, and provides
recommendations for improved management of the shoreline.
The purpose of this report is to address the Congressional mandate of the 1999
WRDA which authorized the Corps to provide a “description of (i) the extent of, and
economic and environmental effects caused by erosion and accretion along the shores of
the United States; and (ii) the causes of such erosion and accretion”; as well as (iii) a
“description of resources committed by Federal, State, and local governments to restore
and renourish shores.” This pilot report for the North Atlantic region will provide the
level of detail necessary to accomplish this purpose while highlighting data gaps.
The objectives of this report are to:
• Describe the physical processes of sediment transport and sand movement along
the North Atlantic shoreline;
• Depict the shoreline habitat and sediment composition of six sub-regions in the
North Atlantic, highlighting specific features of the coastline, and attempting to
aggregate these areas to determine the miles of shoreline for each habitat;
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
2
•
•
•
•
•
Identify major areas of erosion and accretion and potential causes of these
conditions;
Discuss the environmental and economic effects of erosion and accretion;
Assess the public and private costs resulting from erosion and accretion;
Describe and analyze the Federal, state, and local shoreline management
practices, structures, and commitment of resources; and
Evaluate the potential climate change and sea level rise effects on this coastline.
Readers should note that this pilot project
For purposes of this report, the
looks at the North Atlantic region as a single
shoreline is defined as those
shoreline system. Although it includes numerous
areas of the coast where the
case studies for illustrative purposes, it is not
impacts from the forces of
intended to be used for site-specific projects and
waves, currents (those
does not include detailed, ground-level information.
generated by waves/tides), tides
The descriptions are intentionally general in nature
and storm surges are felt.
in order to discuss the variability within this region.
More detailed descriptions and analyses may be found in other studies, particularly at the
state and project-specific levels, and those sources of information are identified for the
reader in the appropriate sections of this report.
Maine
Vermont
New
Hampshire
New York
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode
Island
Pennsylvania
New
Jersey
Maryland Delaware
W.
Virginia
Virginia
Figure 1.1 – Map of the North Atlantic region study area.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
3
II. General description
In order to understand the impacts of erosion and accretion, it is necessary to have
a baseline understanding of the general physical processes transporting sediment along
the coastline prior to specifically evaluating the North Atlantic region of the U.S.
Erosion and accretion are naturally occurring processes that affect almost all of the
coastal U.S. The North Atlantic shoreline includes a variety of habitat and sediment
types that influence sand movement and the selection of management approaches.
Potential climate change and sea-level rise effects on the coast are important to note as
are the various shoreline management practices employed to control the coastline. The
economic and cultural trends along the North Atlantic shoreline influence the selection of
management practices and will be noted.
A. Geological features and habitats
The North Atlantic coastline encompasses a variety of geologic formations
resulting in diverse habitats. Along the Maine and New Hampshire shorelines, sea cliffs,
rocky headlands, and islands are common. These features were carved by the advance of
glaciers and exposed by their subsequent retreat. Pocket beaches are sporadically
interspersed throughout the region. Coastal wetlands along drowned river valleys support
significant commercial and recreational activities. Bays, estuaries, marshes, sandy
beaches, and barrier islands are also common along this northern coastline.
Farther south, the North Atlantic shoreline develops a wider continental shelf and
the predominant geological feature becomes the low gradient coastal plain. Estuaries,
semi-enclosed bodies of water where ocean water mixes with river water, are formed
along the low-lying shores at the point of river discharge into the ocean. Salt marshes, or
wetlands, can be found near estuaries and are one of the most productive environments
on Earth. This ecosystem supports a variety of species and important biological and
chemical functions.
Barrier islands are large sand
deposits that are separated from
the mainland by water bodies
such as estuaries and bays.
Tidal inlets are found along the
North Atlantic shoreline and are
natural or man-made channels
that provide tidal flushing and
may be used for recreational
and commercial shipping.
Barrier islands are typically created by
longshore sediment transport that accretes sand to
generate a sand spit extending from the shoreline.
If the narrow extension of sand, or spit, becomes
disconnected or breached from the main landmass
then a barrier island is formed. The emergence of a
longshore bar or the submergence of a sand ridge
along the coast can also result in the creation of a
barrier island. Generally speaking, prevailing
winds and nearshore currents cause North Atlantic
barrier islands to migrate slowly southward (westward on Long Island), with sand lost
from the north (east) end often transported to build new beaches and dunes at the south
(west) end. Hurricanes and nor’easters (extratropical cyclones) episodically move
tremendous quantities of sand, both onshore and offshore, as well as along the main axis
of the islands. Barrier beaches typically protect tidal lagoons, coastal salt ponds, or salt
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
4
marshes behind them. Breaches or blowouts of the beach/dune systems can occur during
major storms, creating new channels for flow between the ocean and back bays, and flood
plain deltas which eventually submerge to create sand flats, or become vegetated to create
wetlands (Greene et al. 2010).
A tidal inlet occurs where there is an opening through the barrier island for which
tidal flow occurs (Pinet 2003). Inlets will interrupt the longshore movement of sand as
the tidal currents will either carry the sediment to the ebb or flood shoals. The ebb shoal
is located offshore of the inlet while the flood shoal is located within the bay behind the
barrier island. These shoals can contain high quantities of sand that are inaccessible to
the natural littoral transport system unless a major wave event resuspends the material
within the littoral zone.
B. Description and division of North Atlantic shoreline
The North Atlantic shoreline can be grouped into two distinct regions, New
England and Mid-Atlantic. The New England region, encompassing the shoreline from
Maine to the north shore of Long Island, contains cliffs and rocky shorelines. The MidAtlantic region includes the south shore of Long Island to Chesapeake Bay and is
comprised of low-lying coastal plains and barrier islands. For this study, the North
Atlantic coast will be divided into the following six sub-regions based on a variety of
factors, predominantly shoreline type and direction of sediment transport: (1) Rocky
headlands of the Maine and New Hampshire shorelines; (2) Massachusetts shoreline
including Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay; (3) Long Island Sound, including the
Rhode Island and Connecticut shorelines; (4) New York coastline which includes the
south shore of Long Island Sound; (5) New Jersey coastline; and (6) Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia (Delmarva) coasts along with the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays
(Figure 2.1).
The North Atlantic region is currently the
In 2003, the coastal population of
most densely populated coastal region in the U.S.
the North Atlantic region was the
Although coastal counties along this region
largest in the country with 52.6
showed the slowest rate of population increase
million people, representing 34%
(58%) between 1980 and 2003, the region gained
of the nation’s total coastal
the second-largest number of people (almost 8
population.
million) of all U.S. regions during this time
(USEPA 2008). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rated the overall condition
of the collective coastal waters of this region as fair to poor. The water quality index for
the region is rated fair, the sediment quality index is rated fair to poor, the coastal habitat
index is rated good to fair, and the benthic and fish tissue contaminants indices are rated
poor (USEPA 2008).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
5
Maine and New Hampshire shorelines
Impacted by glacial retreat, the coastline
encompasses rocky islands, headlands,
uplifted terraces, and few beaches.
Sediment is mainly derived from two
sources: erosion of glacial deposits and
sediment transported by rivers. The
shoreline is relatively stable.
ME
Massachusetts shoreline
Terminal moraines and rock
outcroppings, along with barrier
systems, salt marshes, sand and cobble
beaches, are along the coast composed
of glacial deltaic sediments of coarse
sand and gravel. Parts of the shoreline
are stable or accreting while reaches of
southern shoreline and the islands of
Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard are
eroding.
VT
NY
NH
Long Island Sound, CT, and RI shoreline
Habitats include rocky shorelines to sandy
beaches. The RI coast has bedrock headlands
and shallow tidal inlets. The rocky shoreline
of CT contains estuaries, bays, inlets, and tidal
sandbars and marshes. Sandy beaches and
shoals are found within the LIS estuary. The
majority of this shoreline is stable with a few
erosional hotspots.
New Jersey shoreline
Unconsolidated sediments compose
the low-lying shoreline of NJ which
includes a variety of habitats such
as wetlands, estuaries, sandy
beaches, tidal inlets, bluffs, and
barrier islands. The majority of the
shoreline is experiencing some
erosion.
MA
RI
CT
NJ
New York shoreline
Barrier islands are separated by tidal inlets which
allow for some water exchange with back barrier
bays. Some inlets along the coastline have been
fortified for navigation purposes. The
southeastern shore of Long Island is relatively
stable while areas of the southwestern shore and
NY/NJ Harbor are eroding.
MD
DE
VA
Delmarva shoreline
Marsh and upland banks with fronting sand
dunes, beaches, and spits characterize the
coastline as do the two main estuaries of the
region: Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay.
The coastline is composed of unconsolidated
sediments which are frequently mobilized and
as a result significant erosion is occurring
along this coast.
Figure 2.1 – Longshore transport direction for the North Atlantic shoreline. Regional net
longshore transport directions are indicated by the arrows. The horizontal lines illustrate the
division of the area into six distinct regions for further analysis in this study (USACE 2002;
Hebert 2002).
The shoreline type determines both the way people and other organisms use that
shoreline as well as its ecological functions. The Heinz Center used available data
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
6
through 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to
determine the current percentage of each shoreline type as depicted in Table 2.1. As is
demonstrated through these data, vegetated wetlands dramatically dominate all other
shoreline habitats in the Mid-Atlantic region. Both New England and Mid-Atlantic
regions have almost twice the amount of armored shoreline as the U.S. shoreline average.
Region
New
England
Mid-Atlantic
Total US
Shoreline
Steep sand,
rock, clay
Percentage of Total Shoreline Miles
Mud or
Beaches
Vegetated
sand flats
wetlands
Armored
(bulkheads
or riprap)
7.56
5.63
26.34
7.13
15.05
11.70
38.82
63.99
12.23
11.55
17.08
12.40
21.21
43.00
6.32
Table 2.1 The percentage of shoreline types in the North and Mid-Atlantic regions compared to
the total U.S. shoreline (Heinz 2008).
C. Sediment sources and processes
To understand erosion and accretion along the North Atlantic shoreline, sediment
sources and processes that move sediment must first be described.
i. Sediment sources
All coastal sediment is derived from three mechanisms:
1. Recirculation of nearby or in-situ material;
2. Delivery from external sources through either artificial or natural means; and
3. Production through precipitation or biological means (minimal for the North
Atlantic area).
The dominant mechanism of sediment delivery is reliant upon a variety of factors
including the physical processes that influence the area and the underlying geology of the
region. New sediment is primarily provided to the coast by the weathering of mountains
and inland areas through erosion and delivered to the coast by rivers (Carter 1988).
However, the recycling and recirculation of sediment on the coastal plain and continental
shelf are the more important factors currently affecting shoreline erosion and accretion
along the east coast of the U.S.
There are a variety of sediment sources in the North Atlantic region. Glaciers
have not only impacted coastal geological formations but have also left deposits which
contribute to sediment transport systems. The relict sand deposits nourish the shoreline
and are important to maintaining longshore transport. Rivers deliver sand and gravel to
the New England coast but as the coastal plain widens farther south, sediment moved by
local rivers is usually trapped in estuaries. Thus, much of the sediment along the
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
7
shorelines south of New England comes from offshore deposits or is reworked from relict
beaches (Belknap 2005).
Many shorelines along the eastern coast are currently undergoing or have
previously had some form of beach nourishment. Sediment from external sources,
including submerged sand deposits, upland, and accretion sites, is often used in these
nourishment activities.
ii. Processes moving sediment
The movement of sediment along the shoreline is a complicated process that
varies throughout the North Atlantic coast. Many factors impact the shore and result in
the transport of sediment over a timeframes ranging from seconds to centuries. Potential
climate change effects like sea level rise will greatly affect sediment transport, but
impacts will not likely be observed until many years or centuries have passed. Irregular
events such as storms can influence waves and
Overwash is the process by
physical processes moving sediment, resulting
which water and sediment flow
in the rapid alteration of the shoreline. Waves
over the crest of a barrier island,
and wind bring continuous energy influencing
dune, or spit by waves. This
the shoreline and are persistent sediment
can result in a loss of sediment
transport mechanisms.
to the coast since sediment is
deposited inland of the barrier
Wind is a major sediment transport
island, dune or spit, a process
mechanism of fine sand grains which often
termed washover. Washover
results in the building of sand dunes. Wind and
fans are the fan-shaped
tide-induced currents are primary processes of
accumulation of sediment on the
sediment transportation. Wave energy activates
landward side of a barrier island
the sand while currents determine the direction
deposited by overtopping
of sediment movement (Wright et al. 1991).
waves, particularly storm surge,
and can be a significant
Wave action is a constant, dynamic
sediment sink.
physical force on the shoreline. As waves
approach the shoreface from far offshore, they are not parallel to the shore but begin to
undergo refraction as they near the beach. The wave crests are refracted to become more
aligned with the shallow sea bottom contours and subsequently become more parallel to
the shore. When waves strike the beach they release their energy and produce currents,
known as longshore currents, within the littoral zone. These currents flow parallel to the
shoreline and are responsible for the natural process of longshore drift, or the movement
of sand along the shore. The direction of the longshore current flow will change
throughout the day as the wave approach is altered but in most areas there is one
dominant direction for the longshore current and ensuing sediment transport (Pinet 2003).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
8
Waves
Longshore Current
Beach
Grain
movement
Figure 2.2 – Illustration of longshore current and subsequent sediment
movement along the shoreline.
The littoral zone extends from where waves start to break offshore to the far reach
of the waves on the beach. This zone typically stretches from the high to the low tide
marks and is where sediment is transported along the shoreline. Under varying
conditions, this zone can also include below the mean lower low water mark to those
areas affected by the wave base. Sand grains are moved back and forth in a zig-zag
motion with waves as they rush up and back on the beach, as is illustrated in Figure 2.2.
When a wave breaks on the beach, it carries and deposits sediment up the shore. When
gravity forces the wave back to the sea, the wave transports and deposits sand grains
eroded from the beach. The deposition of the sand grains occurs farther down the beach
from where the wave originally came onshore. This action results in net transport of
sediment in one direction along the shore, or longshore drift/transport. The net longshore
transport directions along the North Atlantic coastline are displayed in Figure 2.1.
Longshore transport will cause erosion along some areas of shoreline and result in the
accretion of sand in other areas, particularly when manmade structures impact sediment
movement (Oldale and Dinwoody 1999).
Surface ocean currents also have some influence on sediment transport in the
North Atlantic region. The Gulf Stream flows northeast from Florida along the east coast
of the U.S. until it reaches the North Carolina/Virginia border where the current begins to
transect the Atlantic Ocean and transforms into the North Atlantic Current. Due to this
movement, the Gulf Stream has some influence on the longshore current flowing into
southern Chesapeake Bay and negligible impact on currents farther north. The Gulf of
Maine Current moves in a counterclockwise direction and is fed by the Nova Scotia
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
9
Current. The Gulf of Maine Current travels south from the Canadian coast of New
Brunswick to Cape Cod Bay and then circles back up north. The Gulf of Maine Current
influences wave action and the longshore currents in this body of water (Hebert 2002).
The strength of the longshore current and wave action impacting a shore are
significant factors determining the amount of sand that is transported, but the type of
sediment the beach is composed of will also affect this movement. Smaller particles such
as mud (silt and clay) and sand are suspended in water longer and do not settle as easily
as larger particles such as gravel. Thus, even weak currents can impact small particles
and result in some sand movement. It is important to consider both the energy conditions
at the site of deposition and the sediment size distribution to determine sand movements
(Pinet 2003).
iii. Sediment budget
Engineers and scientists use a sediment budget to compare inputs and outputs of
sediment and determine the net quantity of sand along a shoreline. A sediment budget
must specify a location and timeframe for which sand sources and sinks will be
calculated. Sediment movement is variable and often site-specific making it difficult to
determine a sediment budget.
Primary sand sources may include:
• Longshore/onshore sand
transport
• Erosion of bluffs or dunes
• River input
Major sand sinks may include:
• Longshore sediment transport
• Wind erosion
• Permanent offshore losses
•
•
•
Aeolian input
Sea-cliff erosion
Artificially imported material
•
Dredging and mining of the
beach or nearshore
Losses to inlets and tidal shoals
(both ebb and flood)
•
Observation and analysis of charts/maps are commonly used to determine if an
area is eroding or not. A sediment budget may be developed as an idealized schematic
representation to identify transport fluxes and pathways to quantitatively explain what is
determined from observation.
Accurate sediment budgets are difficult to obtain due to the incomplete
understanding of sediment movement processes. Instrumentation is also hard to maintain
along the shore due to the constant impacts from wave energy. These problems, along
with the frequent variations in sediment movement direction and quantity, make it
difficult to collect precise data that can be used to build a sediment budget for a section of
coast. Development of a sediment budget is extremely important for shoreline managers
to institute proper sediment management practices. Thus, it is crucial that shoreline
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
10
managers and policy makers have some understanding of the sediment processes and
shoreline conditions within their geographic area of interest.
D. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion
The coastline is a dynamic environment with the natural processes of erosion and
accretion reducing and expanding habitats at constantly changing rates. Both positive
and negative environmental impacts result from erosion and accretion processes. Erosion
can negatively affect an ecosystem by causing habitat loss as sediment is removed from
the shore. Wetlands are one of the most productive habitats in the world and they
provide essential ecosystem services including nursery areas for juvenile crabs, finfish,
and other aquatic species. Wetlands can be affected by erosion when waves and other
forces remove sediment from the leading edge of the marsh and result in the retreat of the
wetlands. During high water and high energy events, water and waves can inundate the
wetlands and scour sediment turning the marsh into open water.
The restriction or impairment of tidal flow in an area also threaten wetlands and
produce hydrological changes that lower the salt concentration of the water and reduce
the elevation of tidal flooding. These changes result in a shift in vegetation that can be
supported by the marsh, as the flora relies on a specific salinity. The restrictions allow
invasive plant species such as the common reed to displace native plants and alter the
vegetation structure (Cape Cod Commission 2001).
Within the Chesapeake Bay and along other shorelines, sediment freed by tidal
erosion has become a pollutant and has resulted in the degradation of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV), a crucial habitat for many species, by entering the water column and
remaining in the area. SAV is found near the coast and estuaries in subtidal or intertidal
environments and provides valuable habitat and ecosystem services for the shoreline and
coastal inhabitants. Along the northeastern U.S. coast, eelgrass is the dominant species
of seagrass. Water quality degradation, primarily through the addition of nitrogen, has
led to the decline of eelgrass in many areas throughout this region. Erosion of beaches
near SAV communities can also lead to the loss of seagrass and the subsequent loss of
stabilization of bottom sediments, wave energy absorption, and feeding and nursery
habitat functions of these communities (Orth et al. 2010).
Erosion and subsequent accretion of sediment can also provide benefits to the
environment. Without erosion processes, most shorelines would not exist as the erosion
of upland areas, glacial deposits, and other coasts is needed to supply sediment and create
additional habitats found along the coast. Erosion creates beaches and offshore sand
bars, which provides habitat for many species. Eroded sediment can be utilized by
wetlands to accrete vertically and allow these habitats to adjust to sea-level rise (Tidal
Sediment Task Force of the Sediment Workgroup 2005).
Human development restricts the natural lateral progression of the shoreline,
preventing inland movement of the coastline and habitats as they are affected by erosion
and sea-level rise. Shoreline structures also alter the natural habitat and make it more
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
11
difficult for coastal habitats to adapt to the dynamic processes of the shoreline and result
in a loss of ecosystem integrity and function. Shorelines are important vital habitats for a
number of shoreline-dependent species, including a variety of Federal and state rare
species, and development/armoring causes loss of habitat for these species. Coastal
armoring has been demonstrated to shrink dry upper beach and mid-beach zones as well
as reduce species abundance (Dugan et al. 2008). Regional coastal sediment processes
influence the design, operation and maintenance of engineering projects. Examples of
regional processes and controls determine the sediment transport pattern, associated
shoreline evaluation, and navigation channel performance may be found in Larson et al.
2002.
Data are not available for the national or regional reporting on the percentage of
U.S. coastline that is managed in an attempt to control erosion, or for unmanaged areas
that are eroding, accreting, or stable. Assessments of shoreline stability are now
conducted as short-term or single-purpose projects that are neither regional nor national
in scope. Local assessments often use different methods, which makes it difficult to
combine results into an accurate national or regional picture. In order to make a
comprehensive assessment of the national shoreline, scientists and coastal managers
would need to agree on numerical definitions of erosion and accretion. There would also
need to be agreement on whether a formerly managed area along the coast should always
be considered as managed. For example, if an area received sand through beach
nourishment, would it still be appropriate to classify this area as actively managed ten
years later (Heinz 2008)?
The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
recently completed an assessment that is
intended to support regional ecosystem-based
management (EBM), an approach previously
endorsed by several blue-ribbon panels and
recently by the United States Ocean Policy
Task Force. EBM acknowledges the
interconnections between air, land, sea,
marine organisms and people, and the
dynamic interactions between living resources and their environments. The results
summarized in this report include maps and data on concentrations of high biodiversity
and critical species specific areas for refuge, forage and spawning, and some of the
limited available spatial data for human uses such as shipping lanes, port facilities,
energy development, fishing effort, dredge sites and locations of shoreline armoring
(Greene et al. 2010). Access to the assessment data is available at
www.nature.org/namera/.
Ecosystem-based management
(EBM) is an integrated, sciencebased approach to the management of
natural resources that aims to sustain
the health, resilience and diversity of
ecosystems while allowing for
sustainable use by humans of the
goods and services they provide.
The case study below discusses the environmental effects of erosion and accretion
of the shoreline on one endangered bird species, the piping plover (Charadrius melodus),
demonstrating the effect of habitat changes on the recovery of this species (USFWS
2009).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
12
Since its 1986 listing, the Atlantic Coast piping plover population estimate has
increased 234%, from approximately 790 pairs to an estimated 1,849 pairs in 2008, and
the U.S. portion of the population has almost tripled, from approximately 550 pairs to an
estimated 1,596 pairs. Even discounting apparent
increases in New York, New Jersey, and North
Recent research and
Carolina between 1986 and 1989, which likely were
observations of the piping
due in part to increased census effort (USFWS
plover distribution in response
1996), the population nearly doubled between 1989
to habitat changes further
and 2008. The largest population increase between
buttress the 1996 revised
1989 and 2008 has occurred in New England
recovery plan assessment that
(245%), followed by New York-New Jersey (74%).
low, sparsely vegetated beaches
The recent 64% decline in the Maine population,
juxtaposed with abundant moist
from 66 pairs in 2002 to 24 pairs in 2008, following
foraging substrates are preferred
only a few years of decreased productivity, provides
by breeding Atlantic Coast
another example of the continuing risk of rapid and
piping plovers.
precipitous reversals in population growth.
A growing body of evidence reinforces information presented in the 1996 revised
recovery plan regarding the importance of wide, flat, sparsely-vegetated barrier beach
habitats for the recovery of Atlantic Coast piping plovers. Such habitats include abundant
moist sediments associated with blowouts, washover areas, spits, unstabilized and
recently closed inlets, ephemeral pools, and sparsely vegetated dunes.
In 1997, a National Park Service (NPS) Technical Report on the piping plover
habitat at Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts found that significantly more
nests were on beaches with access to bayside feeding habitats when compared with
random points. However, almost two-thirds of the nests occurred on beaches without
chick access to bayside foraging; nest success was significantly greater on beaches
without bayside access, while fledging success did not differ significantly. Two logistic
regression models indicated that sparse vegetation and distance from pedestrian access
points were important indicators of beach suitability, while one of the models also
identified bay access as characteristic of nest habitat selection. Beach slope at nests
averaged 5.6%, less than the mean slope at random points of 8.3% (Jones 1997). A 1990
report on piping plover reported that out of 80 piping plover nests observed at Sandy
Neck in Barnstable, Massachusetts, no nests were located seaward of “steep foredunes,”
where this habitat constituted 83% of the beach front (Strauss 1990). Many areas in this
study site had been artificially plugged with discarded Christmas trees and/or sand
fences. Piping plover distribution and foraging rates during the pre-nesting period (during
establishment of territories and courtship) on South Monomoy Island, Massachusetts,
indicated that sound and tidal-pond intertidal zones were the most important feeding
areas in the period before egg-laying (Fraser et al. 2005).
A 1998 Journal of Field Ornithology report found significantly higher chick
survival and overall productivity among chicks with access to salt pond “mudflats” than
those limited to oceanside beaches at Goosewing Beach, Rhode Island. This report also
demonstrated that broods on the pond shore spent significantly less time reacting to
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
13
human disturbance (1.6%) than those limited to the ocean beach (17%). Since ocean
beaches are highly attractive to recreational beachgoers, limiting plovers to these habitats
may also increase the potential for disturbance from people and pets (Goldin and Regosin
1998). On beach segments with bay tidal flats, broods preferred bay tidal flats and wrack
to other habitats. On segments with neither ephemeral pools nor bay tidal flats, wrack
was the most preferred habitat, and open vegetation was the second most preferred.
Indices of arthropod abundance were highest on ephemeral pools and bay tidal flats.
A 2008 Wilson Journal of Ornithology report noted that mean vegetative cover
around piping plover nests on a recently re-nourished Long Island beach was 7.5%, and
all plovers nested in <47% cover. Although almost 60% of nests were on bare ground,
nests occurred in sparse vegetation more often than expected based on the availability of
this habitat type. Plovers also appeared to favor nest sites with coarse substrate over pure
sand. Distribution of nests was heavily concentrated on the bayside of the barrier island
in the early years following inlet formation and closure, but bayside nests decreased
precipitously starting in 2001 and disappeared by 2004 as the study area was redeveloped
and the bayside revegetated. The chick foraging rate was highest in bayside intertidal
flats and in ocean and bayside fresh wrack. Chicks used the bayside more than expected
based on percentage of available habitat, and survived better on the bayside before village
construction and the initiation of predator trapping, but not after. In most years, density of
nesting pairs adjacent to bayside overwash was 1.5 to 2 times that at an adjacent
reference site, where beach nourishment increased the nesting habitat but not the foraging
habitat. This study concluded that local population growth can be very rapid where
storms create both nesting and foraging habitats in close juxtaposition. An increase in the
local nesting habitat via artificial beach nourishment, however, is not necessarily
followed by an increase in the local population if nearby intertidal flats are absent. The
report also noted similarities between these results and observations by Wilcox (1959) of
rapid colonization of habitats created on Westhampton barrier beaches by storms in the
1930s and their subsequent decline following revegetation and redevelopment as detailed
in the 1996 recovery plan (Cohen et al. 2008; 2009).
At the North Brigantine Natural Area in New Jersey, changes in piping plover
nesting numbers have paralleled changing habitat conditions. This area was subject to
severe erosion in the early 1990s, and no plovers nested between 1990 and 1994. In the
winter of 1994-1995, a series of nor’easters created a short-lived, shallow inlet from the
ocean to a tidal lagoon (Widgeon Bay), which later transformed to several meandering
channels overwashing the beach and stripping vegetation. The piping plover population at
this site grew from a single pair in 1995 to 15 pairs in 2002. Through 2002, plover
breeding activity was concentrated almost entirely in the overwash area, which comprised
less than a third of the approximately 2.5-mile-long Natural Area beach (Jenkins 2003).
With active management of both predators and off-road vehicle use, the North Brigantine
site was also highly productive, fledging an average of 1.74 chicks per pair during the
eight-year period. In 2003, the population increased to a total of 17 pairs distributed over
a larger portion of the Natural Area, but productivity declined markedly. A subsequent
decrease in overwash events at the site resulted in revegetation of the site and improved
fox denning and feeding habitat (also coinciding with curtailed fox removal).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
14
Analysis of piping plover nest site selection in New Jersey found that there was a
strong preference for nesting near inlets, particularly those that were not “shored”
(hardened) with jetties or other stabilization features (Kisiel 2009). Over the 12 years
from 1996-2007, the breeding population held steady at approximately 60 pairs (range =
56-66), but increasing vegetation forced nesting locations further seaward or into atypical
vegetated habitats and blocked chick access to bayside foraging habitats (Kumer 2009).
The breeding population declined to 49 pairs in 2008, and productivity matched the
previous recorded low of 0.41 chicks per pair (NPS 2008). In Virginia, it was found that
the five islands where piping plover breeding was observed every year from 1986-2005,
“… encompass large segments of broad beaches with low discontinuous dunes and
expansive sand-shell flats … providing unimpeded access from beach nest sites to the
moist-soil ecotones of backside marshes” (Boettcher et al. 2007). A 2000 report to the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Climate change is any significant
Fisheries reported that chick habitat use, foraging
change in climate measures
rates, and invertebrate prey abundance on four
(precipitation, temperature, wind)
Virginia barrier islands were highest at moist
that lasts for an extended period.
inner-beach marsh edges and barrier flat habitats
The global climate system is
(Cross and Terwilliger 2000).
warming and has resulted in and will
cause further wide ranging effects on
E. Climate change and sea-level rise
the natural and human environments.
Humans have likely influenced the
The potential effects of climate change,
warming of the Earth by increasing
particularly if sea-level rise accelerates and
the amount of greenhouse gases in
storms increase in frequency, intensity, and/or
the atmosphere.
size, will significantly alter the North Atlantic
coastline of the U.S. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
predicted global sea levels to rise by between 7 - 23 in (18 - 59 cm) by the end of the
century. This estimate included ocean water expansion due to warming, decreases in
glaciers and ice caps, and some ice sheet losses. The IPCC report did not include the
recent estimates of accelerated melting of glaciers in West Antarctica and Greenland.
These studies demonstrate that sea levels may increase by up to 3.3 ft (1 m) by the end of
this century (U.S. Climate Change Science
Global sea level depends on the balance
Program 2009).
between the mass of water in oceans and
the mass of ice on land, influenced by the
atmospheric temperature of the Earth.
Global (eustatic) sea level rise is the
average increase in sea level throughout
the world. This increase may be due to
the thermal expansion of ocean waters
and the addition of water to seas from
melting glaciers and ice caps.
Relative sea level rise is the local rate of
sea level rise measured to a specified
vertical datum relative to the land.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
Given the population density and
potential social and economic effects of
changes in ocean circulation and sea level,
the northeast coast of the U.S. may be one
of the most vulnerable regions in the world
to climate change. Climate models reflect
an accelerated sea-level rise for the
northeast coastline with small variability
among these models (Yin et al. 2009).
15
Relative sea-level rise in some locations along the northeast U.S. may be greater than
these global estimates. Land subsidence is occurring in some regions, resulting in rates
of rise that exceed the global average of 0.07 in/yr (1.7 mm/yr) which are shown in Table
2.2 below.
Station Location
Eastport, ME
Portland, ME
Seavey Island, ME
Boston, MA
Woods Hole, MA
Providence, RI
Newport, RI
New London, CT
Montauk, NY
The Battery, NY
Sandy Hook, NJ
Atlantic City, NJ
Lewes, DE
Baltimore, MD
Annapolis, MD
Solomons Island, MD
Washington, DC
Portsmouth, VA
Mean sea-level rise
(in/yr)
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.15
0.16
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.15
Mean sea-level
rise (mm/yr)
2.00
1.82
1.76
2.63
2.61
1.88
2.58
2.25
2.78
2.77
3.90
3.99
3.20
3.08
3.44
3.41
3.16
3.76
Time Span
1929-2006
1912-2006
1926-2006
1921-2006
1932-2006
1938-2006
1930-2006
1938-2006
1947-2006
1905-2006
1932-2006
1911-2006
1919-2006
1902-2006
1928-2006
1937-2006
1931-2006
1935-2006
Table 2.2 – Rates of mean sea-level rise generated from selected tide gauges in the northeast U.S.
(National Ocean Service 2006).
The sandy, gentle sloping coastlines of the region from Massachusetts and Long
Island Sound southward will be particularly susceptible to shoreline changes through
erosion and inundation if storms such as hurricanes increase in frequency and intensity.
Spits, barrier islands, and headlands may erode faster. Barrier islands may also become
segmented or migrate landward rapidly; both processes are already being observed on
Maryland’s Assateague Island (USCCSP 2009). Sea-level rise may also result in
increased tidal exchange and the growth of flood and ebb-tidal deltas. The growth of
deltas will remove more sediment from the littoral system and surrounding barriers,
causing further erosion (Ashton et al. 2008; Fitzgerald et al. 2006). The ability of tidal
marshes and other coastal habitats to migrate landward is crucial to maintaining these
habitats if they are affected by sea-level rise. Ecosystem loss will occur if migration of
the habitats is restricted by steep natural slopes or man-made structures such as
bulkheads, roads, and buildings. A reduction in the area of tidal wetlands can also
dramatically impact the entire coastal system by changing tidal flow and affecting the
size and shape of ebb and flood shoals, barrier islands, and tidal inlets (USCCSP 2009).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
16
Sea level rise will likely produce increased bluff and upland erosion due to higher
levels of inundation. Coastal erosion has also been shown to constrain sand dune plant
habitats and result in the ultimate loss of late-succession sand dune species. These dune
plant species are particularly important to the construction of dunes, fastening of
sediments, and prevention of future erosion (USCCSP 2009; Feagin et al. 2005).
Wetland habitats can be significantly
Increases in the frequency and
affected by dramatic sea-level rise. As mentioned
intensity of storms may increase
previously, wetlands provide valuable ecosystem
the risk of erosion and storm
functions but they also provide flood protection
surge in coastal areas. Sea level
by mitigating storm surge and enhancing water
rise may increase the potential
quality through absorption of sediment and
for coastal inundation. The
pollutants. If sea level increases too rapidly for
combination of coastal flooding
marsh systems to accumulate sediment and
and increasing storms can
vertically accrete (move laterally), then wetlands
potentially increase the local
will be inundated and eventually lost (Habitat
environmental impacts of
Restoration and Monitoring Subcommittees
coastal erosion and storm surge.
2008). An increase of sea-level rise rates by 0.08
in (2 mm)/yr will stress most wetlands on the
Mid-Atlantic and it is probable that most of these wetlands will not survive an
acceleration of 0.28 in (7 mm)/yr.
Wetlands and other coastal habitats support a variety of important species that are
threatened by climate change and its impacts. Climate change will directly degrade
habitat quality and will indirectly permit invasive species to expand into new territories.
The presence of invasive species in a new area may increase predation, alter the food
chain and competitive dominance, and introduce diseases. These effects can further
endanger coastal species and lead to a much reduced population (Rahel et al. 2008).
Rising ocean temperatures due to climate
change could result in more intense and frequent
storm events which may also promote greater
erosion along the shoreline. It is possible that a
“100-year storm” could impact the northeast every
two to three years. However, it must be noted that there is considerable uncertainty in
storm prediction modeling and the use of different models produces different results,
based on the assumptions of the model. Powerful storm events are often the major cause
of barrier breaching, overwash, flooding, and significant coastal erosion. Both hurricanes
and nor’easters will continue to be considerable threats to the sediment resources,
economy, tourism, and recreation opportunities of the northeast coastline.
After Louisiana and Florida,
Delaware and Maryland are the
third and fourth states most
susceptible to sea-level rise.
Some aspects of the reaction of coastal environments such as the sustainability of
coastal wetlands to sea-level rise and other climate change effects remain poorly
understood and require additional research. Threshold behavior of some systems is also
an area of uncertainty. Some conditions may cause coastal systems to become unstable
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
17
and cross a geomorphic threshold. This could result in significant and/or irreversible
changes to the system (USCCSP 2009).
ME
VT
NH
NY
MA
RI
CT
NJ
PA
MD
DE
VA
Figure 2.3 Erosion and accretion rates for the North Atlantic Area (Thieler and Hammar-Klose
1999).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
18
The USGS has created the Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) which depicts the
risk of coastline areas to physical changes from sea-level rise. Many locations in the
northeastern U.S. were classified as very high risk by the CVI including: the majority of
the Maryland and Virginia shores both along the Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay, the
central and southern coasts of New Jersey, part of the northern Delaware Bay shore,
portions of the Delaware coast and parts of south Cape Cod, Nantucket Island, and
eastern Martha’s Vineyard. Other areas such as part of the Long Island south shore and
New Jersey coast were demonstrated to be at high risk from the effects of sea-level rise.
One variable included in the CVI was shoreline change and the erosion and accretion
rates included in the CVI can be found in Figure 2.3 (Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999).
A number of studies of the potential impacts of projected sea level rise have been
conducted in and near the North Atlantic region, including in Assateague Island National
Seashore and the Virginia Coast Reserve (Pendleton et al. 2004), Chesapeake Bay, the
New Jersey coast (Zhang et al. 2004), Long Island (New York) (Goddard Institute 2008),
the coast from New York to North Carolina (Titus and Wang 2008; Titus and Strange
2008; Titus et al. 2008; Reed et al. 2008; USCCSP 2009), Quonochontaug Pond, Rhode
Island (Vinhateiro 2008), and Scarborough Marsh, Maine (Slovinsky and Dixon 2006).
In addition EPA, working with local county governments, produced a series of regionwide maps that use existing data, filtered through the local governments which plan and
govern how land is used. The maps represent the likelihood that shores would be
protected from erosion if current trends continue. The maps divide coastal low lands into
four categories: developed (shore protection almost certain), intermediate (shore
protection likely), undeveloped (shore protection unlikely), and conservation (no shore
protection) (Titus et al. 2009).
Through the National Assessment of Shoreline Change project, the Coastal and
Marine Geology Program of USGS is analyzing historic shoreline change of the U.S.
The shoreline change evaluations utilize historical shoreline information and recent data
obtained from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) topographic surveys. The
Northeast Atlantic assessment will be published in the summer of 2010.
Shoreline erosion and accretion rates for the U.S. were compiled in the 1980s into
the Coastal Erosion Information System (CEIS) (May et al. 1982; May et al. 1983; Dolan
et al. 1985). CEIS includes shoreline change data for the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico,
Pacific and Great Lakes coasts, as well as major bays and estuaries. The data in CEIS are
drawn from a wide variety of sources, including published reports, historical shoreline
change maps, field surveys and aerial photo analyses. However, the lack of a standard
method among coastal scientists for analyzing shoreline changes has resulted in the
inclusion of data utilizing a variety of reference features, measurement techniques, and
rate-of-change calculations. Thus, while CEIS represents the best available data for the
U.S. as a whole, much work is needed to accurately document regional and local erosion
rates. The CEIS data are being augmented by and updated with shoreline change data
obtained from states and local agencies, in addition to new analyses being conducted as
part of this study.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
19
F. Shoreline management practices
Humans have been managing the shoreline for hundreds of years for navigation,
recreation, aesthetic, and commercial purposes. Shoreline structures and management
practices have been employed throughout the coast to promote these activities and
prevent adverse changes to the shoreline. States in the North Atlantic region take
differing approaches to the management of their coastlines and these methods will be
described.
Shoreline management practices are generally categorized into three classes: hard
structures, soft structures, and planning, policy and regulatory measures. Hardened
structures are permanent works that armor the shoreline to prevent further erosion
landward of the structure. Soft protection practices utilize natural resources and systems
to maintain the shoreline. Some coastal management projects combine both hard and soft
stabilization techniques to address problems in the coastal zone. Other areas utilize
policies, procedures, and regulations to restrict human activity along the shoreline and
protect beaches. These classes are described below. The Corps Coastal Engineering
Manual can provide additional information on various methods of shore protection
(http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/cem).
i. Hardened structures
A variety of hard shoreline protection structures are employed in the preservation
of the shoreline by absorbing some of the wave action impacting the shore and preventing
the erosion of land behind the structures. These structures are composed of wood,
concrete, stone, and other materials. Although these structures are used to maintain the
shoreline, hard approaches to coastal management can lead to loss of beach and habitat
by reflecting wave and current energy and disrupting the natural sediment transport
system. Hardened shoreline protection structures are utilized throughout the North
Atlantic region to defend the coastline from erosion. When designed to be compatible
with the natural processes of the particular site, these formations can prevent the land
behind the structure from eroding. They can also be harmful to the shore and disrupt the
natural sedimentation system resulting in new erosion problems. In some projects, hard
approaches to shoreline protection are used in conjunction with soft approaches such as
beach nourishment and marsh plantings (Hardaway and Byrne 1999; USACE 2002).
Bulkheads and seawalls are vertical structures utilized to hold upland sediment.
Bulkheads are typically made of wood or sheet-piling and are much smaller than seawall
structures, providing only nominal protection from waves. In national parks, bulkheads
are typically cantilevered or anchored sheet piles or gravity structures such as rock-filled
timber cribs and gabions, concrete blocks, armorstone units or wood. Concrete is the
common substrate of seawalls and often rubble mound is placed in front of the wall to
prevent erosion at the toe of the structure. Gravity or pile foundations are which also
provides some protection from waves. Although shore armoring structures prevent longterm migration of the shoreline, they do result in passive erosion of the beach. For
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
20
example, scour can occur due to wave reflection from the end of a seawall at the
downcoast end of these structures (Griggs et al. 1997).
Figure 2.4 Depiction of a typical bulkhead composed of sheet piling (USACE 2008).
Revetments use rocks (also known as riprap) to fortify the shoreline. Stones are
placed along a sloped or rough face and, if properly constructed, result in less bottom
scour and wave refraction on the fronting beach or subtidal area. Revetments can also be
constructed using other substrates such as concrete, sand or concrete filled fabric bags,
gabion baskets, and vegetation.
Figure 2.5 Depiction of a typical riprap revetment (USACE 2008).
Groins are common shore protection structures that are built perpendicular to the
shoreline to trap sediment on an updrift beach. Groins are best utilized if there is a
significant amount of sediment in the system and the transport is unidirectional or has
been artificially nourished. Multiple groins are usually installed to increase beach
sediment along a stretch of shoreline with a terminal groin being the most downcoast
structure in the groin field. Groins can also lead to erosion of the shoreline; as they
increase sand on the updrift side of the groin, they starve the beach on the downdrift side
as well as the coast beyond the terminal groin. Wave diffraction at the tip of the groin
causes waves to break parallel to the coast, exacerbating erosion along the shore
(Hardaway and Byrne 1999). Small groins are typically composed of large rock or wood.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
21
Permeable groins maintain some natural sediment transport by allowing a limited amount
of sediment to pass through the structure. Permeability is created by shortening or
notching the groin, increasing material porosity, and reducing offshore crest elevations
(Rankin et al. 2003; Donohue et al. 2003).
Figure 2.6 Depiction of erosion and accretion produced by a groin field along the coast (North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management 2008).
Breakwater, a term derived from their function of “breaking” wave forces prior to
the wave hitting the coast, is an offshore structure parallel to the shore that allow
sediment accretion on the updrift side, increasing the development of beaches and/or
marshes. This development further strengthens the shoreline and averts easy erosion of
sediment.
Figure 2.7 Illustration of a typical breakwater structure and its impact on the shoreline
(USACE 2002).
Sills utilize elements of both breakwaters and rock revetments to protect the
shoreline. These structures attenuate wave energy prior to the water contacting the
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
22
beach. Sills are often composed of riprap, are much smaller than breakwaters, and are
built relatively close to the shore. Marsh plantings and beach fill can help establish the
shoreline behind the sill.
Figure 2.8 Depiction of a typical rubble mound submerged sill structure (USACE 2002).
Breakwaters, revetments, and sills can be used to control headlands along the shore.
Stabilization of the natural system may be achieved by fortifying the headlands and
allowing embayments in between the headlands. Hardening of only the shore headlands
often reduces the size of structures needed and decreases the cost of the project. Wood
used to be the common substrate used for hardened structures, but stone, sheet piling and
concrete are more frequently used today as they are typically more persistent than wood.
Geotubes and other substrates on which dunes can be erected are also used to prevent
beach erosion. The use of a hardened substrate that will not easily erode aids in the
stabilization of dunes when they are impacted by high energy waves and wind.
ii. Soft measures
Soft shoreline management practices can
utilize organic materials and plantings to stabilize
the shoreline. By using natural methods, the coastal
habitat can be preserved and restored while
preventing further erosion. Soft approaches may
not be appropriate for shorelines with high wave
energy which can easily erode beach replenishment
or remove plantings.
A “Living Shoreline
Treatment” is a shoreline
management practice that
addresses erosion by providing
for long-term protection,
restoration or enhancement of
vegetated shoreline habitats.
This is accomplished through
the strategic placement of
plants, stone, sand fill and other
structural and organic materials.
Beach and dune nourishment are frequently
used soft approaches to prevent erosion of the shoreline. Sand is deposited directly on
the beach and/or dune, updrift from the eroding shore, on the eroding area, or in the
nearshore water off the beach as a means to restore sediment supply to the eroding coast.
Sand is often obtained from offshore deposits, upland deposits, dredged material, or
trapped sand by coastal structures. Beach nourishment is not a permanent solution to an
eroding coastline; the deposited material is removed by wave action over time and the
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
23
shore will need to be replenished in the future (Beach Stakeholder’s Group 2006;
Hardaway and Byrne 1999). However, beach nourishment can be highly effective in
high energy settings provided an appropriate renourishment regime is established, grainsize of material is appropriate, and other factors are considered (USACE 2002). Beach
nourishment is often performed in conjunction with the construction of hardened
structures and to mitigate or offset some of the erosion and disruption caused by these
formations.
Figure 2.9 A general shoreline profile with possible living shoreline treatments depicted
(VIMS 2010).
Marsh planting to develop a marsh fringe along the shore is a means to stabilize
beach sediment. In low wave energy environments such as bays, planting marsh grass
can be planted along the shoreline. In higher wave energy environments, these grasses
must be placed behind a protection structure to prevent them from quickly eroding by
waves prior to becoming established on the shore.
Sand fences are used to control wind blown sand, trap sediment, and aid in the
building of dunes along the coastline. The most common forms of fences are single and
double straight rows of wooden slat fences. Fences not only create dunes but they also
defend against flooding and waves and can be utilized to identify property lines on the
shore and control pedestrian traffic. If placed correctly on the shore, sand fences can
eventually be integrated into the environment after the built up dune has been vegetated
(Grafals-Soto and Nordstrom 2009).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
24
iii. Planning, policy and regulatory measures
Non-structural shoreline management practices include policies, regulations, and
other methods to control human activity within the coastal zone. These solutions can
include relocation of development along the coastline, retreat from the coast, elevation of
structures, and the implementation of zoning restrictions.
Planning, policy and approaches to shoreline management are intended to
influence human use and development near the shoreline. These approaches can be
preventative measures to avoid the need for physical shoreline stabilization. They can
also be implemented in response to shoreline erosion when physical shoreline
stabilization would be too costly, ineffective or undesirable. While each planning, policy
or regulatory approach identified below has merit by itself, coastal managers often find a
combination of these methods are the most effective way to guard against erosion threats
and to manage the shoreline.
Planning and policy tools include activities such as: high-risk erosion area
disclosures; insurance incentives/disincentives; managed retreats; mitigation; mitigation
for lost functions and values; shoreline management plans; tax incentives, and; transfer of
development rights programs. Regulatory tools include: construction setbacks; erosion
control easements; erosion control structure regulations; high-risk erosion area
disclosures; mitigation; shorefront development regulations; restrictive convents, and;
zoning and erosion overlay districts. In addition, other management tools include: costshare/loan programs; education/outreach campaigns; relocation assistance and buy-backs;
land acquisitions, and; research and monitoring programs. All of these tools are
discussed in detail at
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/initiatives/shoreline_ppr_overview.html
Developing strong shoreline management policies, regulations and planning
approaches is very important as they are the only way to effectively reduce, or avoid
altogether, the need for costly erosion control measures. Effective shoreline management
policies can also help maintain the natural shoreline dynamics and preserve important
coastal environments. Despite the numerous benefits these tools offer, implementing
these approaches can be technically and politically difficult, especially when good
scientific data is lacking or where significant shoreline development has already
occurred.
The use of a holistic approach to managing sediment and ocean resources has become
more prevalent in recent years. Cooperation across
Regional sediment management
political boundaries to improve sediment
(RSM) is a systems-based
management can make more resources available for
approach for collaboratively
all shorelines. The application of system approaches
addressing sediment resources
to sand and sediment management is occurring in
within the context of regional
different regions, at different scopes and scales,
strategies (estuarine, ocean) that
opportunistically and strategically, and in different
address integrated sediment
needs and opportunities.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
25
geomorphic and institutional settings. These applications may, or may not be called
RSM. The Corps has been integrating the systems approach to sediment management
through RSM.
The RSM approach is consistent with watershed, ecosystem and other system
approaches. Integral to these approaches are: using an understanding of regional system
processes and characteristics as the basis for understanding the interrelated needs and
opportunities in a region; collective stakeholder identification of regional priorities;
leveraging capabilities; and shared responsibilities to address the interrelated priority
objectives.
Fundamental to application of a system approach to sand/sediment management,
is that the knowledge about the sediment system is included in plans and decisions
regarding projects, activities and programs, undertaken by a range of Federal and nonFederal stakeholders. These considerations would include impacts of the sediment
system on the project, activity or program, as well as the effects of these efforts on the
sediment system over time, in relation to economic, environmental and social objectives.
Factors that contribute to the increasing depth/rigor of application of system approaches
to sediment management include:
1. Recognition of sediment as a resource;
2. Application/integration of knowledge of the sediment system into plans, designs,
and policies;
3. Consideration of project/activity/program interconnectivity via the sediment
system or sediment resources;
4. Opportunistic or strategic pursuit of sediment mgt and beneficial use projects;
5. Identification of regional sediment needs and opportunities;
6. Stakeholder collaboration in prioritizing sediment needs and management
opportunities; and
7. Stakeholder commitment to collaboratively implementing the regional sediment
strategy, to address the regional priorities.
These factors can be applied to different degrees, and in ways tailored to each given
region. Application of system approaches to sediment management often begins with
recognition of sediment as a resource (factor 1). Often, sediment losses, such as erosion,
adversely affect infrastructure or valued ecological resource, and draw stakeholder
attention to existing and emerging problems. For example, in a region with navigation
channel maintenance activities, stakeholders should coordinate on efforts that beneficially
use suitable dredged material to address the identified sediment loss issue (factor 4). This
coordination may evolve into a programmatic approach that considers anticipated
dredging cycles for regional project(s) and matches sediment resources that are
anticipated to become available with areas that need sediment (factor 3).
Stakeholders that are not knowledgeable about the sediment system often make
decisions on sediment without a strategically defined prioritization for using the sediment
resources (factors 2, 5 and 6). This lack of knowledge of these potential beneficial use
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
26
projects may affect the project lifespan, adversely affecting other sediment related
objectives in the region. A lack of consideration of regional priorities related to sediment
can result in the beneficial use projects foreclosing opportunities to use limited regional
sediment resources to address the highest regional priorities. The absence of factors 5
and 6 is a key difference between opportunistic and strategic system approaches to
sediment management. Another key difference is the degree of stakeholder collaboration
in identifying the regional suite of sediment needs and opportunities, along with their
commitment to collaboration in implementation of the recommended solutions (factor 7).
EBM stresses the supervision of all human activity affecting a specific
environment. For example, the overuse or degradation of resources is identified in order
to achieve a balanced and equitable approach to utilizing natural resources while still
providing protection of the natural system and environment (Crowder et al. 2006). The
NSMS complements a number of governmental and non-governmental efforts that study
the challenges to and opportunities for effective coastal management along U.S.
shorelines. Examples of initiatives and reports that guide NSMS activities and facilitate
interagency collaboration on coastal management issues may be found at
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/NSMS/related.html
G. Agency roles and responsibilities
The Federal government maintains an active role in the design and construction of
shore protection features, the preservation and regulation of sensitive coastal and
estuarine ecosystems, and in the planning process for coastal communities. Additionally,
the USGS coordinates the Federal monitoring activities of tides, currents, and other
coastally relevant measurements. The major Federal agencies in coastal and shore
management, listed in alphabetical order, are the Corps, EPA, FEMA, NOAA, and NPS.
Several other Federal agencies have a presence in coastal and shoreline actions. The
USFWS in the Department of the Interior and NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) in the Department of Commerce share responsibility for administration of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The USFWS is also responsible for the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWR) and the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CoBRA).
i. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
The Corps coastal and shore activities derive from several laws including the Rivers and
Harbors Act (RHA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the various WRDAs. These
legislative acts authorize the Corps national missions, including maintaining navigation
and flood damage reduction, as well as site-specific projects. Current North Atlantic
projects are listed in this study. The Corps is heavily involved in the regulation of the
deposition of fill material and sediment disposal into Waters of the U.S. through Section
404 of the CWA, the regulation of any structures or work in or affecting navigable waters
of the U.S. under Section 10 of the RHA, and the permitting of the disposal of dredged
material in the ocean pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.
With the exception of New Jersey, the enforcement of both regulations is done in
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
27
conjunction with the EPA. New Jersey has assumed the Section 404 permit program with
the approval of EPA.
Historically, the Corps is responsible for the construction of coastal flood and
storm protection projects that are Federally-funded or sponsored. Section 426 of the RHA
authorized the Corps to direct investigations and studies, in cooperation with the
appropriate agencies, with a view to devising effective means of preventing erosion of the
shores of coastal and lake waters by waves and currents. This includes hard shore
engineering features, such as the groin fields on the South Shore of Long Island, as well
as soft shore protection measures such as the numerous beach nourishment projects along
the New Jersey coast. Shore protection project decisions are based upon the best available
solution for the lowest feasible cost. Costs and benefits may include economic values,
environmental values, or societal costs and benefits. They may be funded by direct
appropriation from the U.S. Congress or one of several Continuing Authority Programs
(CAPs) in place within the Corps. One such CAP authority is Section 14, which covers
emergency streambank and shoreline protection. While not used with large programmatic
initiatives in mind, Section 14 projects are an important part of maintaining coastal works
in the event of an emergency.
Section 111 of the 1968 RHA provides authority for the Corps to develop and
construct projects for the prevention or mitigation of damages caused by Federal
navigation work. This applies to publicly and privately owned shorelines located along
the coast and the Great Lakes. Section 204 of the 1992 WRDA provides authority for the
Corps to plan, design and build projects to protect, restore and create aquatic and
ecologically related habitats in connection with the dredging of authorized Federal
navigation projects. Typically, these projects involve the beneficial use of dredged
material from navigation channels to improve or create wetlands or waterbird nesting
habitats. The Corps also has a separate ecosystem restoration mission not associated with
Federally-constructed projects.
ii. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The EPA administers several permitting programs in conjunction with the Corps,
as well as several national programs. The EPA is jointly responsible for permit decisions
under Section 404 of the CWA as well as decisions made under the Ocean Dumping Act.
These regulations pertain to the deposition of fill material and the disposal of dredged
material. This may include material placed on beaches as part of a nourishment project,
structures that are constructed in coastal or estuarine waters, or the offshore dumping of
sediment.
EPA is responsible for the National Estuary Program (NEP), which in the North
Atlantic region includes watersheds and estuaries in each state from Maine to Virginia,
for a total of twelve programs out of the 28 nationally. The NEP was established by
Congress in 1987 under Section 320 of the CWA to “maintain estuaries of national
importance”, including water supply and quality, ecosystem and biological health,
economic well being, and recreational value. The Chesapeake Bay is specifically
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
28
excluded from this program, having been placed under an independent EPA program
prior to the passage of Section 320.
iii. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
FEMA is responsible for the immediate Federal response in case of major disaster
along the coasts, as well as significant pre-hazard planning and preemptive mitigation.
Formerly independent, and since 2003 under the Department of Homeland Security,
FEMA is the administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, which insures
communities in floodplains based on the threat to those communities and if they have
flood risk management features in place. FEMA maintains several coastal risk analysis
programs, maps of floodplains in the U.S., and a number of other mapping utilities used
in coastal hazard planning.
iv. U.S Geological Survey (USGS)
The USGS functions as the major Federal data gathering agency for coastal
planning and shore protection information. Many shoreline decisions are based upon
information and analysis done by USGS’s collection of tide gauge, current, and wave
data. Additionally, and of increasing importance, USGS is responsible for maintaining
the vertical datum for the nation. This has become a key data set as sea levels continue to
rise and some coastal areas experience subsidence. The CVI was created by USGS to
assess the vulnerability to sea level rise on the nation’s coasts, and has been applied
throughout the North Atlantic region. The USGS also has programs in ecosystem
research, invasive species, offshore marine geology, and other coastally relevant
activities.
v.
National Park Service (NPS)
In 1916 Congress created the NPS in the Department of the Interior to promote and
regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and
reservations. The NPS has responsibility for managing and protecting coastal resources
located within these Federal lands in the North Atlantic region. The most important
statutory directive for the NPS is provided by interrelated provisions of the NPS Organic
Act of 1916 and the NPS General Authorities Act of 1970, including amendments to the
latter law enacted in 1978. NPS management of coastal and shoreline resources must
follow the provisions of these directives as well as the NPS Management Policies.
Generally, NPS policy requires that natural coastal processes in parks, such as erosion,
shoreline migration, deposition, overwash, and inlet formation be allowed to continue
without interference (NPS Management Policies § 4.8.1.1). The NPS may intervene in
these processes only in limited circumstances, such as when there is no other feasible
way to protect natural resources, park facilities, or historic properties (NPS Management
Policies § 4.8.1).
i. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
29
NOAA, through the National Ocean Service (NOS), has a large responsibility for
coordination with state governments and for the administration of programs within each
state. The primary entity within the NOS is the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM). Several major programs are administered by OCRM, including
the National Coastal Zone Management program (CZM) and the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System (NERRS). In addition, NOAA programs include the Sea Grant
and the NOAA Coastal Services Center (CSC). Both programs within NOAA provide
tools, technical assistance, capacity building and research to further shoreline
management.
The CZM program works with state coastal programs as directed by the 1972
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Each state program must be approved through
NOAA to receive assistance, and currently all of the states in the North Atlantic pilot
study region have coastal programs (NOS 2009). Coastal permitting is an important part
of most programs and provides a means of restricting certain activities within the coastal
zone. State coastal programs must meet basic requirements, but are otherwise free to
plan according to their local needs. It is important to remember that CZM is a voluntary
partnership between the Federal government and coastal states to address national coastal
issues, including shoreline management. The CZMA provides the basis for protecting,
restoring, and responsibly developing our nation’s shoreline through permitting and
planning.
The national CZM program facilitates further Federal-state collaboration, notably
through the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). The CELCP
provides competitive grants to state and local governments for the purpose of purchasing
and conserving undeveloped coastal and estuarine lands. States must develop CELCP
plans that provide an assessment of priority conservation needs and clear guidance for
nominating and selecting land conservation projects within the state. All states within the
study region have currently developed draft or final CELCP plans.
NERRS, like state CZM Programs, is a partnership program between NOAA and
the coastal states. It encompasses 27 research reserves nationwide that have been
established for long-term research, education, and coastal stewardship. These programs
may partner with Sea Grant and local governments and are programs unique to each state.
The reserve program covers a range of habitat types, from coastal wetlands and upland
watersheds to sandy beaches and sheltered bays. Each reserve conducts research relevant
to its particular ecosystem and engages in educational and other outreach activities at the
state and local levels.
The NMFS is a part of NOAA and is the Federal agency responsible for the
stewardship of the nation's living marine resources and their habitats. NMFS is
responsible for the management, conservation and protection of living marine resources
within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (water three to 200 mile offshore) using the
tools provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and the ESA, NMFS recovers protected marine species (i.e. whales, turtles) without
unnecessarily impeding economic and recreational opportunities.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
30
In 2004, the NOAA National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) Program launched a
System- Wide Monitoring Program (SWiM) for the nation’s 14 marine sanctuaries. The
goal of SWiM is to provide a consistent approach to the design, implementation, and
reporting of environmental condition assessments in sanctuaries, while allowing for
tailored monitoring at individual sanctuary sites.
ii. Interagency efforts
Marine spatial planning has also become more important to governments as a way
to plan and coordinate the various uses and needs along the coastline. According to the
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, marine spatial
planning is a “public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal
distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and
social objectives that have been specified through a political process” (Marine Spatial
Planning Initiative 2009). By defining specific coastal needs, governments can then
utilize marine spatial planning to achieve coordination of coastal uses while maintaining
the ecological integrity of the marine environment.
The Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC) is an organization of the six New
England states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts) and several Federal agencies, including the EPA, the Department of the
Interior, the Corps, the Department of Homeland Security, NOAA, the Department of
Agriculture, and the Coast Guard. The body was founded in response to the Ocean Blue
Print for the 21st Century (US Commission on Ocean Policy 2004) and prioritizes Coastal
Hazard Resiliency and Ocean and Coastal Ecosystem Health as necessary and immediate
objectives for action. These grants from the NOAA CELCP allow applicants within the
states to apply for Federal grants that are used to purchase undeveloped or lightly
developed coastal or estuarine lands for the purpose of protection and conservation.
The Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) is an organization of
the Mid-Atlantic states (New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia) with
a similar charge and goals as the NROC. An agreement was signed in 2009 and included
actions which will: coordinate protection of important habitats and sensitive and unique
offshore areas; support the sustainable development of renewable energy in offshore
areas; prepare the region’s coastal communities for the impacts of climate change on
ocean and coastal resources; and promote improvements in the region’s coastal water
quality. The agreement also called for a meeting with Mid-Atlantic Ocean stakeholders to
create new partnerships in the development and implementation of these actions.
These councils provide a forum for states, Federal agencies, and interested regional
groups to address a regional response to ocean and coastal issues. They augment the
functions and authorities of existing regional entities. To the maximum extent possible,
they build upon current state, multi state, and Federal governance and institutional
mechanisms to manage ocean and coastal resources. The councils communicate directly
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
31
with the President's Ocean Policy Committee and its Subcommittee on the Integrated
Management of Ocean Resources to clarify the priorities and needs for their regions.
iii. State and local shoreline responsibilities
States have regulatory authority over several Federal programs including Sections
401 and 402 of the CWA and local program implementation of the CZMA. In addition,
most states have unique legislation based on local coastal issues. In some cases, local
municipalities have additional requirements and are responsible for local planning and
zoning decisions. These will be discussed in each North Atlantic sub-region.
H. Socio-economic and cultural trends
The nation’s shorelines provide an array of social, cultural, and economic values
(Table 2.3) that are tied to continual changes in the coastal environment driven by natural
processes and anthropogenic forces. Shoreline erosion and accretion are among the most
visible and important of these changes affecting a variety of human uses and interests.
Commercial use
Aggregate extraction
Navigation and dredging
Cultural
Values
Conflict
Aesthetics
Historical/traditional
Advocacy groups
Demographics
Growth in coastal population
Trends in population
Economics
Protection costs
Impact costs
Employment impacts
Compensation costs
Valuation
Erosion control mechanism
Beach nourishment
Sea walls and groins
Armoring
Dunes
Retreat
Wetlands
Living shorelines
Management
Stakeholder engagement
Monitoring
Best practice guidelines
Evaluation
Engineering
Scale
Spatial research
Fisheries
Water quality
Catch rates
Health effects
Property
Property value
Land use
Risk and insurance
Disaster relief costs
Direct cost of damage
Hazards
Climate change and sea level rise
Storms
Flooding
Resilience
Law and policy
Evaluation of policy
Effectiveness of policy
Reactions to policy
Legal framework
Recreation and Tourism
Access
Visitor patterns
Beach use
Parks and recreation
Preference methods
Conflict
Table 2.3 Measurable Socio-economic Parameters
The most obvious socio-economic aspects of shoreline erosion and accretion are
the immediate impacts on property (property damage, property loss) and on the
recreational value of the affected shoreline, primarily beaches and tourism-related dollars.
Accordingly, private property, public shoreline amenities, and the economic values
derived from them have been the nearly exclusive domain of past studies on the socioNorth Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
32
economic impacts of shoreline change. These studies have primarily taken the form of
cost-benefit calculations determining the return on the investment of remedial actions.
Although there are many potential social and cultural effects of shoreline change,
it is not surprising that most of the information on this subject is concentrated on
economic matters. Furthermore, the North Atlantic region’s population and economic
growth is very strongly represented in coastal areas. Table 2.4 presents the percentage of
population, establishments, employment, wages, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that
coastal watershed counties and shore-adjacent counties represent within the North
Atlantic region as a whole. As can be seen in the table, coastal areas represent significant
portions of each population or economic category.
Category
Population
Establishments
Employment
Wages
GDP
Coastal Counties
1990
2000
2007
77.5%
77.6%
77.4%
59.3%
58.1%
58.1%
57.8%
56.4%
56.1%
62.6%
62.5%
62.7%
63.1%
62.8%
62.9%
Shore-Adjacent Counties
1990
2000
2007
59.3%
59.1%
58.6%
48.3%
47.1%
47.1%
46.2%
44.9%
44.7%
50.5%
50.6%
51.2%
51.2%
51.6%
52.0%
Table 2.4 Population, establishments, employment, wages, and GDP for coastal watershed
counties and shore-adjacent counties as percentages of regional total for North Atlantic region.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
In keeping with a broader view of shoreline management, the Corps
commissioned a socio-economic study whose purpose was to examine the social,
economic, and cultural effects of erosion and accretion; the resources committed by
Federal, state, and local governments to restore shores; and the information gaps related
to those objectives (ERG 2010). The research attempted to answer the following
questions:
From 1990 to 2009, the Federal
government, states, and local
• What are the social and economic effects
of erosion and accretion in the North
governments spent
Atlantic region?
approximately $3.7 billion (in
2009 dollars) on coastal erosion
• What trends are emerging and what if any
in the North Atlantic region.
conclusions can be drawn?
However, based on data gaps, it
• Are there any obvious policy implications
is likely that this estimate does
for what has been learned?
not include all public
expenditures.
i.
Cost of public investments
As part of this project, the Eastern Research Group (ERG) compiled available data on
public expenditures related to coastal beach erosion between 1990 and 2008 (reported in
2008 dollars). A full accounting of expenditures on beach erosion was not possible for
this report. The amounts reflect only the public expenditures that could be identified
within the time frame of this report. This tabulation included funds spent by Federal,
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
33
state, and local government sources on activities related to coastal erosion. The data do
not include, nor were meant to include, the amounts spent by private citizens (e.g.,
property owners in coastal areas) related to erosion. Table 2.5 summarizes the tabulation
of public expenditures by state and funding sources.
State
Connecticut
Delaware
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Virginia
Totals
Federal
Expenditures
(USACE,
FEMA, Other
Federal)
$3,935,573
$39,055,857
$18,191,207
$185,542,223
$3,113,316
$0
$1,197,097,879
$195,185,251
$675,555
$186,831,340
$1,829,628,202
State/Local
Expenditures
$1,595,694
$40,300,839
$1,249,440
$139,375,187
$0
$0
$343,373,456
$14,871,897
$345,536
$11,638,029
$552,750,077
Other
Expendituresa
Grand Total
$8,463,985
$12,947,059
$21,579,100
$0
$0
$4,485,519
$1,076,129,519
$131,947,749
$0
$45,727,000
$1,301,279,932
$13,995,251
$92,303,755
$41,019,747
$324,917,410
$3,113,316
$4,485,519
$2,616,600,855
$342,004,897
$1,021,091
$244,196,369
$3,683,658,211
a
The values in this column were reported in data sources, but were not associated with a funding
source.
Table 2.5 Summary tabulation of public expenditures spent in the North Atlantic region, 1990–
2009 (2009 dollars except where noted)
To put these numbers in perspective, Census Bureau data indicated that
32,966,430 people lived in shore-adjacent counties in 2008. Thus, public expenditures
totaled roughly $112 per person living in shore-adjacent counties between 1990 and
2009. The NWS estimated that the top 30 hurricanes to hit the U.S. caused $350 billion in
damages (2006 dollars; $384 billion in 2009 dollars). However, most of those storms
strike the South Atlantic and the Gulf Coast. From 1990 – 2009, only one of the top 30
hurricanes struck the North Atlantic (Hurricane Bob, 1991) and it caused $2.9 billion in
damages (2006 dollars; $3.2 billion in 2009 dollars) (NWS 2007). However, these data
do not include program management expenditures such as the costs of administering
regulatory or other programs related to beach erosion at the Federal, state, and local level.
Program management expenditures can be significant. For example, according to FEMA
(Crowell 2010), the cost associated with costal hazard planning and mapping is $3,500 in
1999 dollars ($4,935 in 2009 dollars using the inflations adjustments).
The full tabulation of public expenditures appears in Table 2.6. Each row in
Table 2.6 represents the amounts reported for specific funding sources reported in
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
34
different data sources (e.g., the amount reported to have been spent by the Corps data
source).
State
Funding Source
CT
CT
CT
CT
FEMA
State/Local
State/Local
Unknown
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
Federal
FEMA
State/Local
State/Local
State/Local
Unknown
USACE
USACE
MA
FEMA
MA
MA
MA
MA
State/Local
Unknown
Unknown
USACE
MD
MD
MD
MD
State/Local
State/Local
USACE
USACE
ME
USACE
NH
Unknown
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
State/Local
State/Local
State/Local
State/Local
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
USACE
Data Source
Connecticut
State of Connecticut
State of Connecticut
State of Connecticut
Heinz Center (2000)
Delaware
State of Delaware
USACE
USACE
State of Delaware
NOAA CSC
State of Delaware
USACE
USACE
Massachusetts
State of
Massachusetts
USACE
Surfrider.com
NOAA CSC
USACE
Maryland
State of Maryland
NOAA CSC
USACE
NOAA CSC
Maine
USACE
New Hampshire
Heinz Center (2000)
New Jersey
USACE
Surfrider.com
USACE
NOAA CSC
State of New Jersey
USACE
Surfrider.com
NOAA CSC
USACE
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
Time Frame
Reported
Amount
1997–2005
1997–2005
2005
1990–1998
$3,935,573
$1,308,194
$287,500
$8,463,985
2004
1998
1990–1998
1990–2009
1994
1990–2008
1991–2005
2006–2009
$3,519,441
$423,690
$22,926,429
$13,673,687
$3,700,723
$12,947,059
$10,544,308
$24,568,418
2006–2007
1996
1997–2007
1990–2000
1992
$7,819,607
$1,249,440
$12,852,000
$8,727,100
$10,371,600
1990–2006
1991–2002
1991–2002
1991–2002
$108,625,611
$30,749,575
$123,757,812
$61,784,411
1992–1996
$3,113,316
1990–1998
$4,485,519
1992–1995
2007
1995–2000
1992–2001
1988–2007
1990–1996
2004
1990–2001
1990–2007
$8,828,820
$540,000
$4,506,000
$329,498,636
$903,960,000
$13,607,751
$20,475,600
$138,086,168
$853,503,098
35
State
Funding Source
Data Source
NJ
NJ
USACE
USACE
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Federal
State/Local
Unknown
Unknown
USACE
USACE
RI
RI
State/Local
USACE
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
State/Local
State/Local
Unknown
Unknown
USACE
USACE
NOAA CSC
New York
USACE
USACE
USACE
NOAA CSC
USACE
USACE
Rhode Island
USACE
USACE
Virginia
State of Virginia
NOAA CSC
USACE
NOAA CSC
USACE
Total
—
—
2006–2010
1992–2001
Reported
Amount
$114,776,120
$228,818,662
2004–2005
1991–2004
2007
1990–1996
1995–2004
1995–2009
$15,625,000
$14,871,897
$4,860,000
$127,087,749
$114,380,251
$65,180,000
1992
1996
$345,536
$675,555
1980–2000
1990–1996
2007
1996–2002
1994–2003
$9,216,429
$2,421,600
$10,476,000
$35,251,000
$186,831,340
Time Frame
—
$3,683,658,211
Table 2.5 Catalog of reported public expenditures spent in the North Atlantic region, 1990–2009
(2009 dollars except where noted)
One significant caveat to consider in interpreting these tabulations is that the data
do not contain all of the funds spent on coastal erosion within the North Atlantic region in
the time period covered (1990–present). Put simply, erosion control and remediation is
often not tracked as a category of expenditure. This may partly explain why beach
renourishment projects tend to dominate the data identified, since those projects are most
easily associated with erosion remediation. ERG adjusted the costs reported in different
years for inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. Details on
the inflation adjustment process are provided in the final study (ERG 2010).
ii.
Gap analysis
Overall, the quantity, breadth, and depth of literature on the social, economic, and
cultural aspects of coastal erosion in the North Atlantic was very limited. The clearly
observable links between erosion and people were well represented: cost-benefit of
different erosion protection measures, particularly beach nourishment; the impacts of
erosion on coastal property; the evaluation of coastal protection programs; the link
between climate change and increased coastal erosion; consequences of risk and
insurance, and localized studies of people’s perceptions and attitudes toward specific
coastal protection structures (Nordstrom and Mitteager 2001; Polome et al. 2005; Lindsay
and Tupper 1990; Myatt et al. 2003). As the relationship between people and erosion
becomes less direct, the published literature fails to empirically establish connections
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
36
between erosion and livelihoods such as fishing, or erosion and coastal community
cultures.
In general, the articles in the literature take a narrow, single-discipline focus,
which neglects the interdisciplinary perspective necessary to understand the complex
multiple social effects of erosion and accretion. A notable exception were articles about
the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise, where erosion and accretion
are a related recurring secondary theme due primarily to increased storm frequency and
intensity. Although it was difficult to draw out information related specifically to erosion,
framing coastal erosion decisions within the larger context of coastal change is beneficial
for policymakers and scientists working on associated issues such as vulnerability and
resilience. The human dimensions of coastal erosion literature could be supplemented by
work on hazards such as coastal flooding and climate change. Research conducted on
long-term erosion patterns and sea level rise frequently neglected cumulative impacts.
Non-market values are underrepresented in the economic literature, probably due
to the difficulty of incorporating them into the dominant management decision tool of
cost-benefit analysis. Further work is necessary to articulate and quantify values of
coastal systems like “existence value” to provide a more balanced data set of social
indicators for managers. Despite a disproportionate amount of cost-benefit analysis of
beach nourishment projects, there was a distinct lack of comparable studies for other
coastal protection mechanisms such as wetlands restoration/preservation, dune
management, living shores, and coastal retreat. Other noticeable economic data gaps
includes research into the opportunity cost of money spent on coastal projects, marketbased solutions and the associated distributional and equity impacts of these options, and
the impact of coastal erosion on commerce, incomes, employment, and local finance.
The literature covering law and policy was the most substantial, though it was thin
in several key areas: the role of governance, the range of local governance approaches
adopted and the groups and organizations involved with erosion-related policy, case and
law reviews related to the balance between private and public interest (takings, land use
restrictions, compensation), and measurements of the success of a project or policy based
on a designated preferred end state and project expectations. Understanding attitudes,
perceptions, values, and preferences of people directly affected by erosion, as well as the
wider public, is a priority of social science research for erosion-related policy. A few
individual studies demonstrated methods for collecting and integrating this kind of
information into management decisions, but there was a distinct lack of social choice and
tradeoff information in this vital area. Very few studies collected “before” data, as most
were opportunistic case studies of regional or local impacts of erosion policy decisions
that had already been made.
A broader array of social issues may be found in the responses to erosion, the
types of controls that are proposed and the human conflicts that arise in response to those
proposals. For example, within the regulatory context (permit reviews, environmental
impact assessments) and within the political context (town meeting budget discussions,
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
37
newspaper coverage of local controversies), some of the social, cultural, and socioeconomic issues are more readily identified.
vi. Public versus private rights issues on eroding beaches
The Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan 2000 is a $53.4 million parks and open space
funding package for city acquisition of priority open space. This has been supplemented
by the Beaches and Waterways Advisory Commission’s April 2002 Beach Management
Plan for Virginia Beach. Major issues driving acquisition priorities include beach
ownership, beach restoration and replenishment, funding mechanisms, and beach
maintenance activities. The commission ranked resolution of beach ownership issues to
permit beach restoration at severely eroding Chesapeake and Cape Henry Beaches as the
number 1 priority.
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a Florida property rights case that could
severely impede Florida’s beach erosion control program and affect other coastal states’
sand replacement efforts (Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection). The New Jersey case, City of Long Branch v. Liu, concerns
several issues. The New Jersey Supreme Court spent a great deal of time on this case,
which concerns the title to an additional 225 ft of beachfront land that accrued to the
property as a result of a 1998 beachfront replenishment project undertaken by the Corps.
v. Cultural impacts of coastal erosion
According to the U.S. Coast Guard, there are over 400 lighthouses in the North
Atlantic region. There are several examples of lighthouses threatened by coastal erosion,
and of the socio-economic issues associated with efforts to protect them. Project-specific
examples of the socio-economic impacts are provided in each of the appropriate subregion below. The following are a few examples of cultural resources impacted by
coastal erosion:
• Cape Cod Light. This lighthouse was relocated at a cost of $1.5 million (Roberts
and Jones 2005);
• Montauk Point Lighthouse;
• The Cape Hatteras lighthouse. Just outside the North Atlantic region, in North
Carolina, this lighthouse was relocated in 1999 at a cost of $9.8 million; and
• Morris Island Lighthouse. In Charleston, South Carolina, the construction of
harbor jetties by the Corps in 1896 contributed to the increased shoreline erosion
of Morris Island and rendered Morris Island Lighthouse unstable. “Save the
Light,” a nonprofit group dedicated to protecting the lighthouse, raised over $4.5
million in Federal, state, and local funds for the project. The lighthouse was
considered the “most beloved symbol of South Carolina’s maritime heritage.”
A story in the Boston Globe reported on the discovery of the remains of the
English warship Somerset which were unearthed offshore in Provincetown after erosion
from a recent series of coastal storms. The ship has historical significance because it was
guarding Boston Harbor on the night of Paul Revere’s ride in 1775. The erosion allowed
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
38
investigators to collect valuable information while the ship was within view and
accessible by land. Sunk in 1778, the ship is featured in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s
poem “Paul Revere’s Ride,” as “a phantom ship, with each mast and spar/Across the
moon, like a prison bar” (Geisler 2010).
PART A – NEW ENGLAND SHORELINE
III. Maine and New Hampshire shorelines
The coastline of Maine and New Hampshire is one of the most diverse shorelines
in the U.S. A total of approximately 3,496 miles (5,629 km) of coast is encompassed by
these two states. Maine’s coastline is approximately 3,478 miles (5,600 km) while New
Hampshire contains only 18 miles (29 km) of shoreline. This region is a highly indented
coastline greatly impacted by glacial retreat, encompassing various features such as rocky
islands, igneous headlands, uplifted terraces, broad embayments, tidal marsh, and pocket
beaches. Coastal currents in this region contribute to sediment movement and result in
net longshore sediment transport in a southwestward direction along the coastline.
Canada
An
dr
os
co
gg
in
Pe
no
bsc
ot
Riv
er
Ke
nn
eb
ac
Riv
er
Maine
NE
NC
Ri
ve
r
co
Sa
r
ve
Ri
SC
SW
NH
MA
Figure 3.1 – Map of the Maine and New Hampshire coastlines. The shore of Maine is
divided into four regions for easier analysis.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
39
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes
i. Shoreline habitats
The varied coastal makeup of this region was heavily influenced by glacial
advance and retreat. Glacial maximums around 14,000 years ago led to a sea level
highstand and drowning of the coast, while rapid glacial retreat and land rebound resulted
in sea level lowstands by 11,000 years ago. As glacial retreat occurred, sediment
deposition resulted leaving glacial deposits composed of glacial marine mud and till. The
Maine coast includes glacial marine deltas where coarse sediments are abundant
(Belknap 2005).
The Maine and New Hampshire shorelines are shaped by the differential erosion
of bedrock in the area. More resistant substratse such as volcanic rocks, quartzites, and
granite compose the islands, peninsulas, and headlands along the shore. Less resistant
metamorphic rocks typically underlie embayments and estuaries (Tanner et al. 2006). In
1999, Maine’s intertidal habitats existed on 145,069 ac (587 km2) of the state. These
lands have been further categorized into habitat type by the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) and include:
• Mud flats (44% of shoreline) – Low energy environment with sediment composed
of organic matter, silt, fine clay, and sand;
• Ledge (25%) – Bedrock exposed to tidal currents and waves, includes many
offshore islands and granitic headlands;
• Salt marshes (14%) – Highly productive marine grass habitat with varying salinity
and fine grain sediment sources. Salt marshes are a sediment trap and reduce
coastal erosion;
• Mixed coarse and fine flats (7%) – Intertidal habitat that is somewhat resistant to
coastal erosion and includes sediment mixture of clay, silt, sand, shell, organic
detritus, gravel, cobble, and border;
• Sand flats (5%) – Sensitive habitats protected by sand barriers, rocky headlands,
and islands containing organic detritus and large sand grains;
• Boulder beaches (3%) – Wave resistant boulders between 10 ft and 10 in (305 cm
to 25 cm) in diameter make up these partly exposed beaches. These boulder
beaches slow currents and waves, enhancing sedimentation and reducing erosion
in nearby environments; and
• Sand beaches (2%) – Dynamic marine environment compiled of fine quartz sands
(Ward 1999).
The shoreline of Maine is frequently divided by scientists into four regions:
Northeast (NE) cliffed coast, North Central (NC) island-bay coast, South Central (SC)
indented shoreline, and South West (SW) arcuate embayments. These regions are
illustrated in Figure 3.1. The NE coast of Maine is primarily composed of volcanic rock.
This shoreline is the only continuous bedrock cliff on the east coast of the U.S. High
cliffs are the dominant feature of this region although the NE shoreline also includes a
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
40
few mudflats, gravel beaches, and sand flat habitats interspersed along the coast. The NC
coastline encompassing Penobscot Bay and lands to the north is composed of broad
estuarine environments, sand flats, ledges, mud flats, and granitic islands. This is also
where boulder beach and habitats with mixed coarse and fines substrates are primarily
found. Along the SC Maine coast, glacially scoured valleys provide ideal conditions for
deep estuaries, ledges, sand flats, and mud flats. Glacial retreat has also carved out
northwest-oriented peninsulas among the valleys. The shoreline along SW Maine and
New Hampshire is highly indented with broad embayments. Varied erosion between
sedimentary deposits and the more resistant bedrock headlands is prevalent in this region.
Several Mesozoic and Paleozoic plutonic bodies are interspersed within the
metasedimentary rocks along the shore. The region’s largest barrier beaches and
associated salt marshes are in SW Maine and New Hampshire (Roman et al. 2000;
Tanner et al. 2006; Ward 1999).
ii. Sediment sources and movement
Along the Maine and New Hampshire coastlines, sediment is primarily derived
from two sources: sediment transported by rivers, and erosion of glacial deposits.
Historic sediment delivery by rivers has been negatively impacted by the damming of
various rivers. In Maine, dam structures are typically used for water-level control and
power generation. The Penobscot River has 116 licensed dams which has resulted in
decreased discharge from the river at certain periods and increased outflow at other times
due to the release of stored water (where sediment has been allowed to settle out) and can
result in reduced sediment loads (Benke and Cushing 2005). The Saco River, which
supplies sediment to the beaches of Saco Bay, has been heavily dammed which is one of
the reasons behind the large rates of erosion at the southern end of the bay (Kelley et al.
1995).
The NE and NC Maine shorelines receive sediment from the erosion of glacial
deposits, particularly glacial marine mud exposed by uplift of the coast. The Penobscot
River contributes sediment, particularly during the spring/summer melting of winter
snow and ice accumulation, although much sediment will be trapped in the estuaries of
Penobscot Bay. The eroding bluffs of the SC coast yield glacial marine sediment for the
shoreline. The Kennebac and Androscoggin Rivers are also contributors of sediment to
the region. The SW Maine and the New Hampshire coastlines have significant glacial
mud and sand deposits that nourish the shoreline. The southernmost major river in
Maine, the Saco River delivers sediment to Saco Bay, located in the SW coastal
compartment (Tanner et al. 2006).
The Maine and New Hampshire coastlines have extremely varied semi-diurnal
tidal ranges in terms of elevation from southwest to northeast. Mean tide ranges are
typically around 9 ft (2.7 m) in southwestern Maine and New Hampshire, and over 18 ft
(5.5 m) along the NE cliffed coast, with spring tides in the 22 ft (6.7 m) range. Tides
range up to 52 ft (16 m) within the Bay of Fundy. These high tides can increase erosion
on the shoreline and result in an increase in sediment transportation within the longshore
system.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
41
The mean circulation in the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank region is generally
cyclonic, driven by density contrasts between dense slope water-derived bottom waters
residing in the three offshore basins, and fresher waters along the coast that are fed by
discharges from the St. John, Penobscot, Kennebec/Androscoggin, and Merrimac Rivers
(Brooks 1985; Xue et al. 2000). River discharges account for only about half of the
freshwater budget for the Gulf of Maine; the remaining half enters the Gulf as a surface
flow of relatively cold, low salinity Scotian Shelf Waters (Smith 1983). In 1997,
Beardsley et al. and Lynch et al. described the generalized surface circulation in the Gulf
as dominated by a buoyancy-driven coastal current system that flows counter-clockwise
around its edges. In addition, topographically rectified tidal currents are important in the
Gulf (Loder 1980), and contribute to clockwise circulation patterns around Browns and
Georges Banks, and Nantucket Shoals south of Cape Cod.
The Gulf of Maine Coastal Current (GMCC), extending from southern Nova
Scotia to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, is a primary force determining water movement in
this region and impacts longshore drift and sediment transport along the coast. The
GMCC can be divided into two distinct branches, the Eastern (EMCC) and the Western
Maine Coastal Current (WMCC). The EMCC originates at the mouth of the Bay of
Fundy and travels along the coast of Maine until the majority of the current turns offshore
at Penobscot Bay. The remaining portion of the EMCC continues southwest and
contributes to the WMCC which extends to Massachusetts Bay (Pettigrew et al. 2005).
These currents are illustrated in Figure 3.2.
The EMCC system is arguably essential to the overall nutrient budget and
biological oceanography of the Gulf (Townsend et al. 1987; Brooks and Townsend 1989;
Townsend 1998). Pettigrew et al. (1998) describe the EMCC as the cold band of tidallymixed water that originates on the southwest Nova Scotia shelf, crosses the mouth of the
Bay of Fundy, and continues along the coast of eastern Maine to the offing of Penobscot
Bay. Vertical nutrient fluxes driven by vigorous tidal mixing create summertime surface
nitrate concentrations >7 μM NO3 in the northeastern part of the EMCC.
As the EMCC flows to the southwest its waters become increasingly vertically
stratified and nutrient depleted, concomitant with an increase in phytoplankton biomass
and developmental stages of copepods. This pattern of an offshore patch of high
phytoplankton biomass at the distal end of the plume was noted as early as 1926 by
Bigelow. Townsend et al. (1987) estimated that the EMCC contributes approximately
44% of the inorganic nutrient flux (to surface waters) required to meet estimated levels of
new primary production for the entire Gulf of Maine.
Before it reaches Penobscot Bay, the EMCC is often directed away from the
coastline and out over the central Gulf of Maine as a plume-like feature of colder water,
which is clearly visible in satellite images of sea surface temperature. A portion of the
offshore-directed plume may be entrained in the cyclonic gyre over Jordan Basin, with
the remaining portion entering an anticyclonic eddy at the distal end, bringing EMCCplume waters back toward the Maine coast where it continues as part of the Western
Maine Coastal Current (WMCC) (Pettigrew et al. 1998). Localized current patterns
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
42
within smaller regions of the Maine coastline occur, and can change in response to storm
events and seasons.
The St. John River in Canada discharges into the Bay of Fundy near the northern
coastline of Maine and this freshwater influx feeds into the EMCC. The WMCC is
supplied by discharge from the Kennebec, Androscoggin, Merrimack, and Penobscot
Rivers as well as the remaining portion of the EMCC. During the annual peak spring
flow, the average combined discharge of these rivers is approximately 700 m3/s. Under
normal summer conditions, there appears to be very little input from the EMCC into the
WMCC. The major contribution to the WMCC during this period is outflow from the
river systems and Penobscot Bay. As the Kennebec River flows into the Gulf, a
freshwater plume spreads in both directions along the shoreline but the main direction of
flow is westward. Net westward longshore drift is formed by the tidal action near the
river mouth. Fine sediments are suspended and carried by tidal currents in the Kennebec
River which deposit the sediments throughout the estuary at the mouth of the river.
Studies have shown that there are frequent reversals in the surface current. These
reversals are often due to northward forcing wind stress, but such events are typically
An
dr
os
co
gg
in
Pe
no
bsc
ot
Riv
er
Ke
nn
eb
ac
Riv
er
Maine
Penobscot
Bay
EMCC
Ri
ve
r
co
Sa
r
ve
Ri
NH
WMCC
WMCC
EMCC
Gulf of
Maine
MA
Figure 3.2 – Illustration of the coastal currents influencing the Maine and New Hampshire
coastline.
fleeting and weak with no significant impact on sediment transport (Brooks 2009; Geyer
et al. 2004; Pettigrew et al. 2005).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
43
iii. Coastal features
Although this far north region of the U.S. is known for its steep cliff shore line,
Maine and New Hampshire include many estuaries and bays with high natural
productivity. The Passamaquoddy Bay is the farthest northeast estuary with one of the
highest tidal ranges in the U.S. of 15 ft – 19 ft (4.5 – 5.8m). Lying along the
U.S./Canadian border, the bay receives a freshwater influx from the St. Croix River. The
Somes Sound estuary is located on the coast of Mt. Desert Island and is bordered by
granitic rock. The sound is similar to a fjord but is actually most likely a fjard, an
embayment that was glacially carved and subsequently drowned by the sea.
Maine
NH
Project Type
Navigation
Shore Protection
Figure 3.3 – Depiction of Corps shore protection and navigation projects along the coastline of
Maine and New Hampshire (USACE 2010b).
Penobscot Bay is the largest estuary on Maine’s coast and contains a considerable
volume of water. The bay has two main channels, the East Passage and the West
Passage. These passages are divided by the many bedrock islands of the bay and they
connect the Penobscot River with the Gulf of Maine. The Sheepscot estuary is a highly
productive five mile long region located before the river flows into Sheepscot Bay and
then into the Gulf of Maine. The Kennebec estuary contains 25,000 ac of significant
habitat and includes over 20% of Maine’s tidal marshes. The estuary is formed where the
Kennebec River discharges into the Gulf of Maine.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
44
The Casco Bay estuary is filled with hundreds of islands carved by glacial retreat.
The bay includes uninhabited beaches and islands as well as commercial activity to the
south with the port and city of Portland. Fifty percent of the Maine coast habitat south of
Portland is salt marsh, although north of the Penobscot Bay there is almost no marsh
habitat along the shore. The Saco River drains into Saco Bay and subsequently the Gulf
of Maine. The Saco Bay estuary provides crucial territory for birds and fish and has been
designated as an essential habitat by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The
Great Bay estuary lies along the border of Maine and New Hampshire and averages a
depth of 11 ft (3.4 m). The Piscataqua River drains into the bay, providing a freshwater
influx to develop the brackish conditions of the estuary.
There are five main cargo ports in Maine: Portland, Searsport, Bucksport, Bangor,
and Eastport which are depicted in Figure 3.3. The Port of New Hampshire is located in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. These ports are hubs of commercial and recreational
navigation activity for the states. Portland was ranked 34th among leading U.S. ports by
the Corps for millions of tons of cargo traffic and Portsmouth ranked 85th in 2007. The
ports and surrounding infrastructure, like most human structures along the coast, do
interfere with local natural sediment transport processes.
Project
Name
Project
Location
State
Corps
District
Authorized Potential Impacts on
Purpose
Shore/Sediment
Hampton
Harbor
New
New
Hampshire England
Navigation
Portsmouth
Harbor -Main
Channels and
Turning Basin
New
New
Hampshire England
Navigation
New
New
Hampshire England
Navigation
Improvement and maintenance
material to be placed on adjacent
beaches as per Detailed Project
Review.
Between 370,000 and 720,000 cy
of sand improvement material from
widening the turning basin has
been made available for nourishing
area beaches.
Maintenance material used to
nourish nearshore bars of nearby
beaches.
New
New
Hampshire England
Shore
Projection
1.2 miles of beachfill: Initial
construction complete
New
New
Hampshire England
Shore
Projection
0.2 miles of beachfill; initial
construction complete
Future maintenance material will
be placed in an offshore site; there
are no beneficial use sites nearby
Jetties have decreased sediment
available from the river to the
adjacent Camp Ellis Beach and
reflected wave energy and stream
Little Harbor
Hampton
Beach,
Hampton
Wallis Sands
State Beach,
Rye
Kennebec
River - Below
Bath
Maine
New
England
Navigation
Saco River
Maine
New
England
Navigation
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
45
Project
Name
Project
Location
State
Corps
District
Authorized Potential Impacts on
Purpose
Shore/Sediment
Wells Harbor
Maine
New
England
Navigation
Scarborough
River
Maine
New
England
Navigation
New
England
New
England
Navigation
Shore
Projection
currents along the structure,
severely eroding the developed
beach community with substantial
long-term ongoing loss of homes.
Section 111 study underway.
Maintenance either by Currituck
with nearshore feeder bar
placement or by pipeline with
direct placement on Wells and
Drakes Islands beaches.
Maintenance material used to
nourish via nearshore feeder bar
placement or by pipeline with
direct placement on Camp Ellis and
Prouts Neck beaches.
2005 maintenance dredging with
12,580 cy placed nearshore off
Gooch’s Beach and 40,553 cy
placed at Cape Arundel Disposal
Site)
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
Shore
Projection
Shore
Projection
Shore
Projection
Shore
Projection
Shore
Projection
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
New
England
New
England
Shore
Projection
Shore
Projection
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
New
England
New
England
Shore
Projection
Shore
Projection
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Kennebeck
River
Alley Bay,
Beals
Merriconeag
Sound,
Harpswell
Holmes Bay,
Whiting
Islesboro (The
Narrows)
Johnson Bay,
Lubec
Sand Cove,
Gouldsboro
Roosevelt
Campobello
Int’l Park,
Lubec
Machias Bay,
Machiasport
Quoddy
Narrows,
Lubec
Marginal Way,
Ogunquit
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Table 3.1 – Corps projects on the shores of Maine and New Hampshire (USACE 2010b).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
46
B. Erosion and accretion
The majority of the beaches in Maine are located along the SW section of the
shoreline are either pocket beaches or barrier beach spits and have varying rates of
erosion and accretion. Some beaches in Maine are stable or slightly accreting, while
others are experiencing an average erosion rate of one ft per year. Other beaches have
endured much higher erosion rates such as two to three ft per year at Camp Ellis Beach at
Saco, Maine (Dickson 2004; Slovinsky and Dickson 2005; 2007; 2009). Human
activities along the coast, storm impacts, and sea level rise have exacerbated beach
erosion.
Approximately 10% of southern Maine’s beaches are categorized as highly
erosional indicating that they erode at a rate of over two ft per year. For many of these
shorelines, there is no beach for half the tidal cycle. Fifty percent of beaches are
moderately erosional with frontal dune erosion and chronic dune scarps. Those beaches
in this category with seawalls are regularly overtopped during storms and some have
been undermined during severe storm events. The remaining 40% of Maine beaches are
slightly erosional (Beach Stakeholder Group 2006).
i. Area rates and trends
The Maine Geological Survey (MGS) has been actively surveying and
documenting shoreline change along the Maine coast. Trained volunteers have assisted
in the collection of data on beach profiles for the State of Maine Beach Profiling Project.
Every two years, this data is analyzed and the basis for a conference and report, titled the
State of Maine’s Beaches. The reports were issued by the MGS in 2007 and 2009, and
they review erosion and accretion patterns at southern Maine sandy beaches (Slovinsky
and Dickson 2007; 2009). Additionally, generalized erosion patterns for Maine’s
beaches were summarized as part of a report titled Protecting Maine’s Beaches for the
Future (Beach Stakeholder Group 2006).
Aerial orthoimagery was used by MGS to establish longer-term erosion rates for
the southern Maine coastline. MGS has also used coastal LiDAR topographical data to
monitor change in select areas along the Maine coast (Slovinsky 2010). Additionally
MGS has been collecting annual longshore surveys using real-time kinematic global
positioning systems (GPS) at sandy beaches in southern Maine, and comparing it with
data from previous years. In some locations, data are collected several times a year (e.g.,
Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Western Beach and Scarborough).
Several of the larger or more notable beach systems are described below.
Willard Beach in South Portland is located at the far south of the SC section of Maine
shoreline. The sand system has remained relatively stable, although historical studies
have indicated that all contour lines along the beach have moved inland. Previous studies
have indicated that Willard Beach has experienced both erosion and accretion, while
erosion could sometimes be found at a rate of 3 – 5 ft (0.9 – 1.5 m) per year. Comparison
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
47
of beach measurements at Willard Beach after the 2007 Patriots’ Day Storm showed that
up to 40 ft (12.2 m) of erosion occurred (Slovinsky 2007).
Higgins Beach, located in Scarborough, Maine, is a long spit bounded by bedrock
and the Spurwink River. Approximately 70% of the Higgins Beach shoreline coastline is
armored by seawalls. At the northeast end of the beach, sediment is trapped in the ebbtidal delta of the Spurwink River while other areas along the seawall have experienced
erosion rates of 1 – 1.5 ft (0.3 – 0.5 m) per year since little sediment is being delivered to
the beach (Timson and Lerman 1980). In 2007, the seawall was extensively damaged by
the April Patriots’ Day Storm. It was subsequently reconstructed in 2008 using different
materials, and at a slightly less slope under the Coastal Sand Dune Rules in Chapter
355of the Maine Natural Resources Protection Act.
Saco Bay contains Maine’s largest expanse of barrier beach and coastal wetlands
in the State. Saco Bay is a seven mile long stretch of sandy beaches located in southern
Cumberland and northern York counties. It is bound by bedrock headlands and rivers at
its southern end (Fletcher Neck and the Saco River) and northern end (Prouts Neck and
the Scarborough River), and includes the communities of Scarborough, Old Orchard
Beach, Saco, and Biddeford, from north to south (Slovinsky and Dickson 2005).
Sediment to the bay has historically been provided by the Saco River, located at the
southern end of the bay. Overall sediment transport is dominantly to the north (Kelley et
al. 1995; Barber 1995). Shoreline change varies dramatically along the Saco Bay
shoreline due to a combination of sediment budget and anthropogenic influence.
At the northern end of the bay, which receives sediment from central and southern
portions of the bay, lies the Scarborough River. The Scarborough River is a flood
dominated tidal river, and historically had shoaling problems in both its flood and ebb
tidal areas. Subsequently, in 1962, the Corps stabilized the west side of the channel of
the Scarborough River and instituted a channel maintenance dredging program
approximately every 5-10 years. This apparently interrupted the natural littoral drift and
shoal bypassing process that used to feed a small beach (Western Beach) on the eastern
side of the Scarborough River. As a result of jetty stabilization and subsequent
maintenance dredging at regular intervals, Western Beach began to erode as not enough
sediment was reaching the shoreline to maintain the beach. A beach nourishment project
was undertaken in 2005 to replenish the eroded sands and restore the beach to its
previous condition (Slovinsky 2006). The project succeeded in replenishing the shoreline
and creating significant shorebird nesting habitat. However, continued monitoring of the
beach by MGS indicates that the beach has eroded in the past five years.
Old Orchard and East Grand Beaches located at the central to northern sections of
the bay (from Goosefare Brook northwards to the Scarborough town line) are relatively
stable to accreting (Slovinsky and Dickson 2007; 2009). In the 1980s, a substantial dune
restoration project which buried a sewer pipeline into a large frontal dune was undertaken
at the southern end of Old Orchard Beach and Ocean Park (Timson and Dennison 1986).
This project has been quite successful in stabilizing a section of the Old Orchard Beach
shoreline. Erosion patterns increase adjacent to Goosefare Brook, at the center of Saco
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
48
Bay between Old Orchard Beach and Saco, due to meanderings in the brook’s channel
(Dickson 2003).
The southern barrier complex of the bay, south of Goosefare Brook and extending
to the Saco River, includes Ferry and Camp Ellis Beaches. This region is one of the most
highly erosive along the Maine shoreline. Jetties were built by the Corps in the late
1800s to early 1900s to stabilize the channel for commercial vessel usage. The northern
jetty, which is 6,300 ft long, has significantly impacted the natural flow of sediment out
of the Saco River by diverting sediment farther offshore, bisecting the natural ebb tidal
delta, and exacerbating wave-driven erosion along Camp Ellis Beach due to reflection
and mach stem wave formation (Corps 1955; Kelley et al. 1995; Slovinsky and Dickson
2005; Kelley and Brothers 2009).
After initial jetty construction and stabilization, the beaches at Camp Ellis
underwent substantial accretion until around 1910; however, since then, erosion has been
occurring at around two to three ft per year, with pockets of higher erosion.
Subsequently, the majority of Camp Ellis Beach is fronted by seawalls that have
exacerbated the erosion of sand on the seaward side of the wall and have resulted in
significant end erosion and down-drift impacts.
Farther south in Wells, Maine, beaches are in different stages of stability or
erosion as a result of anthropogenic impacts. Wells Beach, on the southern side of the
Webhannet River, has been undergoing significant erosion due to jetties built to stabilize
the Webhannet River entrance. However, the immediate beach adjacent to the jetty on
both sides of the river has accreted due to sediment trapping. Beach nourishment
conducted in 2000 in association with dredging of the Webhannet River placed an
approximate 180,000 cubic yards of sediment on Wells and Drakes Island Beaches
(Dickson 2001). Nourishment sands eroded relatively rapidly from the beaches.
Additional nourishment is needed in the near future.
ii. Storm impacts
Storm events also cause erosion and frequently impact the Maine and New
Hampshire coastline from November through April. Increases in wave energy and storm
surge, among other conditions, result in the erosion of beach dunes and a loss of sediment
from the beach. Much of this eroded sediment will be transferred to offshore sandbars.
Wave conditions are often calmer in the summer months, allowing beaches to utilize the
offshore sediment and rebuild. Almost all of Maine’s beaches are considerably impacted
by larger winter storms (Slovinsky and Dickson 2007; 2009).
Southern Maine and New Hampshire are more significantly impacted by storm
events as this coastline includes sand beaches that are easily eroded. Hill et al. identified
three types of storm events that impact this region: northeast storms, frontal passages, and
southwest storms (2004). Northeast storms are often the most dynamic events and result
in a net movement of sediment away from the shore due to downwelling and currents
moving away from the shore. Frontal passages and southwest storms actually bring
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
49
sediment onshore through the wave movement toward the shore and upwelling processes.
Upwelling occurs twice as often as downwelling on the Maine coast, although northeast
storms are often more violent and result in overall sediment loss. Following a northeast
storm in 2001, developed beaches demonstrated a loss of sediment, while redistribution
of sediment occurred along moderately developed or undeveloped beaches.
Major storm events demonstrate the vulnerability of the sediment system and
coastal habitats. The Patriots’ Day Storm of April 16 - 19, 2007 caused significant
damage in Maine and New Hampshire, particularly south of Portland, Maine. The storm
produced the seventh highest tide on record, with the tide in some places exceeding 13 ft
(4 m). Significant damage was caused by heavy rainfall and the 30 ft (9 m) waves that
pounded the coast. Major beach erosion was caused by the storm, resulting in significant
horizontal shoreline change. Willard Beach suffered an average of 23 ft (7 m) of erosion
along the coast and in some areas as much as 40 ft (12 m) of horizontal change was
measured (Slovinsky 2007). Slovinsky and Dickson (2009) documented overall recovery
of many of southern Maine’s beaches after the 2007 Patriots’ Day Storm. Beaches were
graded based on the recovery of the beach profile shape to pre-storm conditions.
iii. Climate change and sea level rise
Half of the Maine coastline is composed of cliffs and erosion-resistant bedrock
which will be less affected by sea level rise than the remaining Maine and New
Hampshire coastline of sandy beaches, unconsolidated bluffs, and wetlands. Based on
MGS mapping efforts and resulting bluff maps, unstable bluffs comprise 17% of the
coastline and a significant portion of the coast was developed before the existence of
present setback ordinances. These areas will be vulnerable to future higher seas.
According to a tide gauge in Portland, Maine, the sea level has risen 7.2 in (18 cm) in the
past 98 years. A primary concern for the Maine coast and potential sea-level rise is the
impact of nor’easters which pile water along the coasts and cause a potential increase in
water levels of one to three ft.
Flooding of tidal mudflats will threaten shorebirds that utilize this coastal habitat
for foraging prior to their long winter migration. The coastal cliffs and steep bluffs of the
shoreline will have heightened wave attacks with climate change which can result in cliff
retreat and failure through mass wasting events (Jacobson et al. 2009). The most
susceptible Maine counties to sea level rise are the southernmost York and Cumberland
counties. The vulnerability of these areas is due to dense shoreline development and
exposed coastal habitats of estuaries, sand beaches, and cobble and mud bluffs (Maine
Coastal Program 2006).
Maine was the first state to develop and implement shoreline construction
regulations that incorporate sea-level rise by adopting a 2-ft sea level rise scenario over
the next 100 years in its Coastal Sand Dune Rules. Maine’s Coastal Sand Dune Rules
regulate activities within the coastal sand dune system, which is divided into a frontal
dune and back dune based on geologic characteristics. The rules restrict new
construction in V-zones (areas of special flood hazard subject to a 1% or greater chance
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
50
of flooding in any given year, and subject to additional hazard from high velocity water
due to wave action), and places strict infill requirements for development of new lots in
the frontal dune. They also place specific restrictions on the reconstruction of structures
damaged more than 50% by ocean storms in the frontal dune, including required
elevation of structures, moving structures landward, and dune restoration. Applicants
need to demonstrate site stability after 2 ft (0.6 m) of sea level rise. In the back dune,
restrictions are generally less, but certain areas can be classified as Erosion Hazard Areas
if the area will be subject to erosion or flooding due to short- or long-term erosion after 2
ft (0.6 m) of sea level rise. The state’s regulations restrict building in a 500-year flood
prone area and prohibit rebuilding a structure that has been damaged more than 50% by a
storm.
The New Hampshire coast is characterized by steep upland areas that may prevent
transgression of tidal wetlands landward as sea level rises. Causeways, bulkheads, and
other man-made structures built landward of the shore will restrict the movement of
wetlands and intensify this problem (Ward and Adams 2001).
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion
Sand beaches are the habitat most significantly impacted by sediment erosion and
accretion and they compose the smallest percentage of the Maine and New Hampshire
shoreline. Sandy beaches provide habitat for small invertebrates and species of the lower
trophic levels of the food web which are consumed by commercial fisheries and wildlife.
These beaches also serve as vital foraging zones for terns, gulls, and 23 other shorebird
species. Nineteen species of shorebirds utilize sandy beaches for roosting and nesting,
particularly the endangered least tern and threatened piping plover. These two species
breed and nest on the sand dunes between May and August. Any disturbance to the
nesting area may result in the abandonment of the nest, including the presence of humans
nearby (Ward 1999).
The Maine shoreline and the Canadian coast along the Bay of Fundy are
important southward staging areas for shorebirds. These birds have demonstrated fidelity
to traditional staging areas and they resist relocation. This behavior can make the birds
vulnerable if the habitat is destroyed or disturbed by human activities and erosion
processes (Maine Bureau of Land and Water Quality 2005).
Sea-level rise and the disruption of water and sediment movement through salt
marshes can lead to erosion, the submergence of wetlands, and ultimate loss of critical
habitat. As one of the most productive environments on earth, salt marshes are home to
numerous species and serve as a nursery for many others. Marshes can also prevent
erosion by binding sediment and trapping nutrients. Rare plant and animal species are
found in the marshes of Maine and New Hampshire; Table 3.1 indicates the endangered
and threatened species found in the area’s marshes and coasts (Ward 1999).
To prevent further loss of shoreline habitat, many reserves and protected areas
have been created in this region. Both Maine and New Hampshire are home to NERRS.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
51
In Maine, the Wells Reserve encompasses 2,250 ac (9.1 km2) in the southern region of
the state. Maine has designated three Registered Critical Areas within the Reserve:
Laudholm Beach (one of the few remaining undeveloped beaches in Maine), the Wells
Piping Plover Nesting Area, and the Wells Slender Blue Flag Area. The Great Bay
Reserve is located on the New Hampshire/Maine border and includes 10,235 ac (41.4
km2), 7,300 ac (29.5 km2) of which are wetlands and open water. The Great Bay Reserve
supports the largest wintering population of bald eagles in New England and is home to
many other rare flora and fauna species.
Species (common name)
Karner blue butterfly
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Piping plover
Roseate tern
Shortnose sturgeon
Species
Group
Insect
Reptile
Reptile
Bird
Bird
Fish
Federal
Listing Status
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Table 3.2 – A list of selected Federal endangered and threatened species for the Maine and
New Hampshire shorelines. Data obtained from the USFWS.
Each state also supports a NEP. In Maine, Casco Bay is threatened by the
commercial and recreation activities in the area as well as an increase in population and
development. Habitat protection is a focal issue for the Casco Bay NEP. Casco Bay
includes 500 ac (2.02 km2) of rocky shoreline that is utilized by crabs, seaweeds, starfish,
seals, lobsters, barnacles, mussels, and nearly 150 species of waterbirds. The bay also
includes 758 islands, exposed ledges, and islets which serve as habitat for colonial
nesting sea birds. Along the mainland coast of Casco Bay there is approximately 1,023
ac (4.14 km2) of fringing marsh. Although some marsh is very healthy, other marsh
systems have been degraded by development and other human activity (Hayes et. al
2008).
The Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (PREP) includes estuaries in both
New Hampshire and Maine. The primary issue for this NEP is reducing non-point source
pollution to improve environmental quality. To achieve these goals, the PREP has
restored 280 ac (1.13 km2) of salt marsh and protected 11.3% of the watershed from
development. PREP is also part of the Partnership to Restore New Hampshire’s
Estuaries, a coalition to improve the sustainability of the estuaries and promote
restoration and conservation efforts (EPA 2009).
Fifty miles of coastline and approximately 14,600 ac (59.1 km2) near Wells,
Maine is protected under the Rachel Carson NWR. Rocky shorelines, barrier beaches
and dunes, coastal meadows, and tidal marshes are part of this diverse habitat that is an
important shelter for many species including the piping plover and various migratory and
marsh birds. The New England cottontail, a candidate under the ESA and a state
endangered species, utilizes the refuge and rabbit hunting is prohibited in order to aid the
recovery of this species. On the 10-acre (0.04 km2) Pond Island NWR near the mouth of
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
52
the Kennebec River, a restoration project was performed to help reestablish common
terns to the area and has resulted in 135 pairs of nesting terns on the island. The Great
Bay NWR contains one of the longest undeveloped shorelines of the bay and is located
along the eastern shore of New Hampshire’s bay coast. Over 1,000 ac (4.05 km2)
encompassing salt and freshwater marshes, fields, swamps, ponds, and mud flats are part
of the refuge. Numerous state protected species utilize the refuge including the piedbilled grebe, common loon, upland sandpiper, osprey, northern harrier and common tern.
In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson set aside 6000 ac (within what is now
Acadia National Park) in Maine as Sieur de Monts National Monument. With the
acquisition of more land and private support and funding, in 1919 President Wilson
signed an act establishing Lafayette National Park. In 1929 the park’s name was changed
to Acadia. It encompasses 35,000 ac of beautiful seacoast, rocks, islands, forest, lakes
and mountains.
As indicated previously, a very high tidal range is found along the Maine
shoreline. The impact of coastal storms adds to the magnitude of the tides with setup and
storm surge. Their effects on the shoreline can lead to erosion; however, due to the larger
tidal range, storm impacts at high tide usually last for less time than in areas with smaller
tidal ranges. Erosion endangers coastal structures and systems have been put in place to
protect the built shoreline. Sea walls and stone slope protection methods have been most
frequently used by the Corps on the Maine shoreline. In New Hampshire, stone groins
and beach nourishment are the prominent methods for shore protection utilized by the
Corps. In some areas, these hardened protection structures have prevented further
erosion of the shoreline and resulted in large amounts of accretion in other areas (e.g.,
Webhannet River and Wells jetties in Wells, Maine) and helped protect structures .
Presently, the Corps has nine shore protection projects in northeastern Maine and
one in the southwest region of the state constructed primarily to protect habitat and
recreation resources. In New Hampshire, the Corps has two shore protection projects on
the coast to protect infrastructure and the environment (Table 3.1).
D. State and local shoreline management practices
Maine
Only 2% of Maine’s shoreline is sand beaches. These 75 miles (121 km) are used
for tourism and recreational activities as well as providing critical habitat for shorebirds
and vegetation. Coastal actions and planning in Maine are conducted under the Maine
Coastal Program (ME CP) of the State Planning Office, established in 1978. The ME CP
has highlighted three different shoreline management techniques: (1) allowing natural
practices to occur by not intervening with the beach; (2) providing hazard mitigation by
taking steps to lessen erosion, and; (3) implementing soft protection approaches. These
techniques are discussed in the Protecting Maine’s Beaches for the Future report (Beach
Stakeholder Group 2006).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
53
Although there is a renewed focus on soft protection structures in Maine, seawalls
were a common mechanism along the shoreline to prevent erosion for many years prior to
the Coastal Sand Dune Rules. As a result, MGS estimates that about 50% of Maine’s
sandy beaches have existing seawalls. Stabilization of the Scarborough and Saco Rivers
has been accomplished by jetties which have interrupted natural sediment movement in
the Saco Bay. Unnatural erosion and accretion issues in the Bay led to action by the
Southern Maine Beach Stakeholders Group in conjunction with the State Planning Office.
The Saco Bay Regional Beach Management Plan was released in 2000 (Saco Bay
Planning Committee 2000) to spur solutions to the sedimentation patterns. Subsequent
formation of a Saco Bay Implementation Team to deal with shoreline erosion issues have
focused specifically on the influence of the Federal structures at the Saco River and
erosion of the adjacent shoreline. This has led to a Section 111 mitigation project being
undertaken by the Corps New England District.
Currently, Maine restricts the construction of new hard protection structures. Riprap and temporary repairs to existing walls can be made in emergency situations. Beach
nourishment and dune restoration are considered to be methods for beach restoration in
Maine, however due to limited state funding, beach nourishment has not be extensively
undertaken. All beach nourishment actions have been funded and sand supplied through
the beneficial use of dredged material as part of the Corps local navigation projects
(Beach Stakeholders Group 2006). Beach nourishment projects in Maine have been
limited in size and scope. The largest project to-date was the Wells, Maine dredging of
the Wabhannet River completed in 2000. Approximately 180,000 cy (137,620 m3) of
material was dredged and placed as beneficial reuse of dredged material along Wells
beaches on both sides of the Webhannet River inlet (Dickson 2001).
Dredging of Federal navigation channels in the Saco Bay area has resulted in
smaller projects using dredged sediment for beach nourishment. In 1996, the Corps
dredged approximately 90,000 cy (68,800m3) of sediment from the Scarborough River
(Slovinsky and Dickson 2005) and barged the materials to Camp Ellis Beach, where
nearshore disposal was undertaken in a mound adjacent to the Saco River northern jetty.
Subsequent monitoring showed that sediment migrated slightly landward and to the south
(Irish and Lillycrop 1999). In 2004, the Corps once again dredged the Scarborough
River. Approximately 90,000 cy (68,800m3) of material was used to nourish Western
Beach, adjacent to the eastern side of the Scarborough River. The project resulted in a
wide established beach and berm that attracted a large number of nesting least terns and
piping plovers (Slovinsky 2006). As of 2010, Western Beach has eroded to prenourishment shoreline positions.
Small nourishment projects associated with dredging of the Saco River have also
been undertaken by the Corps. Since the 1960s, most of these projects resulted in the
placement of dredged material at Camp Ellis Beach (Slovinsky and Dickson 2005; Kelley
et al. 1995; Normandeau Associates 1994). Approximately 200,000 cy (153,900 m3) of
sediment have been deposited on Maine beaches since 1990, mostly in the Saco Bay area
(Western Carolina University 2010). Dune restoration has been performed on beaches
using sewer pipelines to stabilize the structures. Other artificial dunes are cored with
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
54
sand and gravel from upland sources (Beach Stakeholder Group 2006; Slovinsky and
Dickson 2007).
Dune construction involving placement of a sewer pipeline into the core of the
dune has been successfully performed at Old Orchard Beach’s southern end (Timson and
Denison 1986). Other artificial dunes in Maine have been cored with sand and gravel
from upland sources (Beach Stakeholder Group 2006; Slovinsky and Dickson 2007).
Dune restoration undertaken in Saco, with FEMA funding and using a geotube, has been
only marginally successful in halting shoreline erosion at Camp Ellis Beach, and the
undermining of the tube remains a problem. The City of Saco has been maintaining
sediment in front of and adjacent to the geotube dune. Just north of the geotube is a more
successful dune restoration project that involved the construction of a larger back dune
crest (Wurst 2009).
In 2003, the ME CP, with the support from the MGS, created a beach scoring
system in an effort to create a normalized method to assess the need for management
structures on Maine beaches (Slovinsky 2003). The pilot study took place in Saco Bay,
providing an easily comparable metric to use in directing beach restoration resources in
the Bay. The scoring system was further expanded to include the majority of sandy
beaches in southern Maine; however, the system has not been used to implement
nourishment projects to this date.
In addition to soft structural approaches, Maine enforces land use regulations in
the coastal zone as a means to minimize anthropogenic impacts on coastal ecosystems
and sediment systems. Maine maintains the Coastal Sand Dune Rules under the Maine
Natural Resources Protection Act (38 MRSA 3 §355 3.B(1)(b)). These rules provide for
extensive regulation of actions that could adversely impact dune movements and stability,
including the construction of structures, shore access, and lot clearing. Additionally, the
rule creates a requirement to consider the long term effects of coastal erosion and sea
level rise on the property, potentially disqualifying development if the land in question
may reasonably be eroded or underwater given a two ft (0.6 m) sea level rise in the 100
years following development.
The Maine Mandatory Shoreline Zoning Act of 1971, as amended, provides for
mandatory structural setbacks from all coastal areas, including 250 ft from saltwater
coastlines, wetlands, and tidal marshes (38 MRSA 3, §§ 435-449). The Act also restricts
the amount of vegetation removal and timbering permitted within the coastal zone as a
means to maintain habitat and minimize shore erosion. The Act is administered and
enforced at the municipal level, and municipalities may enact more stringent regulations,
but in no case is a municipality permitted to allow more lax regulations.
New Hampshire
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES), through
the State Coastal Program, administers the state Coastal Policies as passed in 1988 and
amended in 2003. The NH DES is also responsible for the Shoreland Program and the
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
55
Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act of 1991. The Coastal Policies are sixteen
broadly enforceable policies that cover coastal development, water quality, and
recreation. These policies include a general prohibition on shoreline development for non
water dependent uses and for structures that do not directly support coastal recreation.
The state does not enforce a mandatory building setback, but allows local zoning
ordinances that may specify setbacks.
The Comprehensive Shoreline Protection Act instituted standards for the
development and use of New Hampshire’s shorelines. A state shoreland permit is now
necessary for any activity that will impact land along the coastline to a distance of 250 ft
upland from the MHWL. The NH DES Coastal Program aids in the preservation and
protection of coastal resources and utilizes dredged material for habitat restoration and
beach nourishment whenever possible. However, no beach nourishment projects have
been undertaken since 1990 (Western Carolina University 2010).
Maine and New Hampshire are each home to NERRS. In Maine, the Wells
NERRS, located in the southeastern part of the state, protects more than 2200 ac of forest,
salt marsh, freshwater wetlands, and sandy beach. Research and conservation efforts at
the Wells NERRS have led to the reopening of local clam beds and the expansion of
protected salt marsh acreage. Additionally, research at the Wells NERRS has led
scientists to expand the reach of their monitoring upland into the watershed, as local
studies have confirmed that watershed health has a large effect on coastal ecosystem
health. The reserve is administered by the state Reserve Management Authority.
Situated on the northern portion of the New Hampshire coast, the Great Bay
NERRS covers more than 10,000 ac, including more than 7,000 ac of wetlands and open
waters. Research at the Great Bay NERRS focuses heavily on invasive species and
intertidal resource management. The reserve is managed by the New Hampshire
Department of Fish and Game.
IV. Massachusetts
The uniquely shaped Massachusetts shoreline includes the coastal features of
Massachusetts Bay, the port of Boston, Cape Cod, and Cape Cod Bay. The 1,500 miles
(2,414 km) of state shoreline were formed by glacial retreat, resulting in terminal
moraines and glacial deltaic sediments of coarse sand and gravel that are presently
mobilized along the shore. Barrier systems, salt marshes, sand and cobble beaches, and
rock outcroppings are interspersed along the coast. Boston Harbor is one of the most
active industrial areas in the North Atlantic region and influences natural sediment
movement. Net transport of sediment along the shore of Massachusetts is southwestward
into Cape Cod Bay.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
56
New Hampshire
Merrimack River
Boston
Massachusetts
Bay
Massachusetts
Cape Cod
Bay
RI
Buzzards
Bay
Nantucket
Sound
Martha’s
Vineyard
Nantucket
Figure 4.1 Map of the Massachusetts coastline.
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes
i. Shoreline habitats
The state of Massachusetts has a distinctive shoreline that was shaped by glacial
processes and sea level rise during the late Pleistocene and Holocene epochs. As glaciers
retreated from this area, they deposited sediments and formed terminal moraines which
resulted in the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Moraines and outwash
plains developed during the last epoch anchor the most distinguishing feature of the
Massachusetts shoreline, the Cape Cod arm. The continued warming of the climate
during the Holocene caused the ice sheet to further recede which combined with glacial
melt and sea level rise formed Cape Cod Bay (Belknap 2005).
The Massachusetts coastline also includes beaches composed of sand or silt and
salt marshes found among the glacially carved moraines and drumlins. Along the
northern shore of Massachusetts and Cape Ann there is a significant salt marsh and
barrier beach system. The Great Marsh encompasses 25,000 ac (101 km2) of marsh and
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
57
beach across Plum Island Sound and Essex Bay. The Merrimack River is a major river in
the region that delivers sediment to nourish these systems.
Intertidal ledges, bedrock and glacial headlands are interspersed among areas of
sand, gravel, and cobble along the Massachusetts Bay shoreline. This shoreline has few
tidal inlets and barriers due to the lack of sediment available in the region. Those barriers
that have formed are maintained by glacial deposits (Fitzgerald et al. 2002). Boston
Harbor is located at the western end of Massachusetts Bay; a large open embayment
which serves as the commercial entrance to the port. Commercial port activity dominates
the Boston shore which contains significant infrastructure to maintain maritime activities.
The shoreline of Cape Cod Bay is dominated by cobble and sand beaches
scattered among rocky outcroppings. The northern shore of the bay includes coastal
drumlins and high coastal banks characterize the south shore. The bay littoral system is
less dynamic since it is partially protected by Cape Cod from Atlantic Ocean wave
energy.
Cape Cod National Seashore is the longest natural coastline of New England. The
east coast of Cape Cod and the shorelines of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Sound are
dominated by sandy barrier beaches backed by coastal dunes. Estuaries, tidal rivers, and
embayments are also dispersed throughout the region. Part of the southern coast of
Massachusetts is protected from ocean energy by Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. The
shore also includes Buzzards Bay, a highly productive shallow estuary of tidal grass and
salt marsh (Pinet 2003; Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs 2009).
ii. Sediment sources and movement
Sediment along the shore of Massachusetts is mainly derived from two sources,
glacial deposits and river inputs. The Merrimack River at the New Hampshire and
Massachusetts border delivers sediment to the coast. These sands are mobilized by the
east/northeast waves of the region to produce a net southern transport of sediment. This
natural transport mechanism has been somewhat disrupted by the jetties that line the river
channel as it flows into the ocean.
The majority of sediments in the Massachusetts Bay/Boston Harbor area originate
from the erosion of glacial deposits. Cobbles and boulders within compact till from the
pre-Wisconsin glaciation as well as gravel, sand, and glaciomarine mud left by the
Laurentide ice sheet retreat compose these sediments. A few small rivers outflow into
Boston Harbor but damming along these rivers prevents a large amount of sediment from
being delivered to the coast (Knebel 1993). Boston Harbor also receives significant
anthropogenic discharges of sediment because of the high population near the coastline
and wastewater influx. Due to these effluent releases, Boston Harbor is one of the
highest nutrient-loaded estuaries. Within the Harbor, wave energy is commonly low
which promotes the trapping of fine-grained sediments. Some sands will be expunged
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
58
when the Harbor undergoes tidal flushing to Massachusetts Bay approximately every 2 to
10 days (Kelly 1997).
The shoreline surrounding Cape Cod Bay is composed of sediment from eroding
glacial formations and input from updrift sources. Outwash plains of the Pleistocene
created the coastal cliffs from which this sand and gravel along the Cape beaches are
derived (Ockay and Hubert 1996).
Net transport of sediment along the eastern shore of Massachusetts is
southwestward into Cape Cod Bay. The WMCC travels along the southern shore of
Maine, past the coast of New Hampshire, and flows southwestward into Massachusetts
Bay (Pettigrew et al. 2005). Some current energy drifts south into Cape Cod Bay. The
remainder of the current continues along the eastern shore of Cape Cod and flows into the
Great South Channel which separates the western part of Georges Bank from Nantucket
Shoals (Manning et al. 2009).
New Hampshire
Plum
Island
Boston
Harbor
Massachusetts
Bay
Great
South
Channel
Massachusetts
Plymouth
Bay
Cape Cod
Bay
RI
Barnstable Harbor
Buzzards
Bay
Martha’s
Vineyard
Cape Poge
Nantucket
Sound
Nantucket
Harbor
Nantucket
Figure 4.2 Illustration of regional and local sediment transport.
Local sediment transport along some areas of the Massachusetts shore varies
slightly from the ocean currents. Along the outer eastern ocean shore of the Cape, littoral
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
59
drift of sediment diverges near the middle of the Cape, near Wellfleet. North of
Wellfleet, sediment is transported north to Provincetown Hook. South of Wellfleet, sand
movement is transported south along the rest of the Massachusetts shoreline. Sediment
transported by these diverging longshore currents varies in composition. As sand is
carried to the north, it gets coarser in composition. Sediment transferred to the south
becomes more fine-grained as the distance increases (Poppe et al. 2006, Pinet 2003).
iii. Coastal features
Tidal inlets formed by a variety of processes scattered along the Massachusetts
coast serve as natural harbors for the area. Along the far northeast shore of the state, the
Merrimack River inlet is a significant source of sand in the region along with other
smaller rivers (such as Essex River), producing the Merrimack Embayment barrier chain.
NH
Project Type
Navigation
Shore Protection
Massachusetts
RI
Figure 4.3 – Depiction of Corps shore protection and navigation projects along the coastline of
Massachusetts (USACE 2010b).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
60
Plymouth Bay, located in between Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay, is
sheltered by two barrier beaches. The spit to the north, Saquish Neck, is seven miles (11
km) long while Plymouth Beach, the spit to the south, is three miles (5 km) long and
protects Plymouth Harbor.
Within Cape Cod Bay, the Herring River inlet is a small, shallow formation near
the base of the Cape arm. The inlet is fairly stable as the longshore sediment transport in
this area is low. The Barnstable Harbor inlet, at the south of Cape Cod Bay, promotes
water exchange between the Bay and an extensive marsh system as well as providing a
natural harbor for commercial activity. Barnstable Harbor is protected by the relatively
stable six mile (9.7 km) long barrier spit of Sandy Neck. Along the eastern shore of Cape
Cod, barrier beaches are exposed to Atlantic Ocean forces and storm events. During
major storms, these barriers are frequently breached and inlets can be formed. More
permanent inlets include the Nauset Inlet and the Plymouth Inlet.
The Nantucket Harbor Inlet and Cape Poge Inlet are along the northern shores of
Nantucket and Vineyard Sounds, respectively. Weak tidal currents and high wave energy
prevent the formation of permanent tidal inlets along the southern coastlines of Nantucket
Island and Martha’s Vineyard. Temporary inlets can be created when this region is
exposed to strong storms, but these often close within a few months after the event.
Along Buzzards Bay, there are many inlets that are open or filled with marsh.
The bay is part of the NEP and is intended to prevent wetland loss and preserve the
natural habitat of the area. Buzzards Bay is connected to Cape Cod Bay through the
manmade Cape Cod Canal which allows commercial activity to pass through the state to
reach Boston Harbor. New Bedford Harbor is located within the Bay at the mouth of the
Acushnet River. The New Bedford port has been ranked as the highest dollar-value
fishing port in the country since 2000 (Fitzgerald et al. 2002).
Boston Harbor is a natural harbor that serves as the maritime center for New
England and encompasses the region’s largest port. The Port of Boston handles more
than 12.8 million tons of bulk fuel cargo and 1.3 million tons of general cargo each year.
The Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project recently deepened berths and
channels near the Harbor to allow for greater access by large vessels. Much of the
sediment dredged during this project was disposed offshore in Massachusetts Bay.
Project
Name
Andrews River
(Saquatucket
Harbor)
Aunt Lydia's
Cove
Project
Location
State
Corps
District
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
New
England
New
England
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
Authorized
Purpose
Navigation
Navigation
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
Maintenance material
removed by Currituck placed
in nearshore feeder bars off
adjacent beaches.
Maintenance material
removed by Currituck placed
61
Project
Name
(Chatham
Harbor)
Canapitsit
Channel Canal Channel
Chatham
(Stage) Harbor
Cross Rip
Shoals
Cuttyhunk
Harbor
Edgartown
Harbor
Lagoon Pond
Little Harbor
at Woods Hole
Menemsha
Creek
Nantucket
Harbor of
Refuge
Oak Bluffs
Harbor
Pollock Rip
Shoals
Provincetown
Harbor
Sesuit Harbor
Vineyardhaven
Harbor
Woods Hole
Channel
Buttermilk
Bay Channel
Cape Cod
Canal
Project
Location
State
Corps
District
Authorized
Purpose
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
in nearshore feeder bars off
adjacent beaches.
Massachusetts
New
England
Massachusetts
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
Massachusetts
New
England
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
New
England
New
England
New
England
Navigation
Navigation
Section 204 study now
underway to look at
nourishing beaches in
Chatham, including Monomoy
NWR, with sand material
from Stage Harbor channel.
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Navigation
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Improvement material to be
placed in nearshore feeder
bars off adjacent beaches.
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Navigation
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Maintenance material
removed by Currituck placed
in nearshore feeder bars off
adjacent beaches.
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Navigation
O&M material is sand
Massachusetts
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
Navigation
Massachusetts
New
England
Navigation
See CCC Below
Section 204 study now
underway to look at
nourishing beaches in
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
62
Project
Name
Newburyport
Harbor
Oak Bluffs
Town Beach
Thumperton
Beach,
Eastham
Plum Island
Beach,
Newbury
Revere Beach
Winthrop
Beach
Roughans
Point, Revere
Quincy Shore
Beach, Quincy
North Scituate
Beach,
Scituate
Town Beach,
Plymouth
Wessagusset
Beach,
Weymouth
Buttermilk
Bay Channel
Clark Point
Beach, New
Bedford
Project
Location
State
Corps
District
Authorized
Purpose
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
Massachusetts
New
England
New
England
Navigation
Shore
Protection
Sandwich with material from
eastern end of Canal project.
Town of Falmouth
considering similar study for
material from western end of
Canal and projects like
Buttermilk Bay for its
Beaches.
Section 204 project now out
for bids. Project would use
channel sands to nourish
adjacent beaches with state as
cost-sharing sponsor.
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Massachusetts
New
England
Shore
Protection
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
2.5 miles of beachfill: Initial
construction completed
0.8 miles of beachfill: Initial
construction completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
1.6 miles of beachfill: Initial
construction completed
New
England
New
England
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Massachusetts
New
England
New
England
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Massachusetts
New
England
Shore
Protection
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Table 4.1 – Corps projects on the shore of Massachusetts (USACE 2010b).
B. Erosion and accretion
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
63
Over two-thirds (68%) of the Massachusetts ocean-facing shore displays a longterm erosional trend. Approximately 30% of the shore has undergone accretion and the
remaining 2% is experiencing no net change. The average annual rate of shoreline
change for Massachusetts ranges from -0.58 ft (18 cm)/yr to -0.75 ft (23 cm)/yr. Eightyone percent of the coastline undergoes a shoreline change of +/- 2 ft (61 cm) each year.
According to the USGS, Cape Cod Bay, Boston Harbor, and the Stellwagen Basin
(offshore, east of Massachusetts Bay) are areas where sediment accumulation occurs,
while Massachusetts Bay is mainly influenced by erosion processes (O’Connell 2003).
The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (MA CZSM) has produced an
interactive online shoreline change map using data dating back to the mid-1800s that
allows users to zoom into a specific shore to observe the rate of change along that coast
(http://www.mass.gov/czm/hazards/shoreline_change/shorelinechangeproject.htm)
i. Area rates and trends
Plum Island Beach is located south of the Merrimack River and has undergone
significant erosion, losing at least 150 ft (46 m) from protective dunes, in the last 20
years. Part of this erosion is due to the deterioration of the beach’s northern jetty along
the southern shore of the River. In 2009, a plan was approved and funded to dredge the
Merrimack River and place the sediment on Plum Island Beach (USACE 2009).
Massachusetts Bay demonstrates an overall erosion trend. Sediment sources to
nourish the bay coastline have diminished with the hardening and armoring of the upland
shoreline, preventing an inflow of sediments into the longshore transport system for
deposition onto the bay beaches. For example, Humarock Beach at Scituate has suffered
accelerated erosion recently as revetments were built updrift from this barrier beach,
thwarting sediment transport to the beach. Massachusetts Bay is also impacted by storm
events which can generate strong waves across the long fetch of the Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean.
Within Boston Harbor, sediment is often trapped due to the low wave energy
within the embayment and produces a general accretion trend. Dredging occurs
occasionally to ensure the continuation of transportation and industry (O’Connell 2003).
Cape Cod Bay undergoes localized patterns of both erosion and accretion. The
bay is protected from major ocean forces by the Cape Cod arm and sediment deposition
occurs within the bay. Communities in the bay are often impacted by both erosion and
accretion processes. Jetties built at Sandwich Harbor along the south shore of the bay
produced considerable erosion affecting 5,600 ft (1,707 m) of downdrift shoreline and
resulting in up to 361 ft (110 m) of shoreline loss in some areas. The shoreline has
continually adjusted to the new structure and erosion rates have dropped significantly
(WHOI Sea Grant 2000).
The Atlantic Ocean exposed coast of Cape Cod is eroding at various rates
anywhere from 19 ft (5.8 m) per year to a few in each year. This shoreline is impacted by
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
64
strong ocean waves and bears the full energy of storm events which have produced a high
amount of erosion. Land at both the far north and far south of the Cape which are not
fully impacted by the sea have remained fairly stable and even accreted in some areas
(Oldale and Dinwoody 1999). The southern shores of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard
currently demonstrate a general erosion trend. These shores are exposed to ocean waves
which remove sediment, although these islands have significantly fluctuated from erosion
to accretion in the past 150 years.
ii. Storm impacts
The Massachusetts coastline can be greatly affected by storms, which resuspend,
erode, and deposit sediment. Powerful storms transport sediment through large waves
and bottom currents that can resuspend ocean floor sediment in water up to 260 ft. The
impact of storms on sediment and its distribution differs with each event due to the
variance in timing of the storms, wind direction, and other environmental factors. Even
with these fluctuations, some general trends can be observed.
Typically, the strongest storms to impact the shore are nor’easters, coastal storms
with high winds blowing from the northeast. Nor’easters generally occur in the winter
months but can materialize anytime from October to May. In Massachusetts Bay, the
principal cause of large waves is nor’easters since the bay is surrounded by land except in
the east and northeast and a long fetch is generated across the bay and the Atlantic Ocean,
respectively. The bottom stress produced by these waves is also a major cause of
sediment resuspension in the bay. Sediment is generally transported from Boston Harbor
and deposited in Cape Cod Bay and the Stellwagen Basin by nor’easters (Butman et al.
2008).
The Blizzard of December 1992, the Perfect Storm of October 1991, and a
December 2003 storm rank as the three strongest storms in the past 20 years to impact
Massachusetts (Butman et al. 2008). The Perfect Storm, also known as the Halloween
Storm, produced 25 ft (7.6 m) high waves on top of a high tide four ft (1.2 m) above
normal and resulted in over $100 million in damage in Massachusetts (NCDC 2008).
One study indicated that multiple storm impacts with erosional hotspots on Cape Cod
were rapidly reversed by post-storm accretion, however, the natural response to storm
impacts is highly variable and site-specific (List et al. 2006).
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
Regions of the Massachusetts shoreline are extremely vulnerable to climate
change and sea-level rise. These areas include parts of Cape Cod, the islands in
Nantucket Sound, and most of the state’s southern shoreline. The south shore of
Nantucket Island is eroding at a rate of 15 ft (4.6 m)/yr and half a mile of land has been
lost to the sea since colonial times. The south shore of Martha’s Vineyard has
experienced rapid and heightened rates of retreat of approximately 3.3 - 6.6 ft (1-2 m)/yr.
Much of this erosion and landward migration of the shoreline has been due to sea-level
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
65
rise and these rates will intensify with the greater potential for rising seas in the near
future (Ashton et al. 2008; Oldale 1999).
Buzzards Bay along the southwest coastline of the state has also been affected by
sea-level rise over the years, resulting in the disappearance of headlands, islands, and
tidal areas. Some of the more sheltered coastlines of the bay have been static as have
those that are supported by bedrock. The northern coastline of Massachusetts, including
Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay, are less susceptible to erosion and sea-level rise.
However, rising seas on Plum Island will likely result in marsh migration upland and a
reduction in the extent of salt marsh (Buchsbaum et al. 2006).
The Massachusetts shoreline is exposed to powerful ocean waves and inundation
from higher seas. It is susceptible to nor’easters and the harsh waves produced by storm
winds and fetch of the Gulf of Maine. The loose sands along this shore are easily eroded
and will be removed at an increased rate with sea-level rise.
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion
The Massachusetts shoreline is composed of tidal marshes, sandy and cobble
beaches, and rocky headlands which can be susceptible to the dynamic processes of
sediment movement along the coast. Low energy environments of bays and sheltered
shorelines are also part of the state’s coastline which can also experience environmental
effects from erosion and accretion.
Much of the sediment along the Massachusetts shoreline is derived from erosion
processes, either from rivers eroding upstream lands or waves eroding glacial headlands
along the shore. Erosion and the subsequent accretion of these sediments along the
state’s coastline create the valuable shoreline habitat utilized by many species.
A large area of the Massachusetts wetland base has been lost since pre-colonial
times. To accommodate the expansion of Boston, 80% of the salt marshes around the
city have been filled since 1777. The threats to the marsh are similar to other wetlands of
the North Atlantic coast. Human interference through draining, diking, and filling of
wetlands has resulted in permanent loss of habitat (Habitat Restoration and Monitoring
Subcommittees 2008). Tidal restrictions have produced hydrological changes that lower
the salt concentration of the water and reduce the elevation of tidal flooding. These
changes result in a shift in vegetation that can be supported by the marsh and allows
invasive plant species such as the common reed to displace native plants and alter the
vegetation structure. Salt marsh banks also experience erosion from wave action
produced by speeding jet skis and boats which reduce the integrity of the marsh.
Development and salt marsh ditching has also led to the erosion and loss of salt marsh in
Massachusetts (Cape Cod Commission 2001).
Degradation of the state’s wetlands continues and to protect this valuable habitat,
Massachusetts has passed legislation to put restrictions and regulations on human activity
within wetlands. The NEP also has multiple sites within the state and various projects to
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
66
restore and prevent future loss of wetlands. The Massachusetts Bays NEP monitors both
the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
Buzzards Bay is also part of the NEP. The bay is approximately 145,792 ac (590
km2) in size with over 350 miles (563 km) of coastline. Wetland loss has been a
significant issue in this region which led to the development of the Buzzards Bay NEP.
Much of the recent wetland loss in the bay was due to cranberry bog activity and the
other factors of logging/clearing expansion, residential development, agriculture, and
other development as additional factors.
The shoreline of Bird Island within Buzzards Bay is utilized by common terns and
the Federally-endangered roseate tern as nesting habitat. The island supports over 20%
of the North American roseate tern population. Due to impacts from coastal storms, the
vegetation and sand of the shore are eroding and making it difficult for the birds to locate
suitable nesting habitats. A rock revetment that protects the island is in poor condition
and the Corps has begun developing a plan to reconstruct the revetment and restore the
nesting substrate.
The Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex encompasses eight NWR, four of
which can be found along the coastline of the state. These four are Nomans Land Island
NWR, Mashpee NWR, Nantucket NWR, and the largest, Monomoy NWR. The
Monomoy NWR is 7,604 ac (30.7 km2) of barrier islands near the elbow of Cape Cod.
Around 97% of the Monomoy islands are designated as “wilderness” by Congress which
provides a higher level of protection to the natural environment by limiting human
activity. This NWR is listed as an Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society
and a site of regional importance by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
(WHSRN). In 1985, the WHSRN was created to encourage conservation of shorebirds
and their critical habitats. Reserves were designated along the U.S. Atlantic coast to
preserve this crucial habitat. The dynamic environment of the North and South
Monomoy barrier islands has provided various habitats for shorebirds to flourish. The
erosion and accretion of sand along the coast constantly alters the shore and creates
habitat niches for the birds to exploit. Horseshoe crabs, gray seals, and northeastern
beach tiger beetles are also found in the NWR (US FWS 2010).
The Parker River NWR occupies 4,662 ac (18.9 km2) on the southern region of
Plum Island and includes part of the Great Marsh. The NWR includes more than 3,000
ac (12.1 km2) of marsh habitat as well as sandy beaches, dunes, and maritime forest and
shrubland. The Great Marsh is the largest salt marsh north of Long Island, New York
and was designated a state Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in 1979 .
Marsh, tidal river, estuary, barrier beach, and mudflat habitats are found on the more than
20,000 ac of the Great Marsh. The region is designated as both an Important Bird Area
and a WHSRN site of regional importance as it supports over 67,000 shorebirds of more
than 30 species.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
67
Species (common name)
Dwarf wedgemussel
Green sea turtle
Hawksbill sea turtle
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
Northeastern beach tiger beetle
Northeastern bulrush
Piping plover
Roseate tern
Sandplain gerardia
Shortnose sturgeon
Small whorled pogonia
Species Group
Mussel
Reptile
Reptile
Reptile
Reptile
Reptile
Insect
Plant
Bird
Bird
Plant
Fish
Plant
Federal
Listing Status
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Table 4.2 A list of selected Federal endangered and threatened species for the Massachusetts
shoreline. Data obtained from the USFWS.
Designated by the Secretary of the Interior on March 17, 1938, the Salem
Maritime National Historic Site became the first national historic site in the National Park
System. It consists of 9 ac of land, 12 historic buildings, and a visitor center along the
Salem waterfront. The park was established to preserve and interpret the maritime history
of New England, whose shipping played an important role in the early economic
development of the United States. The Boston Harbor Islands NRA is situated among the
islands of Boston Harbor and is composed of a collection of islands, together with a
former island and peninsula, some of which are very small and best suited for wildlife.
The area is run by the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership. It includes the Boston Harbor
Islands State Park, managed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Cape Cod National Seashore (CCNS), created on August 7, 1961 by
President John F. Kennedy, encompasses 43,500 ac (176 km²) of ponds, woods and
beachfront. The CCNS includes nearly 40 miles (60 km) of seashore along the Atlanticfacing eastern edge of Cape Cod, in the towns of Provincetown, Truro, Wellfleet,
Eastham, Orleans and Chatham.
The abandonment of agriculture in New England has resulted in reforestation of
the region’s watershed and a subsequent decrease in sediment runoff from the upland
areas. With a reduction in sediment available, the wetland habitat is unable to counteract
the erosion processes of wave action and other factors (Cavatorta et al. 2003).
The shorelines of Massachusetts have received beach nourishment to mitigate
erosion of the coastline. Dune restoration has also been performed and groins, sea walls,
breakwaters, and jetties have been built by the Corps to protect the shore and prevent
erosion. These structures have had some adverse affect on the shoreline habitat by
altering natural littoral transport of sediment and causing erosion in other areas.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
68
Shoreline protection structures, restoration, and nourishment also create habitat by
accreting sand in the project area which may be used by the flora and fauna of the area.
The state of Massachusetts has many harbors managed by the Corps. These
harbors are utilized for navigation, recreation, fishing, industry, and commercial
purposes. Harbors are often accompanied by jetties, dikes, and dredged channels to allow
for easy navigation access by vessels but they also serve to disrupt the natural
environment and will have some detrimental environmental effects on the adjacent
shores. Along the north shore of Massachusetts, there are presently three Corps shore
protection projects managed to defend the environment, infrastructure, and critical
facilities in the area. On the coast of Cape Cod, two projects have been constructed by
the Corps to protect these same resources, as have the five structures on the south shore
of the state (Table 4.1).
D. State and local shoreline management practices
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts maintains an extensive network of state
and state supported local programs to improve the stability and long term viability of the
coast, the economic benefits of coastal and nearshore marine areas, and the integrated
management of coastal areas and territorial waters. At the state level, the Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs oversees the Coastal Program (MA CZM)
acting as the policy and technical lead for all coastal and nearshore actions. The MA
CZM administers the Federal Consistency Review Program for the state and coordinates
the enforcement and application of all Massachusetts laws and regulations that pertain to
coastal areas of the Commonwealth.
The Massachusetts ACEC Program, administered by the Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR) on behalf of the Secretary of Energy and
Environmental Affairs, has reviewed ACEC nominations culminating in 14 coastal and
16 inland ACEC designations by the Secretary since 1975 (CZM administered the coastal
ACEC program until 1993). ACECs are places in Massachusetts that contain natural and
cultural resources of regional, state, or national importance. The purpose of the ACEC
Program is to preserve, restore, and enhance these exceptional resources. Some of the
towns encompassing these ACECs have developed local bylaws or resource management
plans to address key issues and promote conservation. ACEC nominations continue to be
proposed by communities for state review. Salt marsh and river restoration projects have
been initiated through watershed wetland restoration plans overseen by the Massachusetts
Division of Ecological Restoration at the Department of Fish and Game.
Hard structural approaches to shoreline protection are restricted and the
Commonwealth has designated hardened structures can only be allowed on coastal bluffs
to protect buildings constructed prior to 1978 where no other means of protection can be
used (Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations CMR 10.00). The
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Plan of 2002 (CZM Plan 2002) set forth
suggested guidelines for siting and performance standards for special, sensitive, or unique
marine and estuarine life. New, hardened structures are permissible in situations where
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
69
it is the only legal and feasible alternative. In an effort by the Commonwealth to mitigate
for the potential down current impacts of hard shore protection, sediment must be
periodically replaced in volumes commensurate with what is being unnaturally displaced
from the sediment system (CZM Plan 2002).The preferred method for coastal protection
is to use natural solutions and hybrid approaches, which may be encouraged or mandated
based on the situation. Non-structural solutions recommended and supported by the
Commonwealth include beach nourishment, dune replenishment, and dune revegetation.
In 2006, the Massachusetts Coastal Hazards Commission (MA CHC) was created
to identify coastal hazards and provide recommendations for dealing with these threats.
Regional sand management was recognized by the MA CHC as an effective way to use
sediment available in order to nourish the shoreline. To promote effective regional sand
management, the Commonwealth, via the Ocean Sanctuaries Act and the Wetlands
Protection Act, prohibits sand and gravel mining except for beach nourishment, and then
only if such activities do not increase storm damage of beaches, dunes, or salt marsh
through alteration of bottom topography. This restriction generally includes the seabed
that is landward of the 80ft (25 m) bathymetric contour. Other recommendations by the
Commission included the use of new and innovative alternatives to shoreline protection
structures and the development of a framework to prioritize available funds for public
coastline protection projects. The MA CHC report also led to the creation of the
StormSmart Coasts program which aids coastal communities by providing resources to
prepare for dangerous storms, floods, and sea level rise (MA CHC 2007). Beach
management plans have been adopted by local governments in the state. For example, a
plan to utilize dredge material from the Merrimack River to nourish the beaches at Plum
Island and Salisbury will provide benefits by adding sediment to the barrier beach system
(USACE 2009).
Like other New England states with “home rule” government, many land-use
decisions in Massachusetts are made at the local level. For coastal communities, this
means grappling with the impacts and effects of erosion, storm surge, and flooding
problems, which are being exacerbated and accelerated by global climate change. To
help communities address these challenges, the MA CZM launched its StormSmart
Coasts program in 2008. CZM developed user-friendly tools such as fact sheets, case
studies, smart growth planning strategies, legal and regulatory tools, and extensive
technical materials. CZM also held a series of regional workshops to directly connect
local officials with the program. Then, in 2009, CZM began five StormSmart Coasts
pilot projects with seven communities—Boston, Falmouth, Hull, Oak Bluffs, and the
three-town team of Duxbury, Kingston, and Plymouth — to “test drive” local, pro-active
implementation of StormSmart Coasts tools. The results are successful transferable
coast-wide models and enhanced partnerships with regional, state, and Federal agencies;
conservation organizations; academia; and the private sector to better serve coastal
communities in Massachusetts. For more information see the StormSmart Coasts website
(www.mass.gov/czm/stormsmart).
The Massachusetts Oceans Act of 2008 developed a Nearshore Ocean
Management Planning Area Boundary and required that the Massachusetts Executive
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
70
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs develop an integrated, comprehensive ocean
management plan. The full version of the Massachusetts Ocean Plan was released by the
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs on December 31, 2009. The ocean
management plan provides a framework for management of human development
activities—including sand extraction for beach nourishment—allowed under state law
and designates three categories of management for state waters. The use categories set
forth are the Prohibited Areas (which restricts all development and commercial use and
are congruent with the Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuary) Renewable Energy Areas (in which
tidal, wind, and other renewable energy resources may be tapped) and Multi Use Areas
(which are to include most other commercial functions associated with the near coastal
oceans). The plan also specified incorporating an adaptive framework using EBM to
inform decisions on the use of coastal areas (Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy
and Environmental Affairs 2009).
The MA CZM maintains the Massachusetts Historic Shoreline Change Project,
which tracks shoreline movement from 1884-1994 at 40 meter intervals along the entirety
of the ocean facing Massachusetts shoreline. This study, with several historic shorelines
available at each intersect, allows planners and engineers to assess those areas most prone
to erosion, and those which have been most affected by modern shore protection
methods. A wide range of useful applications for the information exists, including where
to build future shore protection features, which types of shore protection are most useful
for a particular area, identifying areas which may reasonably be expected to erode in the
future, and also which areas experience no change or accretion. All of the applications
have the potential to lead to better regulatory and planning decisions for coastal
permitting and projects.
In conjunction with the Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental
Information, MA CZM created the Massachusetts Ocean Resources Information System
(MORIS). MORIS is an interactive database which contains information on all facets of
the Massachusetts coast. Layers in MORIS include tide gauge stations, bathymetric
information, shore access points, and natural resource areas viewed over satellite imagery
of the desired area. MORIS was designed to provide accurate spatial data to coastal
planning professionals throughout Massachusetts, but is available to the public as well.
The Commonwealth is home to the Waquoit Bay NERRS, the Buzzards Bay
NEP, and the Massachusetts Bay NEP. The former is managed by NOAA in coordination
with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the latter two
are under the jurisdiction of the MA CZM. The Waquoit Bay NERRS, located on the
southeastern edge of Cape Cod, covers more than 2300 ac of beach, salt water marsh and
coastal wetland, coastal river, and forest ecosystem, adjacent to and including portions of
the Mashpee NWR and the Waquoit Bay ACEC. The NERRS is a Federal-state
partnership between NOAA and the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation.
The state provides the direct day-to-day management of the NERRS and NOAA provides
funding and general technical assistance. The main research focus of the Waquoit Bay
program is water quality, response to sea level rise, and the effects of humans on
sensitive coastal systems.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
71
E. Project-specific examples of economic and cultural effects of erosion and
accretion
State: Massachusetts
Community: Town of Nantucket, Siaconset (“Sconset”) Beach
Background: Sconset Beach has a long history of
battling beach erosion issues. Due to considerable
cumulative coastal erosion, multiple structures have
been relocated away from the eroding edge—some
more than once. Private landowners have taken over
where town erosion control tactics have left off,
undertaking varied efforts to protect their threatened
properties.
Realizing the fate of their valuable homes if coastal
erosion were allowed to continue unabated, local
private landowners formed the Siasconset Beach
Preservation Fund (SBPF) in 1992. Responsible for
contributing over a million dollars to ultimately
insufficient projects—including a failed beach
dewatering system, duneguard fencing, and coastal
bank toe and slope terracing—in 2005 SBPF
proposed the Sconset Beach Nourishment Project
Targeted nourishment area and potential borrow (SBNP). The effort involved distributing
site. Source: www.SconsetBeach.org. approximately 2.6 million cy of material from an
offshore borrow site to an approximately 3-mile-long stretch of beach.
The privately funded proposal, which would require nourishment maintenance every five
to seven years, was ultimately withdrawn following a resounding defeat in a non-binding
town vote.
Costs: Approximately $18 million
Socio-Cultural Issues: Though the SBNP was privately funded and offered some
tangible benefits to the public, the proposal was ultimately unsupported by the
townspeople. Threats to offshore fisheries, mainly in the form of destruction of cobble
during the fill-mining process, created a significant movement against the project.
Headed largely by local fishermen, the Coalition for Responsible Coastal Management
(CRCM), with a Web site called “askanyfisherman.org” (see insert below from web site)
was ultimately able to derail the proposal. A non-binding town vote confirmed the
sentiment: 483 voted in support of the project while 2,986 voted against. See attached for
the fact sheet—drafted and distributed by CRCM during the permitting process—that
helped to solidify the movement against the SBNP proposal.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
72
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
73
State:
Massachusetts
Community: Town
of Chatham: North
Beach
Background: North
Beach, once
sheltered by a
barrier beach, is all
that stands between
the eastern shore of
Chatham and the
open Atlantic
Ocean. The barrier
beach has a
documented history
of an approximately Aerial photo of Chatham Harbor. Text overlay shows 1987 inlet in distance and 2007 inlet in foreground. Source: Karl Swenson. 150 year cycle of
breaching, breaking up, and growing south again, and the spit now looks to be in the
midst of the early breach phase once more.
A large 1987 storm formed a new inlet in the barrier, ultimately resulting in erosion that
caused the loss of nine homes. In April 2007, a mile and a half to the north of the 1987
breach, a new break formed. Although it initially seemed as though it might fill in on its
own, the new inlet has since widened significantly. Beyond causing the loss of at least
seven more North Beach seasonal homes, sediment movement and tidal changes from the
new inlet threaten the current Pleasant Bay navigation system and ocean access for the
local fishing industry. With an estimated cost to fill the breach of more than $4 million
and no guaranteed long-lasting benefits, town residents voted down the remediation
proposal in late summer of 2007.
Costs: A feasibility study to determine options for going forward was estimated at
$150,000, and the projected cost of filling in the breach was $4 million (2007 dollars). To
both price tags, townspeople ultimately voted “no.”
Socio-Cultural Issues: The primary issue is “Who pays and who benefits?” After a long
period of significant expenditures, the loss of several homes to the sea (a local road can
be seen disappearing under the ocean as the area has transitioned from land to sea), and
increasingly uncertain results, the local taxpayers opted for minimal intervention
(shoreline stabilization) rather than attempting multi-million-dollar solutions to fill the
breach. According to the local coastal manager, the vote came down to public cost versus
private benefit.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
74
V. Long Island Sound shoreline – shorelines of Rhode Island,
Connecticut, and part of New York
Long Island Sound (LIS) is a major coastal estuary within the most densely
populated area of the United States. Sandy beaches and shoals in this region are
nourished by sediment from glacial and post-glacial marine deposits. The transport
energy of sediments decreases as they are moved westward, resulting in a progressive
change in sediment composition within the Sound. From east to west deposits change
from gravelly sediment to sand, to muddy sand, and eventually mud (Poppe et al. 2008).
Circulation in LIS is dominated by tides, although wind and wave driven currents
influence shallow nearshore areas particularly during storm events. Through much of
LIS, longshore sediment transport is in a net westward direction. Shoreline or
topographic irregularities are the few exceptions to this general trend (Signell et al.
2000). Frequent high energy events and wave-driven bottom currents scour and
redistribute glacial deposits and younger marine deltaic sediments. Hardened structures
to protect the shore from erosion cover 50% of LIS and have interrupted the natural
transport of sediment along the coast. Erosion in non-protected areas of the coast and a
25% to 35% reduction in the Sound’s vegetated wetlands is a result of this interference
(NYS CMP 1999).
Connecticut
River
Housatonic
River
Hudson
River
MA
RI
Connecticut
New
York
Narragansett
Bay
Pawcatuck
River
Long Sand
Shoal
Norwalk
Shoal
Long Island Sound
Block Island
Sound
Rhode Island
Sound
Stratford Shoal
Long Island, NY
Figure 5.1 Map of the Long Island Sound region.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
75
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes
i. Shoreline habitats
The LIS estuary is 113 miles (182 km) long and 20 miles (32 km) wide with
approximately 600 miles (966 km) of coastline. LIS is bordered by Long Island to the
south, the New York metropolitan area to the west, Connecticut to the north, and Block
Island Sound to the east. The region, as with the rest of the North Atlantic was
significantly shaped by glacial processes. Remnants of previous glacial periods can be
found on Long Island in moraines that serve as a base for the island. During the
Wisconsin glaciation, the Roanoke Point-Orient Point-Fishers Island-Charlestown
moraine trapped water melted from glaciers and formed the glacial Lake Connecticut, a
precursor to LIS. The lake was drained 15,500 years ago and subsequent sea level rise
during the Holocene epoch laid the foundation for the present conditions in LIS (Lewis &
DiGiacomo-Cohen 2000). The shorelines near and surrounding LIS vary from rocky
shorelines to sandy beaches. The majority of the northern coast of LIS is underlain by
crystalline bedrock which has been resistant to change by the restricted wave energy of
the Sound. The southern shoreline of LIS is more susceptible to change by wave energy
due to its glacial composition (Long Island Sound Resource Center 2009).
Narragansett Bay is along Rhode Island’s eastern border with Massachusetts and
is dominated by estuaries. The microtidal coast of Rhode Island includes bedrock
headlands formed by glaciers, as well as shallow tidal inlets. Off the coast of Rhode
Island are Block Island Sound and Rhode Island Sound which include barriers and tidal
inlets formed by spit accretion. The shoreline habitats of these islands are predominantly
exposed tidal flats, coarse grained sand beaches, and mixed sand and gravel beaches.
The Connecticut shoreline is a submerging primary coast of glacial deposition
that occurred during the Wisconsin glaciation. This rocky shoreline encompasses the
Connecticut River estuary and many bays and inlets controlled by the shallow bedrock of
the coast. Tidal sandbars off the shore of Connecticut have been created by littoral drift
(Fitzgerald et al. 2002; Lewis and DiGiacomo-Cohen 2000).
Long Island, New York is anchored by moraines left by glacial retreat during the
Wisconsin glaciation and Holocene epoch. The northeast coastline of Long Island
includes part of the Charlestown moraine. Along this area of coast arcuate beaches are
interspersed between headlands and few tidal inlets are present. Erosional bluffs and
bays are scattered along the northwest shoreline of the Island (Poppe et al. 2000).
ii. Sediment sources and movement
As an estuary, sediment is easily trapped in LIS. Approximately 29.7 billion cy
(22.7 billion m3) of marine sediment has accumulated within the estuary. The strong
water energy in the eastern LIS allows for the frequent redistribution of the glacial and
younger sediments. Glacial marine deposits eroded by tidal scour make up a significant
portion of this sediment. Input from the Connecticut River has also occurred and these
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
76
sands have accreted over the last 13,500 years (Lewis and DiGiacomo-Cohen 2000). The
river contributes approximately 70% of the freshwater inflow into LIS with an average
discharge of 582 cy/s (445 m3/s) (Benke and Cushing 2005). Additional freshwater input
is received by the Housatonic, Thames, and East Rivers, this discharge is minimal
compared to the Connecticut River.
The Connecticut River estuary is dominated by sand originated from upstream as
the river provides medium to fine-grained sand into the area. The estuary does not
effectively trap sediment like most estuaries. Although some sand remains in the estuary,
the majority is transported into LIS. Throughout the east-central Sound and nearshore
margins, yellow quartzose sand is the most common substrate (Patton and Horne 1992,
Poppe et al. 2000). Due to the close proximity of LIS to the largest metropolitan area in
the United States, the region also receives considerable anthropogenic wastes and
contaminants (Signell et al. 2000).
The Rhode Island south shore consists of headlands of glacial sediment with
sandy barriers lying between the headlines with an east-west orientation. Sediment was
supplied mainly by the reworking of glacial till and sand and gravel deposited during the
glacial retreat (Lacey and Peck 1998). The annual variability is attributed to onshoreoffshore sediment transport associated with seasonal variations in storm frequency and
intensity. On an annual scale, prevailing wind direction influences the regional sea level
with lower sea level during the winter when there are predominantly offshore winds
creating a setdown. Longer-period cycles in sea level (>9 years) and three profile
stations were similar and may be attributed to variations in longshore sediment transport,
sea level, wind and wave climate (Lacey and Peck 1998)
Net sediment transport is in a southwesterly direction along the Massachusetts
and Rhode Island shorelines. As the littoral drift reaches the entrance of LIS, some
energy goes into the Sound while the rest is diverted to follow the south shore of Long
Island (Figure 5.2). Circulation within LIS is dominated by tides, although estuarine
circulation has a nominal influence on sediment transport. Surface and bottom currents
are strongest within the constricted eastern entrance of the sound and get weaker in the
broad, deeper basins of central LIS. The sound exhibits net westward sediment transport
as both tidal and storm currents typically flow in an east to west direction. Regional and
local changes in sea floor processes influence the distribution of sedimentary
environments. Regional changes are due to strong currents and estuarine bottom drift
carrying sediment westward. These regional currents have resulted in nondeposition at
the entrance of LIS, and as they move through the sound, transform into broad transport
of coarse-grained bedload, then into a contiguous band of sediment sorting, and finally
result in deposition of fine-grained sediments in the central and western parts of the
sound. Local conditions alter these regional trends in the central and western parts and
nearshore margins of the sound. Local environments along the nearshore impact the
bottom flow through interaction with the indented shoreline, reflection of wave-generated
currents, irregular bathymetry, and the nearby supply of sediments (Knebel and Poppe
2000; Poppe et al. 2008).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
77
Connecticut
New
York
Housatonic
River
Connecticut
River
RI
Pawcatuck
River
Hudson
River
Long Island Sound
Long Island, NY
Figure 5.2 Illustration of sediment transport directions in Long Island Sound.
Although net littoral drift in along north LIS is to the west, there is also some
outward flow at the eastern end of the sound. The entrance of fresher water from the
western end of the sound causes the formation of a salinity gradient that along with
prevailing winds and bottom currents, produce a complex residual circulation.
Counterclockwise gyres in the center of LIS are developed by this circulation and result
in an eastward littoral drift out of the Sound along the northern shore of Long Island.
Sediment is mainly transported to the west in the north of LIS and generally to the east in
the southern region (Codiga and Aurin 2007; Poppe et al. 2006; Signell et al. 2000).
iii. Coastal features
New
York
Connecticut
R
I
Project Type
Long Island, NY
Navigation
Shore Protection
Figure 5.3 Depiction of Corps shore protection and navigation projects along the coastline of
Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Long Island Sound (USACE 2010b).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
78
The Narragansett Bay estuary is New England’s largest estuary, encompassing
over 147 square miles (381 km2). The Narragansett Bay is part of the NEP designed to
protect and restore the bay and its natural environment.
The Connecticut River drains the largest watershed in New England and is the
longest river in the region. The Connecticut River estuary covers 16,000 ac (64.8 km2)
and includes freshwater and brackish marshes within its northern region and salt marshes
along the southern area of the estuary. The mean tidal range in the area is 3.6 ft (1.1 m).
The river mouth features a narrow spit along its eastern shore, Griswold Point, which is
the result of western longshore sediment transport. Lynde Point along the western shore
of the river is an eroding glacial bluff. The estuary was designated as a Wetland of
International Importance under the Ramsar Convention of 1994 (Patton and Horne 1992;
Ramsar Standing Committee 2000).
Throughout LIS there are significant shoal complexes that influence sediment
transport and bottom currents. The Long Sand Shoal is located near the eastern end of
LIS. Tidal currents scour sediments from the nearby seafloor to maintain this complex.
The Stratford Shoal complex is in the western central portion of LIS and the Norwalk
Shoal complex bisects western LIS. Both complexes are composed of glacial till and
gravelly sand. Like the Long Sand Shoal, the Stratford and Norwalk Shoals also affect
sediment movement within the Sound and serve as areas of gravelly sand deposition.
LIS is connected to the New York-New Jersey (NY/NJ) Harbor through the East
River at the western end of the Sound. The harbor will be discussed in section VI.
Project
Project Name
Lake Montauk
Harbor
Mattituck Inlet
Port Jefferson
Harbor
Connecticut River
Below Hartford Saybrook Shoals
(Entrance)
Connecticut River
Below Hartford Lower Bars (Below
Middletown)
Burrial Hill Beach,
Westport
Calf Pasture Beach
State
Location
Authorized
Corps
Purpose
District
New York
New York
Navigation
New York
New York
Navigation
New York
New York
Navigation
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
15,000 cy of material
dredged and placed west of
Jetty Beach
30,000 cy of material
dredged and placed east of
Jetty Beach
New
Connecticut England
Navigation
O&M material is sand
New
Connecticut England
New
Connecticut England
Connecticut New
Navigation
Shore
Protection
Shore
O&M material is sand
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
79
Project
Project Name
Park, Norwalk
Compo Beach,
Westport
Cove Island,
Stamford
Cummings Park,
Stamford
Gulf Beach, Milford
Jennings Beach,
Fairfield
Prospect Beach,
West Haven
Sasco Hill Beach,
Fairfield
Seaside Park
Sherwood Island
State Park, Westport
Shore Beach
Silver Beach to
Cedar Beach
Southport Beach
Woodmont Beach,
Milford
Sea Bluff Beach,
West Haven
Gulf Street
Sandy Point Outfall,
West Haven
Guilford Point Beach
(Jacobs Beach),
Guilford
Hammonasset
Beach, Madison
Lighthouse Point
Park, Area 9
Middle Beach
Block Island Harbor
of Refuge (Old
State
Location
Authorized
Corps
Purpose
District
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
New
Connecticut England
New
Connecticut England
New
Connecticut England
New
Connecticut England
Rhode
New
Island
England
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
Navigation
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
1.1 miles of beachfill: Initial
construction completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
1.5 miles of beachfill: Initial
construction completed
1.5 miles of beachfill: Initial
construction completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Current beach condition is
good. Project is early in the
renourishment cycle, or the
project is performing better
than expected, or both.
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Recent maintenance of the
Block Island Harbor of
80
Project
Project Name
State
Location
Authorized
Corps
Purpose
District
Harbor)
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
Great Salt Pond
(New Harbor)
Rhode
Island
New
England
Navigation
Pawcatuck River Sandy Point Channel
Rhode
Island
New
England
Navigation
Pawcatuck River Watch Hill Cove
Rhode
Island
New
England
Navigation
Pt. Judith Pond &
Harbor of Refuge Refuge Anchorage
Rhode
Island
New
England
Navigation
Rhode
Island
Rhode
Island
Rhode
Island
Rhode
Island
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
Navigation
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Refuge (Old Harbor)
resulted in nearshore
disposal to nourish local
beaches.
Recent maintenance of the
Great Salt Pond (New
Harbor) resulted in nearshore
disposal to nourish local
beaches.
Disposal from this channel
reach used to nourish beach
on Sandy Point.
Disposal from this channel
reach could be used to
nourish beaches in Westerly.
The Refuge has not been
dredged in many decades,
but the sand could be
available to nourish adjacent
beaches
Recent maintenance
dredging activities from Pt.
Judith Pond were placed
nearshore to nourish
Matunuck Beach.
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Rhode
Island
Rhode
Island
Rhode
Island
New
England
New
England
New
England
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection
Lighthouse moved inland
3.4 miles of beachfill: Initial
construction completed
Beachfill: Initial construction
completed
Pt. Judith Pond &
Harbor of Refuge Galillee Harbor
Channels
Misquamicut Beach,
Westerly
Sand Hill Cove
Beach
Matunuck Beach,
South Kingstown
Southeast
Lighthouse, Block
Island
Cliff Walk, Newport
Oakland Beach,
Warwick
Table 5.1 Corps projects in Long Island Sound and on the shores of Rhode Island and
Connecticut (USACE 2010b).
B. Erosion and accretion
i. Area rates and trends
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
81
In a 2001 study by the USGS, it was discovered that 22% of the LIS sea floor
sediments experience erosion or non-deposition. The majority of areas undergoing these
conditions were along the shorelines within LIS, or areas with a water depth of 33 ft (10
m) or less. The eastern end of LIS is particularly susceptible to erosion because of the
heightened tidal and wave energy as water flows through this narrow entrance. Sands are
carved out of the surrounding sea floor by tidal currents to maintain the Long Sand Shoal
near the eastern entrance to LIS (Knebel et al. 2001).
Along the northern shore of LIS both erosion and accretion occurs, as exemplified
by the eroding glacial bluff on one side of the Connecticut River and spit formation along
the other side. Nine percent of Connecticut's shoreline is critically eroding, according to
the report State Coastal Program Effectiveness in Protecting Natural Beaches, Dunes,
Bluffs, and Rock Shores (Bernd-Cohen and Gordon 1999). The south shore of Rhode
Island is experiencing an overall erosion trend. Most of Narrgansett Bay shoreline is
relatively stable. Seventy percent of the shoreline is eroding, but the rates are not high
except in limited areas. Beach plain, barrier spits, and cuspate shoreline forms within
Narragansett Bay have much higher average annual erosion rates, some in excess of 3
ft/yr. The shoreline change maps for both the Rhode Island South Shore and Narragansett
Bay can be found at http://www.crmc.ri.gov/maps/maps_shorechange.html. Connecticut
has an extensive bibliography of documents related to coastal hazards and coastal hazards
management in Connecticut located at http://coastalhazards.uconn.edu/documents.html.
The southern LIS shoreline also varies in stability. The northwest coast of Long
Island is composed of bluffs that are easily eroded. Eastward littoral drift along the
southern region of LIS carries eroded sediment to nourish the headland shoals along the
northeast Long Island shore. The sediment accumulates at these headlands and is
directed offshore where it accretes to form attached shore shoals near Herod and Roanoke
Points (Poppe et al. 2000). Other nearshore areas experience sediment accretion or
deposition, particularly along the central to southeast Connecticut coast. Accretion also
occurs in the central and west deep water regions of the Sound (Knebel and Poppe 2000).
ii. Storm impacts
Storm events cause sediment resusupension and erosion in LIS. Bottom shear
stress is increased when LIS is affected by strong winds. This can result in greater
sediment entrainment and a loss of sediment in some areas. Loosely compacted sediment
in the Sound is frequently moved by tides but if the wave energy is augmented by a
storm, more consolidated material can be eroded away (Wang et al. 2000).
LIS is somewhat sheltered from hurricanes but still is impacted by these events
every few years. The region must contend with harsh winter nor’easter storms that can
bring considerable amounts of precipitation and wave energy. The south shore of Long
Island is greatly affected by storm waves and this will be discussed in the next section.
The Rhode Island coastline is more exposed to storm events than the shoreline
within LIS and has been significantly impacted by strong storms. In February 1978,
Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut were struck by an
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
82
intense nor’easter storm. The Great Northeastern Blizzard of 1978 was a slow moving
storm that brought fierce winds and hit the coast during high tide. The combination of
these factors produced major coastal flooding and beach erosion which resulting in the
destruction of sea walls and loss of property (Strauss 2008).
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
With sea-level rise, the average shoreline erosion of the LIS will increase beyond
the 1 – 3 ft (0.3 – 0.9m)/yr observed in some areas and will be further exacerbated by
frequent and intense storms. Beach erosion will also severely degrade the dunes of the
coast, removing the sheltered environment for back-barrier wetlands and lagoons.
Temperatures have been gradually increasing in Connecticut and other regions of
the Sound. The rate of sea-level rise along the Connecticut shoreline has been measured
at 0.08 – 0.10 in (0.20 – 0.25 cm)/yr with significant increases projected for the future.
Heightened sea level could result in more frequent flooding events and cause the loss of a
large percentage of wetlands in the region. The Connecticut River brackish and
freshwater marshes have been designated as Wetlands of International Importance and
would be endangered by sea-level rise. Salt water will move further up the river as seas
rise, resulting in brackish wetlands replacing the freshwater marshes. Many species such
as the salt marsh sharp-tail sparrow and the seaside sparrow rely on these habitats and
would be particularly vulnerable to any degradation of these lands (CT DEP 2009b;
Gornitz et al. 2004).
The Rhode Island coastline is exposed to the open ocean and wave energy. The
shoreline is vulnerable to inundation from sea-level rise which will accelerate erosion on
the essential barriers of Westerly, Charlestown and South Kingston. The rising seas and
increase in the frequency and intensity of coastal storms will threaten key estuaries and
salt marshes along the state’s shore (Frumhoff et al. 2007). The average rate of sea-level
rise in this region is 2.37 mm/yr based on yearly averaged sea-level data from 1930-1996
at the Newport, Rhode Island tide gauge (NOAA 1996).
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion
The LIS is a significant natural resource but it has been greatly impacted by the
more than 8 million people that live within its watershed. The LIS supports more than
120 species of finfish and a large variety of birds and other fauna and flora. Habitats
within the LIS include barrier beaches and dunes, saltwater tidal marsh, freshwater tidal
marsh, rocky shore fronts, bluffs and escarpments, estuarine embayments, islands, coastal
forest, intertidal flats, coastal grasslands, and back barrier sand flats. Many of these
habitats have been identified as ecologically significant areas.
Approximately half of the New York LIS shoreline has been hardened, causing a
loss of habitat throughout the region. The LIS Study launched the Habitat Restoration
Initiative in 1996, a recommendation from the Long Island Sound Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan which was a result of the collaboration between the
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
83
EPA and the New York and Connecticut state governments. The primary goal of the
initiative is to restore the ecological functions of degraded or destroyed habitats within
the Sound. The LIS Coastal Management Program, developed by the New York State
Division of Coastal Resources (NY DCR), identified areas that should be protected and
managed by the Program which included significant coastal resources that are sensitive to
development. Significant natural coastal areas identified include Oyster Bay-Cold Spring
Harbor, Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond, and Stony-Brook-Setauket Harbors. The program put
forth additional recommendations including a “no net loss” strategy for wetlands
mitigation and also identified wetlands that should be restored. Although half of the New
York LIS shoreline has been hardened, the remaining undeveloped 50% should be
preserved in a natural condition and where needed and feasible, restore the habitat (NYS
Coastal Management Program 1999-2004).
Areas along the LIS shoreline have been protected and preserved through a
variety of program. The Oyster Bay NWR is a marine refuge that contains 3,204 ac (13
km2) from the bay bottom up to the mean high water, and is unique to the Long Island
NWR Complex. The Target Rock NWR includes half a mile of rocky beach on Long
Island’s north shore. Vernal and brackish ponds are also found in the refuge which
supports diving ducks and black ducks. The Stewart B. McKinney NWR encompasses
70 miles (113 km) of Connecticut coastline and over 800 ac (3.2 km2) of tidal wetland,
barrier beach, and island habitats within the 10 different units of the NWR. The NWR
provides important habitat for shorebirds, wading birds, and others. The Salt Meadow
Unit and Falkner Island Unit of the NWR have been designated as “Important Bird
Areas” by the National Audubon Society. Over 124 nesting pairs of endangered roseate
terns have been observed on Falkner Island, while Salt Meadow is utilized by more than
280 species of migrating neotropical birds. The LIS region is home to a variety of
Federally-endangered and threatened species as indicated by the table below.
Species (common name)
American burying beetle
Bog turtle
Dwarf wedgemussel
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Northeastern beach tiger beetle
Piping plover
Puritan tiger beetle
Roseate tern
Sandplain gerardia
Seabeach amaranth
Shortnose sturgeon
Small whorled pogonia
Species
Group
Insect
Reptile
Mussel
Reptile
Reptile
Insect
Bird
Insect
Bird
Plant
Plant
Fish
Plant
Federal
Listing Status
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Table 5.2 A selection of Federally-listed endangered or threatened species along the
coasts of Long Island Sound and Rhode Island. Data obtained from the USFWS.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
84
Approximately 31% or 328 miles (528 km) of the Connecticut shoreline is subject
to conservation restrictions or is protected. Much of the coastal area not protected is
developed. Development activities adjacent to tidal wetlands have also led to the loss of
wetlands through wetland shading, disruption of water flow, and habitat fragmentation.
Tidal marshes of the lower Connecticut River were designated as Wetlands of
International Importance by The Ramsar Convention in 1994.
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) has
instituted many projects to restore the coastal habitats of the state. Such restoration
efforts have resulted in the recovery of 17 coves and embayments, dune complexes in 7
coastal cities, and more than 1,700 ac (6.9 km2) of tidal wetlands (CT DEP 2009).
The Corps has completed numerous beach erosion control projects along the LIS
shoreline of Connecticut, widening the beach and increasing berm elevation with direct
placement of sand on the shore. Groins, sea walls, breakwaters, and rock revetments
have also been constructed along the shore to prevent erosion. In the late 1990’s, erosion
of the east side of Faulkner Island off the coast of Connecticut was threatening the
Faulkner Island lighthouse and habitat of the endangered roseate tern. After studying the
problem, a rock revetment shoreline protection method was chosen by the Corps. The
project was completed in 2001 with mixed results on the roseate tern nesting population
and chick survival.
The State of Rhode Island includes a significant salt marsh area but it has been
estimated that 53% of this area has been lost since 1832 (Bromberg Gedan and Bertness
2005). The major feature of the Rhode Island shoreline is Narragansett Bay. The bay is
home to a variety of flora and fauna, including 40% of all breeding bird species in the
state. Within Narragansett Bay, a variety of habitats are found including coastal marshes,
coastal dunes, maritime forests, coastal grassland, cobble and rocky shores, and coastal
shrublands. Approximately 2,800 ac (11.3 km2) of salt marsh is found within
Narragansett Bay. Around 30% of the Narragansett Bay shoreline has been hardened by
human-made structures to prevent erosion that is frequently caused by hurricanes and
nor’easters. Between 1950 and 1990, 15% of the estuarine wetlands were lost mainly
because of filling. Wetlands are critical to the bay as they perform important functions
such as filtration of runoff and the provision of habitat for wildlife. Marshes of the bay
have also been impounded which has altered the salinity of these habitats and allowed for
invasive plant species to infiltrate the area. Results of a shoreline change analysis of
Narragansett Bay for the period from 1939-2002/2003 show that 70% of the shoreline is
eroding and 30% is accreting, at average rates of 0.13m/yr and 0.3m/yr, respectively
(Hehre 2007).
The Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve includes 2,388 ac (9.7
km ) of habitat on the Hope, Prudence, Dyer, and Patience islands and 1,730 ac (7 km2)
of estuarine water adjacent to the islands to a depth of 18 ft (5.5 m). Approximately 18.2
miles (29 km) of shoreline are within the reserve boundary on the four islands. The
shoreline can be classified into five categories including salt marsh, Phragmites australis
(an invasive plant species known as common reed), upland, rocky shore, and beach
2
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
85
(mainly cobble). A total of nineteen invasive species are found within the reserve. It is
the dynamic nature of the coastal dune environment that makes them vulnerable to
invasive species. Around 35% of the coastal zone of Narragansett Bay is impacted by an
invasive species, the most problematic is the oriental bittersweet which smothers the flora
and alters the ecology of coastal shrublands and forests. In 14% of dune shrublands, the
invasive beach rose is the dominate species (Narragansett Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve 2009). The Narragansett Bay is also part of the NEP although the
primary focus of this program is on reducing pollution in the bay. The Rhode Island
NWR Complex includes three NWRs along the coast of the state – the John H. Chafee
NWR, Ninigret NWR, and Sachuest Point NWR. The Corps has constructed two shore
protection projects within Narragansett Bay to protect critical facilities and the habitat of
the area.
The Rhode Island Habitat Restoration Team was charged by the state Coastal and
Estuarine Habitat Restoration Program and Trust Fund legislation to develop a plan to
guide the restoration and conservation of the state’s coastal and estuarine habitats. The
team identified three priority habitat types: sea grass beds, river systems (riparian
corridors and anadromous fish passages), and salt marshes. Through initiatives
established by this program, over 600 ac of coastal and estuarine habitat have been
restored including more than 190 ac of coastal wetland, over 400 ac of anadromous fish
habitat, and more than 45 ac of eelgrass habitat, as of 2008. More projects are presently
being formulated by the team and are waiting for funding to restore more coastal habitats
(RI Coastal Resources Management Council 2008). The coast of Rhode Island is also
protected by four shore protection projects built by the Corps. These projects are
intended to guard the infrastructure, critical facilities, evacuation routes, and habitats at
risk (Table 5.1).
The west Connecticut shoreline includes 18 shore protection structures built by
the Corps. These have been constructed to guard the environment and habitat of the area
from erosion as well as to protect the critical facilities and evacuation routes in the
region. Four structures are found on the eastern shoreline of the state. These structures
are used for the same purpose as well as to protect infrastructure along the Connecticut
shoreline (Table 5.1).
The Corps is performing a storm damage protection and beach erosion control
study on the entire north shore of Long Island. Recent coastal storms have led to
accelerated erosion of the shoreline and have inundated highly developed areas resulting
in major losses from coastal erosion and flooding. Data collection to develop a baseline
of information regarding coastal processes and related environmental resources were
completed. An evaluation of the benefits of structural or non-structural risk reduction
plans is being performed to determine the appropriate alternative.
Three additional studies are being performed in LIS to evaluate shore protection
and ecosystem restoration opportunities. Manhasset Bay along the far southwest shore of
LIS has experienced much degradation due to urbanization of surrounding upland areas.
Increased sediment and nutrient runoff as well as the filling of wetlands and bulkheading
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
86
activities have resulted in the loss of aquatic and wetland habitats. An environmental
restoration feasibility study is underway and restoration opportunities will be developed
for the area. Data has been collected for the Asharoken Beach Coastal Storm Damage
Risk Reduction Feasibility Study and the team will next develop an optimized risk
reduction plan based on this information for Asharoken Beach on the northwest shore of
Long Island. An ideal location for aquatic ecosystem restoration is within Echo Bay,
near New Rochelle, New York on the western shore of LIS. The Corps is conducting a
variety of assessments and alternative analyses to determine the appropriate restoration
methods.
D. State and local shoreline management practices
Rhode Island
One of the earliest state coastal management legislative acts, the Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management Act of 1971 created the Coastal Resources Management
Council (CRMC), and subsequently the Coastal Resources Management Program
(CRMP). The council oversees the permitting, enforcement, planning, and policy of the
state’s coastal program. Regulations on reconstruction after a storm have been instituted
to reduce future impacts from coastal hazards.
Rhode Island coastal areas classified as critically eroding have special restrictions
on construction. Commercial properties must be set back 60 times the average annual
erosion rate while residential structures must be placed back 30 times the erosion rate
with a minimum setback of 50 from the inland edge of the coastal feature. Concurrent
with setback requirements, the CRMP requires a coastal buffer zone for new structures of
more than 200 square ft. Planted with natural, local vegetation, the buffer zone is meant
to improve water quality, slow erosion, and protect critical coastal habitat. The state
prohibits hardened shoreline protection structures on certain vulnerable shorelines due to
the increased erosion caused seaward and adjacent of the structure and subsequent
disruption to the long shore sediment transport system. Dredging is performed throughout
the state to maintain harbors and navigation channels. The material derived from these
activities is occasionally placed on adjacent beaches as a form of nourishment to prevent
future erosion. However, beach nourishment is not a popular method of shore protection
or erosion mitigation, as fewer than 100,000 cubic yards of sediment have been deposited
on beaches since 1990 (Western Carolina University 2010).
The state maintains strict control of the construction of hard shoreline features.
This includes a general prohibition on new structures and a prohibition on the repair of
hard features that have been more than 50% damaged in a storm event. In the event that a
structure is damaged beyond 50% as determined by the state, it must be vacated and
converted into some non structural shore protection feature. The basis for this prohibition
is the goal of slowing erosion in critically eroding areas. Hard structures of any variety,
or any other type of fill, are prohibited along and in all salt water wetlands and their
contiguous brackish and freshwater wetlands due to the necessary biological and shore
protection services provided by well functioning wetlands.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
87
Rhode Island also engages in the extensive use of Special Area Management
Plans (SAMP). These plans are regionally and locally based initiatives to protect critical
species habitat, shoreline, and to balance the use and development of the areas with
conservation and protection. The CRMC currently administers six coastal SAMPs,
covering a significant portion of the Rhode Island shoreline. In addition to the six coastal
SAMPs, the offshore Ocean SAMP is currently in development. The Ocean SAMP is a
small scale version of marine spatial planning, and is geared primarily towards the
facilitation of offshore renewable energy production (RI Sea Grant 2010).
The CRMC maintains several additional programs that address different needs of
coastal communities and ecosystems. The Coastal Landscapes Program encourages
homeowners, landscapers, and others to develop coastal zone buffers and plant noninvasive species in attempt to protect the natural vegetation of the coastline (RI CRMC
2009). The Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Conservation and Trust Fund awards grants to
governmental and non-governmental groups to mitigate the effects of anthropogenic
impacts. The program has been awarding grants since 2003, and in 2008 worked with the
Corps on the Rhode Island Coastal Wetlands Inventory Report (RI CRMC 2010).
Long Island Sound-Connecticut and Long Island North Shore
The Connecticut Coastal Management Act was enacted in 1980, creating the
statutory umbrella under which the Connecticut Coastal Management Program (CT
CMP) operates. The CT CMP operates under the state Department of Environmental
Protection, and in conjunction with the Connecticut office of the Long Island Sound
Programs.
The majority of the Connecticut shoreline has been armored by hard protection
structures such as jetties, seawalls, bulkheads, and groins. State coastal policy allows for
the repair of existing erosion control structures but limits the construction of new
hardened structures on the shore to only those that receive special authorization. Hard
structures are permitted solely to defend infrastructure facilities, existing inhabited
structures, or structures promoting water dependent uses, and only then if it is the only
feasible alternative. Placing new development farther from the shore is encouraged to
prevent more structures in a hazardous coastal zone.
Soft approaches to shoreline protection are recommended by Connecticut. The
state has funded several beach grass plantings to restore and stabilize dunes. Beach
nourishment was frequently utilized in the 1950s and 1960s, however in the last four
decades, there has been little to no emphasis on beach nourishment as a means of shore
protection or erosion mitigation (Western Carolina University 2010). The elevation and
relocation of structures along the coastline is an alternative highly encouraged by the CT
DEP (CT DEP 2009b).
Coastal management in the State of New York falls primarily under the
jurisdiction of the Department of State NY DCR and the Department of Environmental
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
88
Conservation (DEC). Established following the passage of the State Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act of 1981 and operating under the NY DCR, the
New York CMP encourages the restoration and protection of state’s waterfronts and
communities. The state CMP manages several programs and policies designed to enhance
coastal resilience and manage for current and future conditions. Local governments are
encouraged to prepare Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LRWP) to create a
vision for the area and address economic and environmental issues. There are currently
66 LWRPs statewide, with 39 of those in tidal communities along the Atlantic Ocean, the
LIS, and the Hudson River (NY DCR 2010) Through the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas
Act, the DEC identifies areas susceptible to coastal erosion and adopts regulations to
restrict development and specific actions in these areas. A coastal erosion management
permit system has been created to address construction or any other activities that would
alter the condition of the shore.
The State of New York, separate from regional collaborations, runs the LIS CMP
through the NY DCR. In 1999, the LIS CMP was published, and included many policies
that were to be applied to the coastal areas of the Long Island North Shore. Policies
include the promotion of water quality, the concentration of development in currently
developed areas so as to leave open lands undisturbed, discourage new construction in
coastal hazard zones, encourage improved public access to the coast, and promote the
protection and restoration of tidal and estuarine wetlands for the purposes of water
quality, biologic function, and aesthetic value. The LIS CMP classified more than 50% of
the North Shore as hardened, and states a desire to maintain or reduce that figure by
converting hard structures to a soft or hybrid variety when feasible. While beach
nourishment is a heavily favored method of shore protection on the Long Island South
Shore, it is rarely, if ever, used on the north nhore. The State of New York has rejected
proposals for nourishment citing possible adverse impacts on borrow areas.
In addition to their respective state policies and regulations, both the states of
New York and Connecticut are signatories to the LIS Agreement. In response to the
degradation of sound water quality and other issues, the states entered into the
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan of the Long Island Sound Study
(LISS) in 1994. EPA is also a cosigner to this agreement, which “identifies the specific
commitments and recommendations for actions to improve water quality, protect habitat
and living resources, educate and involve the public, improve the long-term
understanding of how to manage the Sound, monitor progress, and redirect management
efforts” (LISS 2010). The agreement was updated in 1998 and in 2003 to reflect the
changing situations and a refinement of commitments to the sound. The current iteration
of the agreement covers a range of topics, including non point source pollution, toxins
and pathogens, coastal and inland land use, and hypoxia, among others. The LISS also
awards grants to groups in both states that promote education related to Sound recovery
or volunteer efforts to the same effect. The LIS Agreement and the LISS are not
explicitly concerned with shore protection efforts, but rather biological and water quality
issues that have broad effects on the disposition of the coastline and those communities
living on the coast.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
89
E. Project-specific example of economic and cultural effects of erosion and accretion
State: Connecticut
Community: Hammonasset Beach State Park
Background: Hammonasset Beach State Park attracts more day visitors than any other
state park in Connecticut—1.6 million in 2006—and is home to the state’s most widely
used beach. Beginning with the first documented beach remediation effort in the 1920s,
the state has invested significant funds in reconstruction and re-nourishment projects to
preserve the beach and adjacent artificial structures. Notable projects include beach
nourishment and construction of the Meigs
Point groin following a 1950 coastal
erosion study, construction of the Tom’s
Creek jetty following a second erosion
study in the 1970s, multiple boardwalk
repairs, and continual beach spot-check
erosion replenishment projects following
large storms.
In recent years, severe erosion has
significantly reduced the usable area of the
beach and has also left nearby
infrastructure vulnerable and exposed. In
2008, the state commissioned a study on
Regional project location. Map detailing
potential courses of action, outlined in the
locations
of Hammonasset Beach State Park
project’s Environmental Impact
(erosion point of concern) and the
Evaluation. The report ultimately focused
Housatonic River and Clinton Harbor FNPs
on two remediation options: beach
(potential beach fill source). Source:
nourishment with a terminal groin at the
http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=271
6&Q=425274&PM=1.
southeastern end of the nourished segment,
and beach nourishment without a terminal
groin. Beach nourishment would require approximately 563,000 cy of fill, ideally taken
from two Federal Navigation Projects (FNPs) in the vicinity (the Housatonic River and
Clinton Harbor). The nourishment effort would extend along 6,425 ft of beach front and
would create a berm with a width of 100 ft and a height of eight ft. The debated terminal
groin would extend seaward approximately 250 ft.
Costs: If fill is used from FNPs, the projected cost of the nourishment effort without a
terminal groin—including construction and maintenance for 50 years following
construction—is $24.1 million. The design life, before additional nourishment is
necessary, is predicted at 21 years. For the nourishment effort with a terminal groin, the
projected cost is $21.3 million with an expected design life of 25 years.
Socio-Cultural Issues: Taking no action would endanger bird habitat and threaten
historical shorefront structures and archaeological sites. In addition, the loss of usable
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
90
beach area could significantly reduce the number of visitors and their patronage of local
businesses. The proposed project, on the other hand, is predicted to have minimal
negative impacts. A crashed WWII-era plane may be located in the general vicinity of the
project area, requiring further research prior to project initiation to mitigate any damage.
PART B – NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC SHORELINE
VI. New York’s Atlantic shoreline
The New York Atlantic coastline encompasses the NY/NJ Harbor and Long
Island (Figure 6.1). The area receives freshwater input from the Hudson River which
flows into the Harbor and out into the New York Bight, the name given to the region
between the New York and New Jersey shores. Longshore sediment transport carries
sand northerly along the New Jersey coastline and into the Harbor where the current then
travels east toward the Long Island coast. Littoral drift also transfers sediment into the
Harbor by transmitting it southwest along the south shore of Long Island. This area is the
most heavily populated in the U.S. and has been greatly altered by humans, which can
cause disruption of these natural sediment movements (Schwab et al. 2000).
Along most of the southern shore of Long Island, barrier islands are the prominent
feature. Tidal inlets separate these islands and allow for some water exchange with back
barrier bays. Although transitory in nature, some inlets along the coastline have been
fortified to prevent their closure and to permit navigation through the barrier island chain.
Long Island Sound
NY
NJ
Montauk
Point
Great South Bay
NY/NJ
Harbor
Long Island
New
York Bay
NJ
Fire Island
Inlet
Shinnecock Southampton
Moriches Inlet
Watch Inlet
Hill
New York
Bight
Figure 6.1 Map of the New York study area.
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes
i. Shoreline habitats
Long Island was the boundary for the farthest southern advance of the late
Pleistocene glaciers in eastern North America. Remnants of the glacial period can be
found within the island as it is anchored by two end moraines, the Harbor Hill moraine
and the Ronkonkoma moraine. The Ronkonkoma is the southern moraine and it is
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
91
exposed along the southern shore of Long Island from the town of Southampton to
Montauk Point (the tip of the Long Island south shore). The southeastern coast of Long
Island differs from the barrier island composition of the southwestern shore as the
headland is the dominant feature directly eroded by waves. West of Southampton, the
prevailing features of the shoreline are barrier islands, tidal inlets, estuaries, and bays
(Foster et al. 1999).
The Hudson River originates in the Adirondack Mountains, drains most of eastern
New York, and flows into the New York Bight and Atlantic Ocean. The NY/NJ Harbor
estuary is a diverse environment at the outlet of the Hudson River. This estuary has been
greatly altered by human actions for industrial and navigational purposes. The
infrastructure built to support commercial activities has changed or destroyed the natural
environment in much of the area. There has been a renewed focus on restoration of this
area through the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program.
ii. Sediment sources and movement
Within the New York Bight, near the NY/NJ Harbor, more fine grained sediments
are found. These silts are derived from erosion and runoff along the Hudson River
16,300 square mile (42,217 km2) watershed and other anthropogenic sources. The New
York Bight and northern Hudson Shelf Valley has been a disposal site for sewage sludge
and dredged material from the NY/NJ Harbor. The high population of the New York
City metropolitan area results in significant anthropogenic sediment input. Sediments
from navigation activities, various point sources, disposal sites, and storm water
discharges are also frequent in this area and often result in contaminated deposits.
Material from these sources are picked up by nearshore currents and typically deposited
in the Hudson Shelf Valley. These sediments are fine grained and can be easily
resuspended and moved by energetic currents. Deposits can be shifted from their original
location toward the shore or down through the valley, depending on the wind and wave
conditions (RSM Workgroup 2008; Harris et al. 2003).
Sediment along the south shore of Long Island is coarse grained sand and gravel
derived from the erosion of glacial strata that has been reworked over many years.
Exposed Pleistocene glaciofluvial deposits can be found in the inner-continental shelf
along much of the Long Island shore. Modern Holocene sand deposits derived from the
reworking of Pleistocene glacial deposits overlay older strata along the shore. To the
west of Watch Hill, there is more modern sediment available and this material has
enabled the formation of nearshore sand ridges. To the east of Watch Hill, less modern
sediment is available, so the shore is primarily composed of less mobile, coarser grained
Pleistocene deposits. To the far east of the coast, from Southampton to the eastern tip of
Long Island, the headlands of the Ronkonkoma moraine are prominent and are eroded by
waves providing sediment to the area (Foster et al. 1999; Schwab et al. 2000). While
there is significant contribution from offshore sources, westward transport of sediments
from eroding bluffs to the east is a significant natural contributor.
As currents travel north along the New Jersey coastline, sediment is carried and
deposited near the NY/NJ Harbor before the current turns southeast toward the southern
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
92
Long Island shore and Hudson Shelf Valley. Along the Long Island shoreline, littoral
sediment transport begins at Montauk Point and travels to the west. The source of the
sediment to support the Long Island littoral system is not exactly known, but the
sediment likely originates from offshore sources. Longshore sediment transport rates
along the Long Island coast have been studied and estimated by the USGS. At 5 miles (8
km) west of Montauk Point, sediment transport ranges from 75,860 – 99,400 cy (58,000 –
76,000 m3) /yr, by the Shinnecock Inlet from 286,440 – 304,750 cy (219,000 – 233,000
m3) /yr, near the Moriches Inlet 58,860 – 300,800 cy (45,000 – 230,000 m3) /yr, and the
end of the westward sediment transport system at Democrat Point from 400,200 –
610,800 cy (306,000 – 467,000 m3) /yr (Schwab et al. 2000).
Sediment transport conditions vary seasonally, with increased wave and wind
energy in the winter resulting in greater sand transport and more beach erosion. Seasonal
stratification will occur during the spring and summer in the New York Bay and Hudson
Shelf Valley, due to the increase in freshwater outflow from the Hudson River and the
warming of the ocean waters. The stratification of the water may reduce circulation and
the surface current transport of sediment, allowing wave forcing to likely become the
dominate method of sand movement (Harris et al. 2003).
Much of the shoreline in the New York Bay area has been armored to prevent
impacts to navigation which subsequently disrupts natural sediment deposition. To deal
with the large influx of sediment to this area and the frequent need for dredging to
maintain important waterways, the governments of New York and New Jersey have
developed a RSM plan. This plan has highlighted the need to better understand and
predict sediment movement in the area (RSM Workgroup 2008).
Long Island Sound
NY
NJ
NY/NJ
Harbor
Long Island
Democrat
Point
Watch
Hill
Montauk
Point
Shinnecock
Inlet
Moriches
Inlet
Great
Peconic
Bay
Great
South Bay
New
York Bay
Hudson
Shelf Valley
NJ
Figure 6.2 Longshore sediment transport along the New York coastline.
iii. Coastal features
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
93
The New York Department of State manages several estuaries including the Long
Island South Shore Estuary. One and a half million people live in this area and depend
on the coastal and estuarine environments for employment, recreation, and transportation.
Canals connect Moriches Bay, Shinnecock Bay, and Peconic Bay permitting navigation
throughout these water bodies.
Long Island Sound
NY
NJ
Long Island
Project Type
Navigation
Shore Protection
Figure 6.3 Depiction of Corps shore protection and navigation projects
along the coastline of New York (USACE 2010b).
The NY/NJ Harbor is the nation’s third largest port. Activities within the NY/NJ
Harbor estuary have been managed by the Corps, among others, for over 200 years. The
Corps performs dredging activities on numerous harbor navigation channels and berths to
maintain port operations, resulting in three million cy of dredged material each year.
Many channels have been recently deepened and a new channel built as demand for the
harbor has increased. The initial focus on navigation and industry caused much
degradation to the natural estuarine environment. Restoration of the estuary while still
maintaining the navigation activities within the port has recently been the focus of
estuary management plans. In 2008, the RSM Plan was published for the NY/NJ Harbor,
promoting a systematic approach to sediment management. With a renewed focus on
environmental restoration, dredged material from Corps projects has been more
frequently used for environmentally beneficial purposes such as beach nourishment and
habitat creation (RSM Workgroup 2008).
Project
Location
State
Corps
District
Project Name
Shinnecock Inlet
New
York
New York
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
Authorized
Purpose
Navigation
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
Coastal erosion occurred
after the construction in the
1950's of the Shinnecock
Inlet jetties.
94
Project
Location
State
Corps
District
Project Name
Moriches Inlet
Fire Island Inlet to
Shores Westerly
New
York
Jones Inlet
New
York
New
York
East Rockaway
Inlet
New
York
Long Island
Intercoastal
New
York
New
York
Rockaway Inlet
Authorized
Purpose
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
New York
Coastal erosion occurred
after the construction in the
1950's of the Moriches
Navigation
Inlet jetties.
This project is navigation
dredging of Fire Island
Inlet with material
Navigation/Shore placement on the down
drift shore at Gilgo Beach.
Protection
Condition survey being
Navigation
performed/
Contract awarded to dredge
125,000 cy of sand to be
placed along Rockaway
Navigation
Beach
Maintenance dredging of
the channel in the Moriches
Bay area is being planned
for this FY
Navigation
New York
Navigation
New York
New York
New York
New York
Ambrose Channel
New
York
New York
Navigation
West of Shinnecock
Inlet
New
York
New York
Shore Protection
West Hampton
New
York
New York
Shore Protection
Coney Island
New
York
New York
Shore Protection
Ambrose and Anchorage
channels are currently
being dredged as part of
NY Harbor deepening
project
0.8 miles of beachfill;
initiate renourishment
effort being assessed.
Third renourishment effort
completed in Feb 2010;
coastal and environmental
monitoring continue
Erosion down drift of groin
required addition of sand
and stone
Table 6.1 Corps projects along the south shore of Long Island and Staten Island (USACE
2010b).
B. Erosion and accretion
i. Area rates and trends
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
95
The transport of sediment to the west along the southern shore of Long Island
originates at Montauk Point. Between 1825 and 1940, Democrat Point accreted to the
west by approximately 5 miles (8 km). The barrier islands to the east of Watch Hill have
shifted landward at a much faster rate than those to the west of Watch Hill. This is likely
due to fewer sediment resources to feed these formations. The sediment available along
this part of the coast is also less mobile and the barrier islands are more vulnerable to
inlet breaching (Schwab et al. 2000).
The Shinnecock Inlet was stabilized by jetties in 1954. These structures and the
subsequent dredging to maintain the navigation channel have enhanced sand trapping
within the inlet. The Shinnecock Inlet has substantial ebb and flood shoal systems which
trap littoral sediments at an estimated 100,000 – 157,000 cy (76,500 – 120,000 m3) /yr
(Buonaiuto 2008).
Much of the New York coastline has been hardened by some form of engineering
solution, either as parallel structures or perpendicular structures. A majority of the New
York City shoreline is hardened by parallel features, generally sea walls, bulkheads, and
revetments, and includes several sections of artificial land, including Battery Park City in
lower Manhattan and much of Riker’s Island between Long Island and the Bronx.
Additionally, there are 69 groins and numerous jetties along the South Shore. Along the
heavily developed Long Beach, there are 48 groins that were constructed in the 1920’s
and continue to slow erosion rates and preserve beach for recreation and shore protection
(Tanski 2007). Combinations of shore armoring and natural erosive processes have left
the New York shoreline, and the New York City shoreline in particular, highly
susceptible to sea level rise and associated accelerated erosion (Gornitz et al. 2001) This
includes the large salt marsh complex in Jamaica Bay, Queens, which has experienced
significant shrinkage in the last century and shows signs of continued shrinkage despite
the passage of enhanced protections in the 1970s (Gornitz et al. 2001).
Beach nourishment is widely practiced along the Long Island South Shore.
Beginning with the first major beach nourishment project at Coney Island in 1923, an
estimated 110+ million cy of sediment have been places on South Shore beaches, with
more than 25 million cy deposited since 1990 (Western Carolina University 2010). These
efforts include beach expansion for recreational purposes, dune replenishment, and beach
widening as shore protection, funded both Federally and non-Federally. These projects
are undertaken both in anticipation to economic impacts, such as on a beach that is
eroding but has yet to overtop the dune and cause damage, as well as in response to storm
damages, such as dune overtopping or over wash of barrier islands. Less prevalent is
beach scraping as a means to dune replenishment. This form of soft shore protection is
used primarily along Fire Island, and is not permitted in more than sixty ft increments
(Tanski 2007).
As discussed previously, the navigation channels within the NY/NJ Harbor must
frequently be dredged to maintain proper conditions for navigation activities. The
accretion of sediment within this area is a result of input from the Hudson River and
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
96
longshore transport from the south and east. Anthropogenic sources from the
metropolitan area and navigation activities also contribute sediment to the area (RSM
Workgroup 2008).
ii. Storm impacts
The barrier system from the Fire Island Inlet to the Shinnecock Inlet was one
single spit from the early 1800’s to 1931. The system was penetrated by two strong
storms, one in 1931, which breached the spit to form the Moriches Inlet, and a hurricane
in 1938 that opened 12 inlets, including the Shinnecock Inlet. In 1940, the east side of
the Fire Island Inlet was stabilized by a jetty. The Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets were
reinforced by jetties in 1954, while the other inlets created by the hurricane were
unaltered and allowed to naturally close (Schwab et al. 2000).
Hurricanes and seasonal wind reversals can produce temporary reversals in
longshore transport along the eastern half of Long Island. Changes in orientation of a
tidal inlet channel can also be caused by hurricanes. Sediments are often redistributed by
more recurrent nor’easter storms. Along the southern shore of Long Island, these storms
promote westward sediment transport and influence barrier development (Buonaiuto
2008).
The Long Island south shore suffered severe erosion after being hit by a
nor’easter storm that grew out of Hurricane Ida on November 13, 2009. The storm
stalled in the region for four days bringing strong 40 mph (64 kmh) winds, high waves,
and considerable amounts of rain. Significant erosion was caused along the Fire Island
National Seashore and parts of Suffolk County, although the damage was less than the
destruction caused by the nor’easter storms of December 1992 and March 1993. These
storms demolished homes and scoured tens of ft (yards) of sand from south Long Island
beaches (Bleyer 2009).
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
The coastal population of this region continues to grow, putting more individuals
at risk from the effects of sea-level rise. Many of New York City’s major boroughs are
on islands that are endangered by future rising seas. Land subsidence has resulted in
relative sea-level rise rates of 0.09 – 0.15 in (2.2 mm – 3.85 mm)/yr with an average rate
of 0.11 in (2.77 mm)/yr for New York City. Beach erosion, as a result of increasing sealevel and land subsidence, is further exacerbated by human activities such as sand
mining, disruption of littoral transport by shoreline structures, and trapping of sediment
upstream.
Most of Long Island has been eroding and the addition of navigation jetties at
Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets have intensified erosion in these locations. The backbarrier marshes of the shoreline have been found to either be lost at the current rate of
sea-level rise or to keep pace with it, but it is unlikely that these will be able to keep up
with an increase in the rate of rise. If beach renourishment along Long Island was
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
97
suspended and sea-level rise continued to increase at projected rates, the beaches could
move landward by at a rate of 1.3 – 3.0 ft (0.4 – 0.9 m)/yr at the beginning of this century
and increasing to 2.8 – 11.8 ft (0.85 – 3.6 m)/yr by 2080. The frequency of a 100-year
storm impacting the region will likely increase with climate change and due to sea-level
rise, a larger area will be at risk from flooding.
Jamaica Bay’s island salt marshes have been drastically reduced in recent years.
The salt marsh area was reduced by 50% from 1990-1994 while the overall percentage
loss from 1959-1998 was 12% of the landmass. Human interference was the primary
cause of early losses although the recent disappearance of marsh areas has yet to be
determined. It is possible that sea-level rise is a contributing factor. Rising seas will
continue to be a problem for the entire region’s salt marshes in the future. It is likely that
the Jamaica Bay island marshes will be unable to accrete vertically at a rate above which
the sea is rising and upland space for landward migration is limited (USCCSP 2009;
Gornitz et al. 2002).
In 2010, a report was published which developed maps for New York that
distinguished shores that are likely to be protected from sea-level rise from those areas
that are likely to be submerged, assuming current coastal policies, development trends,
and shore protection practices. The report is part of a national effort by EPA to encourage
the long-term thinking required to deal with the impacts of sea-level rise issues. A key
step in evaluating whether new policies are needed is to evaluate what would happen
under current policies. The maps in this report represent neither a recommendation nor an
unconditional forecast of what will happen, but simply the likelihood that shores would
be protected if current trends continue (Tanski 2010).
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion
With over 20 million people living near the Atlantic coastline of New York and
commercial and industrial use of the waterways in this region, the environment has
undergone much degradation and loss. Much of the region’s critical habitats, particularly
wetland habitat and aquatic vegetation (especially eelgrass beds), have disappeared.
Around 300,000 ac (1,214 km2) of subtidal waters and tidal wetlands have been filled.
Historic tidal wetlands are almost completely gone with only approximately 20% or
15,500 ac (63 km2) remaining. The Corps and the non-Federal sponsor, The Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, have launched the Hudson-Raritan Estuary
Restoration Plan to repair the environment of this severely damaged area. Eleven
objectives for restoration have been identified and are termed Target Ecosystem
Characteristics (TECs). The creation and restoration of a variety of habitats near the
urban landscape will be achieved through these measurable TECs and the short-term and
long-term goals identified for each. Nearly 400 species of plants, birds, and animals in
this area are listed by the USFWS as species of special emphasis and the restoration of
the habitat used by these species will aid in their survival (HRE Restoration Plan 2009).
The southern shore of Long Island is composed of unconsolidated sediments on
barrier islands that are transported easily by ocean waves. Behind the barrier islands of
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
98
this shoreline are bays and marshes that support a diverse habitat. The Long Island South
Shore Estuary Reserve encompasses 75 miles (121 km) of coastline along southern Long
Island and includes the inland watershed of the estuary. The reserve includes New
York’s largest region of salt marsh. The salt marshes are threatened by a variety of
factors including mosquito ditching, construction in the region, hard shoreline structures,
storm water runoff, sea-level rise, and vessel wakes which increase wave action and
erosion. Phragmites is the primary invasive species jeopardizing the wetlands of the
south shore. The Comprehensive Management Plan for the estuary was adopted in 2001
and called for 75 actions to be implemented by the newly formed South Shore Estuary
Reserve Office (NYS Coastal Management Program 2004). The Long Island Wetland
Restoration Initiative was also created to aid in the restoration of tidal marsh and upland
grasslands in the area. A pilot program of the initiative has restored 40 ac of tidal
wetlands. Additional projects have been completed and many others are planned (Long
Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Council 2010).
The formation of breaches and new inlets along Long Island's south shore barrier
island system is a topic of intense interest among coastal planners, managers, decisionmakers and the public. Due to the dynamic nature of the processes operating along the
coast, new inlets can have a profound impact on the back bay ecosystems. Because these
bays are important and productive habitats for a variety of environmentally and
economically important species, there is considerable concern about how these physical
changes may, in turn, affect living resources found there. In 2001, the New York Sea
Grant worked with the Marine Sciences Research Center of the State University of New
York at Stony Brook with support from the NPS to identify and assess the types of
information required to properly evaluate the potential impacts of breaches on selected
estuarine resources in Great South Bay, the largest of the south shore bays. Great South
Bay is a lagoon that is situated between Long Island and Fire Island, is approximately 45
miles (72 km) long. It is protected from the Atlantic Ocean by Fire Island, a barrier
island, as well as the eastern end of Jones Beach Island and Captree Island. The Fire
Island National Seashore (FINS) protects a 26 mile (41.6 km) section of Fire Island.
There are 17 private communities within the boundaries of FINS including Saltaire, Fire
Island Pines and Ocean Beach. FINS was established as a unit of the NPS in 1964.
As part of this effort, they assembled a team of experts with extensive scientific
research experience and knowledge in the areas of finfish, shellfish and benthic
communities, submerged and intertidal vegetation, and water column productivity and
plankton (New York Sea Grant Extension Program 2001). The team used the results of a
numerical computer model (Conley 2000), developed as part of a separate effort, that
simulated physical changes associated with new inlets at two likely locations on the Fire
Island barrier to begin assessing their potential effect on living resources. The experts
identified the resources most likely to be impacted, and evaluated the nature of the
impacts and their effects on abundance and distribution of important biota. Steps that
could be taken to better define and quantify these impacts from a management
perspective were also identified and discussed. To ensure important management issues
were addressed, the experts' findings were reviewed by Federal, state and local agency
representatives. The resulting information then served as the basis of a workshop which
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
99
brought together coastal managers, planners, and scientists with local expertise to share
information and provide comments.
At the conclusion of the process, it was noted that in some cases, the existing data
and information allow a reasonable assessment of how certain biological resources may
be affected by the formation of a new inlet. From this review of the available information
and data and discussions at the workshop, however, it is clear that the impacts a new
breach may have on the biological resources of Great South Bay are complex and not
well understood. For certain resources, research is needed to develop a better
understanding of basic biological processes and interactions before reliable predictions
can be made. The impacts of a breach can be positive, negative, neutral or unknown
depending on the particular resource being considered or the management objective that
one is trying to achieve. Different, and sometimes conflicting, management mandates can
result in the same impact being perceived as negative by one party or agency and positive
by another, making it difficult to reach a consensus on whether a new inlet would be
beneficial or detrimental.
For other resources, surveys and monitoring programs, as opposed to research,
can provide the information necessary to evaluate the potential impacts of new inlets.
The information provided here should help in identifying the biota most likely to be
affected by new inlets and the general nature of the impacts. Just as importantly, it
provides guidance on the types of information and data needed to fill in knowledge gaps
and on measures that can be taken to obtain this information. In addition to providing
managers with information they can use immediately, it is hoped that suggestions and
recommendations presented in this report will be of use in the development and design of
research, monitoring and other data gathering programs (New York Sea Grant Extension
Program 2001).
The USFWS has created a series of NWR sites on Long Island to preserve the
unique habitat of the region and support the wildlife and plant species found there. The
Long Island NWR Complex includes five NWR sites, a Wildlife Management Area
(WMA), and a NWR sub-unit along the south shore of Long Island. The Seatuck NWR
is found near the central region of the Island and comprises 196 ac (0.79 km2) on the
shore of Great South Bay, half of which are tidal marsh that support a variety of flora and
fauna. Great South Bay also includes 11,500 underwater ac (46.5 km2) that are owned by
TNC in an attempt to protect and restore the Long Island coast. Located near a heavily
developed area, this refuge hosts over 200 bird species, the most common of which is the
black duck. The Wertheim NWR is the headquarters of the complex and encompasses
2,572 ac (10.4 km2). The largest contiguous wetland on Long Island is within Wertheim
and it protects the Carmans River Estuary as well as habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds.
The Carmans River has been designated by New York State as a scenic and recreational
river. The 22-acre (0.09 km2) Lido Beach WMA supports populations of black duck and
Atlantic brant in the winter and provides essential habitat for other waterfowl, shorebirds,
raptors, and colonial nesting wading birds within its tidal wetlands.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
100
The Conscience Point NWR is located in the town of Southampton on the south
fork of Long Island and is surrounded by other salt marshes. The 60-acre (0.24 km2)
refuge includes a maritime grassland community which is a habitat of regional
significance and is the distinguishing feature of Conscience Point. Breeding and
wintering habitat for neotropical migratory songbirds and black ducks, respectively, is
found within the refuge as is the endangered sandplain gerardia plant. The Elizabeth A.
Morton NWR is also in the town of Southampton and includes 187 ac (0.76 km2). The
Amagansett NWR is 36 ac (0.15 km2) near the town of East Hampton on the Island’s
south fork and is owned and managed by TNC. The refuge is primarily managed for
migratory birds, although some rare plants such as a few species of orchids are present on
the grounds. The refuge has a unique double dune system which includes sand beaches,
primary and secondary dunes, and bogs. The piping plover also nests in the Amagansett
NWR.
The Gateway NRA is a 26,000 acre (105 km2) network of parks in New York and
New Jersey monitored by the NPS. The Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge is part of this
network and is located along the southwest shore of the island. The 9,155 ac (37 km2) of
the refuge preserve brackish and fresh water ponds, upland areas, and wetlands.
Species (common name)
Bog turtle
Dwarf wedgemussel
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Northeastern beach tiger beetle
Piping plover
Roseate tern
Sandplain gerardia
Seabeach amaranth
Shortnose sturgeon
Species
Group
Reptile
Mussel
Reptile
Reptile
Insect
Bird
Bird
Plant
Plant
Fish
Federal
Listing Status
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Table 6.2 A selection of Federally listed endangered or threatened species
along the New York coast. Data obtained from USFWS.
The Atlantic Ocean coast of New York City from East Rockaway Inlet to Jamaica
Bay has been greatly impacted by nor’easters and hurricanes causing severe erosion. The
Corps has constructed a beach erosion control and hurricane protection project for this
region to counteract these impacts. In 1986, the project was improved to include a
hurricane barrier 4,530 ft long, across the entrance to Jamaica Bay with a permanent
navigation opening, dikes and levees 1.2 miles long, and floodways 7.7 miles long.
Along the oceanfront, fill was placed along the 6-mile oceanfront floodway with a berm
100 to 200 ft wide at 10.0 ft above mean sea level. Surveys are periodically taken to
monitor the changes in beach profile. These surveys are used to determine the location
and extent of periodic nourishment requirements and for future use should project
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
101
modification be necessary. The shoreline in this area was renourished in 2001 and again
in 2004.
Parts of the southern shoreline of Long Island have been renourished to maintain
the beaches along the coast. Dredged material from navigation maintenance of Fire
Island Inlet is placed on the downdrift shore of Gilgo Beach. Nourishment has occurred
on this beach 17 times by dredging the material which accumulated on the updrift side of
the inlet and placing it onto the downdrift side. Additional shore protection beachfill
projects have occurred along the Rockaway Inlet and Westhampton Beach. Groins and
other structures are utilized to trap and retain sediment. Fifteen groins are located in the
Westhampton Beach area and periodic nourishment is performed to ensure the integrity
of the project design. The Corps is conducting a Reformulation Study from Fire Island
Inlet to Montauk Point to develop a comprehensive long-term plan for storm damage
reduction and preservation of natural resources. Interim projects have been performed to
provide hurricane protection and beach erosion control along the most vulnerable of the
83 miles (134 km) of the study area.
D. State and local shoreline management practices
Coastal management in the State of New York falls primarily under the
jurisdiction of the NY DRC and the DEC. The state maintains two estuary preservation
programs, the South Shore Estuary Reserve (SSER) and the Hudson River Estuary
Program. The South Shore plan, created in 2001, covers the entirety of the tidal bays and
sheltered coasts from Hempsted in the west to the town of Southampton in the East (Long
Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Act of 1993). The landward boundary extends from
the Mean High Water Line to the inland limits of the south flowing watershed, however,
the ocean shoreline was specifically excluded from the SSER. The goals of the South
Shore Estuary Program are overseen by the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council and
include water quality, public access, economic and biologic sustainability, and increased
outreach and public education (South Shore Estuary Reserve Council 2001). The Hudson
River Program, created by state legislation in 1987, covers the length of the tidal Hudson,
from the Verrazano Narrows upriver to the Troy Dam (NYS Environmental Conservation
Law § 11-0306). Associated with the Hudson River Program is the Hudson River
National Estuarine Reserve, a network of four wetland areas between the mouth of the
Hudson and Troy that total almost 4000 ac. By virtue of their positioning at different
points along the Hudson River salinity gradient, the HRNERRS is able to capture many
different aquatic ecosystems and conduct research on a number of wetland functions that
a single location would be unable to provide. The state is also a party to the Long Island
Sound Plan, a comprehensive management plan for the preservation of the Long Island
Sound Estuary. (See LIS section of this report)
In 2006, the Governor of New York signed the Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem
and Conservation Act. This created a Conservation Council of the nine state agencies
responsible for managing human activities and the competing demands over offshore
resources and space. EBM through statewide collaboration will help to ensure ecosystem
health for the future (NYOGLECC 2009). Other initiatives are restoring natural
shorelines and marsh lands, including the SSER and the Long Island Sound Plan. The
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
102
Designing the Edge program, initiated by the state Coastal Program, is using innovative
methods and public participation to remove hardened structures and create a waterfront
for recreation and restoration of the natural environment. Shoreline erosion is addressed
utilizing soft approaches to reduce wave energy while fostering a natural environment for
the coastline (NYS Coastal Program). The pilot for this program is currently underway in
Harlem River Park in New York City.
E. Project-specific examples of economic and cultural effects of erosion and
accretion
State: New York
Community: Montauk
Point Lighthouse, Long
Island
Background:
Commissioned by President
George Washington and
completed in 1796,
Montauk Point Lighthouse
is the oldest lighthouse in
Map of Long Island, with Montauk Point at the far eastern point. Source: New York and the fourth
www.loving‐long‐island.com. oldest active lighthouse in
the United States. When it was first erected, the lighthouse stood 300 ft away from the
edge of the bluffs. Over 200 years of coastal erosion later, it is now just 75 ft away from
the shoreline.
Even though the lighthouse had been built as far as practicably possible from the
coastline in acknowledgement of the bluffs’ likelihood to erode, by 1946 the shoreline
had worn away to the point of demanding attention. The first documented project entailed
the construction of a 700-ft stone revetment at the toe of the bluff in conjunction with
vegetative plantings along the upper reaches of the cliffs. The ultimately failed project
now stands about 70 ft seaward of the current bluff toe. Over the next five decades, a
string of projects were employed in an attempt to stop the erosion. Methods included
depositing rubble over the edges of the bluffs, terracing, installing gabions along the
seawall, planting vegetation along the slopes, and constructing multiple new revetments.
In 1993, the Corps conducted a reconnaissance report on viable options for
preserving Montauk Point Lighthouse. In 2005, the Corps proposed an 840-ft-long
revetment. The project was endorsed by the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation, the Montauk Historical Society, and the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation.
Cost: $14 million, split 50-50 between Corps and the State of New York
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
103
Socio-Cultural Issues: Although Montauk Point Lighthouse has enjoyed community
support in the form of private donations and celebrity endorsements (i.e., a benefit
concert performed by Paul Simon), the most recent project proposal met with unexpected
resistance. Citing the new revetment’s potential to destroy world-class surfing waves, a
grassroots movement, spearheaded by the local chapter of the international group
Surfrider, sprang up in opposition to the plan. Although wave tank analysis suggested
that the wave break would not be seriously affected by the revetment, Surfrider is
advocating relocation of the lighthouse instead. The Corps estimates that the move would
cost $27 million, $13 million more than the cost of the proposed revetment.
VII. New Jersey
The coast of New Jersey spans 127 miles (204 kilometers) with an additional 83
miles (134 km) of shore along the Delaware and Raritan Bays (Figure 7.1). A variety of
habitats such as wetlands, estuaries, sandy beaches, tidal inlets, bluffs, and barrier islands
can be found along the shoreline. The sediment transported along the New Jersey
shoreline includes unconsolidated sand, silt, clay, and organic material. Sand is derived
from coastal features that were drowned as sea-level rose with glacial melt and retreat in
the past 25,000 years (Cooper et al. 2005). Wave generated littoral drift transports this
sand to the north along the northern portion of the coast up to Sandy Hook, New Jersey;
sediment transport is generally to the south. Barrier islands compose the southern New
Jersey shoreline with tidal inlets dividing the islands from each other. Littoral drift in this
region carries sediment south and the inlets influence the erosion and accretion along the
islands.
Erosion is a significant issue for the New Jersey shore as sediments are easily
moved because of their unconsolidated nature and the lack of bedrock underlying them.
New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the U.S. and much of the state’s
population lives near the coast. The coastline of New Jersey is one of the most developed
in the U.S.; only 24% of the shoreline has no manmade structures. Due to human
activities along the coast, the longshore transport system has also been starved of
sediment, resulting in less material to maintain the natural shoreline (Farrell et al. 2004).
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes
i. Shoreline habitats
The New Jersey shoreline is dominated by sandy spits, barrier islands, and
headlands composed of unconsolidated sediments. Northern New Jersey is composed of
the Sandy Hook barrier spit, headlands, and barrier islands. Sandy Hook is at the farthest
reach of the northern Atlantic shoreline and was formed by longshore transport to the
north. The headlands are found in the region below the spit and upland bluffs in this area
at the coast are susceptible to erosion from waves. The shoreline transitions from
erosional bluffs to barrier island complexes in central New Jersey. The southern New
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
104
Newark
Bay
Long
Island
Raritan
Bay
Sandy
Hook
New
Jersey
Lower
New York
Bay
Manasquan
Barnegat
Bay
Delaware
Bay
Cape May
Figure 7.1 Map of the New Jersey coast.
Jersey shoreline is primarily composed of sandy barrier islands. These islands vary in
length and front marshes and bays. All but one of the New Jersey barrier islands has
been developed. Marshes in the state have been filled to obtain more land for
development, resulting in more communities at low-lying elevations. Eleven tidal inlets
can be found on the New Jersey coast, permitting water exchange between the Atlantic
Ocean and back bays (Farrell et al. 2004; Titus et al. 2009).
New Jersey has over 300,000 ac (1,214 km2) of tidal wetlands. As glaciations
occurred over time, sea level dropped and the rivers along the New Jersey coast carved
deeper valleys forming new shorelines to adjust to the new ocean levels. The Holocene
sea level rise drowned these river valleys which are where many estuaries along the New
Jersey shore are now located (NJ DEP 1999).
ii. Sediment sources and movement
The coastal plain of New Jersey is composed of unconsolidated sand, silt, and
clay sediments from marine and deltaic environments deposited millions of years ago as
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
105
the rise and fall of sea level impacted the coastline. The northern New Jersey coast is
primarily composed of sand, silt, and clay deposits from the Tertiary and Cretaceous
periods. Erosion of the Monmouth County bluffs provides much of this sediment for the
northern coast. Some sand from the Monmouth bluffs is found along the southern shores,
but sediment is primarily derived from the deposits that have been reworked over time.
The southern shore of New Jersey contains estuarine and beach deposits from the
Holocene epoch and sand, silt, and clay deposits from the Tertiary. The New Jersey
shoreline sediments are not cemented and they are easily eroded by wave and tidal action.
All present day sediment along the state’s beaches have either been eroded or reworked
from other deposits that originated with older sediments (Farrell et al. 2004; NJ DEP
1999).
Sediment movement along the New Jersey shoreline diverges between
Manasquan and the Barnegat Inlet along the coast (Figure 7.2). Littoral transport to the
north has created the 11 mile (18 km) Sandy Hook spit and brings sediment into New
York Bay. Longshore transport to the south carries sediment down the New Jersey
shoreline toward Delaware Bay. Although the general movement of sediment along the
southern New Jersey shore is to the south, tidal inlets between the barrier islands segment
the littoral transport and divert sediment into the inlets and marshes behind the barriers.
The redirection of sediment prevents a significant buildup of material at Cape May, the
southernmost shore of New Jersey before the Delaware Bay (Farrell et al. 2004; USACE
2002).
iii. Coastal features
The majority of New Jersey’s nearshore coastal zone is utilized by humans in
some fashion. Forty-two percent of the region is used for urban, transitional, or mining
purposes while another 14% is employed for agriculture. Activity at the NY/NJ Harbor
dominates the north shore of New Jersey. The state of New Jersey is working with New
York and various Federal, state, and local stakeholders to improve the conditions within
the harbor. Sediment accumulation is a major problem in the harbor as longshore
transport along the shore of Long Island and up the New Jersey coast delivers material
into the area. New Jersey is utilizing dredged material from the Harbor beneficially to fill
and cap brownfield sites throughout the state (Lathrop and Love 2007; RSM Workgroup
2008).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
106
Port Newark Newark
Bay
Lower
New York
Bay
Raritan
Bay
Long
Island
Sandy Hook
Sea Bright
New
Jersey
Manasquan
Barnegat
Bay
Atlantic City
Ocean City
Delaware
Bay
Avalon
Cape May
Figure 7.2 –Sediment movement along the New Jersey shoreline.
The Port Newark Container Terminal is the nation’s oldest container port and is
the largest in the North Atlantic region. The terminal serves the New York/New Jersey
metropolitan region and handles millions of containers each year.
The Sandy Hook barrier spit is a distinctive feature along the northern New Jersey
coastline. The spit is 11 mile (18 km) long and includes an extensive seawall that
protects the two communities located in this area. Part of the Gateway NRA is located on
the northern end of the spit and has been susceptible to erosion (Psuty and Pace 2009).
Barrier islands and tidal inlets dominate the central and southern coast of New
Jersey. There are eleven inlets along the New Jersey coastline. Six of these inlets are
restricted by rock jetties and can no longer change position, five of which are Federal
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
107
New
Jersey
Project Type
Navigation
Shore Protection
Ecosystem
Restoration & SP
Figure 7.3 Depiction of Corps shore protection and navigation projects
along the coastline of New Jersey (USACE 2010b).
navigation projects. Two inlets have only one armored shoreline and three remain in
their natural condition.
The resort towns of Atlantic City and Ocean City are in the southern portion of
the state. Tourism is the major industry in these towns which has resulted in significant
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
108
development along the coast. Both cities are famous for their boardwalks along the shore
(Farrell et al. 2004).
Project
Name
Project Location
State
District
Authorized
Purpose
Manasquan
Inlet
New
Jersey
Philadelphia Navigation
Barnegat
Inlet
New
Jersey
Philadelphia Navigation
Absecon
Island
New
Jersey
Philadelphia Navigation
Cape May
Inlet
Barnegat
Inlet-Little
Egg Inlet
Brigantine
Island
New
Jersey
Philadelphia Navigation
New
Jersey
New
Jersey
Shore
Philadelphia Protection
Shore
Philadelphia Protection
New
Jersey
Shore
Philadelphia Protection
Absecon Inlet
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
Sand dredged from Manasquan Inlet
for operations and maintenance is
currently discharged north of the
inlet along the Sea Bright –
Manasquan project.
Maintenance channel dredging of
about 200,000 cy/yr is performed to
maintain Barnegat Inlet. Discharge
of the dredged sand is typically in
the nearshore just outside the jetties.
Occasionally the material is
transported south of the inlet about 1
mile and discharged in the nearshore
to supplement nearshore sediment
supply to beaches of northern Long
Beach Island.
Absecon Inlet is infrequently
dredged for O&M purposes. Its ebb
shoal (outside the navigation
channel) was used in 2003-2004 as
the source of sand for initial
construction for the Absecon Island
shore protection project.
Cape May (also known as Cold
Spring) Inlet has a significant
Section 111 record. Construction of
the shore protection project for Cape
May City ("Cape May Inlet to Lower
Township") was in part funded as
navigation project mitigation for
impacts of Cape May Inlet. There is
nominal (20,000 cy/yr) O&M
dredging for the navigation channel.
On one occasion in the past decade
the inlet channel was used as a
source for Cape May City beach
nourishment.
Project length is 18 miles
Project length is 1.4 miles
Beachfill plus bulkhead at Absecon
Inlet-length of project for
participating communities - 28,000 ft
109
Project
Name
Ocean City
(Great Egg
Harbor Inlet
& Peck
Beach
Townsends
Inlet- Cape
May Inlet
Cape May
City (Cape
May Inlet to
Lower
Township)
Lower Cape
May
MeadowsCape May
Point
Delaware
Bay
Coastline,
Villas and
Vicinity
Delaware
Bay
Coastline,
Reeds Beach
to Pierces
Point
Shrewsbury
River
Shoal Harbor
and Compton
Project Location
State
District
New
Jersey
Authorized
Purpose
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
New
Jersey
Shore
Philadelphia Protection
Shore
Protection/
Ecosystem
Philadelphia Restoration
Project length is 4.5 miles
4.3 miles of beachfill plus seawalls
at Townsends and Hereford Inlets,
and ecosystem restoration at Stone
Harbor Pt
New
Jersey
Shore
Philadelphia Protection
Renourished in September 2008
New
Jersey
Shore
Protection/
Ecosystem
Philadelphia Restoration
Project length is 4.4 miles
New
Jersey
Shore
Protection/
Ecosystem
Philadelphia Restoration
Beachfill: project length is 5.5 miles
New
Jersey
Shore
Protection/
Ecosystem
Philadelphia Restoration
New
Jersey
New
Jersey
New York
Navigation
Beachfill: project length is 1.3 miles
Maintenance dredging of the channel
began 1 Nov 2009. App 50,000 cy of
sand in two shoaled areas east of
oceanic bridge were dredged and
placed at Monmouth Beach, at a
location app 2,000-3,000 ft south of
Seact Avenue. Time and severe
weather did not permit the removal
of an additional 40,000 cy from a
shoal in the Shrewsbury River east
of Gunning Island, with placement at
Monmouth Beach. The project
required completion by December 31
to comply with the environmental
window restrictions for the
protection of winter flounder
New York
Navigation
Current channel condition is red.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
110
Project
Name
Creek
Cheesequake
Creek
Project Location
State
District
Authorized
Purpose
New
Jersey
Navigation
New York
Shark River
Inlet
New
Jersey
New York
Navigation
Keansburg
506
New
Jersey
New York
Shore
Protection
Sea BrightManasquan;
New
Jersey
New York
Shore
Protection
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
A total of 20,000 cy of sand was
dredged from the channel and placed
on the beach north of the L-jetty at
the Borough of Avon-by-the Sea and
as a nearshore berm in app.10 –14 ft
of water in 2003.
Current beach condition is
intermediate. Project is late in the
renourishment cycle, or the project is
performing worse than expected, or
both due to storm damage.
Design and construction of app.
2400 linear ft of beach renourshment
in Sound Long Branch completed by
March 2009.
Table 7.1 Corps projects on the shores of New Jersey (USACE 2010b).
B. Erosion and accretion
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) has collected
data on shoreline change dating back to the 1800’s. These data have been incorporated
into maps and can be utilized to help predict future areas of erosion or accretion along the
New Jersey shore. A 1981 study on the condition of New Jersey’s coast was performed
by the NJ DEP. Considering only physical factors the study demonstrated that 32.9% of
the coast was critically eroding, 18% was significantly eroding, 38.5% was moderately
eroding, and 10.6% as non-eroding (NJ DEP 1981).
The 127 miles (204 km) of ocean shoreline in New Jersey are the most intensively
managed coastal reach in the U.S. There are 11 shore protection projects that encompass
nearly all of the New Jersey shoreline. Ten of these projects have been authorized for
construction by Congress, while one is still in the feasibility study phase. Eight of the 10
authorized projects have been constructed in whole or in part, beginning with the Cape
May City project in 1990 (Table 7.1).
i. Area rates and trends
Although there are a few areas of sediment accretion along the New Jersey shore,
erosion is a significant problem on the New Jersey shoreline due to the unconsolidated
nature of coastal sediment and the high rate of development on the beach. Approximately
76% of the New Jersey beach has some form of manmade structure and 17% of the coast
has been armored using hardened protective structures. These structures have interrupted
natural sediment movement causing some areas to be starved of sand. Many beaches
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
111
along the New Jersey shore are artificially nourished. Federal, state, and local
governments spent over half a billion dollars between 1990 and 2005 to replenish 50% of
the developed New Jersey shoreline with millions of cubic yards of sand.
In 1994, the New York District of the Corps began the largest beach nourishment
project in the U.S. on 21 miles (34 km) of beach from Sea Bright to Manasquan in
northern New Jersey. Up to 350 cy (268 m3) of sand per ft of beach has been deposited
which has extended the coastline approximately 700 ft (213 m) into the ocean from the
seawall.
The Corps has completed additional beach nourishment projects in recent years.
Over two million cy (1.5 million m3) of sand was added to the northern beaches of Long
Branch, Monmouth Beach, and Sea Bright in 2001. In the south, nearly one and a half
million cy (1,115,000 million m3) of sand were delivered to the Avalon coastline in 2002.
Protection structures for the Townsend and Hereford Inlets on either side of Avalon
beach have also been completed (Farrell et al. 2004; Lathrop and Love 2007).
Along Sandy Hook, a “critical zone” of erosion has been identified which could
result in the breach of a narrow part of the spit. This threatened area is located downdrift
of a seven mile long (11 km) seawall that protects the two communities on the spit. Over
the past thirty years, beach nourishment has been used to maintain the shore with projects
depositing millions of cubic yards of sand. These nourishment projects have not been
sustainable in the long term and additional methods are needed to maintain the beach.
Accretion of shoreline sediment is occurring along the northern tip of Sandy Hook at
Gunnison Beach. A backpassing system to transport accumulating sediment from
Gunnison Beach and the NY/NJ Harbor to the critical zone has been constructed and is
operational.
Shoreline structures have significantly modified the New Jersey coastline. They
interrupt the natural transport of sediment in many areas. The variable accretion along
Gunnison Beach is aided by the location of protected habitat areas both updrift and
downdrift of the beach. This allows for natural sediment movement to occur and permits
some accretion. Sediment has also accumulated within the 11 tidal inlets along the New
Jersey shoreline (Farrell et al. 2009; Psuty and Pace 2009).
ii. Storm impacts
The New Jersey coastline has suffered much destruction from storms in past
years. A March 1962 nor’easter damaged thousands of homes and destroyed the majority
of the dunes along New Jersey’s barrier islands. Dunes are crucial to protecting shoreline
structures from storm impacts along the New Jersey coast. Following the 1962 storm,
reconstruction efforts focused on improving dunes and shore protection through the use
of artificial fill, vegetation, and sand fences. The New Jersey Shore Protection Master
Plan of 1981 also promoted non-structural approaches to protect the shore. Although this
has improved some conditions, storms still batter the coast. An October 2009 nor’easter
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
112
storm removed 13 ft (4 m) from dunes along the Ocean County shoreline, exposing
geotubes and destroying dune fences (Grafals-Soto and Nordstrom 2009).
The Halloween storm of 1991 caused severe beach erosion, extremely high tide
heights, and extensive shoreline and bay flooding. Homes, roads, and seawalls were
destroyed resulting in $75,000,000 to $85,000,000 in damages. A December 1992 storm
brought record flooding and strong winds to the entire New Jersey coast. Twelve
counties were declared disaster areas and two deaths resulted from the storm (NCDC
2008). When the New Jersey shoreline is spared from significant storm impacts, as it
was from 2000 to 2002, sand is added to the coast and the shoreline progresses seaward
due to this augmentation. Little vertical growth on dunes was observed during this period
as the majority of growth was observed to be the widening of the beach (Farrell et al.
2004).
In 2003, a spring storm caused severe erosion on the New Jersey shore. Along
the central and southern New Jersey shore, four to eight ft of vertical beach was lost.
Ocean City beaches experienced the greatest erosion with a loss of six to eight vertical ft
of sand. A Federal/state beach renourishment project had recently been completed at the
Stone Harbor beach and approximately two-thirds of the newly deposited sand was
carried offshore but would possibly be brought back onshore by waves over time (NJ
DEP 2003). Offshore hurricanes can be beneficial for the coastline. The swells
generated by these storms can mobilize and move sediment from areas offshore to the
shoreline, resulting in accretion. Following Hurricane Fabian in 2003, the New Jersey
beaches were the widest of the year (Cooper et al. 2008).
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
The New Jersey shoreline is particularly vulnerable to inundation from sea-level
rise as it is a flat, low-lying, gentle sloping coastal plain composed of marshes, sandy
beaches, and barrier islands. The coastline of the state has experienced sea-level rise of
0.12-0.16 in (3-4 mm)/yr with projected future rates of 0.24 in (6 mm) /yr. In the next
century, approximately 1 – 3% of New Jersey land area will be permanently inundated.
Roughly 17 – 32% of the state’s freshwater tidal and saline marshes would be inundated
by future sea-level rise.
A 100-year storm surge of 9.8 ft (3 m) would inundate all of the state’s barrier
communities, including Atlantic City and Ocean City, as well as large portions of the
shorelines along Raritan, Delaware, and Barnegat Bays. Almost all of the state’s saline
and tidal marshes and 95% of the freshwater marshes would be inundated at new 100year flood levels. The majority of New Jersey’s salt marshes have been able to accrete to
keep up with sea-level rise thus far. With future rising seas, Delaware Bay may lose 60%
more of intertidal shorebird feeding habitats. Approximately 29% of retreat areas for
wetlands are restricted by roads and other developed features, preventing upland
migration of these habitats (Cooper et al. 2008; Lathrop and Love 2007).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
113
The high population density of southern New Jersey has lead to an increasing
need for water resources. Excessive groundwater withdrawal has resulted in land
subsidence of 0.8 – 1.2 in (2-3 cm) over the past 20 years. As the groundwater
withdrawal is expected to continue, the rate of land subsidence will be similar for the next
20 years and further jeopardize the coastline (Sun et al. 1999).
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion
Sandy shorelines of unconsolidated sediments susceptible to erosion processes
encompass much of the New Jersey coastline. Dense population and development within
the state’s coastal zone has led to armoring of the shoreline with structures to prevent
erosion and has greatly altered the natural environment. The low-lying coast of New
Jersey includes barrier islands, tidal inlets, estuaries, sandy beaches, bays, and salt marsh.
This coast is vulnerable to potential sea-level rise which will result in greater erosion of
shoreline sediments.
The northern New Jersey shoreline has been developed for commercial, industrial,
and residential purposes. The upper end of the Sandy Hook spit along the northern
shoreline of New Jersey has been accreting, providing habitat for an extensive vegetated
foredune and backdune habitats. Plant species supported include American beachgrass,
bayberry, tree-of-heaven, winged sumac, and beach plum. Maritime forests are also
found on Sandy Hook. While the northern end of the spit is accreting, the southern end is
losing habitat and continues to erode, even though it is supported by a groin field and
seawall (USFWS 1997).
The southern New Jersey shoreline borders north Delaware Bay and is also
vulnerable to sea-level rise and the subsequent increase in erosion it may cause. The
hydrology of the area has been altered due to ditching of salt marshes for agriculture and
to control mosquitoes. The ditching allows water to come further inland and potentially
erode the region further. An invasive plant species, the common reed, has aggressively
displaced marsh vegetation in the region, including the cattail and the state endangered
collard dodder (National Audubon Society 2010).
The Jacques Cousteau NERRS is located in southeastern New Jersey including
shorelines of Great Bay and Little Egg Harbor and although much of the state is
influenced by humans, only 1% of the 114,000-acre (461 km2) reserve has been impacted
by human development. This system is one of the largest undeveloped estuarine
environments along the northeastern seaboard, providing a high research value for
scientists. A variety of plant and animal species utilize the undisturbed reserve.
Waterfowl populations exceed 70,000 during the winter and 44 distinct nesting colonies
of 15 different species have been observed. The Great Bay area also sustains 61 different
species of finfish and a variety of shellfish and amphibians.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
114
Species (common name)
Bog asphodel
Dwarf wedgemussel
Hirsts’ panic grass
Knieskern’s beaked-rush
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Northeastern beach tiger beetle
Piping plover
Red knot
Roseate tern
Seabeach amaranth
Sensitive joint-vetch
Shortnose sturgeon
Small whorled pogonia
Swamp pink
Species Group
Plant
Mussel
Plant
Plant
Reptile
Reptile
Insect
Bird
Bird
Bird
Plant
Plant
Fish
Plant
Plant
Federal
Listing Status
Candidate
Endangered
Candidate
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Candidate
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Table 7.2 A selection of Federally listed endangered or threatened species
along the New Jersey coast. Data obtained from USFWS.
The New Jersey Delaware Bay shoreline is essential habitat for migrating
shorebirds. The bay shoreline is the second largest major shorebird staging area in North
America. During the shorebirds spring migration from South America to the Arctic
breeding grounds, up to 80% of some bird populations stop to feed and rest at Delaware
Bay. Cape May and the NWR of the same name host over 20 species of shorebirds
including sanderlings, ruddy turnstones, semipalmated sandpipers, and red knots during
this time. The birds are attracted by the eggs laid by horseshoe crabs during their
spawning season in May and early June. The importance of the Delaware Bay estuary to
the migrating birds and other species was recognized by the Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance, also known as the Ramsar Convention, and the area was
designated a Wetland of International Importance in 1992. The WHSRN designated the
Edwin B. Forsythe NWR as a site of regional importance. The reserve’s 47,000 ac (190
km2) are specifically protected and managed for migratory birds. Holgate and Little
Beach are part of the NWR and are two of the last remaining undeveloped barrier
beaches on the New Jersey shore. These barrier beaches provide crucial habitat for the
black skimmer, least tern, and piping plover. State endangered bird species of the bald
eagle, northern harrier, and peregrine falcon along with the state threatened osprey also
rely on the coastline habitat. Erosion of the Delaware Bay coastlines will further threaten
the survival of these species, although marsh restoration efforts have actually led to a
positive trend in wetland acreage on the New Jersey shoreline of Delaware Bay
(Partnership for the Delaware Estuary 2008).
TNC and the Corps have partnered to protect and restore habitat at the Cape May
Migratory Bird Refuge. In the past, a Cape May Inlet navigation project produced
significant shoreline erosion and dune breaching at the refuge that also altered the
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
115
drainage pattern of the area and resulted in saltwater intrusion. TNC restoration has
involved many initiatives to deal with invasive plants, beach erosion, and other threats to
species. The construction of back ponds and dune creation have generated suitable
habitat for the piping plover and other shorebirds. Elimination of invasive plants has
been performed through spraying of herbicide and mowing of Phragmites. Beach
replenishment was also performed to restore the eroded shoreline (TNC 2009).
As indicated previously, the New Jersey coastline is highly developed and has
been altered significantly through hardened structures and renourishment projects to
prevent erosion of the unconsolidated sediments. Some projects are described below and
they have resulted in alteration of the shoreline and surrounding environment. The Port
Monmouth hurricane and storm damage reduction project constructed levees, floodwalls,
and dunes along the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay shorelines on the Port Monmouth
Middletown Township. The project was designed to protect low-lying residential and
commercial structures built on or near salt and freshwater marshes that are inundated
during coastal storms. Periodic renourishment of the beaches is also specified by the
project.
Seventy-one percent or 10,729 ac (43 km2) of the Barnegat Bay shoreline is
developed and 45% of this area is protected by bulkheads (Erdle and Sellner 2008).
Development around the bay primarily occurred between 1940 and 1970 and has resulted
in the loss of 28% of the area’s marshes. Around two-thirds of the bay’s wetlands are
affected by mosquito control ditches dug during the last century which have led to
hydrology alterations and the erosion of the marsh (Lathrop et al. 1999). A priority of the
Barnegat Bay NEP is habitat loss and repair of degraded areas through shoreline and
other restoration projects. Non-structural shoreline stabilization measures are encouraged
by the NEP as is the incorporation of sea-level rise and other climate change effects in
projects to sustain the bay’s habitat.
The Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet Beach Erosion Control project provides storm
damage reduction and beach restoration to the northern New Jersey coast. Construction
of a 100 ft wide beach berm at an elevation of 10 ft above the mean low water (MLW) is
performed as well as the notching of existing stone groins and outfall pipe extensions to
help restore the natural littoral drift sediment movement processes. The 21 miles (34 km)
from Sea Bright to Manasquan were the first two sections of this project to be completed.
With this project, beaches will be periodically renourished every six years for 50 years
following the initial construction.
The second section of this project, Section II from Asbury Park to Manasquan
Inlet, was monitored extensively to assess the potential impacts of sand dredging and
placement on biological resources. The Biological Monitoring Program (BMP) studied
the effects on beach, intertidal, and nearshore species. It was determined that there was a
short-term decline in the biomass, species richness, and abundance in intertidal and
nearshore benthos although recovery of the intertidal species was complete within two to
six and a half months after the placement of material on the beach. While the beach
nourishment was being conducted, the dominant species of the surf zone finfish
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
116
community changed but this was shown to be only a short-term effect. The postnourishment monitoring indicated that there were no long-term impacts to the distribution
and abundance patterns of the finfish. No long-term change in sediment texture due to
nourishment was observed. Long-term effects were not observed on intertidal sediments
and benthos or on nearshore infauna. No differences in prey availability or fish with
filled stomachs between nourished and non-nourished sites were found (Burlas et al.
2001).
The 4.5 miles of beach fronting Ocean City, New Jersey, a commercially
important area for the state, has been renourished four times with an additional
renourishment for storm rehabilitation. The condition of the project is variable, with the
northern half of the project performing worse than expected and the southern half
meeting and/or exceeding the design profile. Many sites along the New Jersey shoreline
exhibit this variability in project success, although, as with the Sea Bright to Manasquan
project, the renourishment efforts have performed worse than expected or are late in the
renourishment cycle. These projects are completed primarily for storm protection
purposes but also help in maintaining the beach habitat utilized by many species in the
region.
D. State and local shoreline management practices
The New Jersey shoreline is one of the most intensely developed stretches of
coast in the nation. Coastal and shoreline management in New Jersey takes places under
the auspices of the NJ DEP’s Coastal Management Program. Codified in 1978, the
program is based in the management and enforcement of the Wetlands Act of 1970, the
Coastal Area Facility Review Act, the Waterfront Development Law, and the Freshwater
Wetlands Protection Act. The state, under the auspices of the Coastal Management
Program, maintains and enforces the comprehensive CZM Rules of the New Jersey
Administrative Code (NJAC 7:7E). These rules are an amalgamation of the
aforementioned statutes plus further regulations. The state CZM rules cover all aspects of
coastal regulation, including land and sea use, shore protection guidelines, and coastal
construction regulation. Under the CZM rules, all construction seaward of the dune line is
prohibited unless it is specifically exempted, which include shore protection features,
dune creation, and the reconstruction of existing piers and boardwalks. The state also
defines a hazard erosion zone in which new construction is generally prohibited. The
zone is 30 times the average erosion rate for structures of fewer than four units, as
measured from the dune crest, and 60 times the average erosion rate for all other
residential and all commercial structures. There are generally separate rule clauses for
activities within Atlantic City, which are more lenient than those regulations elsewhere in
the state.
The New Jersey Bureau of Coastal Engineering (NJ BCE) has the responsibility
for building and maintaining the shore protection structures along the state’s coastline.
These structures include groins, bulkheads, jetties, seawalls, and breakwaters. Nearly the
entirety of the New Jersey coastline outside of the Gateway NRA on the northernmost
section of the New Jersey coast and the approximately ten mile stretch of Island Beach
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
117
State Park on the central coast is urbanized and has a mix of buildings and hard and soft
shore protection features. The remaining undeveloped sections are dominated by dune
formations. Recently, permeable groins have begun being used in order to allow some
sediment to pass through or over the groin, which has increased the lifetime of beach
nourishment projects by reducing sediment losses from the system (Rankin et al. 2003;
Donohue et al. 2003). The permeable groins create both cost benefits derived from
having to complete the projects at larger time intervals and benefits to the sediment
system on the whole derived from less intrusion into the system.
Beach nourishment is a major management practice in New Jersey in order to
maintain the coastline. Sediments on the ocean bottom off the coast of the state are used
as source material for many beach nourishment projects in New Jersey based on the
similar characteristics of the offshore sediment to the naturally occurring shore sediment
(Waldner 2004). The NJ BCE, in conjunction with the Corps, develops and carries out
nourishment projects along much of the shoreline. The largest beach nourishment project
in the U.S. was initiated on the New Jersey coast in 1994. Twenty one miles of beach
from Sea Bright to Manasquan in northern New Jersey received sediment. Up to 350 cy
of sand/ft of beach was deposited which extended the coastline approximately 700 ft into
the ocean from the seawall. In addition to the Manasquan project, more than 250 other
beach nourishment actions have been completed along the New Jersey coast, with nearly
80 actions since 1990. The projects since 1990 have accounted for more than 87 million
cy of sediment, including more than 23 million cy for the Sea Bright to Manasquan
project (Western Carolina University 2010).
Following severe storms in 1962 and 1977-78, the 1981 New Jersey Shore
Protection Master Plan was developed and promoted non-structural approaches to
protection of the shore. The state’s Hazard Mitigation Plan identified dune creation as
crucial and required all municipalities to agree to dune building as a means of receiving
aid to rebuild damaged structures. Prior to the 1994 amendments to the Coastal Area
Facilities Review Act (CAFRA), some localities maintained a practice of dune
construction in the fall to combat winter storms, and then leveling the dune prior to the
beginning of tourist season. The CAFRA amendments created a de facto ban on this
practice by prohibiting the removal of dune fences and direct disturbance to dune
formations (Grafals-Soto and Nordstrom 2009). Dunes have continued to be an important
protection method along the developed New Jersey shore despite the fact that nearly no
natural dunes still exist along the developed coast. However, many of the dunes that do
exist are substandard according to FEMA 100 year flood guidelines. This is generally a
result of dune heights being kept below what would naturally occur by property and
recreational considerations (Arens and Nordstrom 1998). Direct disturbance of dunes is
prohibited and dune access is restricted to specified paths in most, but not all, New Jersey
municipalities.
New Jersey is one of only two states, along with Michigan, that have assumed
responsibility for permitting under Section 404 of the CWA. The NJ DEP is now
responsible for the permitting Section 404 impacts under agreement with EPA and the
Corps. This is relevant for coastal activities because the state now has the responsibility
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
118
to regulate fill in, among other places, the back bays and other coastal aquatic features
that serve important ecologic and flood protection functions. The state currently has a
draft plan for inclusion into the NOAA CELCP.
VIII. Delmarva - Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia
The Delmarva region of the North Atlantic shoreline contains and is bounded by
two main estuaries: Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the U.S.
The tidal shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay is around 9,000 miles (14,484 km) and almost
evenly divided between the states of Maryland and Virginia. The Delmarva shoreline is
composed of a variety of environments, particularly marsh and upland banks with
fronting sand dunes, beaches, and spits. The coastline is composed of unconsolidated
sediments such as clays, sands, and silts which are often easily eroded. Erosion from
upland surfaces and stream corridors (channels and banks) are the two most essential
sources of sediment delivered from the watershed into the bay (USGS 2003).
Sediment transport is in two opposing directions along the Delmarva coastline,
with the divergence occurring near the border between Delaware and Maryland. Littoral
drift transports sediment in a northerly direction along the coast of Delaware toward
Delaware Bay. South of the Delaware/Maryland state line, regional longshore transport
is to the south along the Maryland coast and into the mouth of Chesapeake Bay (Hobbs et
al. 2006). Shoreline erosion is a major source of sediment that creates and maintains
estuarine habitats (shallow water, tidal flats and beaches).
A. Shoreline habitat and sediment processes
i. Shoreline habitats
Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay were formed by the drowning of the
Delaware River and Susquehanna River valleys. Deltaic deposits from the Pleistocene
were scoured by ocean waves producing a jagged shoreline and feeding the longshore
sediment transport system which formed spits and barrier islands along the coast (Hobbs
et al. 2006).
Delaware Bay is bordered by New Jersey to the north and east and by Delaware to
the south and west. The shores of the bay are mainly salt marsh and tidal flats. Besides
the Delaware River, a few streams provide freshwater input including the St. Jones and
Salem Rivers (Hartwell and Hameedi 2006).
The state of Maryland has 4,360 miles (7,017 km) of coastline and two-thirds of
the state is within the coastal zone. Twenty-nine percent of the state of Virginia is
classified as within the coastal zone with 5,242 miles (8,436 km) of shoreline.
Transgression of the Atlantic Ocean developed the shoreline of this region. The shore is
primarily composed of upland banks and marsh with fronting sand barrier islands, minor
estuaries, beaches, spits, and dunes.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
119
New
Jersey
Maryland
Delaware
Bay
Delaware
Cape
May
Delmarva
Peninsula
Chesapeake
Bay
Virginia
Virginia
Beach
Figure 8.1 Map of the Delmarva region.
The Virginia coastal plain on the west side of the Chesapeake Bay contains the
Suffolk Scarp which was created during the Pleistocene epoch. Shoreline banks to the
west of this steep slope can be as high as 25 – 50 ft (7.5 – 15 m). The shorelines to the
east of the Scarp are typically less than 5 ft (1.5 m) and are susceptible to flooding. The
Eastern Shore of the bay was formed by the deposition of sediments at the tip of the
Delmarva Peninsula over thousands of years, causing the feature to expand south. Tide
and wave energy produced and segmented the barrier islands on the seaward side of the
peninsula (Hardaway and Byrne 1999).
ii. Sediment sources and movement
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
120
The Delaware and Maryland coastlines are comprised of the easily erodible
materials of unconsolidated sands, silts, and clays. These materials are eroded from the
shoreline and the Pleistocene headlands along the Delaware coast at Rehoboth and
Bethany beaches. The dominant source of sediment in the northern Chesapeake Bay area
is from the Susquehanna River; the central bay primarily receives sediment through
biological processes and shoreline erosion; shoreline erosion and ocean influx contribute
sediment to the southern portion of the bay. The Chesapeake Bay coastline of Virginia is
composed of Holocene mud, sand, and clay which are overlain by newer Holocene beach
sand. Sand and silty clay are prevalent throughout the bay with sand accumulating in
high energy environments such as the coast and islands of the Eastern Shore, while silty
clays are found in the low energy deep water environments and bay channels (Hardaway
et al. 2005; Hobbs et al. 2006; USGS 2003). In the lower bay, the sediments are sandy and
come from shore erosion and inputs from the Atlantic Ocean. The introduction of Europeanstyle agriculture and large scale clearing of the watershed produced massive shifts in
sediment dynamics of the Bay watershed. As early as the mid 1700s, some navigable rivers
were filled in by sediment and sedimentation caused several colonial seaports to become
landlocked (Hartwell and Hameedi 2007).
Local processes also influence the sediment available for the shoreline. Flood and
ebb currents produced by these water bodies generate shoal deposits that affect shoreline
formations and the longshore sediment transport system. The erosion of upland areas of
the southern Eastern Shore supplies sediment for adjacent offshore bar systems and
downdrift beaches (Hardaway and Byrne 1999).
As shown in Figure 8.2, the predominant direction of longshore sediment
transport along the Delmarva Peninsula is south to southwest. Littoral transport to the
south is driven by the strong northerly winds generated by the intense storms in the late
fall to early spring. These forces dominate the sediment transport trend as they move
greater amounts of sand than languid currents throughout the rest of the year. Littoral
transport brings much sediment into the Chesapeake Bay which is transmitted in a
general westward direction. Sediment from the bay is not carried to the Atlantic Ocean
except on the rare occasion of a strong storm event.
A reversal in this general trend occurs near the Delaware/Maryland state line,
where sediment is transmitted north to Delaware Bay. The wave-energy gradient of
Delaware Bay and the northwest orientation of the coastline promote the northerly littoral
transport. Another local reversal of southwest sediment transport occurs along the
southern Delmarva Peninsula from the farthest tip at Fisherman’s Inlet to the southern
border of Assateague Island (Hobbs et al. 2006).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
121
New
Jersey
Maryland
Delaware
Bay
Delaware
Delmarva
Peninsula
Ocean
City Inlet
Assateague
Island
Chesapeake
Bay
Virginia
Fenwick
Island
Fisherman’s
Inlet
Virginia Beach
Figure 8.2 Depiction of longshore sediment transport in the Delmarva region.
iii. Coastal features
The Delaware River is the major source of freshwater into Delaware Bay. This
river has been extensively used and its watershed drains a highly populated region of the
U.S., including the city of Philadelphia. The Delaware Bay estuary provides critical
habitat for horseshoe crabs and migrating shorebirds. The area also receives much
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
122
commercial activity with vessels traveling into and through the bay up the Delaware
River (Benke and Cushing 2005).
New
Jersey
Maryland
Delaware
MD
VA
Project Type
Navigation
Virginia
Shore Protection
Ecosystem
Restoration & SP
Figure 8.3 Depiction of Corps navigation, shore protection (SP), and ecosystem restoration
projects along the coastline of Delmarva (USACE 2010b).
The Chincoteague Inlet at the south of Assateague Island is at the end of the
longshore sediment transport along the Island coast. Buildup of sediment requires that
the inlet be routinely dredged to maintain navigation. The Chincoteague Inlet has one of
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
123
longest histories of dredging activities in the U.S. with nearly 620,000 cy (473,000 m3) of
sediment removed between 1995-2006 (Hobbs et al. 2006).
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in North America and the second
largest in the world. The Susquehanna River is the major tributary of freshwater to the
Chesapeake Bay. The Potomac and James Rivers also provide freshwater input into the
bay. The bay is an extremely important and productive habitat that is also utilized for
recreation and industry, but has undergone significant deterioration since the 1970’s.
Hypoxic conditions frequently occur during the summer, resulting in massive fish and
shellfish kills. The influx of nutrients from agricultural operations and treated sewage
from the large surrounding population is the main cause of low oxygen levels.
Restoration of the bay has become a priority for local and Federal governments. In May
2009, President Obama issued an executive order calling for increased Federal action in
restoration and protection efforts to cleanup Chesapeake Bay (Pinet 2003; Executive
Order 13508 2009).
Project
Name
Project
State
Location
District
Authorized
Purpose
Roosevelt
Inlet
Delaware
Philadelphia
Navigation
Indian River
Inlet
Delaware
Philadelphia
Navigation
Mispillion
Inlet
Delaware
Philadelphia
Delaware
Philadelphia
Navigation
Ecosystem
Restoration/
Shore
Protection
Delaware
Philadelphia
Shore
Protection
Delaware Bay
Coastline, Port
Mahon
Delaware Bay
Coastline,
Roosevelt
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
Jetties and a navigation channel
at Roosevelt Inlet, among other
navigation works, have
interrupted the natural longshore
sand transport, resulting in
accelerated shoreline erosion at
Lewes Beach.
The project named "Delaware
Coast Protection, Sand Bypass
Plant, Indian River Inlet" was
constructed in 1990 in part to
mitigate the erosional effects of
the Federal navigation project at
Indian River Inlet. Section 111
applies for the Indian River Inlet.
Coordination with the Delaware
DNREC to practice and promote
local beneficial use of dredged
material has resulted in the
placement of sand to enhance
horseshoe crab spawning habitat,
and placement of sand to offset
adjacent shoreline erosion along
the shoreline of Delaware Bay.
Beachfill: project length is 1.4
miles
Beachfill and a terminal groin.
The project is 0.3 miles long.
124
Project
Name
Inlet – Lewes
Beach
Delaware
Coast, Cape
Henlopen to
Fenwick
Island:
Rehoboth
Beach-Dewey
Beach
Delaware
Coast
Protection,
Indian River
Inlet, Sand
Bypassing
Delaware
Coast, Cape
Henlopen to
Fenwick
Island:
Bethany –
South Bethany
Delaware
Coast, Cape
Henlopen to
Fenwick
Island:
Fenwick
Island
Fishing Creek
Ocean City
Harbor & Inlet
& Sinepuxent
Bay
Little
Wicomico
River
Twitch Cove
and Big
Thorofare
Rhodes Point
to Tylerton
Ocean City
(Atlantic
Coast)
Project
State
Location
District
Authorized
Purpose
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
Philadelphia
Shore
Protection
Beachfill: Project is 2.6 miles
long and northern 200 ft of
project is performing poorly
while the remainder of the
project is performing better than
expected.
Delaware
Philadelphia
Shore
Protection
Beachfill (Bypassing): Project is
0.5 miles long and performing
better than expected.
Delaware
Philadelphia
Shore
Protection
Beachfill: project is 2.8 miles
long
Delaware
Maryland
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Shore
Protection
Navigation
Maryland
Baltimore
Navigation
Maryland
Baltimore
Navigation
Maryland
Baltimore
Navigation
Maryland
Baltimore
Navigation
Delaware
Maryland
Baltimore
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
Shore
Protection
Beachfill: Project is 1.2 miles
long and performing better than
expected.
Beachfill: periodic renourishment
for coastal storm damage
reduction is performed to protect
8.9 miles of shoreline. Last
renourishment was April 2006.
125
Project
Name
Assateague
Chincoteague
Inlet
Willoughby
Channel
Project
State
Location
District
Authorized
Purpose
Maryland
Baltimore
Shore
Protection/
Ecosystem
Restoration
Virginia
Norfolk
Navigation
Virginia
Norfolk
Navigation
Little Creek
Inlet
Virginia
Norfolk
Navigation
Thimble
Shoals
Channel
Virginia
Norfolk
Navigation
Lynnhaven
Inlet
Virginia
Norfolk
Navigation
Cape Henry
Channel
Norfolk
Virginia
Virginia
Norfolk
Norfolk
Navigation
Navigation
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
Barrier island restoration:
Renourishment is performed
twice a year.
The inlet has resulted in shoreline
retreat of Wallops Island. Sand
from the Chincoteague Inlet is
currently permitted for use and
over 90,000 cy was placed on the
Wallops Island project site in
2002.
Jetties at this inlet provide
substrate for benthic habitat but
also block the transport of
material to some of the
surrounding beaches. Therefore,
some material from the inlet is
placed 1 mile east and 1 mile
west of the jetties to offset the
impact of these jetties.
Maintenance material from the
Thimble Shoals Channel has
previously been placed on East
Ocean View (part of the current
Willoughby Spit and Vicinity
Study area) as well as beaches on
the Chesapeake Bay in the City
of Virginia Beach.
Material from Lynnhaven Inlet is
placed on the beach at the Ocean
Park site in the City of Virginia
Beach every three years. A
secondary purpose of the
maintenance of the inlet is to
increase tidal flow for successful
propagation of shellfish. In
addition, a site adjacent to the
Lynnhaven Inlet, which was
previously used for disposal of
material from this inlet, has
developed into a natural area.
Provides material for shore
protection to a portion of beach
on Chesapeake Bay for the City
of Virginia Beach.
126
Project
Name
Project
State
Location
District
Authorized
Purpose
Potential Impacts on
Shore/Sediment
Harbor Atlantic Ocean
Channel
Rudee Inlet
(CAP)
Hampton, VA
Virginia
Beach, VA
Chesapeake
Bay Shoreline,
Hampton, VA
Cape Henry
(Fort Story)
Virginia
Hurricane
Protection,
VA
Sandbridge
Beach, VA
Virginia
Virginia
Norfolk
Norfolk
Navigation
Navigation
Virginia
Norfolk
Navigation
Virginia
Norfolk
Shore
Protection
Virginia
Norfolk
Shore
Protection
Virginia
Norfolk
Virginia
Norfolk
Shore
Protection
Shore
Protection/
Ecosystem
Restoration
Jetties at this inlet provide
substrate for benthic habitat and
fish.
Beachfill: Project length is 0.7
miles and renourishment has
recently been initiated.
Beachfill: project was
constructed under the military
construction program.
Beachfill: initial construction of
the beach was completed in May
2002. Project is 6 miles long and
at or below the design profile.
Beachfill: Project is 0.5 miles
long and renourishment has been
initiated.
Table 8.1 Corps projects along the shores of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia (USACE 2010b).
B. Erosion and accretion
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has developed the Erosion
Vulnerability Assessment Tool (EVA) with the Baltimore District of the Corps for the
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion Feasibility Study. This tool utilizes historical
shoreline change rates to identify areas likely to be vulnerable to future shoreline erosion
and the socioeconomic and environmental resources that may be endangered due to
erosion of the coast. The EVA synthesizes pertinent data regarding the Chesapeake Bay
shore including the erosion rate, critical conservation areas, erosion control structures,
bank heights, and sensitive species projects, among others. Through this tool, potential
areas for shoreline protection projects in both Maryland and Virginia are distinguished
(VIMS 2009a).
i. Area rates and trends
Wave action is the primary cause of shoreline erosion in this region, although
other natural factors include weather, soil composition, and topography. Anthropogenic
causes of erosion include ineffective shoreline management, groundwater use, and land
use. Studies conducted from 1850 – 1950 illustrate a loss of approximately 47,000 ac
(109 km2) of land in Virginia and Maryland due to erosion (Hardaway and Byrne 1999).
In 2000, 31% of Maryland’s coastline was undergoing erosion. Maryland is losing
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
127
approximately 260 ac (1.05 km2)/yr due to erosion. Although Virginia and Delaware
have built structures to prevent significant erosion, these areas are still experiencing
erosion rates similar to that of the Maryland coastline (State of MD Shore Erosion Task
Force 2000).
Protection structures along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline are most commonly in
the form of bulkheads, revetments, and groins. In 1990, groins covered a total of 26
miles (42 km) of shoreline while bulkheads and revetments defended 71 miles of coast
(114 km). Recently, there has been an increase in the use of breakwaters and headland
control structures (Hardaway and Byrne 1999). It is now estimated that 12% of the
shoreline is now stabilized (Herman 2010).
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware have policies that designate beach nourishment
as the priority use of the disposal of dredged material from navigation projects. The
Delaware Bethany-South Bethany Beach nourishment and storm damage reduction
project was completed in 2008. Nearly four million cy (3,058,220 m3) of sand was
dredged and pumped onto 2.8 miles (4.5 km) of shoreline to create a 150 ft (46 m) wide
beach with a dune crest of 25 ft (7.6 m).
Wallops Island on the Virginia reach of the Delmarva Peninsula has experienced
shoreline retreat of 12.2 ft (3.7 m) since 1857. The National Aeronautic and Space
Administration (NASA) has a launch pad and other facilities on the island that are being
threatened by the erosion. NASA had previously attempted to stabilize the erosion
through the construction of experimental berms, wooden groins, a rock seawall, and
geotubes but it has persisted. After performing numerous studies and research, NASA
has submitted a preliminary environmental impact statement (PEIS) with a preferred
alternative that calls for the extension of the seawall by 1,500 ft (457 m), dredging of 3
million cy (2.3 million m3) of sand to be placed on the Wallops Island shore, and
maintenance dredging to be performed every five years for the 50 years of the designed
project life which would add one million cy (0.7 million m3) of sand to the shoreline each
cycle. No sand retention structures are included in the Preferred Alternative but they are
in other alternatives in the PEIS (NASA 2010).
Ocean City is located at the south of Fenwick Island and is a popular tourist
destination for beachgoers. The Ocean City Inlet between Fenwick Island and
Assateague Island was created during a 1933 hurricane and stabilized by the installation
of jetties in 1934 and 1935. Over the years, the jetties have promoted a rapid shoreline
retreat of Assateague Island at a rate of almost one hundred times faster than the average
Maryland coastal recession rate. This example of human caused erosion is one of the
most severe in the U.S. Since 2004, the Corps has performed biannual dredge and
placement projects depositing sediment on the northern end of the Island to replicate and
nourish the littoral system. Fenwick Island is also migrating landward as global sea level
rise occurs. To prevent additional loss of beach, residents of Ocean City have installed a
fifty groin system and invested $100 million in beach renourishment, but these temporary
solutions will not be sustainable without additional work in the long-term (Pinet 2003).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
128
The city of Virginia Beach is located on the far eastern Virginia shoreline within
Chesapeake Bay. The beaches have demonstrated trends of accretion, erosion, and
stability. The eastern beach, where water from the Atlantic Ocean enters into the Bay,
has experienced net accretion since 1937. West of these beaches, the shore undergoes
erosion or is stable. The adjacent Little Creek Inlet has been frequently altered by
humans and jetties now protect both sides of the inlet. The entrance channel must often
be dredged to maintain navigation and the material is deposited on either side of the inlet
to nourish the eroding shorelines (Hardaway et al. 2005).
ii. Storm impacts
Delmarva sediments are unconsolidated and easily eroded so strong storms can
cause major damage to the coast. The fetch provided by Delaware and Chesapeake Bays
can also potentially increase and move storm surge damages farther inland. The Ash
Wednesday storm of March 1962 was a slow-moving nor’easter storm that brought
significant wind and waves to the Mid-Atlantic coast. Forty people died due to the storm
which breached Assateague Island and caused major destruction along all shorelines in
the region.
Hurricane Isabel hit the Delmarva region September 18, 2003, causing much
beach erosion and dune scarping. Areas with wider beaches were less susceptible to the
storm and provided more protection for upland dunes. The storm hit North Carolina as a
category 2 hurricane and then weakened to a tropical storm as it reached Virginia. The
storm surge from Isabel varied from 2 to 6 ft (0.6 to 1.8 m) along the Delmarva coast and
3 to 8 ft (1 to 2.4 m) within the Chesapeake Bay. As the storm surge moved through
Chesapeake Bay it grew in strength, resulting in more damage to the northern portions of
the bay. In Washington, D.C., Annapolis, and Baltimore, the high water levels sustained
surpassed previous records. The total damage costs of Hurricane Isabel were estimated to
be $3.37 billion (Beven and Cobb 2003; Hardaway et al. 2005).
iii. Climate change and sea-level rise
The low-lying sandy and marsh shorelines characteristic of the Delmarva region
are extremely vulnerable to sea-level rise and other climate change effects. After
Louisiana and Florida, Delaware and Maryland are the third and fourth states most
susceptible to sea-level rise (MD DNR 2008). The sheltered shorelines of the Delaware
and Chesapeake Bays are likely to be inundated with rising seas and result in substantial
land loss throughout the region.
Within the Chesapeake Bay, sea surface height has increased between 0.11 – 0.18
in (2.7 – 4.5 mm)/yr in the latter half of the past century. This rate exceeded the global
average which is likely due to local land subsidence. Water levels in the Chesapeake Bay
may rise by upwards of 15-40 in (38-102 cm) over the next century and similar increases
may be observed in Delaware Bay. With heightened seas, the low-lying shores of
Delaware and Chesapeake Bays will be inundated resulting in the loss of extensive
wetland areas. It is estimated that 420,000 ac (1700 km2) of land in the Chesapeake Bay
region are below the 2.3 ft (0.7 m) contour, about half of which are wetlands that will
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
129
likely be inundated with sea-level rise. Between 1984 and 1993, the area of degraded
marshes in the Delaware Bay increased by 29%. With a 2.3 ft (0.7 m) rise in sea level
43% of the bay’s marshes are predicted to be lost and a 3.3 ft (1 m) increase would result
in a possible 77% loss (Glick et al. 2008).
Since 1990, substantial change has occurred and shoreline stabilization is likely to
continue into the foreseeable future. Regulations governing shoreline development have
evolved to minimize environmental impacts of future stabilization works. A prime
example is the Maryland Living Shorelines Act of 2008, which requires the use of living
shorelines for shoreline protection except in specific locations and situations. In the past,
shoreline erosion has often been viewed as environmentally harmful. Naturally eroding
shorelines are now recognized to be important habitat for fish and wildlife and a natural
environmental process that simultaneously creates, maintains, and destroys shoreline
habitats. However, actions to minimize the effects of shoreline erosion may be
appropriate when natural shoreline erosion processes are altered by human activities,
important habitat is threatened by shoreline erosion, or property valued by people may be
impacted. A basic challenge confronting shoreline management is how to balance
maintaining natural shoreline habitats fundamental to the character and health of the
Chesapeake Bay with the legal right of shoreline property owners to protect
their properties from erosion (USACE 2010a).
Numerous estuarine islands in the Chesapeake Bay and along the Mid-Atlantic
shore have been lost or the acreage drastically diminished due to sea-level rise,
threatening the shorebird species that utilize the islands for nesting. Other habitats may
also be lost through shoreline erosion and water turbidity degrading sunlight for SAV.
Assateague Island is a 37-mile (60 km) long barrier island located off the eastern
coast of Maryland and Virginia. It is best known for its herds of wild horses, pristine
beaches, and the Assateague Lighthouse. The island also contains numerous marshes,
bays and coves, including Toms Cove. There are three agencies on the island,
Assateague Island National Seashore and Assateague State Park in Maryland, and the
Chincoteague NWR in Virginia. The refuge was established in 1943 to provide habitat
for migratory birds, primarily snow geese. Assateague Island National Seashore was
established in 1965 to preserve the barrier island, surrounding waters, and provide
recreational opportunities. The United Nations has designated Assateague as a World
Biosphere Reserve. The U.S. Department of the Interior has designated it a National
Natural Landmark. It is possible that Assateague Island is approaching a geomorphic
threshold in which it will be irreversibly degraded. North Assateague will be
increasingly susceptible to breaching, overwash, and segmentation with sea-level rise,
resulting in landward migration of the barrier and potential formation of a new inlet
through the island (USCCSP 2009).
The Blackwater NWR marshes in Maryland and the Guinea Marshes in Virginia
are already subject to submergence and have experienced loss due to this sea-level rise.
Between 1938 and 1979, the NWR lost approximately 5,680 ac (23 km2) and as the sealevel continues to increase, the marsh will only have greater rates of loss in the future
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
130
(USCCSP 2009). Hampton Roads, Virginia, on the southern shore of the entrance to
Chesapeake Bay is extremely vulnerable to sea-level rise. The coastal city has the
highest predicted sea-level rise by NOAA, 0.17 in (4.2 mm)/yr, for a major metropolitan
area on the east coast.
C. Environmental effects of erosion and accretion
The Chesapeake Bay includes an array of habitats which include tidal wetlands,
riparian forests, aquatic reefs, seagrass beds, shallow waters, and open waters. Around
41% of the tidal marshes along the U.S.’s Atlantic coast are within Chesapeake Bay
(Wilson et al. 2007). Nearshore vegetation of salt-marsh islands within the bay is
dominated by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora).
Ecosystems within Chesapeake Bay and surrounding coastlines have been
severely altered or lost due to human actions. Over half of the bay’s tidal marshes exhibit
signs of degradation. Approximately 85% of the Chesapeake Bay shoreline is owned by
private landowners which has led to an increase in the installation of hardened shoreline
protection structures even in low energy environments where natural methods can be
utilized and perform effectively. More than 450 miles (730 km) of shoreline in both
Maryland and Virginia have been permitted for hardening structures since 1993,
impacting wetlands along the coast. An estimated 260 ac of tidal shoreline are lost each
year in Maryland. Accretion is rare in the Chesapeake Bay but can occur near eroding
shorelines (State of MD Shore Erosion Task Force 2000).
Degradation of wetlands through erosion of the coastline and the installment of
shoreline protection structures has made them more susceptible to invasive species.
Invasive plant species in the Delmarva region include the Japanese stilt grass, common
reed, border privet, and Japanese honeysuckle (Reay et al. 2008). Water clarity and
sediment pollution are also major problems in Chesapeake Bay caused by erosion of the
shoreline. An estimated 57% of the total sediment load in the bay is from tidal erosion,
the combination of nearshore erosion, occurring in the shallow water near the shoreline,
and fastland erosion, occurring at the shoreline. Although tidal erosion is a natural
process, it is further exacerbated by the removal of natural vegetation along the shoreline
and other human alterations to the coastline. Loss of SAV and oyster bars result from
excess sediment and the reduction of available light to support these habitats. SAV
supports a variety of fish and wildlife species and the reduction of this habitat has
resulted in a population decrease of these species.
Erosion and subsequent accretion of the eroded sediments can be beneficial to the
environment and aid in the creation of offshore sand bars and beaches if sand is present in
the eroding banks. Beaches in Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay provide essential
habitat for nesting shorebirds, the diamondback terrapin, and the horseshoe crab.
Endangered species like the tiger beetle utilize beaches and exposed bluffs created by
erosion processes. Eroded sediment can be trapped by wetlands and allow them to
accrete vertically which can help these habitats keep pace with potential sea-level rise
(Tidal Sediment Task Force of the Sediment Workgroup 2005).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
131
Erosion and accretion can have both positive and negative effects on vulnerable
species. Some of the species in the Delmarva area covered by the ESA are included in
Table 8.2 below. The red knot population has declined from over 90,000 birds to 15,000
– 20,000 individuals since the 1980s. The red knot is presently a candidate for Federal
protection under the ESA.
Species (common name)
Canby’s dropwort
Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel
Dwarf wedgemussel
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Maryland darter
Northeastern beach tiger beetle
Northeastern bulrush
Piping plover
Roseate tern
Seabeach amaranth
Sensitive joint-vetch
Shortnose sturgeon
Small whorled pogonia
Species
Group
Plant
Mammal
Mussel
Reptile
Reptile
Fish
Insect
Plant
Bird
Bird
Plant
Plant
Fish
Plant
Federal
Listing Status
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Table 8.2 A selection of Federally-listed endangered or threatened species
in the Delmarva bay and coastal region. Data obtained from USFWS.
There are 10 NWRs in the Delmarva region that aid in the survival of species
vulnerable to erosion. The Bombay Hook NWR and Prime Hook NWR are in Delaware;
the Martin NWR and Blackwater NWR are in Maryland; and the Chincoteague NWR,
Wallops Island NWR, Eastern Shore Virginia NWR, Fisherman Island NWR, Back Bay
NWR, and Plum Tree Island NWR are in Virginia. The Bethel Beach Natural Area
Preserve along the western border of the Chesapeake Bay (in Virginia) protects 150 ac
(0.6 km2) that include a sandy beach, dunes, and wetlands and are utilized by the least
tern and northeastern beach tiger beetle, among other species. The Savage Neck Dunes
Natural Area Preserve encompasses a mile-long shoreline along Virginia’s Eastern Shore
of Chesapeake Bay and contains a system of sand dunes up to 50 ft (15.2 meters) above
the bay.
Three NERRS are located within the Delmarva region. The Delaware NEERS
includes salt marshes along the St. Jones River and in Delaware Bay. Typically, the
habitat of the area between the mean tide level (MTL) and mean low water (MLW) mark
is tidal mudflats while above the MTL, emergent marsh grasses are found. Saltmarsh
cordgrass (S. alterniflora) dominates low marsh saline areas which are completely
inundated by high tides once a day. Above the mean high water mark (MHW), the high
marsh contains a greater diversity of emergent vegetation. Within the Delaware Bay,
shoreline erosion has become a major problem, as have some of the methods used to
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
132
prevent erosion. Many of the hardened structures built have eliminated or altered critical
habitats. More recently, natural control methods have been utilized to abate erosion,
particularly construction of gentle slopes planted with saltmarsh cordgrass. This
approach stabilizes the system and also creates more habitat for fish and wildlife species
(DE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 1999). Between 1992
and 2001, Delaware’s tidal marshes in the bay have decreased by 12% and the area of
degraded marshes almost doubled (Partnership for the Delaware Estuary 2008).
This region is very important to shorebirds as Delaware Bay is the largest staging
site in the eastern U.S. for those birds migrating along the Atlantic Flyway. Over 100
species of nesting and migratory birds utilize the region throughout the year and more
than one million migratory shorebirds come to the bay to feed on horseshoe crab eggs in
the spring. These eggs are vital to the survival of some species which stop once during
their flight from winter feeding grounds in South America to breeding sites in the Arctic.
Twenty-five miles (40 km) of the lower Delaware Bay shore is designated as a WHSRN
site of regional importance.
The Delaware Inland Bays NEP contains 9,825 ac of salt or tidal wetlands within
its watershed. Development in the area due to a large human population has greatly
impacted the wetlands resulting in sudden wetland dieback (SWD). SWD occurs when
there is a fast partial or total death of the wetland vegetation or a failure of the vegetation
to grow during one or multiple growing seasons. As of 1992, the Inland Bays region had
lost approximately 12% of historic wetland acreage due to sea-level rise, development,
impoundments, dredging, and storm impacts. Of the wetlands studied in a 2009
assessment, 28% were found to be severely stressed, 56% moderately stressed, and 16%
minimally or not stressed. Factors straining the wetlands include tidal restrictions and
wetland diking, human disturbance, invasive species, and wetland ditching and draining.
Upland barriers such as roads, buildings, and bulkheads prevent 30% of the wetlands
from migrating upland if they are affected by erosion or sea-level rise (Rogerson et al.
2009).
The Chesapeake Bay region supports colonial-nesting breeding seabirds and 10 of
13 of these identified seabird species have significantly declined since 1993. Potential
issues causing this major decrease include habitat loss and change from erosion due to
sea-level rise and an increase in human activity, a decrease in prey populations, and
competition for colony sites (Brinker et al. 2007).
The Maryland Coastal Bays Program is a NEP that supports the five bays on the
state’s Atlantic shoreline, behind Ocean City and Assateague Island. Hard shoreline
stabilization and erosion has resulted in the loss of natural habitats of islands, tidal
wetlands, and bay beaches. Since the 1930’s, over 1,500 ac of tidal wetlands have been
lost throughout the coastal bays. The NEP has supported a Living Shoreline program
throughout the Maryland coastal bays which has enabled the creation of tidal marsh and
instituted natural shoreline protection methods to abate further erosion of the shoreline
(Maryland Coastal Bays Program 2005).
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
133
Due to the transient nature of the Delmarva shorelines and navigation needs, the
region contains many structures that have altered the habitat composition and/or natural
sediment transport. As previously indicated, jetties along the Ocean City inlet have
disrupted sediment transport resulting in the accelerated erosion of Assateague Island.
This erosion has made the island vulnerable to breaching and has threatened the habitat
diversity and rare species found on the island, particularly the piping plover and seabeach
amaranth. To abate the erosion of Assateague dredged material has been placed on the
island and mobile bypassing of sand that would have naturally reached the island without
the jetty disruption has been performed. Placement of material and berm elevations were
designed to minimize adverse impacts to species on the beach.
The Atlantic Coast of Maryland Shoreline Protection project consisted of
widening and raising an 8.2 mile (13.2 km) stretch of beach from Ocean City, MD to the
Maryland-Delaware state line and the construction of a sand dune along 6.7 miles (10.8
km) of this beach. The project was completed in 1991 and long-term monitoring and
renourishment will occur every four years. Immediately following the dedication of the
project, multiple storms hit the coast. The shoreline protection project prevented damage
of structures behind the dunes, but the dunes themselves became significantly eroded and
had to be repaired and the vegetation replanted. This cycle of erosion and rebuilding has
frequently occurred since the region has been affected by many storms over the past few
years.
In 2001, the Corp signed a Record of Decision approving a project to mitigate
sand starvation and the resultant severe erosion and retreat of the Assateague Island
shoreline caused by the existing Ocean City Harbor and Inlet and Sinepuxent Bay, MD,
navigation project, by restoring the island’s geological integrity. The recommended
elements included a one-time beach renourishment of 1.8 million cy (1.4 million m3) and
implementation of a long-term sand management program for Assateague Island and the
Ocean City Inlet, which was completed in December 2002. The jetties and inlet will
continue to disrupt the longshore transport, so a long-term plan must also be
implemented. The plan will allow for the mobile by-passing of sand that would naturally
have reached the island had the jetties never been built. Mobile bypassing will involve
using a small mobile hopper dredge to remove sandy that has been redirected to a number
of sites and then bypassing it to Assateague Island. The dredging will take place during
the spring and fall of each year. Potential sand sources include the ebb shoal, flood shoal,
navigation channels and the Ocean City up-drift area. The NPS is the cost-share partner.
Within the Chesapeake Bay, greatly developed and densely populated areas occur
along the northern and western shores while agriculture and sparse development is found
along the eastern shore. Shoreline protection structures and beach nourishment have
been utilized to prevent erosion of bay beaches. A stone revetment in Oxford, Maryland
fronts the shore. Near Willoughby Spit in Virginia, a protective beach berm will be built
and will provide additional habitat. The west coast of Tangier Island in the bay has been
fortified by a stone riprap seawall.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
134
Many projects have also been instituted along the Delaware coastline. Beach fill
has been placed on a total of 6.6 miles along Rehobeth Beach, Dewey Beach, Bethany
Beach, South Bethany Beach, and Fenwick Island. Bypassing of sand is occurring along
the Indian River Inlet to prevent erosion downdrift from the inlet. Within Delaware Bay,
beach fill and groins have been utilized to slow erosion and restore ecosystems.
Projects are also being performed to restore crucial ecosystems using dredged
material and other resources in the region. Delaware’s Mispillion Harbor is a key area
for horseshoe crab spawning and shorebird feeding. It was discovered in 2008 that the
beach adjacent to the mouth of the Mispillion River was eroding, putting this critical
ecosystem in jeopardy. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC) worked with the Corps to repair a breach in the
breakwater that was causing the erosion of the beach and restored the habitat by placing
dredged material on the beach.
The Paul S. Sarbanes Ecosystem Restoration Project at Poplar Island, Maryland,
in the Chesapeake Bay is a large scale island restoration project utilizing dredged
material beneficially. Poplar Island has become a critical link in a string of remote
islands in the middle of Chesapeake Bay and is vital as a resting and nesting site on the
North Atlantic migratory bird flyway. When completed, the Poplar Island project will
have over 700 ac (2.83 km2) of wetlands and 840 ac (3.40 km2) of upland habitat.
Approximately 100 ac (0.40 km2) of wetlands have been created thus far. Approximately
8 miles (12.9 km) of dikes will be utilized to contain the dredged materials and protect
the island from the severe wave activity common in this region of the bay.
D. State and local shoreline management practices
Delaware
The Beach Preservation Act of 1972 created a comprehensive beach and dune
management program to be regulated by the DNREC. Construction of groins and the use
of beach nourishment were the shore protection methods frequently utilized during this
time. Hard approaches to coastline protection have not been encouraged by Delaware
since the late 1970’s, and currently soft approaches are the favored method of shore
protection. Beach nourishment is often used to maintain the Delaware shoreline. Since
1990, more than 7.5 million cy of sediment has been deposited on Delaware shores in
more than 30 discrete Federal and non-Federal projects (Western Carolina University
2010). The current shoreline management approach used by DNREC integrates beach
nourishment, thoughtful use of hard structures, and regulation of construction in the
coastal zone. This includes significant regulation of heavy industry within the coastal
zone. Beach nourishment is recommended if the benefits from the replenishment exceed
the cost of the project itself (Carey et al. 2004).
The Delaware Coastal Programs Section is responsible for three significant
programs within the state. The CELCP is a state designed and partially Federally-funded
program through which the state is able to buy sensitive coastal and estuarine land for the
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
135
purpose of preservation and conservation. The U.S. Congress authorized matching funds
through competitive grant awards and between 2004 and 2008 had awarded for more than
$7 million for the purchase of property (Delaware Coastal Program 2010). The program
is run in conjunction with NOAA, which issues national guidelines for the purpose of
determining the bids that are to receive grants, as directed by the CZMA of 1972. One of
the specific aims of the CELCP, as noted in the Draft CELCP Plan in 2007, is to help
guard sensitive coastal resources from increasing population densities and urbanization
along the Delaware coast. This is possible through conservation easements, the outright
purchase of property rights, or other myriad techniques. Land acquisition for the purpose
of conservation is the preferred method of the State Coastal Program (CELCP Final Draft
Plan 2007).
Also administered by the Delaware Coastal Programs Section is the Delaware
Coastal Management Program (DCMP). The DCMP oversees the Federal Consistency
program, assists localities with planning and technical assistance, provides special area
management planning, and manages coastal research and education at the state level.
Among the local assistance programs is the Natural Resource Management Assistance
Grant, offered by the DCMP to local governments primarily to facilitate increased coastal
resiliency through sea level rise adaptation and coastal hazard mitigation. Thirdly, the
Coastal Programs Section administers the Delaware National Estuarine Research
Reserve, a component of the NERRS. Comprised of the Blackbird Creek Reserve and the
St. Jones Reserve, the Delaware NERRS includes brackish and freshwater environments
and includes a diverse range of ecosystems found throughout the Mid-Atlantic (Delaware
Coastal Program 2010). Research at the DNERRS includes benthic mapping, wave and
sediment monitoring, and sea level rise inundation mapping.
The state engages in direct stakeholder action in protecting shore assets while
promoting a policy of soft shore protection methods. Every spring, Delaware organizes
volunteers for a marsh grass planting event to help stabilize the dunes along the state’s
beaches. Beach grass is seen by the government as an important protection measure to
maintain the dunes along the shore. In 2008, about 95,000 grass stems were planted along
dunes from Lewes to Fenwick Island (DE Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control 2008). Sand fences are encouraged to prevent the public from
walking on the sand dunes. Crossovers have been built to minimize the vehicle and
public traffic on dunes. Additionally, the State encourages citizens to be active stewards
of their beaches and dunes by promoting private construction of dune fences as a means
of minimizing erosion, as well as several other dune protecting measures.
Maryland
The Maryland Coastal Program (MD MCP) was established by Executive Order
in 1978 as a way to connect the various state laws and policies governing the coastal
zone. The MD MCP operates under the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’
Bays and Streams Program. Maryland’s tidal shoreline experiences relative sea-level rise
of more than twice the national average, highlighting the need for protection of coastal
and estuarine areas of the State. This includes more than 200 miles of shoreline that is
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
136
eroding at a rate of at least 4 ft/yr (Maryland Coastal Program 2010). The Maryland
Coastal Program encompasses a variety of state agencies and the Chesapeake Bay
Program. The vast majority of the more than 4300 miles of Maryland shoreline is situated
on the Chesapeake Bay.
The Shoreline Conservation and Management (SCM) Service is part of the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources and manages the Shore Erosion Control
program to handle shoreline erosion problems. The SCM Service aids property owners
with coastal erosion issues, using both structural and non-structural methods to prevent
additional loss of the shore. Soft approaches include marsh plantings and the
development of a living shoreline which includes planting and the use of other organic
materials to protect and enhance the natural coastline. Beach nourishment in Maryland
has totaled approximately 12 million cy since 1988, with more than three fourths of that
being deposited on the roughly nine mile oceanfront of Ocean City and the remainder to
the south on Assateague Island (Western Carolina University 2010).
The Maryland Coastal Program created the Maryland Shorelines Online website,
shoreline inventory, and interactive mapping tool to provide valuable information
regarding coastal hazards and shoreline change which is utilized by coastal managers,
planners, contractors, property owners, and educators to better understand the state
shoreline processes, resources, and hazards. Within the mapping features is a full
inventory of the Maryland coast that catalogues sediment patterns as well as the current
status of the shoreline, such as armored, natural, etc. Maryland also recently created the
Coast-Smart Communities Initiative to provide financial and technical assistance to the
state’s coastal communities in order to deal with the effects of climate change.
Maryland is home to the Chesapeake Bay NERRS-Maryland (CBNERRS),
consisting of three component areas which are on the lower Eastern Shore, the middle
Western Shore, and the northern edge of the bay. The component areas are Monie Bay,
Jug Bay and, Otter Point Creek, respectively. Major areas of focus in the CBNERSR-MD
are the research of SAV, habitat mapping, and invasive species. The CBNERRS is also
engaged in extensive education efforts, maintaining resources for parents, teachers and
students, as well as coastal training program for municipal governments and nongovernmental organizations alike.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is an intergovernmental and public/private
partnership committed to restoring and maintaining bay ecosystem function and aquatic
productivity. It was established in 1983 by the signing of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
by Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the EPA, and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission. In addition, there are numerous state and Federal agencies,
academic organizations, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations
that are partners to the Bay Program. The signatory bodies commit to use all available
resources to promote the goals of the program, and may be either voluntary or mandatory
depending on the issue and the origin of the particular mandate. The agreement was
subsequently updated in 1987 1992, 1994, and 2000 to call for specific goals and studies
that would begin to move the bay ecosystems back towards historical function. In 1987,
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
137
the CWA was also amended to include the authorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program
office, coordinated by the EPA. Despite the coordination levels and various agreements,
the Chesapeake Bay has not experienced substantial improvement in the time since the
Bay Program was created and has continued to show increased signs of environmental
degradation (Blazer 1998; Boesch 1999; Powledge 2005).
Virginia
NOAA approved the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program (VA CZMP) in
1986. Many state agencies are included in the VA CZMP, with the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality taking the program lead. The Coastal Primary Sand Dune and
Beaches Act provides guidelines regarding the protection of dunes and beaches by
preventing alteration or destruction of primary dunes. Along the Atlantic coastline north
of the Chesapeake Bay, there have been no beach nourishment projects of a Federal or
non-Federal nature. The VA CZMP, in similar fashion to Delaware, administers a
CELCP through NOAA that allows the state to purchase sensitive coastal areas for
continued conservation.
Shortly after the approval of the VA CZM Program, the Commonwealth enacted
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act in 1988. The act was designed to show that
"healthy state and local economies and a healthy Chesapeake Bay are integrally related;
balanced economic development and water quality protection are not mutually exclusive"
(VA CBPA 1988). The Virginia Bay Act requires each local jurisdiction along the tidal
shoreline to administer a program that conforms to the basic framework of the state
legislation. Localities are given leeway to adopt the policies that best fit the particular
local circumstances that must, broadly speaking, protect Bay water quality. Additionally,
Virginia has eight Coastal Planning District Commissions (PDC) which are often the
bodies that directly implement policies such as the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The
PDCs report to the state CZM office and meet together frequently to collaborate on
planning for coastal issues.
Development along the Virginia coast is frequently protected by hardened
structures. The low energy Chesapeake Bay shores are commonly protected by
bulkheads, groins, and revetments even though a soft approach could be utilized with
similar results (Hardaway and Byrne 1999). The Virginia government also stresses the
importance of living shorelines to stabilize the shoreline. They administer several active
living shoreline projects, as well as the Living Shoreline Stewardship Initiative and
associated grants program. Maintaining the water quality and habitat benefits of the
natural shore by employing enhancement or restoration of natural vegetated or nonvegetated habitats is achieved through this approach. The EVA tool mentioned
previously covers the entire Chesapeake Bay region and can also inform decisions along
the Virginia/Chesapeake Bay coast (VIMS 2009a).
Virginia is home to several additional portions of the CBNERRS. The
CBNERRS-VA, administered through the VIMS, conducts monitoring, research, and
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
138
comprehensive education efforts throughout the region at four different reserve sites
along the York River estuary.
The Virginia CZM has also created the Coastal GEMS database. GEMS houses a
comprehensive collection of resources that can be utilized by academia, government, non
profits, or private citizens that would like to learn more about issues related to Virginia’s
coasts. The collection includes sections on shoreline features, water features, reference
layers, wildlife features, and coastal recreation features that can all be mapped, as well as
additional non map sections. The non map sections house Virginia coastal laws and
policies, fact sheets, and other collaborative tools for comprehensive coastal
management.
E. Project-specific examples of economic and cultural effects of erosion and
accretion
NOTE: while two of the three examples below are just outside the study area
(being located south of the Chesapeake Bay), they are included as examples of the socioeconomic impacts of erosion and accretion)
State: Virginia
Community: Kiptopeke State Park, Cape Charles
Background: In 1999, Kiptopeke State Park
completed a Terminal Area Improvement Project that
included the construction of a double boat ramp, a
boat basin, and a 350-ft-long jetty. Within a year of
construction, a significant amount of sand had
accreted along the jetty and adjoining northern beach.
The adjacent boat ramp and boat basin experienced
significant sand accretion as well.
Kiptopeke State Park, Virginia. The park faces A February 2000 survey measured an
approximate deposit of 80 cy of material between the onto the Chesapeake Bay. Source: Google Maps.
boat boardwalk decking and jetty, and another 60 cy
of material along the northern section of the boat ramp that disallowed boat launching.
Annual surveys from 2001 to 2009 showed the pattern to be repeating, with the boat ramp
basin filling in at an overall rate of 0.5 ft per year. The boat ramp area has been dredged
between one and two times a year from 2000 to 2009. The material from the dredge is redeposited as fill for two adjacent beach nourishment projects.
Costs: $13,500.00
Socio-Cultural Issues: If accretion were allowed to continue unabated, the rate of
material buildup would quickly render the boat ramps and boat basin unusable. Daily
removal of material from the boat ramp by park staff is required to allow for continued
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
139
public use of the resource. Of the nearly $750,000 in park revenues from 2009, boat users
(often fishermen) proved to be a significant source of income. With their park entrance
fees, boat launch fees, and park campground fees, Kiptopeke cannot afford to lose their
patronage due to an unusable boat ramp.
Swimmers have also complained about the impact of accretion. The beach
immediately to the north of the jetty is Kiptopeke’s designated swimming-only area.
Buoys demarcate the zone, and swimmers are not allowed in above their knees in any
other section of the park. With continuous accretion building up against the jetty,
swimmers are unable to reach suitable water depths.
Kiptopeke State Park has also been a designated northeastern beach tiger beetle
habitat. Four straight survey years, however, have returned population counts of zero.
One factor in their disappearance is thought to be the type and volume of material
recently accreting on the beaches: the larger particle size and greater volume may have
altered the habitat.
State: Virginia
Community: City of Virginia
Beach
Background: With tourism as its
staple industry, the city of Virginia
Beach has made a dedicated effort
to keep its beaches perennially
nourished. To ensure that tourists
come back and shoreline buildings
and infrastructure are protected,
dredging and beach fill activities
are part of the city’s annual budget.
Virginia Beach owns and operates
its own dredger, annually moving
250,000 y of material from Rudee Regional map of Virginia Beach. Source: www.World‐Guides.com.
Inlet to serve as fill on Resort Beach.
Virginia Beach hosts the oldest continuous fill program on the East Coast, with beach
nourishment operations beginning in 1949. The city regularly undertakes small-scale
nourishment projects to combat consistent coastal erosion threatening the majority of its
beaches. In addition, Virginia Beach has also taken on several larger-scale projects in
conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. According to the Virginia Beach
2002 Beach Management Plan, historical observations have led the city to conclude that
in general, it is more cost-effective to conduct annual small-scale nourishment projects
than larger, less frequent projects.
Costs: Virginia Beach contributes a significant amount of its annual budget to address
coastal erosion issues. For the Corps’ “Operation Big Beach”, which began in 1996 and
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
140
involves widening the resort beach, building a seawall, and installing two pumping
stations, the Federal government pays 65% of the ultimate $125 million cost, and the city
contributes the rest. Notably, a 1998 beach nourishment project at Sandbridge Beach,
costing $8 million, was funded through a Special Service Tax District property tax made
specifically for the beach fill project.
Socio-Cultural Issues: Virginia Beach’s acknowledged economic reliance on its
coastline for tourism has caused it to be proactive in the face of persistent coastal erosion.
The property tax levied on Sandbridge Beach area residents to pay for a beach
nourishment project demonstrates a localized funding approach for projects with
localized benefits.
IX.
Conclusions
Population in the North Atlantic region is most dense around the cities of Boston,
New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C/Baltimore. These areas have a large
concentration of shore protection projects and harbors and waterways that require
periodic maintenance, as well as valuable ecological resources that are the focus of
protection and restoration.
These metropolises will continue to grow closer together as development occurs
in the areas in between them. While many people prefer to live on the coast, there is an
opportunity to foster more sustainable practices in these intervening, low-density areas so
as not to increase storm hazard risks and associated costs. This pro-active approach
would require considerable collaboration among state and local governments, Federal
agencies, and the private sector.
Other areas of importance in need of protection from shoreline changes are in the
highly developed beach areas of Delaware, Maryland, Long Island and New Jersey, due
to the economic importance of tourism and large population densities. Many of these
areas already have shore protection projects in place, and are likely to undertake future
beach maintenance activities. Large investments have been made in these beaches and as
shorelines change, the need to maintain these projects is likely to be a regional priority.
The area most at risk from impacts of sea level rise is the Delmarva Peninsula,
due to its low-lying topography. This area is relatively sparsely populated compared to
the major cities and may be less competitive in obtaining major Federal infrastructure
support for coastal storm damage reduction. Additionally, low-lying/high population
areas are scattered along the entire coast of the North Atlantic region and may be
vulnerable to sea level rise. There is a need for development of a common, scientific
basis for adaptation to sea level rise. This framework would ideally: 1) increase the
availability of high resolution elevation data in coastal areas; 2) provide regionally
specific projections of relative sea-level changes; and 3) provide tools for assessing storm
surge risks in consort with changing sea levels and storm frequencies and intensities.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
141
There are important natural resources of concern, such as fisheries, habitat for
listed species, and marine sanctuaries and other marine protected areas across the region.
In general, small projects that involve hardened shorelines (bulkheads, revetments) occur
on sheltered shores and in small projects. These are felt to be less compatible with the
protection of natural resources than the use of soft measures (beach and dune
renourishment) which generally tend to be larger and important to local tourism and
recreation.
The response of many government agencies to coastal erosion is the attempt to
move from site-specific reactive management to more integrative, comprehensive shore
management. The confluence of coastal storm events and heightened awareness of the
effects of climate change has precipitated a new discourse about preparing for and
responding to shoreline change. Social issues, as well, are slowly gaining recognition as
an important aspect of this new, more comprehensive approach to shoreline management.
The economic and environmental information on the effects of shoreline erosion
and accretion that are available from local, state and Federal agencies and academia are
spotty and not collected in a consistent manner. This makes summarizing the data and
drawing regional conclusions difficult. Development of a framework for collecting these
data, using consistent study methodologies and levels of detail, and use of a shared
database would help to understand the long term impacts of shoreline erosion and
accretion. This, in turn, would result in a better understanding of North Atlantic coastline
vulnerabilities and allow for development of a regional response to climate change and
sea-level rise.
State and local agencies and other regional stakeholders are urging the use of
ecosystem approaches that integrate multiple objectives across multiple projects in
attempts to achieve the range of interrelated regional priorities. With the growing
recognition of sediment as a valuable resource, there is considerable interest in applying
the Regional Sediment Management (RSM) approach at various levels in the North
Atlantic region. Stakeholders urge the increased use of suitable dredged material as a
resource to help address a range of regional objectives through renourishing of beaches,
restoring of natural habitat, and other applications.
In the New England sub-region, constraints identified for carrying out these
efforts included the lack of Federal funds to maintain the navigation projects and thus
make the sediment resources available, as well as the legislated requirement for a nonFederal cost share of the increment over the base-plan for the beneficial use project.
Information on RSM applications and case studies from other regions, particularly for
smaller scale settings, are of interest.
While numerous beneficial use opportunities have been identified, it is unclear to
what degree the understanding of the sediment systems have been integrated in the
identification of these projects, and whether there has been collaborative prioritization
regional sediment resources uses. Identification of ways to fund the development of
regional strategies appears to be a constraint to pursuing collaborative identification of
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
142
interrelated sediment issues, needs and opportunities, along with prioritizing
implementation actions.
Sediment resource issues discussed in the Mid-Atlantic region spanned open and
sheltered coasts, including those associated with managing navigation channels, beaches
and wetlands. Numerous opportunistic beneficial use projects have been undertaken.
Stakeholders identified a somewhat broader set of public and private players in sediment
management, including private land owners whose localized actions may affect the
sediment system regionally. Strategic initiatives to apply system approaches to sediment
management are underway through the New York- New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program,
and the Delaware Bay RSM plan, and for coastal Long Island.
The Corps North Atlantic Division (NAD) is the first in the country to develop a
comprehensive report on the status of Corps navigation, shoreline protection and
ecosystem restoration projects. This process becomes the baseline for an integrated
understanding of coastal projects in this region and how they relate to each other. The
next step would be to include non-Corps projects and studies and develop a strategy for
the long-term management of the North Atlantic shoreline with interested stakeholders.
Regional sediment management opportunities identified by NAD in the 2009 report
include:
• Pairing of projects in Westhampton, NewYork and the West of Shinnecock Inlet
New York to save on mobilization/demobilization costs;
• Maintenance of the Jones Inlet navigation project could be put on a 5-year cycle
to coincide with the needs of the Atlantic Coast of Long Island storm damage
reduction project:
• Material from Fire Island Inlet could continue to be placed on adjacent beaches
• The South Shore of Staten Island project has great connectivity with the National
Park Service’s gateway National Recreation Area and material from the project is
expected to reduce erosion problems in this area;
• Nearshore placement of dredged material at Shark River Inlet (New Jersey)
should be continued for future operations to reduce renourishment needs in the
Ashbury to Avon reach of the Sea Bright to Manasquan Project;
• Raritan Bay (NJ) beach nourishment projects can utilize sand from the borrow
area designated for the Sea Bright to Manasquan project off of sandy Hook,
reducing costs for developing new borrow areas within Raritan Bay;
• The potential exists to combine renourishment cycles for two NJ projects – Cape
May Inlet to Lower Township and Lower Cape May Meadows and save
approximately $1 million on mobilization/demobilization costs;
• Some renourishemnt cycles for the Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island (Delaware)
project could be combined witht hose ofor the adjacent Ocean City, Maryland
shore protection project; and
• Beach quality sand removed from the Atlantic Ocean Channel will continue to be
placed on the Virginia Beach Hurricane Project Project.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
143
State and local programs dealing with shoreline change issues vary across the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic areas. The coordination of comprehensive plans for
implementing programs such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act,
the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, flood risk management, state
environmental protection programs and local planning and zoning can contributed to the
development of regionally integrated objectives and priorities, and potentially enable
focusing of Federal funds in the region to these priorities.
Coastal protection strategies are shifting from “hard” solutions to “living shorelines.”
However, there are differences between ocean facing and sheltered coastlines, and there
are regulatory and engineering barriers to widespread adoption of new shoreline
stabilization practices. Many states have severely restricted or prohibited new coastal
armoring on ocean-facing shorelines as awareness has increased about the environmental
impacts of shoreline hardening, as well as other effects that manifest through changes in
the regional sediment regimes. However, some coastal managers report that the fear of
sea-level rise may increase demand for armoring especially along sheltered coastlines
VI.
Recommendations
TBD
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
144
Acronyms
A
AC
ACEC
Acres
Area of Critical Environmental Concern
B
BMP
Biological Monitoring Program
C
CAP
CEIS
CELCP
CMP
CRMC
CRMP
CSC
CVI
CWA
CY
CZM
CZMA
Continuing Authority Program
Coastal Erosion Information System
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
Coastal Management Plan
Coastal Resources Management Council
Coastal Resources Management Program
Coastal Services Center
Coastal Vulnerability Index
Clean Water Act
Cubic yards
Coastal Zone Management
Coastal Zone Management Act
D
Delmarva
DEP
Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia peninsula
Department of Environmental Protection
E
EBM
EPA
ESA
EVA
ecosystem-based management
Environmental Protection Agency
Endangered Species Act
Erosion Vulnerability Assessment Tool
F
FEMA
FY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fiscal year
G
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
I
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
L
LiDAR
LIS
Light Detection and Ranging
Long Island Sound
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
145
M
MARCO
MCP
MGS
MHT
MHW
MLLW
Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean
Maine Coastal Program
Maine Geological Survey
mean high tide
mean high water
mean lower low water
N
NASA
NEP
NERRS
NH DES
NMFS
NMS
NOAA
NOS
NPS
NRA
NRA
NROC
NSMS
NWR
NWS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Estuary Program
National Estuarine Research Reserve System
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Marine Sanctuary
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
National Park Service
National Recreation Area
National Recreation Area
Northeast Regional Ocean Council
National Shoreline Management Study
National Wildlife Refuge
National Weather Service
O
OCRM
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
R
RHA
RSM
Rivers and Harbors Act
Regional Sediment Management
S
SAMP
SAV
SWiM
Special Area Management Plan
submerged aquatic vegetation
System-Wide Monitoring Program
T
TEC
TNC
Target Ecosystem Characteristics
The Nature Conservancy
U
USACE
USFWS
USGS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
146
V
VIMS
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
W
WMA
WRDA
Wildlife Management Area
Water Resources Development Act
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
147
Glossary
Accretion - May be either natural or artificial. Natural accretion is the buildup of land,
solely by the action of the forces of nature, on a beach by deposition of water- or airborne
material. Artificial accretion is a similar buildup of land by reason of an act of man, such
as the accretion formed by a groin, breakwater, or beach fill deposited by mechanical
means.
Armored shoreline - A section of shoreline that is characterized by hard engineering
structures such as revetments, groins, breakwaters, or seawalls.
Barrier islands - Large sand deposits that are separated from the mainland by water
bodies such as estuaries and bays. These islands are typically created by longshore
sediment transport that accretes sand to generate a sand spit extending from the shoreline
Breakwaters - A man-made structure protecting a shore area, harbor, anchorage, or basin
from waves.
Climate change - Any significant change in climate measures (precipitation,
temperature, wind) that lasts for an extended period.
Continental shelf - The region of the oceanic bottom that extends outward from the
shoreline with an average slope of less than 1:100, to a line where the gradient begins to
exceed 1:40
Ecosystem-based management - An integrated, science-based approach to the
management of natural resources that aims to sustain the health, resilience and diversity
of ecosystems while allowing for sustainable use by humans of the goods and services
they provide.
Erosion - The wearing away of land by the action of natural forces. On a beach, the
carrying away of beach material by wave action, tidal cur-rents, littoral currents, or by
deflation.
Global (or eustatic) sea level rise - The world wide change of sea level elevation with
time. The changes are due to such causes as glacial melting or formation, thermal
expansion or contraction of sea water, etc.
Groins - A shore protection structure built (usually perpendicular to the shoreline) to trap
littoral drift or retard erosion of the shore.
Headland - A high, steep-faced promontory extending into the sea.
Littoral drift - The movement of sediment along-shore. Also the material being moved
along the shore.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
148
Littoral transport - The movement of littoral drift in the littoral zone by waves and
currents. Includes movement parallel (longshore transport) and perpendicular (onoffshore transport) to the shore.
Longshore transport - The movement of littoral drift parallel to the shore by waves and
currents.
Mean high water - The average height of the high waters over a 19 year period.
Mean lower low water - The average height of the lower low waters over a 19 year
period.
Mean tide level - A plane midway between mean high water and mean low water. Not
necessarily equal to mean sea level. Also half-tide level.
Regional sediment management (RSM) - A systems-based approach for collaboratively
addressing sediment resources within the context of regional strategies (estuarine, ocean)
that address integrated sediment needs and opportunities.
Relative sea level rise - Change in elevation of the sea surface relative to a local land
surface.
Revetments - A facing of stone, concrete, etc., to protect an embankment, or shore
structure, against erosion by wave action or currents.
Overwash - The effect of waves overtopping a coastal defense, often carrying sediment
landwards which is then lost to the beach system.
Sediment - Solid material suspended in or settled from water. A collective term meaning
an accumulation of soil, rock, and mineral particles transported or deposited by flowing
water.
Sea level - The average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over a 19year period, usually determined from hourly height readings. It is also the average water
level that would exist in the absence of tides.
Seawall - A structure, often concrete or stone, built along a portion of a coast to prevent
erosion and other damage by wave action. Often it retains earth against its shoreward
face.
Shoreline - Those areas of the coast where the impacts from the forces of waves, currents
(those generated by waves/tides), tides and storm surges are felt.
Terminal groin - A groin, often at the end of a littoral cell or at the updrift side of an
inlet, intended to prevent sediment passage into the channel beyond.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
149
Tidal inlet - an opening in a barrier island through which tidal flow occurs.
Washover fans - The fan-shaped accumulation of sediment on the landward side of a
barrier island deposited by overtopping waves.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
150
References
Arens, SM and Nordstrom, KF. “The Role of Human Actions in Evolution and
Management of Foredunes in the Netherlands and New Jersey, USA”. Journal of
Coastal Conservation, Vol 4, No 2. 1998. Pp 169-180.
Ashton, A.D., J.P. Donnelly, and R.L. Evans. 2008. A discussion of the potential impacts
of climate change on the shorelines of the Northeastern USA. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 13:719-743.
Barber, D.C., 1995, Holocene depositional history and modern sand budget of inner Saco
Bay, Maine: M.S. thesis, University of Maine, Orono, 178 p.
Beach Stakeholder’s Group. 2006. Protecting Maine’s beaches for the future: A proposal
to create an integrated beach management program. A report to the Joint
Standing Committee on Natural Resources. 122nd Maine Legislature, 2nd Regular
Session. http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/topic/dunes/report06_protect.pdf
Beardsley, R. C., B. Butman, W.R. Geyer, and P. Smith. 1997. Physical oceanography of
the Gulf of Maine: an update. Proceedings of Gulf of Maine Ecosystem
Dynamics, A Scientific Symposium and Workshop. (Ed. G.T.Wallace and E.F.
Braasch) RARGOM Report 97-1:39-52.
Belknap, D.F. 2005. Glaciated Coasts. In: Schwartz, M.L. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Coastal
Science. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 481-484.
Benke, A.C. and C.E. Cushing ed. 2005. Rivers of North America. Elsevier Academic
Press, New York, 25-30.
Bernd-Cohen, T and M. Gordon. 1999. State Coastal Program Effectiveness in
Protecting Natural Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs, and Rock Shores, Coastal
Management 27:187-217.
Beven, J. and H. Cobb. 2003. Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Isabel. National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration National Hurricane Center.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2003isabel.shtml
Bigelow, H.B. 1926. Plankton of the offshore waters of the Gulf of Maine. Bull. Bureau
Fish. 40: 1-509.
Blazer, Vicki; Phillips, Scott and Pendleton, Edward. “Fish Health, Fungal Infections,
and Pfiesteria: The Role of the U.S. Geological Survey”. USGS Fact Sheet 11498.
Bleyer, B. 2009. LI pol seeks emergency funds to tackle beach erosion. Newsday-Online
November 18, 2009.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
151
Boesch, D.F. 2000. Measuring the health of the Chesapeake Bay: toward integration and
prediction. Environmental Research 82(2):134-142.
Boettcher, R., T. Penn, R.R. Cross, K.T. Terwilliger, and R.A. Beck. 2007. An overview
of the status and distribution of piping plovers in Virginia. Waterbirds 30 (special
publication 1):138-151.
Brinker, D.F., J.M. McCann, B. Williams, and B.D. Watts. 2007. Waterbirds 30 (Special
Publication 1): 93-104.
Bromberg Gedan, K. D. and M. D. Bertness. 2005. Reconstructing New England salt
marsh losses using historical maps. Estuaries 28(6): 823-832.
Brooks, D.A. 2009. Circulation and dispersion in a cancellate coast: The rivers, bays and
estuaries of central Maine. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 83:313-325.
Buonaiuto, F.S., Jr., H.J. Bokuniewicz, and D.M. FitzGerald. 2008. Principal component
analysis of morphology change at a tidal inlet: Shinnecock Inlet, New York.
Journal of Coastal Research 24(4):867-875.
Burlas, M., G. Ray, and D. Clarke. 2001. The New York District’s Biological Monitoring
Program for the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan section
beach erosion control project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research
and Development Center.
Buchsbaum, R., E. H. Catena, and M. J. James-Pirri. 2006. Changes in salt marsh
vegetation, Phragmites australis, and nekton in response to increased tidal
flushing in a New England salt marsh. Wetlands 26:544-557
Butman, B., C.R. Sherwood, and P.S. Dalyander. 2008. Northeast storms ranked by wind
stress and wave-generated bottom stress observed in Massachusetts Bay, 19902006. Continental Shelf Research 28:1231-1245.
Byrne, RJ and Hardaway Jr., CS. 1999. “Shoreline Management in Chesapeake Bay”.
Virginia Sea Grant Publication VSG-99-11.
Cape Cod Commission for the Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration Program. 2001. Cape
Cod atlas of tidally restricted salt marshes. Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs.
Carey, W., E. Maurmeyer, and T. Pratt. 2004. Striking a balance: A guide to coastal
dynamics and beach management in Delaware, 2nd ed. Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Division of Soil and
Water Conservation, Shoreline & Waterway Management Section.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
152
Carter, R.W.G. 1988. Coastal Environments: An Introduction to the Physical, Ecological,
and Cultural Systems of Coastlines. Academic Press, London, UK, 617p.
Cavatorta, J., M. Johnston, C. S. Hopkinson, and V. Valentine. 2003. Patterns of
sedimentation in a salt marsh-dominated estuary. Biological Bulletin. 205:239241
Cervantes, O. & I. Espejel. 2008. Design of an integrated evaluation index for
recreational beaches. Ocean & Coastal Management 51(5):410-419.
Codiga, D.L. and D.A. Aurin. 2007. Residual circulation in eastern Long Island Sound:
Observed transverse-vertical structure and exchange transport. Continental Shelf
Research 27:103-116.
Cohen, J.B., E.H. Wunker, and J.D. Fraser. 2008. Substrate and vegetation selection by
nesting piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) in New York. Wilson Journal of
Ornithology 120:404-407.
Cohen, J.B., L.M. Houghton, and J.D. Fraser. 2009. Nesting density and reproductive
success of piping plovers in response to storm- and human-created habitat
changes. Wildlife Monographs, No. 173.
Conley, D.C. 2000. Numerical Modeling of Fire Island Storm Breach Impacts upon
Circulation and Water Quality of Great South Bay, NY. Special Report No. 0001, Marine Sciences Research Center, 45 pp.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. Connecticut Coastal Habitat
Restoration Programs.
http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2705&q=323538&depNav_GID=1622
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2009b. Facing our future: natural
coastal shoreline environment adapting to Connecticut’s changing climate.
http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/air/climatechange/adaptation/090313_natural_coast
al_environment.pdf
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. Long Island Sound.
http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2705&q=323790&depNav_GID=1635&
depNav
Cooper, M.J.P., M.D. Beevers, M. Oppenheimer. 2005. The potential impacts of sea level
rise on the coastal region of New Jersey, USA. Climatic Change 90:475-492.
Cross, R.R. and K.T. Terwilliger. 2000. Piping plover chicks: prey base, activity budgets,
and foraging rates in Virginia. Report to the Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
153
Crowder, L.B., G. Osherenko, O.R. Young, S. Airam, E.A. Norse, N. Baron, J.C. Day, F.
Douvere, C.N. Ehler, B.S. Halpern, S.J. Langdon, K.L. McLeod, J.C. Ogden, R.E.
Peach, A.A. Rosenberg, and J.A. Wilson. 2006. Resolving mismatches in U.S.
ocean governance. Science 313: 617-618.
Crowell, M. 2010. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Personal Communication.
May, 2010.
Cutter, S. L. 2008. A framework for measuring coastal hazard resilience in New Jersey
communities. White Paper for the Urban Coast Institute.
Delaware Coastal Program. 2007. Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
Plan. Final Draft Submission, July 2007.
http://www.swc.dnrec.delaware.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/Soil/Draft%20CEL
CP%20Plan%20v1-2%20July%202007.pdf
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2010. Coastal
and Estuarine Land Conservation Program.
http://www.swc.dnrec.delaware.gov/Pages/CELCP.aspx
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1999. Delaware
National Estuarine Research Reserve Estuarine Profile. Dover, Delaware. 152 pp.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2008. Beach
grass planting helps stabilize Delaware shoreline. Press release: 38(143).
Dickson, S.M., 2001, Laudholm and Drakes Island Beaches: Before and After Beach
Nourishment. MGS Site of the Month, 2001.
http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/sites/oct01.htm
Dickson, S.M., 2003, Coastal Erosion Assessment for Maine FIRMs and Map
Modernization Plan.
http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/firms/contents.htm
Dickson, S.M. 2004. Maine coastal erosion and hazards. Maine Geological Survey,
Department of Conservation, Augusta, ME
http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/virtual/erosion/slides.htm.
Disco, C. 2006. Delta Blues. Technology and Culture 47(2):341.
Dolan, R., F. Anders, and S. Kimball. 1985. Coastal erosion and accretion: national atlas
of the United States of America: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 1
sheet.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
154
Donohue, K.A, L.M. Bocamazo, and D. Dvorak. 2003. Experience with groin notching
along the northern New Jersey Coast. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 33:198214.
Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, I.F. Rodil, D.L. Revell, and S. Schroeter. 2008. Ecological
effects of coastal armoring on sandy beaches. Marine Ecology 29(Suppl. 1):160170.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2010. DRAFT Social, cultural and economic impacts of
changing shorelines in the North Atlantic region from Maine to the Chesapeake
Bay. Lexington, MA.
Erdle, S., J. Davis, and K. Sellner, eds. 2008. Management, Policy, Science and
Engineering of Nonstructural Erosion Control in the Chesapeake Bay:
Proceedings of the 2006 Living Shoreline Summit. CRC Publication No. 08-164,
Gloucester Point, VA 136 pp.
Executive Order No. 13508 – Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. 2010.
http://www.theFederalregister.com/d.p/2010-05-17-2010-11693
Farrell, S.C., S. Hafner, C. Constantino, C. Robine, E. Gorleski, B. Lees, M. Finley, and
E. Linzner. 2004. New Jersey Beach Profile Network annual report on shoreline
changes in New Jersey, coastal reaches one through fifteen Raritan Bay to
Delaware Bay, Fall of 2000 through Fall of 2002. The Richard Stockton Coastal
Research Center, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Pomona, NJ.
Feagin, R.A., D.J. Sherman, W.E. Grant. 2005. Coastal erosion, global sea-level rise, and
the loss of sand dune plant habitats. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
3(7):359-364.
Fitzgerald, D.M., I.V. Buynevich, and B. Argow. 2006. A coupled model of tidal inlet
and barrier island dynamics in a regime of accelerated sea-level rise. Journal of
Coastal Research SI 39:789–795.
Fitzgerald, D.M., I.V. Buynevich, R.A. Davis Jr., M.S. Fenster. 2002. New England tidal
inlets with special reference to riverine-associated inlet systems. Geomorphology
48:179-208.
Foster D.S., B.A. Swift, W.C. Schwab. 1999. Stratigraphic framework maps of the
nearshore area of southern Long Island from Fire Island to Montauk Point, New
York: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99-559.
Fraser, J.D., S.E. Keane, and P.A. Buckley. 2005. Prenesting use of intertidal habitats by
piping plovers on South Monomoy Island, Massachusetts. Journal of Wildlife
Management 69: 1731–1736.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
155
Frumhoff, P.C., J.J. McCarthy, J.M. Melillo, S.C. Moser, and D.J. Wuebbles. 2007.
Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and
Solutions. Synthesis report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment
(NECIA). Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
Geisler, S., Boston Globe Correspondent. April 11, 2010. British warship Somerset
resurfaces off Cape Cod. The Boston Globe. Boston, MA.
Geyer, W.R., R.P. Signell, D.A. Fong, J. Wang, D.M. Anderson, and B.A. Keafer. 2004.
The freshwater transport and dynamics of the western Maine coastal current.
Continental Shelf Research 24:1339-1357.
Glick, P., J. Clough, and B. Nunley. 2008. Sea-level rise and coastal habitats in the
Chesapeake Bay region: technical report. National Wildlife Federation.
Goldin, M.R. and J.V. Regosin. 1998. Chick behavior, habitat use, and reproductive
success of piping plovers at Goosewing Beach, RI. Journal of Field Ornithology
69: 228–234.
Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia Center for Climate Systems Research.
2008. Draft projections developed for The Nature Conservancy on Long Island’s
Coastal Resilience Project (coastalresilience.org).
Gornitz, V., S. Couch, and E.K. Hartig. 2002. Impacts of sea level rise in the New York
City metropolitan area. Global and Planetary Changes 32:61-88.
Gornitz, V., S. Hale, K. Larsen, N. Nevine, C. Rosenweig, and L. Sacks. 2004. Bracing
for climate change in the constitution state: what Connecticut could face.
Environmental Defense.
Grafals-Soto, R. and K. Nordstrom. 2001. Sand fences in the coastal zone: intended and
unintended effects. Environmental Management 44(3):420-429.
Greene, J.K., M.G. Anderson, J. Odell, and N. Steinberg, eds. 2010. The Northwest
Atlantic Marine Ecoregional Assessment: Species, Habitats and Ecosystems.
Phase One. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern U.S. Division, Boston, MA.
Griggs, G.B., J.F. Tait, L.J. Moore, K. Scott, W. Corona, and D. Pembrook. 1997.
Interaction of seawalls and beaches: eight years of field monitoring, Monterey
Bay, California. U.S Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
Contract Report CHL-97-1.
Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Subcommittees. 2008. Salt marshes in the Gulf of
Maine: human impacts, habitat restoration, and long-term change analysis. Gulf
of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. 42p.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
156
Hardaway, C.S., Jr. and R.J. Byrne. 1999. Shoreline management in Chesapeake Bay.
Virginia Sea Grant Publication VSG-99-11. Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
College of William & Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.
Hardaway, C.S., Jr., D.A. Milligan, L.M. Varnell, C. Wilcox, G.R. Thomas, and T.R.
Comer. 2005. Shoreline evolution Chesapeake Bay shoreline city of Virginia
Beach, Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William &
Mary.
Harris, C.K., B. Butman, and P. Traykovski. 2003. Winter-time circulation and sediment
transport in the Hudson Shelf Valley. Continental Shelf Research 23:801-820.
Hartwell, S.I. and M.J. Hameedi. 2006. Habitat Conditions and Correlations of Sediment
Quality Triad Indicators in Delaware Bay. Environmental Management and
Assessment 121: 181-212.
Hartwell, S.I. and J Hameedi. 2007. Magnitude and extent of contaminated sediment and
toxicity in Chesapeake Bay. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 47.
234 pp.
Hayes, P., R. Carr, and M. Dionne. 2008. Project report: Mapping and restoration
inventory of fringing marsh habitat in the Casco Bay Estuary. Wells National
Estuarine Research Reserve. Casco Bay Estuary Partnership and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 1.
http://www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu/pdfs/CBFM_Report_6_2008.pdf
Hebert, P.D.N. ed. 2002. Canada’s Aquatic Environments [Internet]. CyberNatural
Software, University of Guelph. www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca
accessed September 2009
Hehre, R. 2007. An Aerial Photographic and Spatial Analysis Survey of Shoreline
Change – Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island: 1939-2002. M.S. Thesis, University
of Rhode Island. 161 p.
Heinz. 2000. Evaluation of Erosion Hazards. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science,
Economics and the Environment. Prepared for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Heinz. 2008. The state of the nation’s ecosystems 2008: measuring the lands, waters,
and living resources of the United States. The H. John Heinz III Center for
Science, Economics and the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Herman, J. Center for Coastal Resources Management. Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences, Personal communication, May, 2010.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
157
Hill, H.W., J.T. Kelley, D.F. Belknap, and S.M. Dickson. 2004. The effects of storms and
storm-generated currents on sand beaches in Southern Maine, USA. Marine
Geology 210:149-168.
Hobbs, C.H., D.E. Krantz, and G.L. Wikel. 2006. Coastal processes and offshore
geology. The Geology of Virginia, College of William & Mary.
Hudson-Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan: Draft Volume 1. 2009. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey.
Irish, J.L., and W.J. Lillycrop. 1999. Scanning laser mapping of the coastal zone: the
SHOALS system. IPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 54(23):123-129.
Jack Faucett Associates, L. K. Kent, and C. Jones. 1998. The economic effects of a five
year nourishment program for the ocean beaches of Delaware. Prepared for
Shoreline Management Branch, Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation.
Jacobson, G.L., I.J. Fernandez, P.A. Mayewski, and C.V. Schmitt (editors). 2009.
Maine’s Climate Future: An Initial Assessment. Orono, ME: University of Maine.
Jenkins, D. 2003. October 2, 2003 email from C. David Jenkins, New Jersey Division of
Fish and Wildlife to Anne Hecht, USFWS Northeast Region regarding North
Brigantine.
Jones, K. 1997. Piping plover habitat selection, home range, and reproductive success at
Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts. National Park Service Technical
Report NPS/NESO-RNR/NRTR/97-03.
Kelly, J.R. 1997. Nitrogen flow and the interaction of Boston Harbor with Massachusetts
Bay. Estuaries 20(2):365-380.
Kelley, J.T. and L.L. Brothers. 2009. Camp Ellis, Maine: A small beach community with
a big problem…its jetty, GSA Special Papers 2009 460:1-20.
Kelley, J. T., D. F. Belknap, D. M. FitzGerald, D. C. Barber, S. M. Dickson, S. van
Heteren, L. K. Fink, and P. A. Manthorp, 1995, A Sand Budget for Saco Bay,
Maine, Maine Geological Survey, Open-File Report 95-01, 40 p.
Kisiel, C.L. 2009. The spatial and temporal distribution of piping plovers in New Jersey:
1987-2007. M.S. Thesis. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Knebel, H.J. 1993. Sedimentary environments within a glaciated estuarine-inner shelf
system: Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. Marine Geology 110:7-30.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
158
Knebel, H.J. and L.J. Poppe, L.J. 2000. Sea-floor environments within Long Island
Sound: A regional overview. Journal of Coastal Research 16(3):533-550.
Knebel, H.J., L.J. Poppe, L.J., and V.A. Cross. 2001. Regional distribution of sea-floor
sedimentary environments in Long Island Sound. U.S. Geological Survey.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-304/htmldocs/chap03/index.htm
Kumer, J. 2009. April 14, 2009 email from Jack Kumer, Assateague Island National
Seashore, Berlin, Maryland to Anne Hecht, USFWS Northeast Region, regarding
habitat changes and use.
Lacey, E.M. and J.A. Peck. 1998. Long-Term beach profile variations along the south
shore of Rhode Island. Journal of Coastal Research 14:1255-1265.
Larson, M., J.D. Rosati, and N.C. Kraus, 2002. Overview of regional coastal processes
and controls. Coastal and Hydraulics Engineering Technical Note CHETN-XIV4, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Lathrop, Jr., R.G., J.A. Bognar, A.C. Hendrickson, and P.D. Bowers. 1999. Data
Synthesis Effort for the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program: Habitat Loss and
Alteration in the Barnegat Bay Region. Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial
Analysis (CRSSA) Cook College - Rutgers University.
Lathrop, R.G., Jr. and A. Love. 2007. Vulnerability of New Jersey’s coastal habitats to
sea level rise. Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis
Rutgers University.
Lewis, R.S. and M. DiGiacomo-Cohen. 2000. A review of the geologic framework of the
Long Island Sound Basin, with some observations relating to postglacial
sedimentation. Journal of Coastal Research 16(3):522-532.
Lindsay, B. E. & H.C. Tupper. 1990. Coastal beach regulation in sand dune areas for
Maine and New Hampshire: institutional approach and beach user attitudes. Shore
& Beach 58:19.
List, J.H., A.S. Farirs and C. Sullivan. 2006. Reversing storm hotspots on sandy
beaches: Spatial and temporal characteristics.
Loder, J. W. 1980. Topographic rectification of tidal currents on the sides of Georges
Bank. Journal of Physical Oceanography 10:1399-1416.
Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Council. 2010. What’s happening in the South
Shore Estuary Reserve? New York State. http://www.estuary.cog.ny.us/
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
159
Long Island Sound Resource Center. 2009. Geology of Long Island Sound. Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection and University of Connecticut.
http://www.lisrc.uconn.edu/lisrc/geology.asp
Lynch, D.R., M.J. Holboke and C.E. Naimie. 1997. The Maine coastal current:
spring climatological circulation. Continental Shelf Research 17:605-634.
Maine Bureau of Land and Water Quality. 2005. Maine Department of Environmental
Protection.
http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docstand/nrpa/birdhabitat/index.htm
Maine Coastal Program. 2006. Anticipating rising seas. Maine Coastline. Winter 2007:1.
Manning, J.P., D.J. McGillicuddy Jr., N.R. Pettigrew, J.H. Churchill, and L.S. Incze.
2009. Drifter observations of the Gulf of Maine Coastal Current. Continental
Shelf Research 29:835-845.
Marine Spatial Planning Initiative. 2009. Marine spatial planning. U.N. Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization. <http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/>.
Maryland Coastal Bays Program. 2005. Today’s treasures for tomorrow: towards a
brighter future. The comprehensive conservation and management plan for
Maryland’s Coastal Bays. 154p.
Maryland’s Coastal Program. 2010. A sea level rise response strategy for the State of
Maryland. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/sea_level_rise.html
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve Maryland Final Management Plan: 2008-2012.
Mason, P. Wetlands Program, Center for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia
Institute of Marine Sciences. Personal communication, February, 2010.
Massachusetts Coastal Hazards Commission. 2007. Preparing for the storm:
Recommendations for management of risk from coastal hazards in Massachusetts.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 2009.
Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan Volume 1.
http://commpres.env.state.ma.us/mop/draft_plan/v1/draft-v1-complete.pdf,
accessed October 2009.
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. 2002. Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Plan. Boston.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
160
May, S. K., R. Dolan, and B.P. Hayden. 1983. Erosion of U.S. shorelines. EOS
64(35):521-523.
May, S. K., W.H. Kimball, N. Grady, and R. Dolan, 1982. CEIS: The coastal erosion
information system. Shore and Beach 50:19-26.
Moser, S. 2000. Community Response to Coastal Erosion: Implications of Potential
Policy Changes in the National Flood Insurance Program, Union of Concerned
Scientists, Cambridge, MA. Appendix F: Evaluation of Erosion Hazards, Heinz
Center.
Myatt, L. B., M.D. Scrimshaw. & J.N. Lester 2003. Public perceptions and attitudes
towards a current managed realignment scheme: Brancaster West Marsh, North
Norfolk, U.K. Journal of Coastal Research 19(2):278-286.
Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. 2009. An Ecological Profile of
the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. K.B. Raposa and
M.L. Schwartz (eds.), Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, R.I. 176pp.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2010. Wallops Environmental Office
Code 250. Goddard Space Flight Center Wallops Flight Facility.
<http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/shoreline_eis.html>.
National Climatic Data Center. 2008. The Perfect Storm: October 1991. NOAA Satellite
and Information Service, accessed October 2009
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/cyclones/pfctstorm91/pfctstor
m.html
National Ocean Service. 2006. Linear mean sea level (MSL) trends and 95% confidence
intervals in mm/yr. National Oceanic Atmospheric Association.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/msltrendstable.htm
National Ocean Service. 2009. Ocean and coastal resource management. National
Oceanic Atmospheric Association.
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/welcome.html
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1996. Sea Level Variations for
Station 8452660. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C.
National Park Service. 2008. Management and monitoring of the piping plover
(Charadrius melodus), 2008 breeding season. Asssateague Island National
Seashore, Berlin, Maryland
National Research Council. 2007. Mitigating Shore Erosion Along Sheltered Shores.
Washington, D.C.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
161
National Weather Service . 2007. The Deadliest, Costliest, And Most Intense United
States Tropical Cyclones From 1851 To 2006 (And Other Frequently Requested
Hurricane Facts), NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-5.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. The geology of New Jersey.
Division of Science, Research and Technology Geological Survey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. NJ DEP issues update on
coastal storm damage and beach erosion, Commissioner Campbell pledges
emergency support for shore communities. February 18, 2003
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/releases/03_0013.htm
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: 1981, New Jersey Shore Protection
Master Plan, Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton.
New York Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. 2010. Coastal Resources Online,
New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources.
http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/aboutus_lwrp.asp
New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council. 2009. Our waters,
our communities, our future: Taking bold action now to achieve long-term
sustainability of New York’s ocean and Great Lakes.
New York Sea Grant Program. 2001. Impacts of Barrier Island Breaches on Selected
Biological Resources of Great South Bay, New York.
New York State Coastal Management Program. 1999-2004. Long Island Sound Coastal
Management Program. New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal
Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, Albany, NY
http://nyswaterfronts.com/initiatives_longisland.asp
New York State Coastal Management Program. 2004. The South Shore Estuary Reserve.
New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and
Waterfront Revitalization, Albany, NY
http://nyswaterfronts.com/initiatives_southshore.asp
Nordstrom, K. F. & W.A. Mitteager. 2001. Perceptions of the value of natural and
restored beach and dune characteristics by high school students in New Jersey,
USA. Ocean & Coastal Management 44(7-8):545-559.
Normandeau Associates, 1994, A dredged material management study for coastal Maine
and New Hampshire: Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
England Division, assorted pages.
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. 2008. Coastal hazards & storm
information: estuarine shoreline stabilization options. North Carolina Department
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
162
of Environment and Natural Resources.
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/hazards/estuarine_stabilization%20options.htm.
Ockay, C. and J.F. Hubert. 1996. Mineralogy and provenance of Pleistocene outwashplain and modern beach sands of outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA. Marine
Geology 130(1-2):121-137.
O’Connell, Jim 2003. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Sea Grant Program. New
Shoreline Change Data Reveal Massachusetts is Eroding. Retrieved 12 March
2008 from http://www.whoi.edu/seagrant/education/bulletins/mass.html
Oldale, R.N., and Dinwoody, S., 1999, Coastal erosion on Cape Cod--some questions and
answers. Cape Naturalist, Cape Cod Museum of Natural History 25:70-76.
Orth, R.J., S.R. Marion, K.A. Moore, and D.J. Wilcox. 2010. Eelgrass (Zostera marina
L.) in the Chesapeake Bay region of Mid-Atlantic coast of the USA: Challenges
in conservation and restoration. Estuaries and Coasts. 33:139-150.
Partnership for the Delaware Estuary. 2008. State of the Delaware Estuary 2008. Estuary
News. 18(3):
Patton, P.C. and G.S. Horne. 1992. Response of the Connecticut River estuary to late
Holocene sea level rise. Geomorphology 5:391-417.
Pendleton, E. A., S. J. Williams, and E. R. Thieler. 2004. Coastal Vulnerability
Assessment of Assateague Island National Seashore (ASIS) to Sea-Level Rise.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1030.
Pettigrew, N.R., J.H. Churchill, C.D. Janzen, L.J. Mangum, R.P. Signell, A.C. Thomas,
D.W. Townsend, J.P. Wallinga, and H. Xue. 2005. The kinematic and
hydrographic structure of the Gulf of Maine Coastal Current. Deep-Sea Research
II 52:2369-2391.
Pinet, P.R. 2003. Invitation to Oceanography, Third ed. Jones and Bartlett Publishers,
Inc., London, UK, 555.
Polome, P., W. Marzetti. & A. Van Der Veen, A. 2005. Economic and social demands for
coastal protection. Coastal Engineering 52(10-11):819-840.
Poppe, L.J., H.J. Knebel, Z.J. Mlodzinska, M.E. Hastings, and B.A. Seekins. 2000.
Distribution of surficial sediment in Long Island Sound and adjacent waters:
Texture and total organic carbon. Journal of Coastal Research 16(3):567-574.
Poppe, L.J., M.L. DiGiacomo-Cohen, S.M. Smith, H.F. Stewart, and N.A. Forfinski.
2006. Seafloor character and sedimentary processes in eastern Long Island Sound
and western Block Island Sound. Geo-Marine Letters 26:59-68.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
163
Poppe, L.J., S.J. Williams, M.S. Moser, N.A. Forfinski, H.F. Stewart, and E.F. Doran.
2008. Quaternary geology and sedimentary processes in the vicinity of Six Mile
Reef, Eastern Long Island Sound. Journal of Coastal Research 24(1):255-266.
Powledge, Fred. “Chesapeake Bay Restoration: A Model of What?”. Bioscience, Volume
54, No. 12. December 2005. American Institute of Biological Sciences. Pp 10321038
Psuty, N.P. and J.P. Pace. 2009. Sediment management at Sandy Hook, NJ: An
interaction of science and public policy. Geomorphology 104:12-21.
Rahel, F.J., B. Bierwagen, and Y. Taniguchi. 2008. Managing aquatic species of
conservation concern in the face of climate change and invasive species.
Conservation Biology 22(3):551-561.
Ramsar Standing Committee. 2000. Report of the 15th meeting of the Standing
Committee, 10-14 October 1994. http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsardocuments-standing-report-of-15th-21673/main/ramsar/1-3141%5E21673_4000_0__
Rankin, K.L; Herrington, T.O.; Bruno, M.S.; Burke, P.B., and Pence, A.M. 2003 Crossshore distribution of alongshore currents and sediment fluxes in the vicinity of
notched groins. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 33:255-268.
Reay, W., S. Erdle, S. McGuire, S. Lerberg, K. Moore and C. Riley. 2008. Chesapeake
Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Virginia Management Plan: 20082012. Special Report No. 402 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester
Point, Virginia. 131p.
Reed, D. J., D. A. Bishara, D. R.Cahoon, J. Donnelly, M. Kearney, A. S. Kolker, L. L.
Leonard, R. A.Orson, and J. C. Stevenson. 2008. Site-Specific Scenarios for
Wetlands Accretion as Sea Level Rises in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Section 2.1 in
Background Documents Supporting Climate Change Science Program Synthesis
and Assessment Product 4.1. J.G. Titus and E.M. Strange (eds.) EPA
430R07004.U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
Regional Sediment Management Workgroup. 2008. Regional Sediment Management
Plan. New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program.
Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council. 2008. Rhode Island state coastal
and estuarine habitat restoration strategy.
http://www.crmc.ri.gov/habitatrestoration/HabRestStrategy.pdf
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
164
Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council. 2009. State of Rhode Island.
http://www.crmc.ri.gov/index.html
Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan. 2010. Rhode Island Sea Grant.
http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/samp.html
Roberts, B. and R. Jones. 2005. New England Lighthouses: Maine to Long Island (2nd
edition). The Globe Pequot Press.
Rogerson, A., A. Howard, and A. Jacobs. 2009. Wetlands condition of the Inland Bays
watershed. Volume 2. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Watershed Assessment Section, Dover, Delaware USA.
Roman, C.T., N. Jaworski, F.T. Short, S. Findlay, and R.S. Warren. 2000. Estuaries of
the Northeastern United States: Habitat and land use signatures. Estuaries
23(6):743-764.
Saco Bay Planning Committee. 2000. Saco Bay Regional Beach Management Plan:
Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission. Springvale, Maine. 109 p.
Schwab, W.C., E.R. Thieler, J.F. Denny, W.W. Danforth. 2000. Seafloor sediment
distribution off southern Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 00-243.
Signell, R.P., J.H. List, and A.S. Farris. 2000. Bottom currents and sediment transport in
Long Island Sound: A modeling study. Journal of Coastal Research 16(3):551566.
Slovinsky, P.A. 2003. Development of a Beach Scoring System for Management of
Maine’s Sandy Beaches.
http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/virtual/scoring/slides.htm
Slovinsky, P.A. 2006. Beach Nourishment at Western Beach, Scarborough, ME:
Benefits for the Beaches and the Birds. MGS Site of the Month.
http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/sites/jun06.htm
Slovinsky, P.A. 2007. Patriots’ Day Storm at Willard Beach. Maine Geological Survey,
Augusta, ME http://maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/sites/may07.htm.
Slovinsky, P.A. 2010. Using LIDAR to monitor beach changes: Gooch’s Beach,
Kennebunk, ME, MGS Site of the Month.
http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/sites/feb10.htm
Slovinsky, P.A., and S.M. Dickson. 2005. Variations of Beach Morphology along the
Saco Bay Littoral Cell: An Analysis of Recent Trends and Management
Alternatives, Maine Geological Survey, Open-File Report 03-78.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
165
http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/saco-bay/contents.htm
Slovinsky, P. A. and S. M. Dickson. 2006. Impacts of Future Sea Level Rise on the
Coastal Floodplain. MGS Open-file 06-14. A report prepared by the Maine
Geological Survey for the Maine Coastal Program/Maine State Planning Office
pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA05NOS4191071.
Slovinsky, P.A., and S.M. Dickson. 2007. State of Maine’s Beaches in 2007, Maine
Geological Survey, Open-File Report 07-99.
http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/beaches/contents.htm
Slovinsky, P.A., and S.M. Dickson. 2009. State of Maine’s Beaches in 2009, Maine
Geological Survey, Open-File Report 09-57.
http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/beaches09/contents.htm
Smith, P.C. 1983. The mean and seasonal circulation off southwest Nova Scotia. Journal
of Physical Oceanography 13:1034-1054.
South Shore Estuary Reserve Council. 2001. Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve
Comprehensive Management Plan. New York State Department of State. 107 pp.
State of Maryland Shore Erosion Task Force. 2000. State of Maryland Shore Erosion
Task Force Final Report. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis,
MD.
Stauble, D. K. 2004. An assessment of the Nation’s shoreline change: A review of
the 1971 National Shoreline Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
MS.
Strauss, E. 1990. Reproductive success, life history patterns, and behavioral variation in
a population of Piping Plovers subjected to human disturbance (1982-1989).
Ph.D. dissertation. Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts.
Strauss, N. 2008. The Great Northeast Blizzard of 1978. National Oceanic Atmospheric
Association National Weather Service.
Sun, H., D. Grandstaff, and R. Shagam. 1999. Land subsidence due to groundwater
withdrawal: potential damage of subsidence and sea level rise in southern New
Jersey, USA. Environmental Geology 37(4):290-296.
Tanner, B.R., E. Perfect, and J.T. Kelley. 2006. Fractal analysis of Maine’s glaciated
shoreline tests established coastal classification scheme. Journal of Coastal
Research 22(5):1300-1304.
Tanski, J.J. 2007. “Long Island’s Dynamic South Shore: A Primer on the Forces and
Trends Shaping Our Coasts”. New York Sea Grant, 2007.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
166
Tanski, J.J. 2010 “New York” In James G. Titus and Daniel Hudgens (editors). The
Likelihood of Shore Protection along the Atlantic Coast of the United States.
Volume 1: Mid-Atlantic. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C.
The National Audubon Society 2010. Important Bird Areas in the U.S. – Fortescue
Glades Wildlife Refuge. Available at http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba
The Nature Conservancy. 2009. Migratory Bird Refuge: Re-Opened!
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/newjersey/work/art2187
6.html
Thieler, E.R., and Hammar-Klose, E.S. 1999. National Assessment of Coastal
Vulnerability to Future Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Atlantic
Coast. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 99-593, 1 sheet
<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of99-593/>.
Tidal Sediment Task Force of the Sediment Workgroup. 2005. Sediment in the
Chesapeake Bay and management issues: tidal erosion processes. Chesapeake
Bay Program, Nutrient Subcommittee. CBP-TRS276-05.
Timson, B. S., and. M. Denison, 1986. A long-term sand dune management plan for the
Old Orchard Beach coastal dune system, Old Orchard Beach, Maine: Town of
Old Orchard Beach, 43 p. plus plates.
Timson, B.S., and A.L. Lerman. 1980. The Higgins Beach Management Plan.
http://www.scarborough.me.us/planning/documents/hbmp/hbmp04.htm
Tine, V. 2009. Port, Newbury OK PI sand plan. The Daily News.
http://www.newburyportnews.com/punews/local_story_203231938.html
accessed October 2009.
Titus, J.G., D.E. Hudgens, D.L. Trescott, M. Craghan, W.H. Nuckols, C.H. Hershner,
J.M. Kassakian, C.J. Linn, P.G. Merritt, T.M. McCue, J. Tanski, and J. Wang.
2009. State and local governments plan for development of most land vulnerable
to rising sea level along the US Atlantic coast. Environmental Research Letters
4:1-8.
Titus, J. G. and E. M. Strange, eds. 2008. Background Documents Supporting Climate
Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1:Coastal
Elevations and Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise. EPA 430R07004. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC.
Titus, J. G. and J. Wang. 2008. Maps of Lands close to Sea level along the Middle
Atlantic Coast of the United States: an Elevation Data Set to use while waiting for
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
167
LIDAR. Section1.1 in Background documents Supporting climate change Science
Program Synthesis and Assessment product 4.1. J.G. Titus and E. M. Strange
(eds.). EPA 430R07004.U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
Townsend, D.W., J.P. Christensen, D.K. Stevenson, J.J. Graham, and S.B. Chenoweth
1987. The importance of a plume of tidally-mixed water to the biological
oceanography of the Gulf of Maine. J. Mar. Res. 45:515-529.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. Report on the National Shoreline Study. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Coastal Engineering Manual. Engineer Manual
1110-2-1100, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Coastal Engineering Manual. Engineer Manual
1110-2-1100, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. DRAFT. Newburyport Harbor and Plum Island
and Salisbury Beaches, Section 204 Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials for
Beach Nourishment. New England District. 95 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010a. DRAFT Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion in
Maryland: A Management Guide. Baltimore District. 151 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010b. A Technical Review of Coastal Projects: Shore
Protection, Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration for North Atlantic Division.
Spring 2009.
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP). 2009. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level
Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region. A report by the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [James G.
Titus (Coordinating Lead Author), K. Eric Anderson, Donald R. Cahoon, Dean B.
Gesch, Stephen K. Gill, Benjamin T. Gutierrez, E. Robert Thieler, and S. Jeffress
Williams (Lead Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
D.C., USA, 320 pp.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final
Report of the US Commission on Ocean Policy—Pre- Publication Copy.
Washington DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. National Coastal Report III.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr3/downloads.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. National Estuary Program.
http://www.epa.gov/nep/
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
168
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic
Coast population, revised recovery plan. Hadley, Massachusetts.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Significant habitats and habitat complexes of the
New York Bight watershed. Southern New England-New York Bight Coastal
Ecosystems Program Charlestown, Rhode Island.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/endangered/PDF/Piping_Plover_five_year_review_
and_summary.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Monomy National Wildlife Refuge.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/monomoy/index.html
U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. A summary report of sediment processes in Chesapeake
Bay and watershed. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4123. U.S.
Department of Interior, Cumberland, PA.
Vinhateiro. 2008. Sea level Rise and Current Status of digital Terrain Data for the South
Shore of Rhode Islands. A White Paper in Integrated Coastal Science prepared for
the Coastal Resources Management Council.
http://www.ci.uri.edu/ciip/WhitePaper/2008/Vinhateiro.pdf.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 2000. Virginia's
Public Beach Board: 20 years of Coastal Management.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 2009a. Erosion Vulnerability Assessment Tool
(EVA). College of William & Mary Center for Coastal Resources Management.
http://ccrm.vims.edu/gis_data_maps/interactive_maps/erosion_vulnerability/index
.html.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 2009b. Shoreline Studies Program. William & Mary
Department of Physical Sciences.
http://web.vims.edu/physical/research/shoreline/index.html.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 2010. Living shorelines. College of William &
Mary Center for Coastal Resources Management.
http://ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines/.
Waldner, J. 2004. Sand resources for shore protection projects in New Jersey. New Jersey
Geological Survey Information Circular State of New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and New Jersey Geological Survey.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
169
Wang, Y., W.F. Bohlen, and J. O’Donnell. 2000. Storm enhanced bottom shear stress and
associated sediment entrainment in a moderate energetic estuary. Journal of
Oceanography 56:311-317.
Ward, A.F. 1999. Maine’s coastal wetlands. Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, Augusta, ME http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/doccoast/coastal3.htm.
Ward, L.G. and J.R. Adams. 2001. A preliminary assessment of tidal flooding along the
New Hampshire coast: past, present and future. New Hampshire Office of
Emergency Management and the Office of State Planning Coastal Program.
Western Carolina University. 2010. The U.S. beach nourishment experience. Project for
the Study of Developed Shorelines.
Wilcox, L. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the piping plover. Auk 76: 129-152.
Wilson, M.D., B.D. Watts, and D.F. Brinker. 2007. Status review of Chesapeake Bay
marsh lands and breeding marsh birds. Waterbirds 30 (Special Publication 1):
122-137.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) Sea Grant. 2000. Shoreline change and
the importance of coastal erosion. Focal Points
http://www.whoi.edu/seagrant/education/focalpoints/shoreline.html
Wright, L.D., Boon, J.D., Kim, S.C., and List, J.H. 1991. Modes of cross-shore sediment
transport on the shoreface of the Middle Atlantic Bight. Marine Geology 96:1951.
Wurst, L.J., 2009, Dune Recovery at Ferry Beach, Saco: A Helping Hand. MGS Site of
the Month.
http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/sites/aug09.htm
Yin, J., M.E. Schlesinger, and R.J. Stouffer. 2009. Model projections of rapid sea-level
rise on the northeast coast of the United States. Nature Geoscience 2:262-266.
Zhang, K., B.C. Douglas, and S.P. Leatherman. 2004. Global Warming and Coastal
Erosion. Climate Change 64: 41-58.
North Atlantic Regional Assessment Pilot
170